Skip to main content

Full text of "An outline of the relations between England and Scotland (500-1701)"

See other formats


Outline of the 

Relations between 

England and Scotland 


^25 8 

An Outline of the 
Relations between 

England and Scotland 






BLACKIE & SON, Limited, 50 OLD BAILEY, E.G. 




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

R. S. R. 

New College, Oxford, 
April, igoi. 


Introduction -- ix 

Chap. I. Racial Distribution and Feudal Rela- 
tions, c. 500-1066 a.d. - - - _ I 

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 Alli- \J 
ance, 1 500-1 542 - - - _ _ loi 

VIII. The Parting of the Ways, 1542-1568 - 116 

IX. The Union of the Crowns, i 568-1625 - 141 V 

X. "The Troubles in Scotland", 1625- * 

1688 - - - - - - - icy 'J 

XI. The Union of the Parliaments, i68g- / 

1707 180 ^ 

Appendix A. References to the Highlanders in 

Mediaeval Literature - - - - 195 

,, B. The Feudalization of Scotland - - 204 

,, C. Table of the Competitors of 1290 - 214 

Index - - - - - - - . - -215 


The present volume has been published with 
two main objects. The writer has attempted 
to exhibit, in outline, the leading" features of the 
international history of the two countries which, 
in 1707, became the United Kingdom. Relations 
with England form a larg^e part, and the heroic 
part, of Scottish history, relations with Scotland 
a very much smaller part of English history. 
The result has been that in histories of England 
references to Anglo- Scottish relations are occa- 
sional and spasmodic, while students of Scottish 
history have occasionally forgotten that, in re- 
gard to her southern neighbour, the attitude of 
Scotland was not always on the heroic scale. 
Scotland appears on the horizon of English his- 
tory only during well-defined epochs, leaving no 
trace of its existence in the intervals between 
these. It may be that the space given to 
Scotland in the ordinary histories of England is 
proportional to the importance of Scottish affairs, 
on the whole; but the importance assigned to 
Anglo-Scottish relations in the fourteenth century 
is quite disproportionate to the treatment of the 
same subject in the fifteenth century. Readers 

X England mid Scotland 

even of Mr. Green's famous book, may learn with 
surprise from Mr. Lang or Mr. Hume Brown 
the part played by the Scots in the loss of the 
English dominions in France, or may fail to 
understand the references to Scotland in the 
diplomatic correspondence of the sixteenth cen- 
tury.^ There seems to be, therefore, room for 
a connected narrative of the attitude of the two 
countries towards each other, for only thus is it 
possible to provide the data requisite for a fair 
appreciation of the policy of Edward I and Henry 
VHI, or of Elizabeth and James I. Such a 
narrative is here presented, in outline, and the 
writer has tried, as far as might be, to eliminate 
from his work the element of national prejudice. 

The book has also another aim. The relations 
between England and Scotland have not been a 
purely political connexion. The peoples have, 
from an early date, been, to some extent, inter- 
mingled, and this mixture of blood renders 
necessary some account of the racial relationship. 
It has been a favourite theme of the English 
historians of the nineteenth century that the por- 
tions of Scotland where the Gaelic tongue has 
ceased to be spoken are not really Scottish, but 
English. '*The Scots who resisted Edward", 
wrote Mr. Freeman, ''were the English of 

' Spanish and Venetian Calendars of State Papers. Cf. especially the 
reference to the succour aflForded by Scotland to France in Spanish. 
Calendar, i. 210. 

Introduction xt 

Lothian. The true Scots, out of hatred to the 
'Saxons' nearest to them, leagued with the 
'Saxons' farther ofP."^ Mr. Green, writing of 
the time of Edward I, says: "The farmer of 
Fife or the Lowlands, and the artisan of the 
towns, remained stout-hearted Northumbrian 
Englishmen", and he adds that "The coast 
districts north of the Tay were inhabited by a 
population of the same blood as that of the Low- 
lands".^ The theory has been, at all events 
verbally, accepted by Mr. Lang, who describes 
the history of Scotland as "the record of the 
long resistance of the English of Scotland to 
England, of the long resistance of the Celts of 
Scotland to the English of Scotland".^ Above 
all, the conception has been firmly planted in the 
imagination by the poet of the Lady of the Lake. 

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

While holding in profound respect these illus- 
trious names, the writer ventures to ask for a 
modification of this verdict. That the Scottish 
Lowlanders (among whom we include the in- 

^ Historical Essays, First Series, p. 71. 

-History of the English People, Book III, c. 5v. 

"^ History of Scotland, vol. i, p. 2. But, as Mr. Lang expressly repudiates 
any theory of displacement north of the Forth, and does not regard 
Harlaw in the light of a great racial contest, his position is not really 
incompatible with that of the present work. 

xii England and Scotland 

habitants of the coast districts from the Tay to 
the Moray Firth) were, in the end of the 
thirteenth century, " English in speech and 
manners" (as Mr. Oman^ guardedly describes 
them) is beyond doubt. Were they also English 
in blood? The evidence upon which the ac- 
cepted theory is founded is twofold. In the 
course of the sixth century the Angles made a 
descent between the Humber and the Forth, and 
that district became part of the English kingdom 
of Northumbria. Even here we have, in the 
evidence of the place-names, some reasons for 
believing that a proportion of the original Bry- 
thonic population may have survived. This 
northern portion of the kingdom of Northumbria 
was affected by the Danish invasions, but it re- 
mained an Anglian kingdom till its conquest, in 
the beginning of the eleventh century, by the 
Celtic king, Malcolm II. There is, thus, suffi- 
cient justification for Mr. Freeman's phrase, "the 
English of Lothian ", if we interpret the term 
"Lothian" in the strict sense; but it remains 
to be explained how the inhabitants of the Scot- 
tish Lowlands, outside Lothian, can be included 
among the English of Lothian who resisted 
Edward I. That explanation is afforded by the 
events which followed the Norman Conquest of 

^History of England, p. 158. Mr. Ofhan is almost alone in not calling- 
them Eng-lish in blood. 

Introduction x i i i 

England. It is argued that the Englishmen who 
fled from the Normans united with the original 
English of Lothian to produce the result indicated 
in the passage quoted from Mr. Green. The 
farmers of Fife and the Lowlands, the artisans 
of the towns, the dwellers in the coast districts 
north of Tay, became, by the end of the thir- 
teenth century, stout Northumbrian Englishmen. 
Mr. Green admits that the south-west of Scot- 
land was still inhabited, in 1290, by the Picts of 
Galloway, and neither he nor any other exponent 
of the theory offers any explanation of their sub- 
sequent disappearance. The history of Scotland, 
from the fourteenth century to the Rising of 1745, 
contains, according to this view, a struggle be- 
tween the Celts and "the English of Scotland", 
the most important incident of which is the battle 
of Harlaw, in 141 1, which resulted in a great 
victory for "the English of Scotland". Mr. 
Hill Burton writes thus of Harlaw: "On the 
face of ordinary history it looks like an affair of 
civil war. But this expression is properly used 
towards those who have common interests and 
sympathies, who should naturally be friends and 
may be friends again, but for a time are, from 
incidental causes of dispute and quarrel, made 
enemies. The contest . . . was none of this; 
it was a contest between foes, of whom their 
contemporaries would have said that their ever 

xiv England and Scotland 

being in harmony with each other, or having a 
feehng of common interests and common nation- 
ahty, was not within the range of rational expec- 
tations. ... It will be difficult to make those 
not familiar with the tone of feeling in Lowland 
Scotland at that time believe that the defeat of 
Donald of the Isles was felt as a more memorable 
deliverance even than that of Bannockburn." ^ 

We venture to plead for a modification of this 
theory, which may fairly be called the orthodox 
account of the circumstances. It will at once 
occur to the reader that some definite proof 
should be forthcoming that the Celtic inhabi- 
tants of Scotland, outside the Lothians, were 
actually subjected to this process of racial dis- 
placement. Such a displacement had certainly 
not been effected before the Norman Conquest, 
for it was only in 1018 that the English of Lothian 
were subjected to the rule of a Celtic king, and 
the large amount of Scottish literature, in the 
Gaelic tongue, is sufficient indication that Celtic 
Scotland was not confined to the Highlands in 
the eleventh century. Nor have we any hint of 
a racial displacement after the Norman conquest, 
even though it is unquestionable that a con- 
siderable number of exiles followed Queen Mar- 
garet to Scotland, and that William's harrying 
of the north of England drove others over the 

^ History of Scotland, vol. ii, pp. 393-394. 

Introduction xv 

border. It is easy to lay too much stress upon 
the effect of the latter event. The northern 
cou-nties cannot have been very thickly populated, 
and if Mr. Freeman is right in his description of 
"that fearful deed, half of policy, half of ven- 
g'eance, which has stamped the name of William 
with infamy ", not very many of the victims of his 
cruelty can have made good their flight, for we 
are told that the bodies of the inhabitants of 
Yorkshire "were rotting in the streets, in the 
highways, or on their own hearthstones ". Stone 
dead left no fellow to colonize Scotland. We 
find, therefore, only the results and not the 
process of this racial displacement. These re- 
sults were the adoption of English manners and 
the English tongue, and the growth of English 
names, and we wish to suggest that they may 
find an historical explanation which does not 
involve the total disappearance of the Scottish 
farmer from Fife, or of the Scottish artisan from 

Before proceeding to a statement of the ex- 
planation to which we desire to direct the 
reader's attention, it may be useful to deal 
briefly with the questions relating to the spoken 
language of Lowland Scotland and to its place- 
names. The fact that the lano-uag-e of the 
Angles and Saxons completely superseded, in 
England, the tongue of the conquered Britons, 

xvi England and Scotland 

is admitted to be a powerful argument for the 
view that the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England 
resulted in a racial displacement. But the argu- 
ment cannot be transferred to the case of the 
Scottish Lowlands, where, also, the English 
language has completely superseded a Celtic 
tongue. For, in the first case, the victory is 
that of the language of a savage people, known 
to be in a state of actual warfare, and it is a 
victory which follows as an immediate result of 
conquest. In Scotland, the victory of the Eng- 
lish tongue (outside the Lothians) dates from a 
relatively advanced period of civilization, and it 
is a victory won, not by conquest or bloodshed, 
but by peaceful means. Even in a case of 
conquest, change of speech is not conclusive 
evidence of change of race {e.g. the adoption of 
a Romance tongue by the Gauls); much less is 
it decisive in such an instance as the adoption 
of English by the Lowlanders of Scotland. In 
striking contrast to the case of England, the 
victory of the Anglo-Saxon speech in Scotland 
did not include the adoption of English place- 
names. The reader will find the subject fully dis- 
cussed in the valuable work by the Reverend 
J. B. Johnston, entitled Place-Names of Scotla^id. 
'* It is impossible", says Mr. Johnston, "to 
speak with strict accuracy on the point, but 
Celtic names in Scotland must outnumber all 

Introduction xvii 

the rest by nearly ten to one." Even in coun- 
ties where the GaeHc tongue is now quite obsolete 
{e.g. in Fife, in Forfar, in the Mearns, and in 
parts of Aberdeenshire), the place-names are 
almost entirely Celtic. The region where Eng- 
lish place-names abound is, of course, the 
Lothians; but scarcely an English place-name 
is definitely known to have existed, even in the 
Lothians, before the Norman Conquest, and, 
even in the Lothians, the English tongue never 
affected the names of rivers and mountains. In 
many instances, the existence of a place-name 
which has now assumed an English form is no 
proof of English race. As the Gaelic tongue 
died out, Gaelic place-names were either trans- 
lated or corrupted into English forms; English- 
men, receiving grants of land from Malcolm 
Canmore and his successors, called these lands 
after their own names, with the addition of the 
suffix -ham or -tun; the influence of English 
ecclesiastics introduced many new names; and 
as English commerce opened up new seaports, 
some of these became known by the names 
which Englishmen had given them.^ On the 

^ Instances of the first tendency are Edderton, near Tain, i.e. eadar 
dtiin ("between the hillocks"), and Falkirk, i.e. Eaglais ("speckled 
church "), while examples of the second tendency are too numerous 
to require mention. Examples of ecclesiastical names are Laurence- 
kirk and Kirkcudbright, and the growth of commerce receives the 
witness of such names as Turnberry, on the coast of Ayr, dating from 
the thirteenth century, and Burghead on the Moray Firth. 

xviii England and Scotland 

whole, the evidence of the place-names corro- 
borates our view that the changes were changes 
in civilization, and not in racial distribution. 

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

What then were the influences which, between 
1066 and 1300, produced in the Scottish Low- 
lands some of the results that, between 1746 and 
1800, were achieved in the Scottish Highlands? 
That they included an infusion of English blood 
we have no wish to deny. Anglo-Saxons, in 
considerable numbers, penetrated northwards, 

' Cf. Waverley, c. xliii, and the concluding chapter of Tales of a Grand- 

Introduction xix 

and by the end of the thirteenth century the 
Lowlanders were a much less pure race than, 
except in the Lothians, they had been in the 
days of Malcolm Canmore. Our contention is, 
that we have no evidence for the assertion that 
this Saxon admixture amounted to a racial 
change, and that, ethnically, the men of Fife and 
of Forfar were still Scots, not English. Such 
an infusion of English blood as our argument 
allows will not explain the adoption of the 
English tongue, or of English habits of life; we 
must look elsewhere for the full explanation. 
The English victory was, as we shall try to show, 
a victory not of blood but of civilization, and 
three main causes helped to bring it about. The 
marriage of Malcolm Canmore introduced two 
new influences into Scotland — an English Court 
and an English Church, and contemporaneously 
with the changes consequent upon these new 
institutions came the spread of English com- 
merce, carrying with it the English tongue along 
the coast, and bringing an infusion of English 
blood into the towns.^ In the reign of David I, 
the son of Malcolm Canmore and St. Margaret, 
these purely Saxon influences w^ere succeeded 
by the Anglo-Norman tendencies of the king's 

^ William of Newburgh states this in a probably exag^gferated form 
when he says : — " Regni Scottici oppida et burgi ab Anglis habitari 
noscuntur" (LJb. II, c. 34). The population of the towns in the Lothians 
was, of course, English. 

XX England and Scotland 

favourites. Grants of land ^ to English and 
Norman courtiers account for the occurrence of 
English and Norman family and place - names. 
The men who lived in immediate dependence 
upon a lord, giving him their services and re- 
ceiving his protection, owing him their homage 
and living under his sole jurisdiction, took the 
name of the lord whose men they were. 

A more important question arises with regard 
to the system of land tenure, and the change from 
clan ownership to feudal possession. How was 
the tribal system suppressed? An outline of the 
process by which Scotland became a feudalized 
country will be found in the Appendix, where we 
shall also have an opportunity of referring, for 
purposes of comparison, to the methods by which 
clan-feeling was destroyed after the last Jacobite 
insurrection. Here, it must suffice to give a brief 
summary of the case there presented. It is im- 
portant to bear in mind that the tribes of 1066 
were not the clans of 1746. The clan system in 
the Highlands underwent considerable develop- 
ment between the days of Malcolm Canmore and 
those of the Stuarts. Too much stress must not 
be laid upon the unwillingness of the people to 
give up tribal ownership, for it is clear from our 
early records that the rights of joint-occupancy 

* For the real significance of such grants of land, cf. Maitland, Domes- 
day Book and Beyond, Essay II. 

Introduction xxi 

were confined to the immediate kin of the head 
of the clan. "The limit of the immediate kin- 
dred", says Mr. E. W. Robertson,^ "extended 
to the third g-eneration, all who were fourth in 
descent from a Senior passing from amongst the 
joint- proprietary, and receiving, apparently, a 
final allotment; which seems to have been sepa- 
rated permanently from the remainder of the 
joint -property by certain ceremonies usual on 
such occasions." To such holders of individual 
property the charter offered by David I gave 
additional security of tenure. We know from 
the documents entitled " Quoniam attachia- 
menta ", printed in the first volume of the Acts 
of the Parliarnent of Scotland^ that the tribal 
system included large numbers of bondmen, to 
whom the change to feudalism meant little or 
nothing. But even when all due allowance has 
been made for this, the difficulty is not com- 
pletely solved. There must have been some 
owners of clan property whom the changes 
affected in an adverse way, and we should ex- 
pect to hear of them. We do hear of them, for 
the reigns of the successors of Malcolm Canmore 
are largely occupied with revolts in Galloway 
and lU Morayshire. The most notable of these 
was the rebellion of MacHeth, Mormaor of 
Moray, about 1134. On its suppression, David I 

^ Scotland under her Early Kings, vol. i, p. 239. 

xxii England and Scotland 

confiscated the earldom of Moray, and granted 
it, by charters, to his own favourites, and es- 
pecially to the Anglo-Normans, from Yorkshire 
and Northumberland, whom he had invited to 
aid him in dealing with the reactionary forces 
of Moray; but such grants of land in no way 
dispossessed the lesser tenants, who simply held 
of new lords and by new titles. Fordun, who 
wrote two centuries later, ascribes to David's 
successor, Malcolm IV, an invasion of Moray, 
and says that the king scattered the inhabitants 
throughout the rest of Scotland, and replaced 
them by "his own peaceful people '.^ There is 
no further evidence in support of this statement, 
and almost the whole of Malcolm's short reign 
was occupied with the settlement of Galloway. 
We know that he followed his grandfather's policy 
of making grants of land in Moray, and this is 
probably the germ of truth in Fordun's statement. 
Moray, however, occupied rather an exceptional 
position. "As the power of the sovereign ex- 
tended over the west," says Mr. E. W. Robertson, 
"it was his policy, not to eradicate the old ruling 
families, but to retain them in their native pro- 
vinces, rendering them more or less responsible 
for all that portion of their respective districts 
which was not placed under the immediate au- 
thority of the royal sheriffs or baillies." As this 

^ Annalia, iv. 

Introduction xxiii 

policy was carried out even in Galloway, Arg^yll, 
and Ross, where there were occasional rebellions, 
and was successful in its results, we have no 
reason for believing that it was abandoned in 
dealing* with the rest of the Lowlands. As, 
from time to time, instances occurred in which 
this plan was unsuccessful, and as other causes 
for forfeiture arose, the lands were granted to 
strangers, and by the end of the thirteenth 
century the Scottish nobility was largely Anglo- 
Norman. The vestiges of the clan system which 
remained may be part of the explanation of the 
place of the great Houses in Scottish History. 
The unique importance of such families as the 
Douglasses or the Gordons may thus be a por- 
tion of the Celtic heritage of the Lowlands. 

If, then, it was not by a displacement of race, 
but through the subtle influences of religion, 
feudalism, and commerce that the Scottish Low- 
lands came to be English in speech and in civili- 
zation, if the farmers of Fife and some, at least, 
of the burghers of Dundee or of Aberdeen were 
really Scots who had been subjected to English 
influences, we should expect to find no strong 
racial feeling in mediaeval Scotland. Such racial 
antagonism as existed would, in this case, be 
owing to the large admixture of Scandinavian 
blood in Caithness and in the Isles, rather than to 
any difference between the true Scots and *'the 


xxiv Eitgland and Scotland 

Eng-Hsh of the Lowlands". Do we, then, find any- 
racial antagonism between the Highlands and 
the Lowlands? If Mr. Freeman is right in lay- 
ing down the general rule that "the true Scots, 
out of hatred to the ' Saxons ' nearest to them, 
leagued with the 'Saxons' farther off", if Mr. 
Hill Burton is correct in describing the red Har- 
law as a battle between foes who could have no 
feeling of common nationality, there is nothing 
to be said in support of the theory we have ven- 
tured to suggest. We may fairly expect some 
signs of ill - will between those who maintained 
the Celtic civilization and their brethren who had 
abandoned the ancient customs and the ancient 
tongue; we may naturally look for attempts to 
produce a conservative or Celtic reaction, but 
anything more than this will be fatal to our case. 
The facts do not seem to us to bear out Mr. 
Freeman's generalization. When the indepen- 
dence of Scotland is really at stake, we shall 
find the ''true Scots" on the patriotic side. 
Highlanders and Islesmen fought under the 
banner of David I at Northallerton; they took 
their place along with the men of Carrick in 
the Bruce's own division at Bannockburn, and 
they bore their part in the stubborn ring that 
encircled James IV at Flodden. At other times, 
indeed, we do find the Lords of the Isles involved 
in treacherous intrigues with the kings of Eng- 

Introduction xxv 

land, but just in the same way as we see the 
Earls of Doug-las engaged in traitorous schemes 
against the Scottish kings. In both cases alike 
we are dealing with the revolt of a powerful 
vassal against a weak king. Such an incident 
is sufficiently frequent in the annals of Scotland 
to render it unnecessary to call in racial consider- 
ations to afford an explanation. One of the most 
notable of these intrigues occurred in the year 
1408, when Donald of the Isles, who chanced to 
be engaged in a personal quarrel about the heri- 
tage which he claimed in right of his Lowland 
relatives, made a treacherous agreement with 
Henry IV; and the quarrel ended in the battle 
of Harlaw in 141 1. The real importance of 
Harlaw is that it ended in the defeat of a 
Scotsman who, like some other Scotsmen in the 
South, was acting in the English interest; any 
further significance that it may possess arises 
from the consideration that it is the last of a series 
of efforts directed against the predominance, not 
of the English race, but of Saxon speech and 
civilization. It was just because Highlanders 
and Lowlanders did represent a common nation- 
ality that the battle was fought, and the blood 
spilt on the field of Harlaw was not shed in 
any racial struggle, but in the cause of the real 
English conquest of Scotland, the conquest of 
civilization and of speech. 


xxvi England and Scotland 

Our argument derives considerable support 
from the references to the Highlands of Scotland 
which we find in mediaeval literature. Racial 
distinctions were not always understood in the 
Middle Ages; but readers of Giraldus Cambrensis 
are familiar with the strong racial feeling that 
existed between the English and the Welsh, and 
between the English and the Irish. If the Low- 
landers of Scotland felt towards the Highlanders 
as Mr. Hill Burton asserts that they did feel, we 
should expect to find references to the difference 
between Celts and Saxons. But, on the contrary, 
we meet with statement after statement to the 
effect that the Highlanders are only Scotsmen 
who have maintained the ancient Scottish lan- 
guage and literature, while the Lowlanders have 
adopted English customs and a foreign tongue. 
The words "Scots" and "Scotland" are never 
used to designate the Highlanders as distinct 
from other inhabitants of Scotland, yet the phrase 
" Lingua Scotica" means, up to the end of the 
fifteenth century, the Gaelic tongue.^ In the be- 
ginning of the sixteenth century John Major 
speaks of "the wild Scots and Islanders" as using 

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

Introduction xxvii 

Irish, while the civilized Scots speak English; 
and Gavin Doug-las professed to write in Scots 
{i.e. the Lowland tongrue). In the course of the 
century this became the regular usage. Acts of 
the Scottish Parliament, directed against High- 
land marauders, class them with the border 
thieves. There is no hint in the Register of the 
Privy Council or in the Exchequer Rolls, of any 
racial feeling, and the independence of the Celtic 
chiefs has been considerably exaggerated. James 
IV and James V both visited the Isles, and the 
chief town of Skye takes its name from the visit 
of the latter. In the beginning of the sixteenth 
century, it was safe for Hector Boece, the Principal 
of the newly founded university of Aberdeen, to 
go in company of the Rector to make a voyage to 
the Hebrides, and, in the account they have left 
us of their experiences, we can discover no hint 
that there existed between Highlanders and Low- 
landers much the same difference as separated the 
English from the Welsh. Neither in Barbour's 
Bruce nor in Blind Harry's Wallace is there any 
such consciousness of difference, although Bar- 
bour lived in Aberdeen in the days before Harlaw. 
John of Fordun, a fellow-townsman and a con- 
temporary of Barbour, was an ardent admirer of 
St. Margaret and of David I, and of the Anglo- 
Norman institutions they introduced, while he 
possessed an invincible objection to the kilt. We 

xxviii England and Scotland 

should therefore expect to find in him some con- 
sciousness of the racial difference. He writes of 
the Highlanders with some ill-will, describing 
them as a "savage and untamed people, rude 
and independent, given to rapine, . . . hostile to 
the English language and people, and, owing to 
diversity of speech, even to their own nation".- 
But it is his custom to write thus of the opponents 
of the Anglo-Norman civil and ecclesiastical m- 
stitutions, and he brings all Scotland under the 
same condemnation when he tells us how David 
"did his utmost to draw on that rough and boor- 
ish people towards quiet and chastened manners".^ 
The reference to "their own nation" shows, too, 
that Fordun did not understand that the High- 
landers were a different people; and when he 
called them hostile to the English, he was evi- 
dently unaware that their custom was "out of 
hatred to the Saxons nearest them" to league 
with the English. John Major, writing in the 
reign of James IV (1489-15 13), mentions the differ- 
ences between Highlander and Lowlander. The 
wild Scots speak Irish; the civilized Scots use 
English. "But", he adds, "most of us spoke 
Irish a short time ago."^ His contemporary, 
Hector Boece, who made the Tour to the 

^ Chronicle, Book II, c. ix. Cf. App. A. 

2 Ibid, Book V, c. X. Cf. App. A. 

^ History of Greater Britain, Bk. I, cc. vii, viii, ix. Cf. App. A. 

Introduction xxix 

Hebrides, says: ''Those of us who live on the 
borders of England have forsaken our own 
tongue and learned English, being driven thereto 
by wars and commerce. But the Highlanders 
remain just as they were in the time of Malcolm 
Canmore, in whose days we began to adopt 
English manners."^ When Bishop Elphinstone 
applied, in 1493, for Papal permission to found 
a university in Old Aberdeen, in proximity to 
the barbarian Highlanders, he made no sug- 
gestion of any racial difference between the 
English-speaking population of Aberdeen and 
their Gaelic-speaking neighbours.^ Late in the 
sixteenth century, John Lesley, the defender of 
Queen Mary, who had been bishop of Ross, 
and came of a northern family, wrote in a strain 
similar to that of Major and Boece. '' Foreign 
nations look on the Gaelic-speaking Scots as 
wild barbarians because they maintain the cus- 
toms and the language of their ancestors; but 
we call them Highlanders."^ 

Even in connexion with the battle of Harlaw, 
we find that Scottish historians do not use such 

^ Scotorum Regiii Descriptio, prefixed to his " History". Cf. App. A. 

- Fasti Aberdonenses, p. 3. 

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


XXX England and Scotland 

terms in speaking- of the Highland forces as Mr. 
Hill Burton would lead us to expect. Of the 
two contemporary authorities, one, the Book of 
Pluscarden, was probably written by a High- 
lander, while the continuation of Fordun's Scoti- 
chronicon^ in which we have a more detailed 
account of the battle, was the work of Bower, 
a Lowlander who shared Fordun's antipathy to 
Highland customs. The Liber Plus car decisis 
mentions the battle in a very casual mannero It 
was fought between Donald of the Isles and the 
Earl of Mar; there was great slaughter: and it 
so happened that the town of Cupar chanced to 
be burned in the same year. ^ Bower assig-ns a 
g-reater importance to the affair;^ he tells us that 
Donald wished to spoil Aberdeen and then to add 
to his own possessions all Scotland up to the 
Tay. It is as if he were writing of the ambition 
of the House of Douglas. But there is no hint 
of racial antipathy; the abuse applied to Donald 
and his followers would suit equally well for the 
Borderers who shouted the Douglas battle-cry. 
John Major tells us that it was a civil war fought 
for the spoil of the famous city of Aberdeen, and 
he cannot say who won — only the Islanders lost 
more men than the civilized Scots. For him, its 
chief interest lay in the ferocity of the contest; 

^ Liber Pliiscardensis, X, c. xxii. Cf. App. A. 
^ Scoti-chronicon, XV, c. xxi. Cf. App. A. 

Intro due tion xxxi 

rarely, even in struggles with a foreign foe, had 
the fighting been so keen.^ The fierceness with 
which Harlaw was fought impressed the country 
so much that, some sixty years later, when Major 
was a boy, he and his playmates at the Grammar 
School of Haddington used to amuse themselves 
by mock fights in which they re-enacted the red 

From Major we turn with interest to the Prin- 
cipal of the University and King's College, Hec- 
tor Boece, who wrote his History of Scotland^ 
at Aberdeen, about a century after the battle of 
Harlaw, and who shows no trace of the strong 
feeling described by Mr. Hill Burton. He nar- 
rates the origin of the quarrel with much sympathy 
for the Lord of the Isles, and regrets that he was 
not satisfied with recovering his own heritage of 
Ross, but was tempted by the pillage of Aberdeen, 
and he speaks of the Lowland army as "the 
Scots on the other side".^ His narrative in the 
History is devoid of any racial feeling w hatsoever, 
and in his Lives of the Bishops of Aberdeen he 
omits any mention of Harlaw at all. We have 
laid stress upon the evidence of Boece because 
in Aberdeen, if anywhere, the memory of the 
"Celtic peril" at Harlaw should have survived. 

1 Greater Britahiy VI, c. x. Cf. App. A. The keenness of the fight- 
ing is no proof of racial bitterness. Cf. the clan fight on the Inches at 
Perth, a few years before Harlaw. 

-Scotorum HistoricB, Lib. XVI. Cf. App, A. 

xxxii England and Scotland 

Similarly, George Buchanan speaks of Harlaw 
as a raid for purposes of plunder, made by the 
islanders upon the mainland.^ These illustra- 
tions may serve to show how Scottish historians 
really did look upon the battle of Harlaw, and 
how little do they share Mr. Burton's horror of 
the Celts. 

When we turn to descriptions of Scotland we 
find no further proof of the correctness of the 
orthodox theory. When Giraldus Cambrensis 
wrote, in the twelfth century, he remarked that 
the Scots of his time have an affinity of race with 
the Irish, ^ and the English historians of the War 
of Independence speak of the Scots as they do 
of the Welsh or the Irish, and they know only 
one type of Scotsman. We have already seen 
the opinion of John Major, the sixteenth-century 
Scottish historian and theologian, who had lived 
much in France, and could write of his native 
country from an ab extra stand-point, that the 
Highlanders speak Irish and are less respectable 
than the other Scots; and his opinion was shared 
by two foreign observers, Pedro de Ayala and 
Polydore Vergil. The former remarks on the 
difference of speech, and the latter says that the 
more civilized Scots have adopted the English 
tongue. In like manner English writers about 

^ Rerum Scoforum Historia, Lib. X. Cf. App. A. 
-Top. Hib., Dis. Ill, cap. xi. 

Introduction xxxiii 

the time of the Union of the Crowns write of 
the Hig^hlanders as Scotsmen who retain their 
ancient language. Camden, indeed, speaks of 
the Lowlands as being Anglo-Saxon in origin, 
but he restricts his remark to the district which 
had formed part of the kingdom of Northumbria.-^ 
We should, of course, expect to find that 
the gradually widening breach in manners and 
language between Highlanders and Lowlanders 
produced some dislike for the Highland robbers 
and their Irish tongue, and we do occasionally, 
though rarely, meet some indication of this. 
There are not many references to the Highlanders 
in Scottish literature earlier than the sixteenth 
century. "Blind Harry" (Book VI, 11. 132-140) 
represents an English soldier as using, in 
addressing Wallace, first a mixture of French 
and Lowland Scots, and then a mixture of 
Lowland Scots and Gaelic: 

" Dewg-ar, gud day, bone Senzhour, and gud morn! 

Sen ye ar Scottis, zeit salust sail ye be; 

Gud deyn, dawch Lard, bach lowch, banzoch a de". 

In "The Book of the Howlat", written in the 
latter half of the fifteenth century, by a certain 
Richard Holland, who was an adherent of the 
House of Douglas, there is a similar imitation of 
Scottish Gaelic, with the same phrase " Bana- 

^ Britannia, section Scoti. 

xxxiv England and Scotland 

chadee" (the blessing of God). This seeming-ly 
innocent phrase seems to have some ironical sig- 
nification, for we find in the Auchinleck Chronicle 
(anno 1452) that it was used by some Highlanders 
as a term of abuse towards the Bishop of Argyll. 
Another example occurs in a coarse "Answer to 
ane Helandmanis Invective", by Alexander Mont- 
gomerie, the court poet of James VI. The Low- 
land literature of the sixteenth century contains 
a considerable amount of abuse of the Highland 
tongue. William Dunbar (1460-1520), in his 
" Flyting" (an exercise in Invective), reproaches 
his antagonist, Walter Kennedy, with his High- 
land origin. Kennedy was a native of Galloway, 
while Dunbar belonged to the Lothians, where 
we should expect the strongest appreciation of 
the differences between Lowlander and High- 
lander. Dunbar, moreover, had studied (or, at 
least, resided) at Oxford, and was one of the 
first Scotsmen to succumb to the attractions of 
"town". The most suggestive point in the 
"Flyting" is that a native of the Lothians could 
still regard a Galwegian as a "beggar Irish 
bard". For Walter Kennedy spoke and wrote in 
Lowland Scots; he was, possibly, a graduate of 
the University of Glasgow, and he could boast of 
Stuart blood. Ayrshire was as really English as 
was Aberdeenshire; and, if Dunbar is in earnest, 
it is a strong confirmation of our theory that 

IntrodMctioii xxxv 

he, being ''of the Lothians himself", spoke of 
Kennedy in this way. It would, however, be 
unwise to lay too much stress on what was really 
a conventional exercise of a particular style of 
poetry, now obsolete. Kennedy, in his reply, 
retorts that he alone is true Scots, and that 
Dunbar, as a native of Lothian, is but an English 

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

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

"Than cryd Mahoun ^ for a Healand padyane; 
Syne ran a feynd to feche Makfadyane ^ 
Far northwart in a nuke.^ 

^ Mahoun = Mahomet, i.e. the Devil. 

- The Editor of the Scottish Text Society's edition of Dunbar points out 
that " Macfadyane" is a reference to the traitor of the War of Indepen- 
dence : 

" This Makfadzane till Ingflismen was suorn ; 
Eduard gaifFhim bath Argill and Lorn". 

Blind Harry, VII, 11. 627-8. 

^ " Far northward in a nuke" is a reference to the cave in which Mac- 
fadyane was killed by Duncan of Lome (Bk. VIII, 11. 866-8). 

xxxvi England and Scotland 

Be he the correnoch had done schout 
Erschemen so gadderit him about 

In Hell grit rowme they tuke. 
Thae tarmegantis with tag- and tatter 
Full lowde in Ersche begowth to clatter, 

And rowp lyk revin and ruke. 
The Devill sa devit was with thair yell 
That in the depest pot of Hell 

He smorit thame with smoke," 

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

After the Union of the Crowns, the Lowlands 
of Scotland came to be more and more closely 
bound to England, while the Highlands remained 
unaffected by these changes. The Scottish no- 
bility began to find its true place at the English 
Court; the Scottish adventurer was irresistibly 
drawn to London; the Scottish Presbyterian 
found the English Puritan his brother in the 
Lord; and the Scottish Episcopalian joined forces 
with the English Cavalier. The history of the 
seventeenth century prepared the way for the 
acceptance of the Celtic theory in the beginning 
of the eighteenth, and when philologists asserted 
that the Scottish Highlanders were a different 
race from the Scottish Lowlanders, the sugges- 
tion was eagerly adopted. The views of the 
philologists were confirmed by the experiences 

Introduction xxxvii 

of the 'Forty-five, and they received a literary 
form in the Lady of the Lake and in Waverley. 
In the nineteenth century the theory received 
further development owing to the fact that it 
was generally in line with the arguments of the 
defenders of the Edwardian policy in Scotland; 
and it cannot be denied that it holds the field 
to-day, in spite of Mr. Robertson's attack on 
it in Appendix R of his Scotland under her 
Early Kings. 

The writer of the present volume ventures to 
hope that he has, at all events, done something 
to make out a case for re-consideration of the 
subject. The political facts on which rests the 
argument just stated will be found in the text, 
and an Appendix contains the more important 
references to the Highlanders in mediaeval Scot- 
tish literature, and offers a brief account of the 
feudalization of Scotland. Our argument amounts 
only to a modification, and not to a complete 
reversal of the current theory. No historical 
problems are more difficult than those which 
refer to racial distribution, and it is impossible 
to speak dogmatically on such a subject. That 
the English blood of the Lothians, and the 
English exiles after the Norman Conquest, did 
modify the race over whom Malcolm Canmore 
ruled, we do not seek to deny. But that it was 
a modification and not a displacement, a victory 


xxxviii England and Scotland 

of civilization and not of race, we beg" to sug'gest. 
The English influences were none the less strong 
for this, and, in the end, they have everywhere 
prevailed. But the Scotsman may like to think 
that mediaeval Scotland was not divided by an 
abrupt racial line, and that the political unity 
and independence which it obtained at so great 
a cost did correspond to a natural and a national 
unity which no people can, of itself, create. 



C. 500-1066 A.D. 

Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, 
it has been customary to speak of the Scottish 
Highlanders as ''Celts". The name is singu- 
larly inappropriate. The word "Celt" was used 
by Caesar to describe the peoples of Middle Gaul, 
and it thence became almost synonymous with 
"Gallic". The ancient inhabitants of Gaul were 
far from being closely akin to the ancient in- 
habitants of Scotland, although they belong to 
the same general family. The latter were Picts 
and Goidels; the former, Brythons or Britons, 
of the same race as those who settled in England 
and were driven by the Saxon conquerors into 
Wales, as their kinsmen were driven into Brittany 
by successive conquests of Gaul. In the south 
of Scotland, Goidels and Brythons must at one 
period have met; but the result of the meeting 
was to drive the Goidels into the Highlands, 
where the Goidelic or Gaelic form of speech still 
remains different from the Welsh of the descend- 
ants of the Britons. Thus the only reason for 
calling the Scottish Highlanders "Celts" is that 
Caesar used that name to describe a race cognate 
with another race from which the Highlanders 
ought to be carefully distinguished. In none 

2 England and Scotland 

of our ancient records is the term ''Celt" ever 
employed to describe the Highlanders of Scot- 
land. They never called themselves Celtic; their 
neighbours never gave them such a name; nor 
would the term have possessed any significance, 
as applied to them, before the eighteenth century. 
In 1703, a French historian and Biblical anti- 
quary, Paul Yves Pezron, wrote a book about 
the people of Brittany, entitled Antiquite de la 
Nation et de la Langue des Celtes autrement 
appellez Gaulois. It was translated into English 
almost immediately, and philologists soon dis- 
covered that the language of Csesar's Celts was 
related to the Gaelic of the Scottish Highlanders. 
On this ground progressed the extension of the 
name, and the Highlanders became identified 
with, instead of being distinguished from, the 
Celts of Gaul. The word Celt was used to 
describe both the whole family (including Bry- 
thons and Goidels), and also the special branch 
of the family to which Caesar applied the term. 
It is as if the word "Teutonic" had been used 
to describe the whole Aryan Family, and had 
been specially employed in speaking of the Ro- 
mance peoples. The word "Celtic" has, how- 
ever, become a technical term as opposed to 
"Saxon" or "English", and it is impossible to 
avoid its use. 

Besides the Goidels, or so-called Celts, and 
the Brythonic Celts or Britons, we find traces in 
Scotland of an earlier race who are known as 

Racial Distribution 3 

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

In the end of the fifth century and the be- 
ginning of the sixth, a new settlement of Goidels 
was made. These were the Scots, who founded 
the kingdom of Dalriada, corresponding roughly 
to the Modern Argyllshire. Some fifty years 
later {c. 547) came the Angles under Ida, and 
established a dominion along the coast from 
Tweed to Forth, covering the modern counties 
of Roxburgh, Berwick, Haddington, and Mid- 
lothian. Its outlying fort was the castle of 

4 England and Scotland 

Edinburgh, the name of which, in the form in 
which we have it, has certainly been influenced 
by association with the Northumbrian king, 
Edwin. ^ This district remained a portion of the 
kingdom of Northumbria till the tenth century, 
and it is of this district alone that the word 
''English" can fairly be used. Even here, 
however, there must have been a considerable 
infusion of Celtic blood, and such Celtic place- 
names as "Dunbar" still remain even in the 
counties where English place-names predominate. 
A distinguished Celtic scholar tells us: "In all 
our ancient literature, the inhabitants of ancient 
Lothian are known as Saix-Brit, i.e. Saxo- 
Britons, because they were a Cymric people, 
governed by the Saxons of Northumbria".^ A 
further non-Celtic influence was that of the Norse 
invaders, who attacked the country from the 
ninth to the eighteenth century, and profoundly 
modified the racial character of the population 
on the south and west coasts, in the islands, and 
along the east coast as far south as the Moray 

Such, then, was the racial distribution of Scot- 
land. Picts, Goidclic Celts, Brythonic Celts, 
Scots, and Anglo-Saxons were in possession of 
the country. In the year 844, Kenneth Mac- 
Alpine, .King of the Scots of Dalriada, united 

^ Johnston: Place-Names of Scotland, p. 102. 

2 Rev. Duncan MacGregor in Scottish Church Society Conferences. 
Second Series, Vol. II, p. 23. 

Racial Distribution 5 

under his rule the ancient kingdoms of the Picts 
and Scots, including- the whole of Scotland from 
the Pentland Firth to the Forth. In 908, a 
brother of the King of Scots became King of 
the Britons of Strathclyde, while Lothian, with 
the rest of Northumbria, passed under the over- 
lordship of the House of Wessex. We have now 
arrived at the commencement of the long dispute 
about the '' overlordship ". We shall attempt to 
state the main outlines as clearly as possible. 

The foundation of the whole controversy lies 
in a statement, "in the honest English of the 
Winchester Chronicle", that, in 924, "was Ead- 
ward king chosen to father and to lord of the 
Scots king and of the Scots, and of Regnold 
king, and of all the Northumbrians ", and also 
of the Strathclyde de Brythons or Welsh. Mr. 
E. W. Robertson has argued that no real weight 
can be given to this statement, for (i) "Regnold 
king" had died in 921; (2) in 924, Edward 
the Elder was striving to suppress the Danes 
south of the Humber, and had no claims to 
overlordship of any kind over the Northumbrian 
Danes and English; and (3) the place assigned, 
Bakewell, in Derbyshire, is improbable, and the 
recorded building of a fort there is irrelevant. 
The reassertion of this homage, under Aethel- 
stan, in 926, which occurs in one MS. of the 
Chronicle, is open to the objection that it de- 
scribes the King of Scots as giving up idolatry, 
more than three hundred and fifty years after 

6 England mid Scotland 

the conversion of the country; but as the entry 
under the year 924 is probably in a contemporary 
hand, considerable weight must be attached to 
the double statement. In the reign of Edmund 
the Magnificent, an event occurred which has 
given fresh occasion for dispute. A famous 
passage in the "Chronicle" (945 a.d.) tells how 
Edmund and Malcolm I of Scotland conquered 
Cumbria, which the English king gave to Mal- 
colm on condition that Malcolm should be his 
" midwyrtha " or fellow-worker by sea and land. 
Mr. Freeman interpreted this as a feudal grant, 
reading the sense of "fealty" into " midwyrtha ", 
and regarded the district described as "Cum- 
bria" as including the whole of Strathclyde. It 
is somewhat difficult to justify this position, 
especially as we have no reason for supposing 
that Edmund did invade Strathclyde, and since, 
in point of fact, Strathclyde remained hostile to 
the kingdom of Scotland long after this date. 
In 946 the statement of the Chronicle is re- 
asserted in connection with the accession of 
Eadred, and in somewhat stronger words: — "the 
Scots gave him oaths, that they would all that 
he would ". Such are the main facts relating 
to the first two divisions of the threefold claim 
to overlordship, and their value will probably 
continue to be estimated in accordance with the 
personal feelings of the reader. It is scarcely 
possible to claim that they are in any way de- 
cisive. Nor can any further light be gained from 

Feudal Relations flips 7 

the story of what Mr. Lang has happily termed 
the apocryphal eight which the King of Scots 
stroked on the Dee in the reign of Edgar. In 
connection with this "Great Commendation" of 
973, the Chronicle mentions only six kings as 
rowing Edgar at Chester, and it wisely names no 
names. The number eight, and the mention of 
Kenneth, King of Scots, as one of the oarsmen, 
have been transferred to Mr. Freeman's pages 
from those of the twelfth - century chronicler, 
Florence of Worcester. 

We pass now to the third section of the supre- 
macy argument. The district to which we have 
referred as Lothian was, unquestionably, largely 
inhabited by men of English race, and it formed 
part of the Northumbrian kingdom. Within the 
first quarter of the eleventh century it had passed 
under the dominion of the Celtic kings of Scot- 
land. When and how this happened is a mystery. 
The tract De Northynb^^orum Comitibus which 
used to be attributed to Simeon of Durham, 
asserts that it was ceded by Edgar to Kenneth 
and that Kenneth did homage, and this story, 
elaborated by John of Wallingford, has been 
frequently given as the historical explanation. 
But Simeon of Durham in his "History"^ as- 
serts that Malcolm II, about 1016, wrested Lo- 
thian from the Earl of Northumbria, and there 
is internal evidence that the story of Edgar and 
Kenneth has been constructed out of the known 

^ Hist. Dun, Rolls Series, i. 218. 

8 England and Scotland 

facts of Malcolm's reign. It is, at all events, 
certain that the Scottish kings in no sense 
governed Lothian till after the battle of Carham 
in 1018, when Malcolm and the Strathclyde 
monarch Owen, defeated the Earl of Northum- 
bria and added Lothian to his dominions. This 
conquest was confirmed by Canute in 103 1, and, 
in connection with the confirmation, the Chronicle 
again speaks of a doubtful homage which the 
Scots king '*not long held", and, again, the 
Chronicle, or one version of it, adds an impos- 
sible statement — this time about Macbeth, who 
had not yet appeared on the stage of history. 
The year 1018 is also marked by the succession 
of Malcolm's grandson, Duncan, to the throne 
of his kinsman, Owen of Strathclyde, and on 
Malcolm's death in 1034 ^^ whole of Scotland 
was nominally united under Duncan L^ The 
consolidation of the kingdom was as yet in the 
future, but from the end of the reign of Malcolm 
II there was but one Kingdom of Scotland. 
From this united kingdom we must exclude the 
islands, which were largely inhabited by Norse- 
men. Both the Hebrides and the islands of 
Orkney and Shetland were outside the realm of 

' Duncan was the grandson of Malcolm, and, by Pictish custom, should 
not have succeeded. The "rig'htful" heir, an un-named cousin of Mal- 
colm, was murdered, and his sister, Gruoch, who married the Mormaor 
of Moray, left a son, Lulach, who thus represented a rival line, whose 
claims may be connected with some of the Highland rising's ag-ainst the 
descendants of Duncan, 

Feudal Relationships 9 

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

We have now traced, in outline, the connec- 
tions between the northern and the southern 
portions of this island up to the date of the 
Norman Conquest of England. We have found 
in Scotland a population composed of Pict, Scot, 
Goidel, Brython, Dane, and Angle, and we have 
seen how the country came to be, in some sense, 
united under a single monarch. It is not possible 
to speak dogmatically of either of the two great 
problems of the period — the racial distribution of 
the country, and the Edwardian claims to over- 
lordship. But it is clear that no portion of 
Scotland was, in 1066, in any sense English, 
except the Lothians, of which Angles and Danes 
had taken possession. From the Lothians, the 
English influences must have spread slightly into 
Strathclyde; but the fact that the Celtic Kings of 
Scotland were strong enough to annex and rule 

lo England and Scotland 

the Lothians as part of a Celtic kingdom implies 
a limit to Eno-Hsh colonization. As to the feudal 
supremacy, it may be fairly said that there is no 
portion of the English claim that cannot be 
reasonably doubted, and whatever force it retains 
must be of the nature of a cumulative argument. 
It must, of course, be recollected that Anglo- 
Norman chroniclers of the twelfth and thirteenth 
centuries, like English historians of a later date, 
regarded themselves as holding a brief for the 
English claim, while, on the other hand, Scottish 
writers would be the last to assert, in their own 
case, a complete absence of bias. 

Scotland and the Normans li 



The Norman Conquest of England could not 
fail to modify the position of Scotland. Just 
as the Roman and the Saxon conquests had, in 
turn, driven the Brythons northwards, so the 
dispossessed Saxons fled to Scotland from their 
Norman victors. The result was considerably 
to alter the ecclesiastical arrangements of the 
country, and to help its advance towards civili- 
zation. The proportion of Anglo-Saxons to the 
races who are known as Celts must also have 
been increased; but a complete de-Celticization 
of Southern Scotland could not, and did not, 
follow. The failure of William's conquest to 
include the Northern counties of England left 
Northumbria an easy prey to the Scottish king, 
and the marriage of Malcolm III, known as 
Canmore, to Margaret, the sister of Edgar the 
v^theling, gave her husband an excuse for inter- 
ference in England. We, accordingly, find a 
long series of raids over the border, of which 
only five possess any importance. In 1069-70, 
Malcolm (who had, even in the Confessor's time, 
been in Northumberland with hostile intent) con- 
ducted an invasion in the interests of his brother- 


12 E^igland and Scotland 

in-law. It is probable that this movement was 
intended to coincide with the arrival of the 
Danish fleet a few months earlier. But Malcolm 
was too late; the Danes had gone home, and, 
in the interval, William had himself superintended 
the great harrying of the North which made 
Malcolm's subsequent efforts somewhat unneces- 
sary. The invasion is important only as having 
provoked the counter-attack of the Conqueror, 
which led to the renewal of the supremacy con- 
troversy. William marched into Scotland and 
crossed the Forth (the first English king to do 
so since the unfortunate Egfrith, who fell at 
Nectansmere in 685). At Abernethy, on the 
banks of the Tay, Malcolm and William met, 
and the English Chronicle, as usual, informs 
us that the King of Scots became the ''man" 
of the English king. But as Malcolm received 
from William twelve villae in England, it is, 
at least, doubtful whether Malcolm paid homage 
for these alone or also for Lothian and Cumbria, 
or for either of them. There is, at all events, 
no question about the villae. Scottish historians 
have not failed to point out that the value of 
the homage, for whatever it was given, is suffi- 
ciently indicated by Malcolm's dealings with 
Gospatric of Northumberland, whom William 
dismissed as a traitor and rebel. Within about 
six months of the Abernethy meeting, Malcolm 
gave Gospatric the earldom of Dunbar, and he 
became the founder of the great house of March. 

Scotland and the Nor^nans 13 

No further invasion took place till 1079, when 
Malcolm took advantage of William's Norman 
difficulties to make another harrying expedition, 
which afforded the occasion for the building of 
Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The accession of Rufus 
and his difficulties with Robert of Normandy 
led, in 1091, to a somewhat belated attempt by 
Malcolm to support the claims of the ^theling 
by a third invasion, and, in the following year, 
peace was made. Rufus confirmed to Malcolm 
the grant of twelve villae^ and Malcolm in turn 
gave the English king such homage as he had 
given to his father. What this vague statement 
meant, it was reserved for the Bruce to determine, 
and the Bruces had, as yet, not one foot of 
Scottish soil. The agreement made in 1092 did 
not prevent Rufus from completing his father's 
work by the conquest of Cumberland, to which 
the Scots had claims. Malcolm's indignation 
and William's illness led to a famous meeting 
at Gloucester, whence Malcolm withdrew in 
great wrath, declining to be treated as a vassal 
of England. The customary invasion followed, 
with the result that Malcolm was slain at Alnwick 
in November, 1093. 

But the great effects of the Norman Conquest, ^ 
as regards Scotland, are not connected with 
strictly international affairs. They are partially 
racial, and, in other respects, may be described 
as personal. It is unquestionable that there 
was an immigration of the Northumbrian popu- 

14 England and Scotland 

lation into Scotland; but the Northumbrian 
population were Anglo- Danish, and the north 
of England was not thickly populated. When 
William the Conqueror ravaged the northern 
counties with fire and sword, a considerable pro- 
portion of the population must have perished. 
The actual infusion of English blood may thus 
be exaggerated; but the introduction of English 
influences cannot be questioned. These in- 
fluences were mainly due to the personality of 
Malcolm's second wife, the Saxon princess, Mar- 
garet. The queen was a woman of considerable 
mental power, and possessed a great influence 
over her strong - headed and hot - tempered 
husband. She was a devout churchwoman, and 
she immediately directed her energies to the 
task of bringing the Scottish church into closer 
communion with the Roman. The changes 
were slight in themselves; all that we know of 
them is an alteration in the beginning of Lent, 
the proper observance of Easter and of Sunday, 
and a question, still disputed, about the tonsure. 
But, slight as they were, they stood for much. 
They involved the abandonment of the separate 
position held by the Scottish Church, and its 
acceptance of a place as an integral portion of 
Roman Christianity. The result was to make 
the Papacy, for the first time, an important 
factor in Scottish affairs, and to bridge the gulf 
that divided Scotland from Continental Europe. 
We soon find Scottish churchmen seeking learn- 

Scotland and the Normans 15 

ing in France, and bringing into Scotland those 
French influences which were destined seriously 
to affect the civilization of the country. But, 
above all, these Roman changes were important 
just because they were Anglican — introduced 
by an English queen, carried out by English 
clerics, emanating from a court which was 
rapidly becoming English. Malcolm's subjects 
thenceforth began to adopt English customs and 
the English tongue, which spread from the court 
of Queen Margaret. The colony of English 
refugees represented a higher civilization and a 
more advanced state of commerce than the 
Scottish Celts, and the English language, from 
this cause also, made rapid progress. For about 
twenty-five years Margaret exercised the most 
potent influence in her husband's kingdom, and, 
when she died, her reputation as a saint and her 
subsequent canonization maintained and sup- 
ported the traditions she had created. Not only 
did she have on her side the power of a court 
and the prestige of courtly etiquette, but, as we 
have said, she represented a higher civilizing 
force than that which was opposed to her, 
and hence the greatness of her victory. It 
must, however, be remembered that the spread 
of the English language in Scotland does not 
necessarily imply the predominance of English 
blood. It means rather the growth of English 
commerce. We can trace the adoption or 
English along the seaboard, and in the towns, 

1 6 England and Scotland 

while Gaelic still remained the language of the 
countryman. There is no evidence of any 
English immigration of sufficient proportions to 
overwhelm the Gaelic population. Like the 
victory of the conquered English over the con- 
quering Normans, which was even then making 
fast progress in England, it is a triumph of a 
kind that subsequent events have revealed as 
characteristically Anglo-Saxon, and it called into 
force the powers of adaptation and of colonization 
which have brought into being so great an 
English-speaking world. 

Malcolm's reign ended in defeat and failure; 
his wife died of grief, and the opportunity pre- 
sented itself of a Celtic reaction against the 
Anglicization of the reign of Malcolm III. The 
throne was seized by Malcolm's brother, Donald 
Bane. Malcolm's eldest son, Duncan, whose 
mother, Ingibjorg, had been a Dane, received 
assistance from Rufus, and drove Donald Bane, 
after a reign of six months, into the distant 
North. But after about six months he himself 
was slain in a small fight with the Mormaer or 
Earl of the Mearns, and Donald Bane continued 
to reign for about three years, in conjunction 
with Edmund, a son of Malcolm and Margaret. 
But in 1097, Edgar, a younger brother of Ed- 
mund, again obtained the help of Rufus and 
secured the throne. The reign of Edgar is 
important in two respects. It put an end to 
the Celtic revival, and reproduced the conditions 


Scotland and the Norfnans 17 

of the time of Malcolm and Margaret. Hence- 
forward Celtic efforts were impossible except 
in the Highlands, and the Celts of the Low- 
lands resigned themselves to the process of 
Anglicization imposed upon them alike by eccle- 
siastical, political, and commercial circumstances. ^ 
It saw also the beginning of an influence which 
was to prove scarcely less fruitful in results than 
the Anglo-Saxon triumph of which we have 
spoken. In November, iioo, Edgar's sister, 
Matilda, was married to the Norman King of 
England, Henry I, and two years later, another 
sister, Mary, was married to Eustace, Count of 
Boulogne, the son of the future King Stephen. 
These unions, with a son and a grandson re- 
spectively of William the Conqueror, prepared 
the way for the Norman Conquest of Scotland. 
Edgar died in January, 1 106-7, and his brother 
and successor, Alexander I, espoused an Anglo- 
Norman, Sybilla, who is generally supposed to 
have been a natural daughter of Henry I. On 
the death of Alexander, in 11 24, these Norman 
influences acquired a new importance under his 
brother David, the youngest son of Malcolm and 
Margaret. During the troubles which followed 
his father's death, David had been educated in 
England, and after the marriage of Henry I and 
Matilda, had resided at the court of his brother- 
in-law, till the death of Edgar, when he became 
ruler of Cumbria and the southern portion of 
Lothian. He had married, in 11 13-14, the 

1 8 England and Scotland 

daughter and heiress of Waltheof, Earl of Hun- 
tingdon, who was also the widow of a Norman 
baron. In this way the earldom of Huntingdon 
became attached to the Scottish throne, and 
afforded an occasion for reviving the old question 
of homage. Moreover, Waltheof of Huntingdon 
was the son of Siward of Northumbria, and 
David regarded himself as, on this account, 
possessing claims over Northumbria. 

David, as we have seen, had been brought up 
under Norman influences, and it is under the 
son of the Saxon Margaret that the bloodless 
Norman conquest of Scotland took place. Ed- 
gar had recognized the new English nobility 
and settlers by addressing charters to all in his 
kingdom, "both Scots and English"; his 
brother, David, speaks of "French and English, 
Scots and Galwegians". The charters are, of 
course, addressed to barons and land-owners, 
and their evidence refers to the English and 
Anglo-Norman nobility. The Norman fascina- 
tion, which had been turned to such good 
account in England, in Italy, and in the Holy 
Land, had completely vanquished such English 
prepossessions as David might have inherited 
from his mother. Normans, like the Bruces and 
the Fitzalans (afterwards the Stewarts), came to 
David's court and received from him grants of 
land. The number of Norman signatures that 
attest his charters show that his entourage was 
mainly Norman. He was a very devout Church- 

Scotland and the Normans 19 

man (a " sair sanct for the Crown" as James VI 
called him), and Norman prelate and Norman 
abbot helped to increase the total of Norman 
influence. He transformed Scotland into a 
feudal country, gave grants of land by feudal 
tenure, summoned a great council on the feudal xy 
principle, and attempted to create such a mon- 
archy as that of which Henry I was laying the 
foundations. There can be little doubt that this 
strong Norman influence helped to prepare the 
Scottish people for the French alliance; but its 
more immediate effect was to bring about the 
existence of an anti-national nobility. These 
great Norman names were to become great in 
Scottish story; but it required a long process to 
make their bearers, in any sense, Scotsmen. 
Most of them had come from England, many of 
them held lands in England, and none of them 
could be expected to feel any real diff'erence 
between themselves and their English fellows. 

During the reign of Henry I, Anglo-Norman 
influences thus worked a great change in Scot- 
land. On Henry's death, David, as the uncle 
of the Empress Matilda, immediately took up 
arms on her behalf. Stephen, with the wisdom 
which characterized the beginning of his reign, 
came to terms with him at Durham. David did 
not personally acknowledge the usurper, but his 
son, Henry, did him homage for Huntingdon 
and some possessions in the north (1136). In 
the following year, David claimed Northumber- 

20 England and Scotland 

land for Henry as the representative of Siward, 
and, on Stephen's refusal, again adopted the 
cause of the empress. The usual invasion of 
England followed, and after some months of 
ravaging, a short truce, and a slight Scottish 
victory gained at Clitheroe on the Ribble, in 
June, 1 138, the final result was David's great 
defeat in the battle of the Standard, fought near 
Northallerton on the 22nd August, 1138. 

The battle of the Standard possesses no special 
interest for students of the art of war. The 
English army, under William of Albemarle and 
Walter I'Espec, was drawn up in one line of 
battle, consisting of knights in coats of mail, 
archers, and spearmen. The Scots were in four 
divisions; the van was composed of the Picts 
of Galloway, the right wing was led by Prince 
Henry, and the men of Lothian were on the left. 
Behind fought King David, with the men of 
Moray. The Galwegians made several unsuc- 
cessful attempts upon the English centre. Prince 
Henry led his horse through the English left 
wing, but the infantry failed to follow, and the 
prince lost his advantage by a premature attempt 
to plunder. The Scottish right made a pusillani- 
mous attempt on the English left, and the reserve 
began to desert King David, who collected the 
remnants of his army and retired in safety to a 
height above Cowton Moor, the scene of the 
fight. Prince Henry was left surrounded by 
the enemy, but saved the position by a clever 

Scotland and the Normans 21 

stratagem, and rejoined his father. Mr. Oman 
remarks that the battle was " of a very abnormal 
type for the twelfth century, since the side 
which had the advantage in cavalry made no 
attempt to use it, while that which was weak 
in the all-important arm made a creditable at- 
tempt to turn it to account by breaking into the 
hostile flank. . . . Wild rushes of unmailed clans- 
men against a steady front of spears and bows 
never succeeded; in this respect Northallerton 
is the forerunner of Dupplin, Halidon Hill, 
Flodden, and Pinkie."^ The chief interest, for 
our purpose, attaching to the battle of the Stan- 
dard, is connected with the light it throws upon 
the racial complexion of the country seventy 
years after the Norman Conquest. Our chief 
authorities are the Hexham chroniclers and 
Ailred of Rivaulx^, English writers of the twelfth 
century. They speak of David's host as com- 
posed of Angli, Picti, and Scoti. The Angli 
alone contained mailed knights in their ranks, 
and David's first intention was to send these 
mail-clad warriors against the English, while 
the Picts and Scots were to follow with sword 
and targe. The Galwegians and the Scots from 
beyond Forth strongly opposed this arrangement, 
and assured the king that his unarmed High- 
landers would fio-ht better than "these French- 
men ". The king gave the place of honour to 

"^ Art of War in the Middle Ages, p. 391. 
2 Cf. App. A. 

2 2 England and Scotla7id 

the Galwegians, and altered his whole plan of 
battle. The whole context, and the Earl of 
Strathern's sneer at ''these Frenchmen", would 
seem to show that the " Angfli " are, at all events, 
clearly distinguished from the Picts of Galloway 
and the Scots who, like Malise of Strathern, 
came from beyond the Forth. It is probable 
that the " Angli " were the men of Lothian; but 
it must also be recollected both that the term 
included the Anglo-Norman nobility (" these 
Frenchman ") and the English settlers who had 
followed Queen Margaret, and that David was 
fighting in an English quarrel and in the interests 
of an English queen. The knights who wore 
coats of mail were entirely Anglo-Norman, and 
it is against them that the claim of the High- 
landers is particularly directed. When Richard 
of Hexham tells us that Angles, Scots, and Picts 
fell out by the way, as they returned home, he 
means to contrast the men of Lothian and the 
new Anglo-Norman nobility with the Picts of 
Galloway and the Highlanders from north of 
the Forth, and this unusual application of the 
term Angli^ to a portion of the Scottish army, 
is an indication, not that the Lowlanders were 
entirely English, but that there was a strong 
jealousy between the Scots and the new English 
nobility. The " Angli " are, above all others, 
the knights in mail.^ 

' In the final order of battle, David seems to have attempted to briag- 
all classes of his subjects tog-ether, and the divisions have a political 

Scotland mid the Normans 23 

It is not possible to credit David with any real 
affection for the cause of the empress or with 
any higher motive than selfish greed, and it 
can scarcely be claimed that he kept faith with 
Stephen. Such, however, were the difficulties of 
the English king, that, in spite of his crushing 
defeat, David reaped the advantages of victory. 
Peace was made in April, 11 39, by the Treaty of 
Durham, which secured to Prince Henry the 
earldom of Northumberland, as an English fief. 
The Scottish border line, which had successively 
enclosed Strathclyde and part of Cumberland, 
and the Lothians, now extended to the Tees. 
David gave Stephen some assistance in 11 39, 
but on the victory of the Empress Maud ^ at 
Lincoln, in 1141, David deserted the captive 
king, and was present, on the empress's side, 
at her defeat at Winchester, in 1141. Eight 
years later he entered into an agreement with 
the claimant, Henry Fitz- Empress, afterwards 
Henry H, by which the eldest son of the Scottish 
king was to retain his English fiefs, and David 
was to aid Henry against Stephen. An un- 
successful attempt on England followed — the 
last of David's numerous invasions. When he 

as well as a military purpose. The rig-ht wing- contained Angflo-^^orman 
knights and men from Strathclyde and Teviotdale, the left wing- men 
from Lothian and Highlanders from Argyll and the islands, and King 
David's reserve was composed of more knights along with men from 
Moray and the region north of the Forth. 

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

24 England and Scotland 

died, in 1153, he left Scotland in a position ot 
power with regard to England such as she was 
never again to occupy. The religious devotion 
which secured for him a popular canonization 
(he was never actually canonized) can scarcely 
justify his conduct to Stephen. But it must be 
recollected that, throughout his reign, there is 
comparatively little racial antagonism between 
the two countries. David interfered in an 
English civil war, and took part, now on one 
side, and now on the other. But the whole 
effect of his life was to bring the nations 
more closely together through the Norman in- 
fluences which he encouraged in Scotland. 
His son and heir held great fiefs in England,^ 
and he granted tracts of land to Anglo-Norman 
nobles. A Bruce and a Balliol, who each held 
possessions both in Scotland and in England, 
tried to prevent the battle of the Standard. 
Their well-meant efforts proved fruitless; but 
the fact is notable and significant. 

David's eldest son, the gallant Prince Henry, 
who had led the wild charge at Northallerton, 
predeceased his father in 1152. He left three 
sons, of whom the two elder, Malcolm and 
William, became successively kings of Scotland, 
while from the youngest, David, Earl of Hunt- 
ingdon, were descended the claimants at the 

' Ailred credits Bruce with a longf speech, in which he tries to convince 
David that his real friends are not his Scottish subjects, but his Ang-lo- 
Norman favourites, and that, accordingly, he should keep on good terms 
with the English. 

Scotland and the Normans 25 

first Inter-regnum. It was the fate of Scotland, 
as so often again, to be governed by a child; 
and a strong king, Henry II, was now on the 
throne of England. As David I had taken 
advantage of the weakness of Stephen, so now 
did Henry II benefit by the youth of Malcolm 
IV. In spite of the agreement into which Henry 
had entered with David in 1149, he, in 11 57, 
obtained from Malcolm, then fourteen years of 
age, the resignation of his claims upon Northum- 
berland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland. In 
return for this, Malcolm received a confirmation 
of the earldom of Huntingdon (cf. p. 18). The 
abandonment of the northern claims seems to 
have led to a quarrel, for Henry refused to knight 
the Scots king; but, in the following year, Mal- 
colm accompanied Henry in his expedition to 
Toulouse, and received his knighthood at Henry's 
hands. Malcolm's subsequent troubles were 
connected with rebellions in Moray and in 
Galloway against the new regime^ and with the 
ambition of Somerled, the ruler of Argyll, and 
of the still independent western islands. The 
only occasion on w^hich he again entered into 
relations with England was in 1163, when he 
met Henry at Woodstock and did homage to 
his eldest son, who became known as Henry 
III, although he never actually reigned. As 
usual, there is no statement precisely defining 
the homage; it must not be forgotten that the 
King of Scots was also Earl of Huntingdon. 

26 England and Scotland 

Malcolm died in 1165, and was succeeded by 
his brother, William the Lion, who reigned for 
nearly fifty years. Henry was now in the midst 
of his great struggle with the Church, but 
William made no attempt to use the oppor- 
tunity. He accepted the earldom of Huntingdon 
from Henry, and in 11 70, when the younger 
Henry was crowned in Becket's despite, William 
took the oath of fealty to him as Earl of Hunt- 
ingdon. But in 1173-74, when the English king's 
ungrateful son organized a baronial revolt, 
William decided that his chance had come. 
His grandfather, David, had made him Earl 
of Northumberland, and the resignation which 
Henry had extorted from the weakness of Mal- 
colm IV could scarcely be held as binding 
upon William. So William marched into Eng- 
land to aid the rebel prince, and, after some 
skirmishes and the usual ravaging, was surprised 
while tilting near Alnwick, and made a captive. 
He was conveyed to the castle of Falaise in 
Normandy, and there, on December 8th, 11 74, 
as a condition of his release, he signed the 
Treaty of Falaise, which rendered the kingdom 
of Scotland, for fifteen years, unquestionably the 
vassal of England.^ The treaty acknowledged 
Henry H as overlord of Scotland, and expressly 
stated the dependence of the Scottish Church 

' William's Eng-lish earldom ox Huntingdon, which had been torfeited, 
was restored, in 1185, and was conferred by William upon his brother, 
David, the ancestor of the claimants of 1290. 

Scotland and the Normans 27 

upon that of England. The relations of the 
churches had been an additional cause of diffi- 
culty since the time of St. Margaret, and the 
present arrangement was in no sense final. A 
papal legate held a council in Edinburgh in 
1 1 77, and ten years afterwards Pope Clement 
III took the Scottish Church directly under his 
own protection. 

About the political relationship there could 
be no such doubt. William stood, theoretically, 
if not actually, in much the same position to 
Henry II, as John Baliol afterwards occupied 
to Edward I. It was not till the accession of 
Richard I that William recovered his freedom. 
The castles in the south of Scotland which had 
been delivered to the English were restored, 
and the independence of Scotland was admitted, 
on William's paying Richard the sum of 10,000 
marks. This agreement, dated December, 1189, 
annulled the terms of the Treaty of Falaise, and 
left the position of William the Lion exactly 
what it had been at the death of Malcolm IV. 
He remained liegeman for such lands as the 
Scottish kings had, in times past, done homage 
to England. The agreement with Richard I 
is certainly not incompatible with the Scottish 
position that the homage, before the Treaty 
of Falaise, applied only to the earldom of 
Huntingdon; but the usual vagueness was 
maintained, and the arrangement in no way 
determines the question of the homage paid by 


28 England and Scotland 

the earlier Scottish kings. For a hundred years 
after this date, the two countries were never at 
war. William had difficulties with John; in 
1209, an outbreak of hostilities seemed almost 
certain, but the two kings came to terms. The 
long reign of William came to an end in 12 14. 
His son and successor, Alexander II, joined 
the French party in England which was defeated 
at Lincoln in 12 16. Alexander made peace 
with the regent, resigned all claims to North- 
umberland, and did homage for his English 
possessions — the most important of which was the 
earldom of Huntingdon, which had, since 1190, 
been held by his uncle, David, known as David 
of Huntingdon. In 1221, he married Joanna, 
sister of Henry III. Another marriage, nego- 
tiated at the same time, was probably of more 
real importance. Margaret, the eldest daughter 
of William the Lion, became the w^ife of the 
Justiciar of England, Hubert de Burgh. Mr. 
Hume Brown has pointed out that immediately 
on the fall of Hubert de Burgh, a dispute arose 
between Henry and Alexander. The English 
king desired Alexander to acknowledge the 
Treaty of Falaise, and this Alexander refused 
to do. The agreement, which averted an appeal 
to the sword, was, on the whole, favourable to 
Scotland. Nothing was said about homage for 
this kingdom. David of Huntingdon had died 
in 1 1 19, and Alexander gave up the southern 
earldom, but received a fief in the northern 

Scotland and the Nornnans 29 

counties, always coveted of the kings of Scotland. 
This arrangement is known as the Treaty of York 
(1236). Some trifling incidents and the second 
marriage of Alexander, which brought Scotland 
into closer touch with France (he married Marie, 
daughter of Enguerand de Coucy), nearly pro- 
voked a rupture in 1242, but the domestic troubles 
of Henry and Alexander alike prevented any 
breach of the long peace which had subsisted 
since the capture of William the Lion. In 1249, 
the Scottish king died, and his son and suc- 
cessor,^ Alexander III, was knighted by Henry 
of England, and, in 1251, married Margaret, 
Henry's eldest daughter. The relations of 
Alexander to Henry III and to Edward I will 
be narrated in the following chapter. Not once 
throughout his reign was any blood spilt in 
an English quarrel, and the story of his reign 
forms no part of our subject. Its most inter- 
esting event is the battle of Largs. The Scottish 
kings had, for. some time, been attempting to 
annex the islands, and, in 1263, Hakon of 
Norway invaded Scotland as a retributive mea- 

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

30 Euglatid and Scotland 

sure. He was defeated at the battle of Largs, 
and, in 1266, the Isles were annexed to the 
Scottish crown. The fact that this forcible 
annexation took place, after a struggle, only- 
twenty years before the death of Alexander III, 
must be borne in mind in connection with the 
part played by the Islanders in the War of 

The Scottish Policy of Edward I 31 


I 286-1 296 

When Alexander III was killed, on the 19th 
March, 1285-86, the relations between England 
and Scotland were such that Edward I was 
amply justified in looking forward to a permanent 
union. Since the ill-fated invasion of William 
the Lion in 11 74, there had been no serious war- 
fare between the two countries, and in recent 
years they had become more and more friendly 
in their dealings with each other. The late king 
had married Edward's sister, Margaret, and the 
child-queen was her grand-daughter; Alexander 
and Margaret had been present at the English 
King's coronation in 1274; and, in addition to 
these personal connections, Scotland had found 
England a friend in its great final struggle with 
the Danes. The misfortunes which had over- 
taken Scotland in the premature deaths^ of 
Alexander and his three children might yet prove 
a very real blessing, if they prepared the way for 
the creation of a great island kingdom, which 

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

32 England and Scotland 

should be at once free and united. The Httle 
Margaret, the Maid of Norway, Edward's grand- 
niece, had been acknowledged heir to the throne 
of her grandfather, in February, 1283-84, and on 
his death her succession was admitted. The 
Great Council met at Scone in April, 1286, and 
appointed six Guardians of the Kingdom. It 
was no easy task which was entrusted to them, 
for the claim of a child and a foreigner could not 
but be disputed by the barons who stood nearest 
to the throne. The only rival who attempted to 
rebel was Robert Bruce of Annandale, who had 
been promised the succession by Alexander II, 
and had been disappointed of the fulfilment of 
his hopes by the birth of the late king in 1241. 
The deaths of two of the guardians added to the 
difficulties of the situation, and it was with some- 
thing like relief that the Scots heard that Eric 
of Norway, the father of their queen, wished to 
come to an arrangement with Edward of Eng- 
land, in whose power he lay. The result of 
Eric's negotiations with Edward was that a con- 
ference met at Salisbury in 1289, and was 
attended, on Edward's invitation, by four Scot- 
tish representatives, who included Robert Bruce 
and three of the guardians. Such were the 
troubles of the country that the Scots willingly 
acceded to Edward's proposals, which gave him 
an interest in the government of Scotland, and 
they heard with delight that he contemplated the 
marriage of their little queen to his son Edward, 

The Scottish Policy of Edward I t^t^ 

then two years of age. The English king was 
assured of the satisfaction which such a marriage 
would give to Scotland, and the result was that, 
by the Treaty of Brigham, in 1290, the marriage 
was duly arranged. Edward had previously 
obtained the necessary dispensation from the 

The eagerness with which the Scots welcomed 
the proposal of marriage was sufficient evidence 
that the time had come for carrying out Edward's 
statesmanlike scheme, but the conditions which 
were annexed to it should have warned him 
that there were limits to the Scottish com- 
pliance with his wishes. Scotland was not in 
any way to be absorbed by England, although 
the crowns would be united in the persons of 
Edward and Margaret. Edward wisely made 
no attempt to force Scotland into any more com- 
plete union, although he could not but expect 
that the union of the crowns would prepare the 
way for a union of the kingdoms. He certainly 
interpreted in the widest sense the rights given 
him by the treaty of Brigham, but when the Scots 
objected to his demand that all Scottish castles 
should be placed in his power, he gave way 
without rousing further suspicion or indignation. 
Hitherto, his policy had been characterized by 
the great sagacity which he had shown in his 
conduct of English affairs; it is impossible to 
refuse either to sympathize with his ideals or to 
admire the tact he displayed in his negotiations 

34 England and Scotland 

with Scotland. His considerateness extended 
even to the little Maid of Norway, for whose 
benefit he victualled, with raisins and other fruit, 
the 'Marge ship" which he sent to conduct her to 
England. But the large ship returned to Eng- 
land with a message from King Eric that he 
would not entrust his daughter to an English 
vessel. The patient Edward sent it back again, 
and it was probably in it that the child set sail in 
September, 1290. Some weeks latei', Bishop 
Eraser of St. Andrews, one of the guardians, 
and a supporter of the English interest, wrote 
to Edward that he had heard a "sorrowful 
rumour" regarding the queen. ^ The rumour 
proved to be well-founded; in circumstances 
which are unknown to us, the poor girl-queen 
died on her voyage, and her death proved a fatal 
blow to the work on which Edward had been 
engaged for the last four years. 

Of the thirteen ^ 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 claim- 
ant who, according to the strict rules of primo- 
geniture, had the best right was John Balliol, the 
grandson of Margaret, the eldest daughter of 
Earl David. His most formidable opponent was 
Robert Bruce of Annandale, the son of Earl 

1 Nat. MSS. i. 36, No. LXX. 

2 Cf. Table, App. C. 

The Scottish Policy of Edward I 35 

David's second daug-hter, Isabella, who based his 
candidature on the fact that he was the grandson, 
whereas Balliol was the great-grandson, of the 
Earl of Huntingdon, through whom both the 
rivals claimed. The third, John Hastings, was 
the grandson of David's youngest daughter, Ada. 
Bishop Fraser, in the letter to which we have 
already referred, urged Edward I to interfere 
in favour of John Balliol, who might be em- 
ployed to further English interests in Scotland. 
The English king thereupon decided to put 
forward a definite claim to be lord paramount, 
and, in virtue of that right, to decide the dis- 
puted succession. 

Since Richard I had restored his independence 
to William the Lion, in 1189, the question of the 
overlordship had lain almost entirely dormant. 
On John's succession, William had done homage 
"saving his own right", but whether the homage 
was for Scotland or solely for his English fiefs 
was not clear. His successor, Alexander H, 
aided Louis of France against the infant Henry 
HI, and, after the battle of Lincoln, came to an 
agreement with the regent, by which he did 
homage to Henry HI, but only for the earldom 
of Huntingdon and his other possessions in 
Henry's kingdom. After the fall of Hubert de 
Burgh, Henry used his influence with Pope 
Gregory IX, who looked upon the English 
king as a valuable ally in the great struggle with 
Frederick II, to persuade the pope to order the 


6 England and Scotland 

Kingr of Scots to acknowledge Henry as his over- 
lord (1234). Alexander refused to comply with 
the papal injunction, and the matter was not 
definitely settled. Henry made no attempt to 
enforce his claim, and merely came to an agree- 
ment with Alexander regarding the English 
possessions of the Scottish king (1236). During 
the minority of Alexander HI, when Henry was, 
for two years, the real ruler of Scotland (1255- 
1257), he described himself not as lord para- 
mount, but as chief adviser of the Scottish king. 
Lastly, when, in 1278, Alexander HI took a 
solemn oath of homage to Edward at West- 
minster, he, according to the Scottish account 
of the affair, made an equally solemn avowal 
that to God alone was his homage due for the 
kingdom of Scotland, and Edward had accepted 
the homage thus rendered. 

It is thus clear that Edward regarded the claim 
of the overlordship as a "trump card" to be 
played only in special circumstances, and these 
appeared now to have arisen. The death of the 
Maid of Norway had deprived him of his right to 
interfere in the affairs of Scotland, and had de- 
stroyed his hopes of a marriage alliance. It 
seemed to him that all hope of carrying out his 
Scottish policy had vanished, unless he could 
take advantage of the helpless condition of the 
country to obtain a full and final recognition of 
a claim which had been denied for exactly a 
hundred years. At first it seemed as if the 

The Scottish Policy of Edward I 37 

scheme were to prove satisfactory. The Norman 
nobles who claimed the throne declared, after 
some hesitation, their willingness to acknowledge 
Edward's claim to be lord paramount, and the 
English king was therefore arbiter of the situa- 
tion. He now obtained what he had asked in 
vain in the preceding year — the delivery into 
English hands of all Scottish strongholds (June, 
1 291). Edward delayed his decision till the 17th 
November, 1292, when, after much disputation 
regarding legal precedents, and many consul- 
tations with Scottish commissioners and the 
English Parliament, he finally adjudged the 
crown to John Balliol. It cannot be argued 
that the decision was unfair; but Edward was 
fortunate in finding that the candidate whose 
hereditary claim was strongest was also the man 
most fitted to occupy the position of a vassal 
king. The new monarch made a full and in- 
disputable acknowledgment of his position as 
Edward's liege, and the great seal of the king- 
dom of Scotland was publicly destroyed in token 
of the position of vassalage in which the country 
now stood. Of what followed it is difficult to 
speak with any certainty. Balliol occupied the 
throne for three and a half years, and was en- 
gaged, during the whole of that period, in dis- 
putes with his superior. The details need not 
detain us. Edward claimed to be final judge 
in all Scottish cases; he summoned Balliol to 
his court to plead against one of the Scottish 

^S Englmid and Scotland 

king's own vassals, and to receive instructions 
with regard to the raising of money for Edward's 
needs. It may fairly be said that Edward's treat- 
ment of Balliol does give grounds for the view 
of Scottish historians that the English king was 
determined, from the first, to goad his wretched 
vassal into rebellion in order to give him an 
opportunity of absorbing the country in his 
English kingdom. On the other hand, it may 
be argued that, if this was Edward's aim, he 
was singularly unfortunate in the time he chose 
for forcing a crisis. He was at war with Philip 
IV of France; Madoc was raising his Welsh 
rebellion ; and Edward's seizure of wool had 
created much indignation among his own sub- 
jects. However this may be, it is certain that 
Balliol, rankling with a sense of injustice caused 
by the ignominy which Edward had heaped upon 
him, and rendered desperate by the complaints 
of his own subjects, decided, by the advice of the 
Great Council, to disown his allegiance to the 
King of England, and to enter upon an alliance 
with France. It is noteworthy that the policy 
of the French alliance, as an anti-English move- 
ment, which became the watchword of the 
patriotic party in Scotland, was inaugurated 
by John Balliol. The Scots commenced hos- 
tilities by some predatory incursions into the 
northern counties of England in 1295-96. 

Whether or not Edward was waiting for the 
opportunity thus given him, he certainly took 

The Scottish Policy of Edzvard J 39 

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

_j.o England and Scotland 

in Normandy, where he survived till April, 

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

The War of Independence 41 



Edward I had failed to recog-nize the difference 
between the Scottish barons and the Scottish 
people, to which we have referred in a former 
chapter. To the Norman baron, who possessed 
lands in England and Scotland alike, it mattered 
little that he had now but one liege lord instead 
of two suzerains. To the people of Scotland, 
proud and high-spirited, tenacious of their long 
traditions of independence, resentful of the pre- 
sence of foreigners, it could not but be hateful 
to find their country governed by a foreign 
soldiery. The conduct of Edward's officials, 
and especially of Cressingham and Ormsby, and 
the cruelty of the English garrisons, served to 
strengthen this national feeling, and it only 
remained for it to find a leader round whom it 
might rally. ^ A leader arose in the person of 
Sir William Wallace, a heroic and somewhat 
mysterious figure, who first attracted notice in 

^ There is no indication of any racial division in the attitude of the 
Scots. Some Highlanders, from various personal causes, are found on 
the English side at the beginning of the War of Independence; but Mr. 
Lang has shown that of the descendants of Somerled of Argyll, the 
ancestor of the Lords of the Isles, only one fought against Wallace, 
while the Celts of Moray and Badenach and the Highland districts of 
Aberdeenshire, joined his standard. The behaviour of the Highland 

_j.2 E^igland and Scotland 

the autumn of 1296, and, by the spring of the 
following year, had gathered round him a band 
of guerilla warriors, by whose help he was able 
to make serious attacks upon the English gar- 
risons of Lanark and Scone (May, 1297). These 
exploits, of little importance in themselves, 
sufficed to attract the popular feeling towards 
Wallace. The domestic difficulties of Edward I 
rendered the time opportune for a rising, and, 
despite the failure of an ill-conceived and badly- 
managed attempt on the part of some of the 
more patriotic barons, which led to the submission 
of Irvine, in 1297, the little army which Wallace 
had collected rapidly grew in courage and in 
numbers, and its leader laid siege to the castle 
of Dundee. He had now attained a position of 
such importance that Surrey and Cressingham 
found it necessary to take strong measures against 
him, and they assembled at Stirling, whither 
Wallace marched to meet them. The battle of 
Stirling Bridge (or, more strictly, Cambuskenneth 
Bridge) was fought on September nth, 1297. 
Wallace, with his army of knights and spearmen, 
took up his position on the Abbey Craig, with 
the Forth between him and the English. Less 
than a mile from the Scottish camp was a small 
bridge over the river, giving access to the Abbey 

chiefs is similar to that of the Lowland barons. If there is any racial 
feeling at all, it is not Celtic v. Saxon, but Scandinavian v. Scottish, 
and it is connected with the recent conquest of the Isles. But even of 
this there is little trace, and the behaviour of the Islesmen is, on the 
whole, marvellously loyal. 

The War of Independence 43 

of Cambuskenneth. Surrey rashly attempted to 
cross this bridge, in the face of the Scots, and 
Wallace, after a considerable number of the 
enemy had been allowed to reach the northern 
bank, ordered an attack. The English failed 
to keep the bridge, and their force became 
divided. Surrey was unable to offer any assist- 
ance to his vanguard, and they fell an easy prey 
to the Scots, while the English general, with 
the remnants of his army, retreated to Berwick. 
Stirling was the great military key of the 
country, commanding all the passes from south 
to north, and the great defeat which the English 
had sustained placed the country in the power 
of Wallace. Along with an Andrew de Moray, 
of whose identity we know nothing, he undertook 
the government of the country, corresponded in 
the name of Scotland with Liibeck and Hamburg, 
and took the offensive against England in an 
expedition which ravaged as far south as Hex- 
ham. To the great monastery of Hexham he 
granted protection in the name of "the leaders 
of the army of Scotland 'V although he was not 
successful in restraining the ferocity of his fol- 
lowers. The document in question is granted 
in the name of John, King of Scotland, and in 
a charter dated March 1298,^ Wallace describes 
himself as Guardian of the Kingdom of Scotland, 
acting for the exiled Balliol. In the following 

^ Hemingburg-h, ii, 141-147. 
^ Diplomata Scotice, xliii, xliv. 

44 England and Scotland 

summer, Edward marched into Scotland, and 
although his forces were in serious difficulties 
from want of food, he went forward to meet 
Wallace, who held a strong position at Falkirk. 
Wallace prepared to meet Edward by drawing 
up his spearmen in four great " schiltrons " or 
divisions, with a reserve of cavalry. His flanks 
were protected by archers, and he had also 
placed archers between the divisions of spearmen. 
On the English side, Edward himself commanded 
the centre, the Earls of Norfolk and Hereford 
the right, and the Bishop of Durham the left. 
The Scottish defeat was the result of a com- 
bination of archers and cavalry. The first attack 
of the English horse was completely repulsed 
by the spearmen. "The front ranks", says Mr. 
Oman, "knelt with their spear-butts fixed in the 
earth ; the rear ranks levelled their lances over 
their comrades' heads; the thick-set grove of 
twelve-foot spears was far too dense for the 
cavalry to penetrate." But Edward withdrew 
the cavalry and ordered the archers to send 
a shower of arrows on the Scots. Wallace's 
cavalry made no attempt to interfere with the 
archers; the Scottish bowmen were too few to 
retaliate; and, when the English horse next 
charged, they found many weak points in the 
schiltrons, and broke up the Scottish host. 

As the battle of Stirling had created the power 
of Wallace, so that of Falkirk completely de- 
stroyed it. He almost immediately resigned his 

The War of Independence 45 

office of guardian (mainly, according to tradition, 
because of the jealousy with which the great 
barons regarded him), and took refuge in France. 
Edward was still in the midst of difficulties, both 
foreign and domestic, and he was unable to 
reduce the country. The Scots elected new 
guardians, who regarded themselves as regents, 
not for Edward but for Balliol. They included 
John Comyn and Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick, 
the future king. The guardians were successful 
in persuading both Philip IV of France and Pope 
Boniface VIII to intervene in their favour, but 
Edward disregarded the papal interference, and 
though he was too busy to complete his conquest, 
he sent an army into Scotland in each of the 
years 1300, 1301, and 1302. Military operations 
were almost entirely confined to ravaging; but, 
in February 1302-3, Comyn completely defeated 
at Rosslyn, near Edinburgh, an English army 
under Sir John Segrave and Ralph de Manton, 
whom Edward had ordered to make a foray in 
Scotland about the beginning of Lent. In the 
summer of 1303, the English king, roused per- 
haps by this small success, and able to give his 
undivided attention to Scotland, conducted an 
invasion on a larger scale. In September, he 
traversed the country as far north as Elgin, 
and, remaining in Scotland during the winter 
of 1303-4, he set to work in the spring to 
reduce the castle of Stirling, which still held 
out against him. When the garrison surren- 

46 England and Scotland 

dered, in July, 1304, Scotland lay at Edward's 
feet. Comyn had already submitted to the 
English king, and Edward's personal vindictive- 
ness was satisfied by the capture of Wallace 
by Sir John Menteith, a Scotsman who had 
been acting in the English interest. Wallace 
was taken to London, subjected to a mock 
trial, tortured, and put to death with ignominy. 
On the 23rd August, 1305, his head was placed 
on London Bridge, and portions of his body 
were sent to Scotland. His memory served as 
an inspiration for the cause of freedom, and it 
is held in just reverence to the present hour. 
If it is true that he did not scruple to go 
beyond what we should regard as the limits 
of honourable warfare, it must be remembered 
that he was fighting an enemy who had also 
disregarded these limits, and much may be 
forgiven to brave men who are resisting a 
gratuitous war of conquest. When he died, his 
work seemed to have failed. But he had shown 
his countrymen how to resist Edward, and he 
had given sufficient evidence of the strength of 
national feeling, if only it could find a suitable 
leader. The English had to learn the lesson 
which, five centuries later. Napoleon had to 
learn in Spain, and Scotland cannot forget that 
Wallace was the first to teach it. 

It is not less pathetic to turn to Edward's 
scheme for the government of Scotland. It 
bears the impress of a mind which was that of 

The War of Independence 47 

a statesman and a lawyer as we)I as a soldier. 
It is impossible to deny a tribute of admiration 
to its wisdom, or to question the probability of 
its success in other circumstances. Had the 
course of events been more propitious for 
Edward's great plan, Scotland and England 
might have been spared much suffering. But 
Edward failed to realize that the Scots could 
no longer regard him as the friend and ally 
to whose son they had willingly agreed to marry 
their queen. He was now but a military con- 
queror in temporary possession of their country, 
an enemy to be resisted by any means. The new 
constitution was foredoomed to failure. Carry- 
ing out his scheme of 1296, Edward created no 
vassal-king, but placed Scotland under his own 
nephew, John of Brittany; he interfered as little 
as might be with the customs and laws of 
the country; he placed over it eight justiciars 
with sheriffs under them. In 1305, Edward's 
Parliament, which met at London, was attended 
by Scottish representatives. The incorporation 
of the country with its larger neighbour was 
complete, but it involved as little change as was 
possible in the circumstances. 

The Parliament of 1305 was attended by Robert 
Bruce, Earl of Carrick, who attended not as a 
representative of Scotland, but as an English 
lord. Bruce was the grandson of the Robert 
Bruce of Annandale who had been promised 
the crown by Alexander II, and who had been 

48 England and Scotland 

one of the claimants of 1290. His grandfather 
had done homage to Edward, and Bruce himself 
had been generally on the English side, and 
had fought against Wallace at Falkirk. When 
John Balliol had decided to rebel, he had trans- 
ferred the lands of Annandale from the Bruces 
to the Comyns, and they had been restored by 
Edward I after Balliol's submission. From 1299 
to 1303, Bruce had been associated with Comyn 
in the guardianship of the kingdom, but, like 
Comyn, had submitted to Edward. Nobody in 
Scotland could now think of a restoration of 
Balliol, and if there was to be a Scottish king at 
all, it must obviously be either Comyn or Bruce. 
The claim of John Comyn the younger was much 
stronger than that of his father had been. The 
elder Comyn had claimed on account of his 
descent from Donald Bane, the brother and 
successor of Malcolm Canmore; but the younger 
Comyn had an additional claim in right of his 
mother, who was a sister of John Balliol. Be- 
tween Bruce and Comyn there was a long- 
standing feud. In 1299, at a meeting of the 
Great Council of Scotland at Peebles, Comyn 
had attacked Bruce, and they could only be 
separated by the use of violence. On the loth 
February, 1305-6, Bruce and the Comyn met in 
the church of the convent of the Minorite Friars 
at Dumfries. Tradition tells that they met to 
adjust their conflicting claims, with a view to 
establishing the independence of the country in 

The War of Independence 49 

the person of one or other of the rivals; that a 
dispute arose in which they came to blows; and 
that Bruce, after inflicting' a severe wound upon 
his enemy, left the church. "I doubt I have 
slain the Red Comyn," he said to his followers. 
'* Doubt?" was the reply of Sir Roger Fitz- 
patrick, 'M'll mak siccar. " The actual circum- 
stances of the affair are unknown to us; but 
Bruce may fairly be relieved of the suspicion of 
any premeditation, because it is most unlikely 
that he would have needlessly chosen to offend 
the Church by committing a murder within sanc- 
tuary. The real interest attaching" to the circum- 
stances lies in the tradition that the object of the 
meeting was to organize a resistance against 
Edward I. Whether this was so or not, there 
can be no doubt that the result of the conference 
compelled the Bruce to place himself at the head 
of the national cause. A Norman baron, born 
in England, he was by no means the natural 
leader for whose appearance men looked, and 
there was a grave chance of his failing to arouse 
the national sentiment. But the murder of one 
claimant to the Scottish throne at the hands of 
the only other . possible candidate, who thus 
placed himself in the position of undoubted heir, 
could scarcely have been forgiven by Edward I, 
even if the Comyn had not, for the past two 
years, proved a faithful servant of the English 
king. There was no alternative, and, on the 27th 
March, 1306, Robert, Earl of Carrick and Lord 

^o England and Scotland 

of Annandale, was crowned King of the Scots at 
Scone. The ancient royal crown of the Scottish 
king's had been removed by Balliol in 1296, and 
had fallen into the hands of Edward, but the 
Countess of Buchan placed on the Bruce's head 
a hastily made coronet of gold. 

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

The first blow in the renewed struggle was 
struck at Methven, near Perth, where, on the 
19th June, 1306, the Earl of Pembroke inflicted 
a defeat upon King Robert. The Lowlands were 
now almost entirely lost to him; he sent his wife^ 

' Bruce had married, ist, Isabella, daughter of the loth Earl of Mar, 

The War of Independence 51 

and child to Kildrummie Castle in Aberdeenshire, 
whence they fled to the sanctuary of St. Duthac, 
near Tain. In August, Bruce was defeated at 
Dairy, by Alexander of Lorn, a relative of the 
Comyn. In September, Kildrummie Castle fell, 
and Nigel Bruce, King Robert's brother, fell 
into the hands of the English and was put to 
death at Berwick. To complete the tale of 
catastrophes, the Bruce's wife and daughter, two 
of his sisters, and other two of his brothers, along 
with the Countess of Buchan, came into the 
power of the English king. Edward placed some 
of the ladies in cages, and put to death Sir 
Thomas Bruce and Alexander Bruce, Dean of 
Glasgow (February, 1306-7). Meanwhile, King 
Robert had found it impossible to maintain him- 
self even in his own lands of Carrick, and he 
withdrew to the island of Rathlin, where he 
wintered. Undeterred by this long series of 
calamities, he took the field in the spring of 
1307, and now, for the first time, fortune favoured 
him. On the loth May, he defeated the English, 
under Pembroke, at Loudon Hill, in Ayrshire. 
He had been joined by his brother Edward and 
by the Lord James of Douglas (the "Black 
Douglas "), and the news of his success, slight 
as it was, helped to increase at once the spirit 
and the numbers of his followers. His position, 
however, was one of extreme difficulty; he was 

by whom he had a daug-hter, Marjorie, and 2nd, in 1302, Elizabeth de 
Burgh, daughter of the Earl of Ulster. 

^2 England and Scotland 

still only a king in name, and, in reality, the 
leader of a guerilla warfare. Edward was march- 
ing northwards at the head of a large army, 
determined to crush his audacious subject. But 
Fate had decreed that the Hammer of the Scots 
was never again to set foot in Scotland. At 
Burgh-on-Sand, near Carlisle, within sight of 
his unconquered conquest, the great Edward 
breathed his last. His death was the turning- 
point in the struggle. The reign of Edward H 
in England is a most important factor in the 
explanation of Bruce's success. 

With the death of Edward I the whole aspect 
of the contest changes. The English were no 
longer conducting a great struggle for a states- 
manlike ideal, as they had been under Edward I 
— however impossible he himself had made its 
attainment. There is no longer any sign of con- 
scious purpose either in their method or in their 
aims. The nature of the warfare at once 
changed; Edward H, despite his father's wish 
that his bones should be carried at the head of 
the army till Scotland was subdued, contented 
himself with a fruitless march into Ayrshire, and 
then returned to give his father a magnificent 
burial in Westminster Abbey. King Robert was 
left to fight his Scottish enemies without their 
English allies. These Scottish enemies may be 
divided into two classes — the Anglo-Norman 
nobles who had supported the English cause 
more or less consistently, and the personal 

The War of hidependcnce 53 

enemies of the Bruce, who increased in numbers 
after the murder of Comyn. Among the great 
famihes thus alienated from the cause of Scot- 
land were the Highlanders of Argyll and the 
Isles, some of the men of Badenach, and certain 
Galloway clans. But that this opposition was 
personal, and not racial, is shown by the fact that, 
from the first, some of these Highlanders were 
loyal to Bruce, e.g. Sir Nigel Campbell and 
Angus Og. We shall see, further, that after the 
first jealousies caused by Comyn's death and 
Bruce's success had passed away, the men of 
Argyll and the Isles took a more prominent part 
on the Scottish side. In December, 1307, Bruce 
routed John Comyn, the successor of his old rival, 
at Slains, on the Aberdeenshire coast, and in the 
following May, when Comyn had obtained some 
slight English assistance, he inflicted a final 
defeat upon him at Inverurie. The power of the 
Comyns in their hereditary earldom of Buchan 
had now been suppressed, and King Robert 
turned his attention to their allies in the south. 
In the autumn of 1308, he himself defeated 
Alexander of Lorn and subdued the district of 
Argyll, his brother Edward reduced Galloway to 
subjection, and Douglas, along with Randolph, 
Earl of Moray, was successful in Tweeddale. 
Thus, within three years from the death of 
Comyn, Bruce had broken the power of the great 
families, whose enmity against him had been 
aroused by that event. One year later the 

54 England and Scotland 

other great misfortune, which had been brought 
upon him by the same cause, was removed by 
an act which is important evidence at once of 
the strength of the anti-EngHsh feeHng in the 
country, and of the confidence which Bruce had 
inspired. On the 24th February, 1309-10, the 
clergy of Scotland met at Dundee and made 
a solemn declaration^ of fealty to King Robert 
as their lawful king. Scotland was thus united 
in its struggle for independence under King 
Robert I. 

It now remained to attack the English garri- 
sons who held the castles of Scotland. An 
invasion conducted by Edward II in 1310 
proved fruitless, and the English king returned 
home to enter on a long quarrel with the Lords 
Ordainers, and to see his favourite, Gaveston, 
first exiled and then put to death. While the 
attention of the rulers of England was thus occu- 
pied, Bruce, for the first time since Wallace's 
inroad of 1297, carried the war into the enemy's 
country, invading the north of England both in 
131 1 and in 131 2. Meanwhile the strongholds 
of the country were passing out of the English 
power. Linlithgow was recovered in 131 1; 
Perth in January, 131 2-13; and Roxburgh a 
month later. The romantic capture of the castle 
of Edinburgh, by Randolph, Earl of Moray, in 
March, 13 13, is one of the classical stories of 

• Nat. MSS. ii. 12, No. XVII. The original is preserved in the Register 

The War of Independence 55 

Scottish history, and in the summer of the same 
year, King Robert restored the Scottish rule in 
the Isle of Man. In November, 1313, only 
Stirling- Castle remained in English hands, and 
Edward Bruce rashly agreed to raise the siege 
on condition that the garrison should surrender 
if they were not relieved by June 24th, 13 14. 
Edward II determined to make a heroic effort 
to maintain this last vestige of English conquest, 
and his attempt to do so has become irrevocably 
associated with the Field of Bannockburn. 

In his preparations for the great struggle, 
which was to determine the fate of Scotland, 
the Bruce carefully avoided the errors which 
had led to Wallace's defeat at Falkirk. He 
selected a position which was covered, on 
one side by the Bannock Burn and a morass, 
and, on the other side, by the New Park or 
Forest. His front was protected by the stream 
and by the famous series of " pottes ", or holes, 
covered over so as to deceive the English cavalry. 
The choice of this narrow position not only pre- 
vented the possibility of a flank attack, but also 
forced the great army of Edward II into a small 
space, where its numbers became a positive dis- 
advantage. King Robert arranged his infantry 
in four divisions; in front were three schiltrons 
of pikemen, under Randolph, Edward Bruce, 
and Sir James Douglas, and Bruce himself com- 
manded the reserve, which was composed of 
Highlanders from Argyll and the Islands and 

56 England and Scotland 

of the men of Carrick.^ Sir Robert Keith, the 
Marischal, was in charge of a small body of 
cavalry, which did good service by driving" back, 
at a critical moment, such archers as made their 
way through the forest. The English army was 
in ten divisions, but the limited area in which 
they had to fight interfered with their arrange- 
ment. As at Falkirk, the English cavalry made 
a gallant but useless charge against the schil- 
trons, but it was not possible again to save 
the day by means of archers, for the archers 
had no room to deploy, and could only make 
vain efforts to shoot over the heads of the horse- 
men. Bruce strengthened the Scots with his 
reserve, and then ensued a general action along 
the whole line. The van of the English army 
was now thoroughly demoralized, and their 
comrades in the rear could not, in these narrow 
limits, press forward to render any assistance. 
King Robert's camp-followers, at this juncture, 
rushed down a hill behind the Scottish army, 
and they appeared to the English as a fresh 
force come to assist the enemy. The result was 
the loss of all sense of discipline: King Edward's 
magnificent host fled in complete rout and with 
great slaughter, and the cause of Scottish 
freedom was won. 

The victory of Bannockburn did not end the 

' Pinkerton sugfg-ests that King Robert adopted this arrangement be- 
cause he was unable to trust the Highlanders, but this is unlikely, as 
their leader, Angus Og, had been consistently faithful to him throughout. 

The War of Independence 57 

war, for the Eng-lish refused to acknowledge the 
hard-won independence of Scotland, and fighting- 
continued till the year 1327. The Scots not only 
invaded England, but adopted the policy of fight- 
ing England in Ireland, and English reprisals 
in Scotland were uniformly unsuccessful. Bruce 
invaded England in 1315; in the same year, his 
brother Edward landed with a Scottish army at 
Carrickfergus, in the hope of obtaining a throne 
for himself. He was crowned King of Ireland 
in May, 13 16, and during that and the following 
year, King Robert was personally in Ireland, 
giving assistance to his brother. But, in 1318, 
Edward Bruce was defeated and slain near 
Dundalk, and, with his death, this phase of 
the Bruce's English policy disappears. A few 
months before the death of Edward Bruce, King 
Robert had captured the border town of Berwick- 
on-Tweed, which had been held by the English 
since 1298. In 1319, Edward II sent an Eng- 
lish army to besiege Berwick, and the Scots 
replied by an invasion of England in the course 
of which Douglas and Randolph defeated the 
English at Mitton-on-Swale in Yorkshire. The 
English were led by the Archbishop of York, 
and so many clerks were killed that the battle 
acquired the name of the Chapter of Mitton. 
The war lingered on for three years more. The 
year 1322 saw an invasion of England by King 
Robert and a counter-invasion of Scotland by 
Edward II, who destroyed the Abbey of Dry- 

^8 England and Scotland 

burgfh on his return march. This expedition 
was, as usual, fruitless, for the Scots adopted 
their usual tactics of leaving the country waste 
and desolate, and the English army could obtain 
no food. In October of the same year King 
Robert made a further inroad into Yorkshire, 
and won a small victory at Biland Abbey. At 
last, in March, 1323, a truce was made for 
thirteen years, but as Edward II persisted in 
declining to acknowledge the independence of 
Scotland, it was obvious that peace could not 
be long maintained. 

During the fourteen years which followed his 
victory of Bannockburn, King Robert was con- 
solidating his kingdom. He had obtained re- 
cognition even in the Western Highlands and 
Islands, and the sentiment of the whole nation 
had gathered around him. The force of this 
sentiment is apparent in connection with eccles- 
iastical difficulties. When Pope John XXII 
attempted to make peace in 131 7 and refused 
to acknowledge the Bruce as king, the papal 
envoys were driven from the kingdom. For 
this the country was placed under the papal 
ban, and when, in 1324, the pope offered both 
to acknowledge King Robert and to remove 
the excommunication, on condition that Berwick 
should be restored to the English, the Scots 
refused to comply with his condition. A small 
rebellion in 1320 had been firmly repressed by 
king and Parliament. The birth of a son to 

The War of Independence 59 

King Robert, on the 5th March, 1323-24, had 
given security to the dynasty, and, at the great 
ParHament which met at Cambuskenneth in 
1326, at which Scottish burghs were, for the first 
time, represented, the clergy, the barons, and 
the people took an oath of allegiance to the 
little Prince David, and, should his heirs fail, to 
Robert, the son of Bruce's daughter, Marjorie, 
and her husband, Robert, the High Steward 
of Scotland. The same Parliament put the 
financial position of the monarch on a satisfac- 
tory footing by granting him a tenth penny of 
all rents. 

The deposition and murder of Edward II 
created a situation of which the King of Scots 
could not fail to take advantage. The truce 
was broken in the summer of 1327 by an ex- 
pedition into England, conducted by Douglas 
and Randolph, and the hardiness of the Scottish 
soldiery surprised the English and warned them 
that it was impossible to prolong the contest in 
the present condition of the two countries. The 
regents for the young Edward III resolved to 
come to terms with Bruce. The treaty of North- 
ampton, dated 17th March, 1327-28, is still 
preserved in Edinburgh. It acknowledged the 
complete independence of Scotland and the royal 
dignity of King Robert. It promised the re- 
storation of all the symbols of Scottish inde- 
pendence which Edward I had removed, and it 
arranged a marriage between Prince David, the 

6o England and Scotland 

heir to the Scottish throne, and Joanna, the sister 
of the young king of England. A marriage 
ceremony between the two children was solem- 
nized in the following May, but the Stone of Fate 
was never removed from Westminster, owing, it 
is said, to the opposition of the abbot. The 
succession of James VI to the throne of Eng- 
land, nearly three centuries later, was accepted 
as the fulfilment of the prophecy attached to the 
Coronation Stone, " Lapis ille grandis": 

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

Thus closed the portion of Scottish history 
which is known as the War of Independence. 
The condemnation of the policy of Edward I lies 
simply in its results. He found the two nations 
at peace and living together in amity; he left 
them at war and each inspired with a bitter 
hatred of the other. A policy which aimed at 
the unification of the island and at preventing 
Scotland from proving a source of danger to 
England, and which resulted in a warfare cov- 
ering, almost continuously, more than two hun- 
dred and fifty years, and which, after the lapse of 
four centuries, left the policy of Scotland a serious 
difficulty to English ministers, can scarcely re- 
ceive credit for practical sagacity, however wise 
its aim. It created for England a relentless and 
irritating (if not always a dangerous) enemy, 
invariably ready to take advantage of English 

The War of hidependence 6i 

difficulties. England had to fight Scotland in 
France and in Ireland, and Edward IV and 
Henry VII found the King of Scots the ally of 
the House of Lancaster, and the protector of 
Perkin Warbeck. Only the accident of the 
Reformation rendered it possible to disengage 
Scotland from its alliance with France, and to 
bring about a union with England. Till the 
emergence of the religious question the English 
party in Scotland consisted of traitors and mer- 
cenaries, and their efforts to strengthen English 
influence form the most discreditable pages of 
Scottish history. 

We are not here dealing with the domestic 
history of Scotland; but it is impossible to avoid 
a reference to the subject of the influence of the 
Scottish victory upon the Scots themselves. It 
has been argued that Bannockburn was, for Scot- 
land, a national misfortune, and that Bruce's 
defeat would have been for the real welfare of 
the country. There are, of course, two stand- 
points from which we may approach the question. 
The apologist of Bannockburn might lay stress 
on the different effects of conquest and a hard- 
won independence upon the national character, 
and might fairly point to various national char- 
acteristics which have been, perhaps, of some 
value to civilization, and which could hardly have 
been fostered in a condition of servitude. On 
the other hand, there arises a question as to 
material prosperity. It must be remembered 

62 England and Scotland 

that we are not here discussing the effect of a 
peaceful and amicable union, such as Edward 
first proposed, but of a successful war of con- 
quest; and in this connection it is only with 
thankfulness and gratitude to Wallace and to 
Bruce that the Scotsman can regard the parallel 
case of Ireland, which, from a century before 
the time of Edward I, had been' annexed by 
conquest. The story we have just related goes 
to create a reasonable probability that the fate 
of Scotland could not have been different; but, 
further, leaving all such problems of the ''might 
have been", we may submit that the misery of 
Scotland in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and six- 
teenth centuries has been much exaggerated. 
It is true that the borders were in a condi- 
tion of perpetual feud, and that minorities and 
intrigues gravely hampered the progress of the 
country. But, more especially in the fifteenth 
and sixteenth centuries, there are not wanting 
indications of prosperity. The chapter of Scot- 
tish history which tells of the growth of burghs 
has yet to be written. The construction of 
magnificent cathedrals and religious houses, and 
the rise of three universities, must not be left 
out of account. Gifts to the infant universities, 
the records of which we possess, prove that for 
humble folk the tenure of property was com- 
paratively secure, and that there was a large 
amount of comfort among the people. Under 
James IV, trade and commerce prospered, and 

The War of Independence 6 


the Scottish navy rivalled that of the Tudors. 
The century in which Scottish prosperity received 
its most severe blows immediately succeeded the 
Union of the Crowns. If for three hundred 
years the civilizing^ influence of England can 
scarcely be traced in the history of Scottish pro- 
gress, that of France was predominant, and 
Scotland cannot entirely regret the fact. Scot- 
land, from the date of Bannockburn to that of 
Pinkie, will not suffer from a comparison with 
the England which underwent the strain of the 
long French wars, the civil broils of Lancaster 
and York, and the oppression of the Tudors. 
Moreover, there is one further consideration 
which should not be overlooked. The postpone- 
ment of an English union till the seventeenth 
century enabled Scotland to work out its own 
reformation of religion in the way best adapted to 
the national needs, and it is difficult to estimate, 
from the material stand-point alone, the impor- 
tance of this factor in the national progress. 
The inspiration and the education which the 
Scottish Church has given to the Scottish people 
has found one result in the impulse it has 
afforded to the growth of material prosperity, 
and it is not easy to regret that Scotland, at 
the date of the Reformation, was free to work 
out its own ecclesiastical destiny. 

64 Englatid and Scotland 



I 328- I 399 

Almost immediately after the conclusion of the 
Treaty of Northampton, the conditions of govern- 
ment in England and Scotland were reversed. 
Since the death of Edward I, Scotland, under 
a strong king, had gained by the weakness of 
the English sovereign; now England, under the 
energetic rule of Edward III, was to profit by 
the death of King Robert and by the succession 
of a minor. On the 7th June, 1329, King Robert 
died (probably a leper) at his castle of Cardross, 
on the Clyde, and left the Scottish throne to his 
five-year-old son, David II. In October of the 
following year the young Edward III of Eng- 
land threw off the yoke of the Mortimers and 
established his personal rule, and came almost 
immediately into conflict with Scotland. The 
Scottish regent was Randolph or Ranulph, 
Earl of Moray, the companion of Bruce and 
the Black Douglas^ in the exploits of the great 
war. Possibly because Edward III had afforded 
protection to the Pretender, Edward Balliol, the 

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

Edward III and Scotland 65 

eldest son of John Balliol, and had received him 
at the EngHsh court, Randolph refused to carry 
out the provisions of the Treaty of Northampton, 
by which their lands were to be restored to the 
** Disinherited ", i.e. to barons whose property 
in Scotland had been forfeited because they had 
adopted the English side in the war. A some- 
what serious situation was thus created, and 
Edward, not unnaturally, took advantage of it 
to disown the Treaty of Northampton, which 
had been negotiated by the Mortimers during 
his minority, and which was extremely unpopular 
in England. He at once recognized Edward 
Balliol as King of Scotland. The only defence 
of Randolph's action is the probability that he 
suspected Edward to be in search of a pretext 
for refusing to be bound by a treaty made in 
such circumstances, and if a struggle were to 
ensue, it was certainly desirable not to increase 
the power of the English party. Edward pro- 
ceeded to assist Balliol in an expedition to 
Scotland, which Mr. Lang describes as "prac- 
tically an Anglo-Norman filibustering expedition, 
winked at by the home government, the filibusters 
being neither more nor less Scottish than most 
of our noblesse''. But before Balliol reached 
Scotland, the last of the paladins whose names 
have been immortalized by the Bruce's wars, 
had disappeared from the scene. Randolph 
died at Musselburgh in July, 1332, and Scotland 
was left leaderless. The new regent, the Earl 

66 E^igland and Scotland 

of Mar, was quite incapable of dealing with the 
situation. When Balliol landed at Kinghorn 
in August, he made his way unmolested till he 
reached the river Earn, on his way to Perth. 
The regent had taken up a position near 
Dupplin, and was at the head of a force which 
considerably outnumbered the English. But the 
Scots had failed to learn the lesson taught by 
Edward I at Falkirk and by Bruce at Bannock- 
burn. The English succeeded in crossing the 
Earn by night, and took up a position opposite 
the hill on which the Scots were encamped. 
Their archers were so arranged as practically 
to surround the Scots, who attacked in three 
divisions, armed with pikes, making no attempt 
even to harass the thin lines of archers who were 
extended on each side of the English main body. 
But the unerring aim of the archers could not 
fail to render the Scottish attack innocuous. The 
English stood their oround while line after line 
of the Scots hurled themselves against them, only 
to be struck down by the gray-goose shafts. 
At last the attack degenerated into a complete 
rout, and the English made good their victory 
by an indiscriminate massacre. 

The immediate result of the battle of Dupplin 
Moor was that "Edward I of Scotland" entered 
upon a reign which lasted almost exactly twelve 
weeks. He was crowned at Scone on September 
24th, 1332, and unreservedly acknowledged him- 
self the vassal of the King of England. On the 

Edward III and Scotland 67 

1 6th December the new king" was at Annan, 
when an unexpected attack was made upon him 
by a small force, led, very appropriately, by 
a son of Randolph, Earl of Moray, and by the 
young- brother of the Lord James of Douglas. 
Balliol fled to Carlisle, *'one leg booted and 
the other naked ", and there awaited the help 
of his liege lord, who prepared to invade Scot- 
land in May. Meanwhile the patriotic party 
had failed to take advantage of their opportunity. 
Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell, the regent chosen 
to succeed Mar (who had fallen at Dupplin), had 
been captured in a skirmish near Roxburgh, 
either in November, 1332, or in April, 1333, and 
was succeeded in turn by Sir Archibald Douglas, 
the hero of the Annan episode, but destined to 
be better known as '^Tyneman the Unlucky". 
The young king had been sent for safety to 

In April, Balliol was again in Scotland, and, 
in May, Edward III began to besiege Berwick, 
which had been promised him by Balliol. To 
defend Berwick, the Scots were forced to fight 
a pitched battle, which proved a repetition of 
Dupplin Moor. Berwick had promised to sur- 
render if it were not relieved by a fixed date. 
When the day arrived, a small body of Scots had 
succeeded in breaking through the English lines, 
and Sir Archibald Douglas had led a larger force 
to ravage Northumberland. On these grounds 
Berwick held that it had been in fact relieved; 

68 England and Scotland 

but Edward III, who lacked his grandfather's 
nice appreciation of situations where law and fact 
are at variance, replied by hang-ing a hostage. 
The regent was now forced to risk a battle in 
the hope of saving Berwick, and he marched 
southwards, towards Berwick, with a large army. 
Edward, following the precedent of Dupplin, 
occupied a favourable position at Halidon Hill, 
with his front protected by a marsh. He drew 
up his line in the order that had been so success- 
ful at Dupplin, and the same result followed. 
Each successive body of Scottish pikemen was 
cut down by a shower of English arrows, before 
being able even to strike a blow. The regent 
was slain, and Moray, his companion in arms, 
fled to France, soon to return to strike another 
blow for Scotland. 

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

" Scots out of Berwick and out of Aberdeen, 
At the Burn of Bannock, ye were far too keen. 
Many g'uiltless 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! 

Edward III and Scotland 69 

There, wretch, shalt thou stay and wait a weary while; 
Thy dwelling in Dundee is lost for ever by thy guile. "^ 

In Scotland, the party of independence was, 
for the time, helpless. Edward and Balliol 
divided the country between them. The eight 
counties of Dumfries, Roxburgh, Berwick, Sel- 
kirk, Peebles, Haddington, Edinburgh, and Lin- 
lithgow formed the English king's share of the 
spoil, along with a reassertion of his supremacy 
over the rest of Scotland. English officers began 
to rule between the Tweed and the Forth. But 
the cause of independence was never really hope- 
less. Balliol and the English party were soon 
weakened by internal dissensions, and the leaders 
on the patriotic side were not slow to take advan- 
tage of the opportunities thus given them. It 
was, indeed, necessary to send King David and 
his wife to France, and they landed at Boulogne 
in May, 1334. But from France, in return, came 
the young Earl of Moray, who, along with Robert 
the High Steward, son of Marjory Bruce, and 
next heir to the throne, took up the duties of 
guardians. The arrival of Moray gave fresh life 
to the cause, but there is little interest in the 
records of the struggle. The Scots won two small 
successes at the Borough-Muir of Edinburgh and 
at Kilblain. But the victory in the skirmish at the 
Borough-Muir (August, 1335) was more unfortu- 
nate than defeat, for it deprived Scotland for some 

> Minot. Tr. F. York Powell 

70 England and Scotland 

time of the services of the Earl of Moray. He 
had captured Guy de Namur and conducted him 
to the borders, and was himself taken prisoner 
while on his journey northwards. Sir Andrew 
Moray of Bothwell, who had been made g-uardian 
after the battle of Dupplin, and was captured in 
April, 1333, had now been ransomed, and he was 
again recognized as regent for David II. So 
strong was the Scottish party that Balliol had 
to flee to England for assistance, and, in 1336, 
Edward III again appeared in Scotland. It was 
not a very heroic effort for the future victor of 
Crecy; he marched northwards to Elgin, and, 
on his way home, burned the town of Aberdeen. 

As in the first war the turning-point had 
proved to be the death of Edward I in the summer 
of 1307, so now, exactly thirty years later, came 
another decisive event. In the autumn of 1337, 
Edward III first styled himself King of France, 
and the diversion of his energies from the Scots 
to their French allies rendered possible the final 
overthrow of Balliol and the Scottish traitors. 
The circumstances are, however, parallel only to 
the extent that an intervention of fortune rendered 
possible the victory of Scottish freedom. In 1337 
there was no great leader: the hour had come, 
but not the man. For the next four years, castle 
after castle fell into Scottish hands; many of the 
tales are romantic enough, but they do not lead 
to a Bannockburn. The only incident of any 
significance is the defence of the castle of Dun- 

Ed/ward III and Scotland 71 

bar. The lord of Dunbar was the Earl of March, 

whose record throug^hout the troubles had been 

far from consistent, but who was now a supporter 

of King- David, largely throug^h the influence of 

his wife, famous as "Black Ag^nes ", a daug^hter 

of the great Randolph, Earl of Moray. From 

January to June, 1338, Black Agnes held Dunbar 

against English assaults by sea and land. Many 

romantic incidents have been related of these long 

months of siege : the stories of the Countess's 

use of a dust-cloth to repair the damage done by 

the English siege-machines to the battlements, 

and of her prophecy, made when the Earl of 

Salisbury brought a "sow" or shed fitted to 

protect soldiers in the manner of the Roman 


" Beware, Montagow, 

For farrow shall thy sow", 

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

"Came I early, came I late, 
I found Ag-nes at the g'ate", 

they sang as the explanation of their failure. 

The defence of Dunbar was followed by the 
surrender of Perth and the capture of the castles 
of Stirling and Edinburgh, and in June, 1341, 

England and Scotland 


David II returned to Scotland, from which 
Balliol had fled. David was now seventeen 
years of ag^e, and he had a great opportunity. 
Scotland was again free, and was prepared to 
rally round its national sovereign and the son 
of the Bruce. The English foe was engaged in 
a great struggle with France, and difficulties 
had arisen between the English king and his 
Parliament. But the unworthy son of the great 
Robert proved only a source of weakness to his 
supporters. The only redeeming feature of his 
policy is that it was, at first, inspired by loyalty 
to his French protectors. In their interest he 
made, in the year of the Crecy campaign, an 
incursion into England, thus ending a truce made 
in 1343. After the usual preliminary ravaging, 
he reached Neville's Cross, near Durham, in the 
month of October. There he found a force pre- 
pared to meet him, led, as at Northallerton and 
at Mitton, by the clergy of the northern pro- 
vince. The battle was a repetition of Dupplin 
and Halidon Hill, and a rehearsal of Homildon 
and Flodden. Scots and English alike were 
drawn up in the usual three divisions; the left, 
centre, and right being led respectively, on the 
one side, by Robert the Steward, King David, 
and Randolph, and, on the other, by Rokeby, 
Archbishop Neville, and Henry Percy. The 
English archers were, as usual, spread out so 
as to command both the Scottish wings. They 
were met by no cavalry charge, and they soon 

Edward III and Scotland 73 

threw the Scottish left into confusion, and pre- 
pared the way for an assault upon the centre. 
Randolph was killed; the king' was captured, and 
for eleven years he remained a prisoner in Eng- 
land. Meanwhile Robert the Steward (still the 
heir to the throne, for David had no children) 
ruled in Scotland. There is reason for believ- 
ing' that, in 1352, David was allowed to go 
to Scotland to raise a ransom, and, two years 
later, an arrangement was actually made for his 
release. But Robert the Steward and David had 
always been on bad terms, and, after everything^ 
had been formally settled, the Scots decided to 
remain loyal to their French allies. Hostilities 
recommenced; in August, 1355, the Scots won 
a small victory at Nesbit in Berwickshire, and 
captured the town of Berwick. Early in the 
following' year it was retaken by Edward III, 
who proclaimed himself the successor of Balliol, 
and mercilessly ravagfed the Lowlands. So great 
was his destruction of churches and relio-ious 
houses that the invasion is remembered as the 
"Burned Candlemas". Peace was made in 
1357, and David's ransom was fixed at 100,000 
marks. It was a huge sum; but in connection 
with the efforts made to raise it the burgesses 
acquired some influence in the government of the 

David's residence in France and in England 
had entirely deprived him of sympathy with the 
national aspirations of his subjects. He loved 

74 England and Scotland 

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

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

Echvard III and Scotland 75 

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

David II died, unregretted, in February, 1370- 
137 1. It was fortunate for Scotland that the 
miserable seven years which remained to Edward 
III, and the reign of his unfortunate grandson, 
were so full of trouble for England. Robert the 
Steward succeeded his uncle without much diffi- 
culty. He was fifty-six years of age, already an 
old man for those days, eight years the senior 
of the nephew whom he succeeded. The main 
lines of the foreign policy of his reign may be 
briefly indicated; but its chief interest lies in a 
series of border raids, the story of which is too 
intricate and of too slight importance to concern 
us. The new king began by entering into an 
agreement with France, of a more definite 
description than any previous arrangement, and 


76 England and Scotland 

the year 1372 may be taken as marking" the 
formal inauguration of the Franco - Scottish 
League. The truce with England was continued 
and was renewed in 1380, three years before the 
date originally fixed for its expiry. The renewal 
was necessitated by various acts of hostility which 
had rendered it, in effect, a dead letter. The 
English were still in possession of such Scottish 
strongholds as Roxburgh, Berwick, and Loch- 
maben, and round these there was continual war- 
fare. The Scots sacked the town of Roxburgh 
in 1377, but without regaining the castle, and, in 
1378, they again obtained possession of Berwick. 
John of Gaunt, who had forced the government 
of his nephew to acknowledge his importance as 
a factor in English politics, was entrusted with 
the command of an army directed against Scot- 
land. He met the Scottish representatives at 
Berwick, which was again in English hands, and 
agreed to confirm the existing truce, which was 
maintained till 1384, when Scotland was included 
in the English truce with France. The truce, 
which was to last for eight months, was ne- 
gotiated in France in January, 1383-84. In 
February and March, John of Gaunt conducted 
a ravaging expedition into Scotland as far as 
Edinburgh. During the Peasants' Revolt he had 
taken refuge in Scotland, and the chroniclers tell 
us that the expedition of 1384 was singularly 
merciful. Still, it was an act of war, and the 
Scots may reasonably have expressed surprise. 

Edward III and Scotland 77 

when, in April, the French ambassadors (who 
had been detained in England since February) 
arrived in Edinburg-h, and announced that 
Scotland and England had been at peace since 
January. About the same time there occurred 
two border forays. Some French knights, with 
their Scottish hosts, made an incursion into 
England, and the Percies, along with the 
Earl of Nottingham, conducted a devastating 
raid in Scotland, laying waste the Lothians. 
About the date of both events there is some 
doubt; probably the Percy invasion was in re- 
taliation for the French affair. But all the time 
the two countries were nominally at peace, and 
it was not till May, 1385, that they were techni- 
cally in a state of war. In that month a French 
army was sent to aid the Scots, and, under the 
command of John de Vienne, it took part in an 
incursion on a somewhat larger scale than the 
usual raids. The English replied, in the month 
of August, by an invasion conducted by Richard 
II in person, at the head of a large army, while 
the Scots, declining a battle, wasted Cumber- 
land. Richard sacked Edinburgh and burned the 
great religious houses of Dryburgh, Melrose, and 
Newbattle, but was forced to retire without hav- 
ing made any real conquest. The Scots adopted 
their invariable custom of retreating after laying 
waste the country, so as to deprive the English 
of provender; even the impatience of their 
French allies failed to persuade them to give 

78 England and Scotland 

battle to King- Richard's greatly superior forces. 
From Scotland the English king marched to 
London, to commence the great struggle which 
led to the impeachment of Suffolk and the rise 
of the Lords Appellant. While England was 
thus occupied, the Scots, under the Earl of Fife, 
second son of Robert II (better known as the 
Duke of Albany), and the Earl of Douglas, made 
great preparations for an invasion. Fife took his 
men into the western counties and ravaged Cum- 
berland and Westmoreland, but without any im- 
portant incident. Douglas attacked the country 
of his old enemies, the Percies, and won the 
victory of Otterburn or Chevy Chase (August, 
1388), the most romantic of all the fights between 
Scots and English. The Scots lost their leader, 
but the English were completely defeated, and 
Harry Hotspur, the son of Northumberland, was 
made a prisoner. Chevy Chase is the subject 
of many ballads and legends, and it is indis- 
solubly connected with the story of the House 
of Douglas : 

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

From the date of Otterburn to the accession of 
Henry IV there was peace between Scotland and 
England, except for the never-ending border 
skirmishes. Robert II died in 1390, and was 
succeeded by his eldest son, John, Earl of Car- 
rick, who took the title of Robert III, to avoid 

Edward 11/ and Scotland 79 

the unlucky associations of the name of John, 
which had acquired an unpleasant notoriety from 
John Balliol as well as John of England and the 
unfortunate John of France. Under the new 
king- the treaty with France was confirmed, but 
continuous truces were made with England till 
the deposition of Richard II. 

8o England and Scotland 



I 400- I 500 

When Henry of Lancaster placed himself on 
his cousin's throne, Scotland was divided between 
the supporters of the Duke of Rothesay, the 
eldest son of Robert HI and heir to the crown, 
and the adherents of the Duke of Albany, the 
brother of the old king. In 1399, Rothesay had 
just succeeded his uncle as regent, and to him, 
as to Henry IV, there was a strong temptation 
to acquire popularity by a spirited foreign policy. 
The Scots hesitated to acknowledge Henry as 
King of England, and he, in turn, seems to have 
resolved upon an invasion of Scotland as the first 
military event of his reign. He, accordingly, 
raised the old claim of homage, and marched into 
Scotland to demand the fealty of Robert HI and 
his barons. As usual, we find in Scotland some 
malcontents, who form an English party. The 
leader of the English intrigue on this occasion 
was the Scots Earl of March, ^ the son of Black 
Agnes. The Duke of Rothesay had been be- 
trothed to the daughter of March, but had 

1 Georgre Dunbar, Earl of March, must be carefully distlng-uished from 
the child, Edmund Mortimer, the English Earl of March, g-randson of 
Lionel of Clarence, and direct heir to the English throne after Richard IL 

Scotland^ Lancaster^ and York 8i 

married in February, 1399 -1400, a daughter of 
the Earl of Douglas, the hereditary foe of March. 
The Dunbar allegiance had always been doubtful, 
and it was only the influence of the great coun- 
tess that had brought it to the patriotic side. In 
August, 1400, Henry marched into Scotland, and 
besieged for three days the castle of Edinburgh, 
which was successfully defended by the regent, 
while Albany was at the head of an army which 
made no attempt to interfere with Henry's move- 
ments. Difficulties in Wales now attracted 
Henry's attention, and he left Scotland without 
having accomplished anything, and leaving the 
record of the mildest and most merciful English 
invasion of Scotland. The necessities of his 
position in England may explain his abstaining 
from spoiling religious houses as his predeces- 
sors had done, but the chroniclers tell us that 
he gave protection to every town that asked it. 
While Henry was suppressing the Welsh revolt 
and negotiating with his Parliament, Albany and 
Rothesay were struggling for the government 
of Scotland. Rothesay fell from power in 1401, 
and in March, 1402, he died at Falkland. 
Contemporary rumour and subsequent legend 
attributed his death to Albany, and, as in the 
case of Richard H, the method of death was 
supposed to be starvation. Sir Walter has told 
the story in The Fair Maid of Perth. Albany, 
who had succeeded him as regent or guardian, 
made no effort to end the meaningless war with 


b2 Engla7id and Scotland 

England, which went fitfully on. An idiot 
mendicant, who was represented to be Richard 
II, gave the Scots their first opportunity of 
supporting a pretender to the English throne; 
but the pretence was too ridiculous to be seriously 
maintained. The French refused to take any 
part in such a scheme, and the pseudo-Richard 
served only to annoy Henry IV, and scarcely 
gave even a semblance of significance to the war, 
which really degenerated into a series of border 
raids, one of which was of unusual importance. 
Henry had no intention of seriously prosecuting 
the claim of homage, and the continuance of 
hostilities is really explained by the ill-will between 
March and Douglas and the old feud between the 
Douglases and the Percies. In June, 1402, the 
Scots w^ere defeated in a skirmish at Nesbit in 
Berwickshire (the scene of a small Scottish 
victory in 1355), and, in the following September, 
occurred the disaster of Homildon Hill. Douglas 
and Murdoch Stewart, the eldest son of Albany, 
had collected a large army, and the incursion was 
raised to the level of something like national 
importance. They marched into England and 
took up a strong position on Homildon Hill 
or Heugh. The Percies, under Northumberland 
and Hotspur, sent against them a body of English 
archers, who easily outranged the Scottish bow- 
men, and threw the army into confusion. Then 
ensued, as at Dupplin and Halidon Hill, a simple 
massacre. Murdoch Stewart and Douglas were 

Scotland^ Lancaster^ and York ^^i 

taken captive with several other Scots lords. 
Close on Homildon Hill followed the rebellion 
of the Percies, and the result of the English 
victory at Homildon was merely to create a new 
difficulty for Henry IV. The sudden nature of 
the Percy revolt is indicated by the fact that, 
when Albany marched to relieve a Scottish 
stronghold which they were besieging, he found 
that the enemy had entered into an alliance with 
the House of Douglas, their ancient foes, and 
were turning their arms against the English king. 
Percy and Douglas fought together at Shrews- 
bury, while the Earl of March was in the ranks 
of King Henry. 

The battle of Shrewsbury was fought in July, 
1403. In 1405, Northumberland, a traitor for a 
second time, took refuge in Scotland, and re- 
ceived a dubious protection from Albany, who 
was ready to sell him should any opportunity 
arise. A truce which had been arranged between 
Scotland and England expired in April, 1405, 
and the two countries were technically in a state 
of war, although there were no great military 
operations in progress.^ In the spring of 1406, 
Albany sent the heir to the Scottish throne. Prince 
James, to be educated in France. The vessel in 
which he sailed was captured by the English off 
Flamborough Head, and the prince was taken to 

* In the summer of 1405 the English ravaged Arran, and the Scots 
sacked Berwick. There were also some naval skirmishes later in the 

84 England and Scotland 

Henry IV. It has been a tradition in Scotland 
that James was captured in time of truce, and 
Wyntoun uses the incident to point a moral with 
regard to the natural deceitfulness of the English 
heart : 

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

Albany's attention was now diverted by a 
danger threatened by the Highland portion of 
the kingdom. Scotland, south of Forth and 
Clyde, along with the east coast up to the Moray 
Firth, had been rapidly affected by the English, 
French, and Norman influences, of which we 

Scotland^ Lancaster^ and York 85 

have spoken. The inhabitants of the more re- 
mote Higfhland districts and of the western isles 
had remained uncorrupted by civiHzation of any- 
kind, and ever since the reign of Malcolm Can- 
more there had been a militant reaction against 
the changes of St. Margaret and David I ; from 
the eleventh century to the thirteenth, the Scot- 
tish kings were scarcely ever free from Celtic 
pretenders and Celtic revolts.^ The inhabitants 
of the west coast and of the isles were very 
largely of Scandinavian blood, and it was not 
till 1266 that the western isles definitely passed 
from Norway to the Scottish crown. The Eng- 
lish had employed several opportunities of ally- 
ing themselves with these discontented Scots- 
men; but Mr. Freeman's general statement, 
already quoted, that "the true Scots, out of 
hatred to the Saxons nearest them, leagued with 
the Saxons farther off", is very far from a fair 
representation of the facts. We have seen that 
Highlander and Islesman fought under David 
I at the battle of the Standard, against the 
'* Saxons farther off", and that although the 
death of Comyn ranged against Bruce the High- 
landers of Argyll, numbers of Highlanders were 
led to victory at Bannockburn by Earl Randolph; 
and Angus Og and the Islesmen formed part of 
the Scottish reserves and stood side by side with 
the men of Carrick, under the leadership of King 
Robert. During the troubles which followed 

' Cf. App. B. 

86 England and Scotland 

King Robert's death, the Lords of the Isles had 
resumed their general attitude of opposition. It 
was an opposition very natural in the circum- 
stances, the rebellion of a powerful vassal against 
a weak central government, a reaction against 
the forces of civilization. But it has never 
been shown that it was an opposition in any 
way racial; the complaint that the Lowlands of 
Scotland have been "rent by the Saxon from 
the Gael", in the manner of a racial disposses- 
sion, belongs to "The Lady of the Lake", not 
to sober history. All Scotland, indeed, has now, 
in one sense, been "rent by the Saxon" from 
the Celt. " Let no one doubt the civilization of 
these islands," wrote Dr. Johnson, in Skye, "for 
Portree possesses a jail." The Highlands and 
islands have been the last portions of Scotland 
to succumb to Anglo-Saxon influences; that the 
Lowlands formed an earlier victim does not 
prove that their racial complexion is different. 
The incident of which we have now to speak has 
frequently been quoted as a crowning proof of 
the difference between the Lowlanders and the 
"true Scots". Donald of the Isles had a quarrel 
with the Regent Albany, and, in 1408, entered 
into an agreement with Henry IV, to whom he 
owned allegiance. But this very quarrel arose 
about the earldom of Ross, which was claimed 
by Donald (himself a grandson of Robert II) in 
right of his wife, a member of the Leslie family. 
The " assertor of Celtic nationality" was thus the 

Scotland^ La7icaster^ and Y^ork 87 

son of one Lowland woman and the husband of 
another. When he entered the Scottish main- 
land his progfress was first opposed, not by the 
Lowlanders, but by the Mackays of Caithness, 
who were defeated near Dingwall, and the 
Frasers immediately afterwards received what 
the historians of the Clan Donald term a 
"well-merited chastisement".^ Donald pursued 
his victorious march to Aberdeenshire, tempted 
by the prospect of plundering- Aberdeen. It is 
interesting to note that, while the battle which 
has given significance to the record of the 
dispute was fought for the Lowland town of 
Aberdeen in a Lowland part of Aberdeenshire, 
the very name of the town is Celtic, and the dis- 
trict in which the battlefield of Harlaw is situated 
abounds to this day in Celtic place-names, and, 
not many miles away, the Gaelic tongue may 
still be heard at Braemar or at Tomintoul. It 
was not to a racial battle between Celt and 
Saxon that the Earl of Mar and the Provost of 
Aberdeen, aided by the Frasers, marched out to 
Harlaw, in July, 141 1, to meet Donald of the 
Isles. Had the clansmen been victorious there 
would certainly have been a Celtic revival; but 
this was not the danger most dreaded by the 
victorious Lowlanders. The battle of Harlaw 
was part of the struggle with England. Donald 
of the Isles was the enemy of Scottish inde- 

' The Clan Donald, vol. i, p. 154. The Mackenzies were also against 
the Celtic hero. 

■88 England and Scotland 

pendence, and his success would mean English 
supremacy. He had taken up the role of "the 
Disinherited " of the preceding- century, just as 
the Earl of March had done some years before. 
As time passed, and civilization progressed in 
the Lowlands while the Highlands maintained 
their integrity, the feeling of separation grew 
more strongly marked; and as the inhabitants 
of the Lowlands intermarried with French and 
English, the differences of blood became more 
evident and hostility became unavoidable. But 
any such abrupt racial division as Mr. Freeman 
drew between the true Scots and the Scottish 
Lowlanders stands much in need of proof. 

Harlaw was an incident in the never-ending 
struggle with England. It was succeeded, in 
1416 or 141 7, by an unfortunate expedition into 
England, known as the "Foul Raid", and after 
the Foul Raid came the battle of Bauge. They 
are all part of one and the same story; although 
Harlaw might seem an internal complication 
and Bauge an act of unprovoked aggression, 
both are really as much part of the Eng- 
lish war as is the Foul Raid or the battle of 
Bannockburn itself. The invasion of France by 
Henry V reminded the Scots that the Eng- 
lish could be attacked on French soil as well 
as in Northumberland. So the Earl of Buchan, 
a son of Albany, was sent to France at the 
head of an army, in answer to the dauphin's 
request for help. In March, 1421, the Scots 

Scotland^ Lancaster^ and York 89 

defeated the English at Baug-c and captured 
the Earl of Somerset. The death of Henry V, 
in the following year, and the difficulties of the 
English government led to the return of the 
young King of Scots. The Regent Albany had 
been succeeded in 1420 by his son, who was 
weak and incompetent, and Scotland longed for 
its rightful king. James had been carefully 
educated in England, and the dreary years of 
his captivity have enriched Scottish literature 
by the Kings Quair: 

** More sweet than ever a poet's heart 
Gave yet to the English tong-ue". 

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

The troublous reign of James I gave him but 
little time for conducting a foreign war, and the 

go Englafid and Scotland 

truce which was made when the king was ran- 
somed continued till 1433. It had been sug- 
gested that the peace between England and 
Scotland should extend to the Scottish troops 
serving in France, but no such clause was in- 
serted in the actual arrangement made, and it is 
almost certain that James could not have en- 
forced it, even had he wished to do so. He 
gave, however, no indication of holding lightly 
the ties that bound Scotland to France, and, in 
1428, agreed to the marriage of his infant daugh- 
ter, Margaret, to the dauphin. Meanwhile, the 
Scottish levies had been taking their full share in 
the struggle for freedom in which France was 
engaged. At Crevant, near Auxerre, in July, 
1423, the Earl of Buchan, now Constable of 
France, was defeated by Salisbury, and, thirteen 
months later, Buchan and the Earl of Douglas 
(Duke of Touraine) fell on the disastrous field of 
Verneuil. At the Battle of the Herrings (an 
attack upon a French convoy carrying Lenten 
food to the besiegers of Orleans, made near 
Janville, in February, 1429), the Scots, under the 
new constable. Sir John Stewart of Darnley, 
committed the old error of Halidon and Homil- 
don, and their impetuous valour could not avail 
against the English archers. They shared in 
the victory of Pathay, gained by the Maid of 
Orleans in June 1429, almost on the anniversary 
of Bannockburn, and they continued to follow 
the Maid through the last fateful months of her 

Scotland^ Lajicaster^ and York gi 

warfare. So g'reat a part had Scotsmen taken in 
the French wars that, on the expiry of the truce 
in 1433, the English offered to restore not only- 
Roxburgh but also Berwick to Scotland. But 
the French alliance was destined to endure for 
more than another century, and James declined, 
thus bringing about a slight resuscitation of war- 
like operations. The Scots won a victory at 
Piperden, near Berwick, in 1435 or 1436, and in 
the summer of 1436, when the Princess Margaret 
was on her way to France to enter into her ill- 
starred union with the dauphin, the English 
made an attempt to take her captive. James 
replied by an attempt upon Roxburgh, but gave 
it up without having accomplished anything, and 
returned to spend his last Christmas at Perth. 
His twelve years in Scotland had been mainly 
occupied in attempts to reduce his rebellious 
subjects, especially in the Highlands, to obe- 
dience and loyalty, and he had roused much 
implacable resentment. So the poet-king was 
murdered at Perth in February, 1436-37, and his 
English widow was left to guard her son, the 
child sovereign, now in his seventh year. It was 
probably under her influence that a truce of nine 
years was made. 

When the truce came to an end, Scotland was 
in the interval between the two contests with 
the House of Douglas which mark the reign 
of James H. William the sixth earl and his 
brother David had been entrapped and beheaded 


92 England and Scotland 

by the governors of the boy king in November, 
1440, and the new earl, James the Gross, died in 
1443, and was succeeded by his son, WilHam, 
the eighth earl, who remained for some years 
on good terms with the king. Accordingly, we 
find that, when the English burned the town of 
Dunbar in May, 1448, Douglas replied, in the 
following month, by sacking Alnwick. Retalia- 
tion came in the shape of an assault upon Dum- 
fries in the end of June, and the Scots, with 
Douglas at their head, burned Warkworth in 
July. The successive attacks on Alnwick and 
Warkworth roused the Percies to a greater effort, 
and, in October, they invaded Scotland, and 
were defeated at the battle of Sark or Lochmaben 
Stone. ^ In 1449 the Franco-Scottish League 
was strengthened by the marriage of King James 
to Marie of Gueldres. 

Now began the second struggle with the Dou- 
glases. Their great possessions, their rights 
as Wardens of the Marches, their prestige in 
Scottish history made them dangerous subjects 
for a weak royal house. Since the death of 
the good Lord James their loyalty to the kings 
of Scotland had not been unbroken, and it is 
pnJbable that their suppression was inevitable in 
the interests of a strong central government. 
But the perfidy with which James, with his own 

' There is great doubt as to whether these events belong- to the year 
1448 or 1449. Mr. Lang, with considerable probability, assigns them to 

Scotland^ Lancaster^ and York 93 

hand, murdered the Earl, in February, 1451-52, 
can scarcely be condoned, and it has created a 
sympathy for the Doug-lases which their history 
scarcely merits. James had now entered upon 
a decisive struggle with the great House, which 
a temporary reconciliation with the new earl, in 
1453, only served to prolong. The quarrel is 
interesting for our purpose because it largely 
decided the relations between Scotland and the 
rival lines of Lancaster and York. In 1455, 
when the Douglases were finally suppressed and 
their estates were forfeited, the Yorkists first took 
up arms against Henry VI. Douglas had at- 
tempted intrigues with the Lord of the Isles, with 
the Lancastrians, and with the Yorkists in turn, 
and, about 1454, he came to an understanding 
with the Duke of York. We find, therefore, 
during the years which followed the first battle 
of St. Albans, a revival of active hostilities with 
England. In 1456, James invaded England and 
harried Northumberland in the interests of the 
Lancastrians. During the temporary loss of 
power by the Duke of York, in 1457, a truce was 
concluded, but it was broken after the reconcilia- 
tion of York to Henry VI in 1458, and when the 
battle of Northampton, in July, 1460, left the 
Yorkists again triumphant, James marched to 
attempt the recovery of Roxburgh.^ James I, 

'James's army contained a considerable proportion of Islesmen, who, 
as at Northallerton and at Bannockburn, fought against "the Saxons 
farther oft". 

94 England and Scotland 

as we have seen, had abandoned the siege of 
Roxburgh Castle only to go to his death; 
his son found his death while attempting the 
same task. On Sunday, the 3rd of August, 

1460, he was killed by the bursting of a cannon, 
the mechanism of which had attracted his atten- 
tion and made him, according to Pitscottie, 
"more curious than became him or the majesty 
of a king". 

The year 1461 saw Edward IV placed on his 
uneasy throne, and a boy of ten years reigning 
over the turbulent kingdom of Scotland. The 
Scots had regained Roxburgh a few days after 
the death of King James, and they followed up 
their success by the capture of Wark. But a 
greater triumph was in store. When Margaret 
of Anjou, after rescuing her husband, Henry VI, 
at the second battle of St. Albans, in February, 

146 1, met, in March, the great disaster of Tow- 
ton, she fled with Henry to Scotland, where she 
had been received when preparing for the expedi- 
tion which had proved so unfortunate. On her 
second visit she brought with her the surrender 
of Berwick, which, in April, 1461, became once 
more a Scots town, and was represented in the 
Parliament which met in 1469. In gratitude 
for the gift, the Scots made an invasion of Eng- 
land in June, 1461, and besieged Carlisle, but 
were forced to retire without having afforded any 
real assistance to the Lancastrian cause. There 
was now a division of opinion in Scotland with 

Scotland^ Lmtcastery and York 95 

regfard to supporting- the Lancastrian cause. 
The policy of the late king was maintained by 
the great Bishop Kennedy, who himself enter- 
tained Henry VI in the Castle of St. Andrews. 
But the queen-mother, Mary of Gueldres, was 
a niece of the Duke of Burgundy, and was, 
through his influence, persuaded to go over to 
the side of the White Rose. While Edward IV 
remained on unfriendly terms with Louis XI of 
France, Kennedy had not much difficulty in 
resisting the Yorkist proclivities of the queen- 
mother, and in keeping Scotland loyal to the 
Red Rose. They were able to render their allies 
but little assistance, and their opposition gave 
the astute Edward IV an opportunity of intrigue. 
John of the Isles took advantage of the minority 
of James III to break the peace into which he 
had been brought by James II, and the exiled 
Earl of Douglas concluded an agreement be- 
tween the Lord of the Isles and the King ot 
England. But when, in October, 1463, Edward 
IV came to terms with Louis XI, Bishop 
Kennedy was willing to join Mary of Gueldres 
in deserting the doomed House of Lancaster. 
Mary did not live to see the success of her 
policy; but peace was made for a period of 
fifteen years, and Scotland had no share in the 
brief Lancastrian restoration of 1470. The threat- 
ening relations between England and France 
nearly led to a rupture in 1473, but the result 
was only to strengthen the agreement, and it 

9^ England and Scotland 

was arranged that the infant heir of James III 
should marry the Princess CeciHa, Edward's 
daughter. In 1479-80, when the French were 
again alarmed by the diplomacy of Edward IV, 
we find an outbreak of hostilities, the precise 
cause of which is somewhat obscure. It is certain 
that Edward made no effort to preserve the peace, 
and he sent, in 1481, a fleet to attack the towns 
on the Firth of Forth, in revenge for a border 
raid for which James had attempted to apolcgize. 
Edward was unable to secure the services of 
his old ally, the Lord of the Isles, who had been 
again brought into subjection in the interval of 
peace, and who now joined in the national pre- 
parations for war with England. But there was 
still a rebel Earl of Douglas with whom to plot, 
and Edward was fortunate in obtaining the co- 
operation of the Duke of Albany, brother of 
James III, who had been exiled in 1479. Albany 
and Edward made a treaty in 1482, in which 
the former styled himself "Alexander, King of 
Scotland ", and promised to do homage to Ed- 
ward when he should obtain his throne. The 
only important events of the war are the re- 
capture of Berwick, in August, 1482, and an 
invasion of Scotland by the Duke of Gloucester. 
Berwick was never again in Scottish hands. 
Albany was unable to carry out the revolution 
contemplated in his treaty with Edward IV; but 
he was reinstated, and became for three months 
Lieutenant-General of the Realm of Scotland. 

Scotland^ Lancaster^ and York 97 

In March, 1482-83, he resigned this office, and, 
after a brief interval, in which he was reconciled 
to King James, was again forfeited in July, 1483. 
Edward IV had died on the gth of April, and 
Albany was unable to obtain any English aid. 
Along with the Earl of Douglas he made an 
attempt upon Scotland, but was defeated at Loch- 
maben in July, 1484. Thereafter, both he and 
his ally pass out of the story: Douglas died a 
prisoner in 1488; Albany escaped to France, 
where he was killed at a tournament in 1485; 
he left a son who was to take a great part in 
Scottish politics during the minority of James V. 
Richard III found sufficient difficulty in govern- 
ing England to prevent his desiring to continue 
unfriendly relations with Scotland, and he made, 
on his accession, something like a cordial peace 
with James III. It was arranged that James, now 
a widower,^ should marry Elizabeth Woodville, 
widow of Edward IV, and that his heir. Prince 
James, should marry a daughter of the Duke 
of Suffolk. James did not afford Richard any 
assistance in 1485, and after the battle of 
Bosworth he remained on friendly terms with 
Henry VII. A controversy about Berwick 
prevented the completion of negotiations for 
marriage alliances, but friendly relations were 
maintained till the revolution of 1488, in which 

' He had married, in 1469, Margaret, daug-hter of Christian I of Den- 
mark. The islands of Orkney and Shetland were assigned as payment 
for her dowry, and so passed, a few years later, under the Scottish Crown. 

g8 England and Scotland 

James III lost his life. Both James and his 
rebellious /nobles, who had proclaimed his son 
as king, attempted to obtain English assistance, 
but it was given to neither side. 

The new king, James IV, was young, brave, 
and ambitious. He was specially interested in 
the navy, and in the commercial prosperity of 
Scotland. It was scarcely possible that, in this 
way, difficulties with England could be avoided, 
for Henry VII was engaged in developing 
English trade, and encouraged English shipping. 
Accordingly, we find that, while the two countries 
were still nominally at peace, they were engaged 
in a naval warfare. Scotland was fortunate in 
the possession of some great sea-captains, notable 
among- whom were Sir Andrew Wood and Sir 
Andrew Barton.^ In 1489, Sir Andrew Wood, 
with two ships, the Yellow Carvel and the Flower, 
inflicted a severe defeat upon five English vessels 
which were engaged in a piratical expedition in 
the Firth of Forth. Henry VII, in great wrath, 
sent Stephen Bull, with "three great ships, well- 
manned, well-victualled, and well-artilleried ", to 
revenge the honour of the English navy, and 
after a severe fight Bull and his vessels were 
captured by the Scots. There was thus con- 
siderable irritation on both sides, and while 
the veteran intriguer, the Duchess of Burgundy, 
attempted to obtain James's assistance for the 

1 Cf. The Days of James IV, by Mr. G. Gregfory Smith, in the series 
of " Scottish History from Contemporary Writers ". 

Scotland^ Lancaster^ and York 99 

pretender, Perkin Warbeck, the pseudo-Duke 
of York, Henry entered into a compact with 
Archibald, Earl of Angus, well-known to readers 
of Marmio7i. The treachery of Angus led, how- 
ever, to no immediate result, and peace was 
maintained till 1495, although the French alliance 
w^as confirmed in 1491. The rupture of 1495 
was due solely to the desire of James to aid 
Maximilian in the attempt to dethrone Henry 
Vn in the interests of Warbeck. Henry, on 
his part, made every effort to retain the friend- 
ship of the Scottish king, and offered a marriage 
alliance with his eldest daughter, Margaret. 
James, however, was determined to strike a 
blow for his protege, and in November, 1495, 
Warbeck landed in Scotland, was received with 
great honour, assigned a pension, and wedded 
to the Lady Katharine Gordon, daughter of the 
greatest northern lord, the Earl of Huntly. In 
the following April, Ferdinand and Isabella, who 
were desirous of separating Scotland from France, 
tried to dissuade James from supporting Warbeck, 
and offered him a daughter in marriage, although 
the only available Spanish prmcesf was already 
promised to Prince Arthur oi England. But 
all efforts to avoid war were of no avail, and in 
September, 1496, James marched into England, 
ravaged the English borders, and returned to 
Scotland. The English replied by small border 
forays, but James's enthusiasrrt for his guest 
rapidly cooled; in July, 1497, Warbeck left 

loo England a7id Scotland 

Scotland. James did not immediately make 
peace, holding himself possibly in readiness in 
the event of Warbeck's attaining any success. 
In August he again invaded England, and 
attacked Norham Castle, provoking a counter- 
invasion of Scotland by the Earl of Surrey. 
In September, Warbeck was captured, and, in 
the same month, a truce was arranged between 
Scotland and England, by the Peace of Aytoun. 
There was, in the following year, an unimportant 
border skirmish; but with the Peace of Aytoun 
ended this attempt of the Scots to support 
a pretender to the English crown. The first 
Scottish interference in the troubles of Lancaster 
and York had been on behalf of the House of 
Lancaster; the story is ended with this Yorkist 
intrigue. When next there arose circumstances 
in any way similar, the sympathies of the Scots 
were enlisted on the side of their own Royal 
House of Stuart. 

Beginnings of the English Alliance loi 




When, in 1501, neg'otiations were in progress 
for the marriag-e of James IV to Margaret Tudor, 
Polydore Virgil tells us that the English Council 
raised the objection that Margaret or her descen- 
dants might succeed to the throne of England. 
"If it should fall out so," said Henry, "the 
realm of England will suffer no evil, since it 
will not be the addition of England to Scotland, 
but of Scotland to England." It is obvious 
that the English had every reason for desiring* 
to stop the irritating opposition of the Scots, 
which, while it never seriously endangered the 
realm, was frequently a cause of annoyance, 
and which hampered the efforts of English 
diplomacy. The Scots, on the other hand, 
were separated from the English by the 
memories of two centuries of constant war- 
fare, and they were bound by many ties to 
the enemies of England. The only King of 
Scots, since Alexander III, who had been on 
friendly terms with England, was James III, 
and his enemies had used the fact as a weapon 
against him. His successor had already twice 
refused the proffered English alliance, and when 

102 England and Scotland 

he at length accepted Henry's persistent proposal 
and the thrice-offered English princess, it was 
only after much hesitation and upon certain strict 
conditions. No Englishmen were to enter Scot- 
land "without letters commendatory of their own 
sovereign lord or safe conduct of his Warden 
of the Marches ". The marriage, though not 
especially flattering to the dignity of a monarch 
who had been encouraged to hope for the hand 
of a daughter of Spain, was notable as involving 
a recognition (the first since the Treaty of North- 
ampton) of the King of Scots as an independent 
sovereign. On the 8th of August, 1503, Margaret 
was married to James in the chapel of Holyrood. 
She was received with great rejoicing; the poet 
Dunbar, whom a recent visit to London had 
convinced that the English capital, with its 
"beryl streamis pleasant . . . where many 
a swan doth swim with wingis fair", was "the 
flower of cities all ", wrote the well-known poem 
on the Union of the Thistle and the Rose to 
welcome this second English Margaret to 
Scotland. But the time was not yet ripe for 
any real union of the Thistle and the Rose. 
Peace continued till the death of Henry VH; 
but during these years England was never at 
war with France. James threatened war with 
England in April, 1505, in the interests of the 
Duke of Gueldres; in 1508, he declined to give 
an understanding that he would not renew the 
old league with France, and he refused to be 

Beginnings of the English Alliance 103 

drawn, by Pope Julius II, into an attitude of 
opposition to that country. Even before the 
death of Henry VII, in 1509, there were troubles 
with regard to the borders, and it was evident 
that the "perpetual peace" arranged by the 
treaty of marriage was a sheer impossibility. 

Henry VIII succeeded to the throne of Eng- 
land in April, 1509; three years and five months 
later, in September, 15 13, was fought the battle 
of Flodden. The causes may soon be told. 
They fall under three heads. James and Henry 
were alike headstrong and impetuous, and they 
were alike ambitious of playing a considerable 
part in European affairs. They were, moreover, 
brothers-in-law, and, in the division of the inherit- 
ance of Henry VII, the King of England had, 
with characteristic Tudor avarice, retained jewels 
and other property which had been left to his 
sister, the Queen of Scots. In the second place, 
the ancient jealousies were again roused by 
disputes on the borders, and by naval warfare. 
James had long been engaged in '*the building 
of a fleet for the protection of our shores"; in 
151 1, he had built the Great Michael^ for which, 
it was said, the woods of Fife had been wasted. 
The Scottish fleet was frequently involved in 
quarrels with Henry's ships, and in August, 
151 1, 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 

I04 England and Scotland 

of England wrote with brotherly salutations to 
the King- of Scots of the robberies and evil 
doings of Andrew Barton ; and that it became 
not one prince to lay a breach of a league to 
another prince, in doing justice upon a pirate 
or thief ".^ These personal irritations and petty 
troubles might have proved harmless, and, had 
no European complications intervened, it is 
possible that there might have "from Fate's 
dark book a leaf been torn ", the leaf which tells 
of Flodden Field. But, in 151 1, Julius II formed 
the Holy League against France, and by the 
end of the year it included Spain, Austria, and 
England. The formation of a united Europe 
against the ancient ally of Scotland thoroughly 
alarmed James. It was true that, at the moment, 
England was willing to be friendly; but, should 
France be subdued, whither might Scotland look 
for help in the future? James used every effort 
to prevent the League from carrying out their 
project; he attempted to form a coalition of 
Denmark, France, and Scotland, and wrote to 
his uncle, the King of Denmark, urging him 
to declare for the Most Christian King. He 
wrote Henry offering to ''pardon all the damage 
done to us and our kingdom, the capture of our 
merchant ships, the slaughter and imprisonment 
of our subjects", if only Henry would ''maintain 
the universal concord of the Church ". He made 
a vigorous appeal to the pope himself, beseech- 

' Gregory Smith, p. 123. 

Beginnings of the Efiglish Alliance 105 

ing- him to keep the peace. His efforts were, of 
course, futile, nor was France in such extreme 
danger as he supposed. But the chance of 
proving himself the saviour of France appealed 
strongly to him, and, when there came to him, 
in the spring of 15 13, a message from the Queen 
of France, couched in the bygone language of 
chivalry, and urging him, as her knight, to break 
a lance for her on English soil, James could no 
longer hesitate. Henry persevered in his warlike 
measures against France, and James, after one 
more despairing effort to act as mediator, began 
his preparations for an invasion of England. 
His wisest counsellors were strongly opposed to 
war: most prominent among them was his 
father's faithful servant, Bishop Elphinstone, the 
founder of the University of Aberdeen. Elphin- 
stone was a saint, a scholar, and a statesman, 
and he was probably the only man in Scotland 
who could influence the kino-. During the dis- 
cussion of the French alliance he urged delay, 
but was overborne by the impetuous patriotism 
of the younger nobles, whose voice was, as ever, 
for war. So, war it was. Bitter letters of defiance 
passed between the two kings, and, in August, 
1 5^3) James led his army over the border. 
Lowlanders, Highlanders, and Islesmen had 
alike rallied round his banner; once again we 
find the "true Scots leagued", not "with", 
but against "the Saxons farther off". The 
Scots took Norham Castle and some neighbour- 

io6 England and Scotland 

ing strong-holds to prevent their affording 
protection to the EngHsh, and then occupied 
a strong position on Flodden Edge. The Earl 
of Surrey, who was in command of the English 
army, challenged James to a pitched battle, 
and James accepted the challenge. Meanwhile, 
Surrey completely outmanoeuvred the King of 
Scots, crossing the Till and marching northwards 
so rs to get between James and Scotland. James 
seems to have been quite unsuspicious of this 
movement, which was protected by some rising 
ground. The Scots had failed to learn the 
necessity of scouting. Surrey, when he had 
gained his end, recrossed the Till, and made 
a march directly southwards upon Flodden. 
James cannot have been afraid of losing his 
communications, for his force was well-provi- 
sioned, and Surrey was bound by the terms of 
his own challenge to fight immediately; but he 
decided to abandon Flodden Edge for the lower 
ridge of Brankston, and in a cloud of smoke, 
which not only rendered the Scots invisible to 
the enemy but likewise concealed the enemy 
from the Scots, King James and his army rushed 
upon the English. The battle began with artil- 
lery, the superiority of the English in which 
forced the Scots to come to close quarters. 

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

on the English right. Sir Edmund Howard fell 

Beginnings of the English Alliance \Qi^ 

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

" But yet, though thick the shafts as snow, 
Though charging knights as whirlwinds go. 
Though bill-men ply the ghastly blow, 

Unbroken was the ring; 
The stubborn spearmen still made good 
Their dark impenetrable wood. 
Each stepping where their comrade stood 

The instant that he fell. 
No thought was there of dastard flight ; 
Link'd in the serried phalanx tight 
Groom fought like noble, squire like knight, 

As fearlessly and well; 
Till utter darkness closed her wing 
O'er their thin host and wounded king." 

No defeat had ever less in it of disgrace. The 
victory of the English was hard won, and the 

io8 England and Scotland 

valour displayed on the stricken field saved 
Scotland from any further results of Surrey's 
triumph. The results were severe enoug-h. Al- 
though the Scots could boast of their dead king 


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

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

When James V succeeded his father he was 
but one year old, and his guardian, in accordance 
with the desire of James IV, was the queen- 
mother, Margaret Tudor. Her subsequent career 
is one long tale of intrigue, too elaborate and 
intricate to require a full recapitulation here. 
The war lingered on, in a desultory fashion, till 
May, 15 15. Lord Dacre ravaged the borders, 
and the Scots replied by a raid into England; 
but there is nothing of any interest to relate. 

Beginnings of the English Alliance 109 

From the accession of Francis I, in 151 5, the 
condition of politics in Scotland, as of all Europe, 
was influenced and at times dominated by his 
rivalry with the Emperor. The unwonted desire 
of France for peace and alliance with England 
placed the Scots in a position of considerable 
difficulty, and the difficulty was accentuated by 
the more than usually distracted state of the 
country during the minority of the king. In 
August, 1 5 14, Margaret (who had in the pre- 
ceding April given birth to a posthumous child 
to James IV) was married to the Earl of Angus, 
the grandson of Archibald Bell-the-Cat. It was 
felt that the sister of Henry VIII and the wife of 
a Douglas could scarcely prove a suitable guar- 
dian of a Stewart throne, and the Scots invited 
the Duke of Albany, son of the traitor duke, 
and cousin of the late king, to come over to 
Scotland and undertake the government. De- 
spite some efforts of Henry to prevent him, 
Albany came to Scotland in May, 15 15. 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 lanofuao-e but French. When he arrived in 
Scotland he found against him the party of 
Margaret and Angus, while the Earls of Lennox 
and Arran were his ardent supporters. The 
latter nobleman was the grandson of James II, 
being the son of the Princess Mary and James, 
Lord Hamilton, and he was, therefore, the 

no England and Scotland 

next heir to the throne after Albany. The 
interests of both might be endangered should 
Margaret and Angus become all-powerful, and 
so we find them acting together for some time. 
Albany was immediately made regent of Scotland, 
and the care of the young king and his brother, 
the baby Duke of Ross, was entrusted to him. 
It required force to obtain possession of the 
children, but the regent succeeded in doing so 
in August, in time to defeat a scheme of Henry 
VIII for kidnapping the princes. The queen- 
mother fled to England, where, in October, she 
bore to Angus a daughter, Margaret, afterwards 
Countess of Lennox and mother of the unfor- 
tunate Darnley. She then proceeded to pay a 
visit to Henry VIII. Meanwhile, in Scotland, 
Albany was finding many difficulties. Arran was 
now in rebellion against him, and now in alliance 
with him. In May, 1516, Angus himself, leaving 
his imperious wife in England, made terms with 
the regent. The infant Duke of Ross had died 
in the end of 15 15, and only the boy king stood 
between Albany and the throne. In 1517 Albany 
returned to France to cement more closely the 
old alliance, and remained in France till 152 1. 
Margaret immediately returned to Scotland, and, 
had she behaved with any degree of wisdom, 
might have greatly strengthened her brother's 
tortuous Scottish policy. But a Tudor and a 
Douglas could not be other than an ill-matched 
pair, and Margaret was already tired of her 

Begifuiings of the English Alliance iii 

husband. In 1518, she informed her brother that 
she desired to divorce Angus. Henry, whose 
own matrimonial adventures were still in the 
future, and to whom Angus was useful, scolded 
his sister in true Tudor fashion, and told her 
that, alike by the laws of God and man, she 
must stick to her husband. A formal recon- 
ciliation took place, but, henceforth, Margaret's 
one desire was to be free, and to this she subor- 
dinated all other considerations. In 15 19, she 
came to an understanding with Arran, her hus- 
band's bitterest foe, and in the summer of the 
same year we find Henry marvelling much at 
the ''tender letters" she sent to France, in 
which she urged the return of Albany, whose 
absence from Scotland had been the main aim 
of English policy since Flodden. While Francis 
I and Henry VIII were on good terms, Albany 
was detained in France; but when, in 152 1, 
their relations became strained, he returned to 
Scotland to find Angus in power. Scotland 
rallied round him, and in February, 1522, 
Angus, in turn, retired to France, while Henry 
VIII devoted his energies to the prevention of 
a marriage between his amorous sister and the 
handsome Albany. The regent led an army to 
the borders and beoan to organize an in- 
vasion, for which the north of England was ill- 
prepared, but was outwitted by Henry's agent. 
Lord Dacre, who arranged an armistice which he 
had no authority to conclude. Albany then re- 

112 England and Scotland 

turned to France, and the Scots, refusing Henry's 
offer of peace, had to suffer an invasion by 
Surrey, which was encouraged by Margaret, who 
was again on the English side. When Albany 
came back in September, 1523, he easily won 
over the fickle queen; but, after an unsuccessful 
attack on Wark, he left Scotland for ever in 
May, 1524. 

No sooner had Albany disappeared from the 
scene than Margaret entered into a new intrigue 
with the Earl of Arran; it had one important 
result, the ''erection" of the young king, who 
now, at the age of twelve years, became the 
nominal ruler of the country. This manoeuvre 
was executed with the connivance of the English, 
to whose side Margaret had again deserted. For 
some time Arran and Margaret remained at the 
head of affairs, but the return of the Earl of 
Angus at once drove the queen-mother into the 
opposite camp, and she became reconciled to the 
leader of the French party. Archbishop Beaton, 
whom she had imprisoned shortly before. Angus, 
who had been the paid servant of England 
throughout all changes since 15 17, assumed the 
government. The alliance between England and 
France, which followed the disaster to Francis I 
at Pavia, seriously weakened the supporters of 
French influence in Scotland, and Angus made 
a three years' truce in 1525. In the next year, 
Arran transferred his support to Angus, who 
held the reins of power till the summer of 1528. 

Beginnings of the English A lliance 113 

The chief event of this period is the divorce of 
Queen Margaret, who immediately married a 
youth, Henry Stewart, son of Lord Evandale, 
and afterwards known as Lord Methven. 

The fall of Angus was brought about by the 
conduct of the young king himself, who, tired of 
the tyranny in which he was held, and escaping 
from Edinburgh to Stirling, regained his free- 
dom. Angus had to flee to England, and James 
passed under the influence of his mother and her 
youthful husband. In 1528 he made a truce with 
England for five years. During these years 
James showed leanings towards the French alli- 
ance, while Henry was engaged in ticasonable 
intrigues with Scottish nobles, and in fomenting 
border troubles. But the truce was renewed in 
1533, and a more definite peace was made in 1534. 
Henry now attempted to enlist James as an ally 
against Rome, and, by the irony of fate, offered 
him, as a temptation to become a Protestant, 
the hand of the Princess Mary. James refused 
to break with the pope, and negotiations for 
a meeting between the two kings fell through 
— fortunately, for Henry was prepared to kidnap 
James. The King of Scots arranged in 1536 
to marry a daughter of the Due de Vendome, 
but, on seeing her, behaved much as Henry 
VHI was to do in the case of Anne of Cleves, 
except that he definitely declined to wed her 
at all. Being in France, he made a proposal 
for the Princess Madeleine, daughter of Francis 

114 Efigland and Scotland 

I, and was married to her in January, 1536-37. 
This step naturally annoyed Henry, who refused 
James a passport through England, on the 
ground that "no Scottish king had ever entered 
England peacefully except as a vassal ". So 
James returned by sea with his dying bride, 
and reached Scotland to find numerous troubles 
in store for him — among them, intrigues brought 
about by his mother's wish to obtain a divorce 
from her third husband. Madeleine died in 
July, 1537, and the relations between James and 
Henry VHI (now a widower by the death of 
Jane Seymour) were further strained by the fact 
that nephew and uncle alike desired the hand 
of Mary of Guise, widow of the Duke de 
Longueville, who preferred her younger suitor 
and married him in the following summer. 
These two French marriages are important 
as marking James's final rejection of the path 
marked out for him by Henry VHI. The 
husband of a Guise could scarcely remain on 
good terms with the heretic King of England; 
but Henry, with true Tudor persistency, did not 
give up hope of bending his nephew to his will, 
and spent the next few years in negotiating with 
James, in trying to alienate him from Cardinal 
Beaton — the great supporter of the French alli- 
ance, — and in urging the King of Scots to enrich 
himself at the expense of the Church. As late 
as 1 54 1, a meeting was arranged at York, 
whither Henry went, to find that his nephew did 

Beginnings of the English Alliance 115 

not appear. James was probably wise, for we 
know that Henry would not have scrupled to 
seize his person. Border troubles arose; Henry 
reasserted the old claim of homage and devised 
a scheme to kidnap James. Finally he sent the 
Earl of Ang-us, who had been living in England, 
with a force to invade Scotland, and this without 
the formality of declaring war. Henry, in fact, 
was acting as a suzerain punishing a vassal who 
had refused to appear when he was summoned. 
The English ravaged the county of Roxburgh 
in 1542; the Scottish nobles declined to cross 
the border in what they asserted to be a French 
quarrel; and in November a small Scottish force 
was enclosed between Solway Moss and the river 
Esk, and completely routed. The ignominy of 
this fresh disaster broke the king's heart. On 
December 8th was born the hapless princess who 
is known as the Queen of Scots. The news 
brought small comfort to the dying king, who 
was still mourning the sons he had lost in the 
preceding year. '''Adieu,' he said, 'farewell; 
it came with a lass and it will pass with a lass.' 
And so", adds Pitscottie, "he recommended 
himself to the mercy of Almighty God, and spake 
little from that time forth, but turned his back 
unto his lords, and his face unto the wall." Six 
days later the end came. With "a little smile 
of laughter", and kissing his hand to the nobles 
who stood round, he breathed his last. 

ii6 England and Scotla^td 



I 542- I 568 

Mary of Guise, thus for the second time a 
widow, was left the sole protector of the infant 
queen, against the intrig-ues of Henry VIII and 
the treachery of the House of Douglas. For- 
tunately, Margaret Tudor had predeceased her 
son in October, 1541, and her death left one 
disturbing element the less. But the situation 
which the dowager had to face was much more 
perplexed than that which confronted any other 
of the long line of Scottish queen-mothers. Dur- 
ing the reign of James V the Reformed doctrines 
had been rapidly spreading in Scotland. It was 
at one time possible that James V might follow 
the example of Henry VIII, and a considerable 
section of his subjects would have welcomed the 
change. His death added recruits to the Pro- 
testant cause; the greater nobles now strongly 
desired an alienation of Church property, be- 
cause they could take advantage of the royal 
minority to seize it for their private advan- 
tage. The English party no longer consisted 
only of outlawed traitors; there were many 
honest Scots who felt that alliance with a Pro- 
testant kingdom must replace the old French 

The Parting of the Ways 117 

leagfue. The main interest had come to be not 
nationality but religion, and Scotland must 
decide between France and England. The six- 
teenth century had already, in spite of all that 
had passed, made it evident that Scots and 
English could live on terms of peace, and the 
reign of James IV, which had witnessed the first 
attempt at a perpetual alliance, was remembered 
as the golden age of Scottish prosperity. The 
queen-mother was, by birth and by education, 
committed to the maintenance of the old religion 
and of the French alliance. The task was indeed 
difficult. Ultimate success was rendered im- 
possible by causes over which she possessed no 
kind of control; a temporary victory was ren- 
dered practicable only by the folly of Henry 

The history of Henry's intrigues becomes at 
this point very intricate, and we must be content 
with a mere outline. On James's death he con- 
ceived the plan of seizing the Scottish throne, 
and for this purpose he entered into an agree- 
ment with the Scottish prisoners taken at Sol- 
way Moss. They professed themselves willing 
to seize Mary and Cardinal Beaton, and so to 
deprive the national party of their leaders. Then 
came the news that the Earl of Arran had been 
appointed regent in December, 1542. He was 
heir-presumptive to the throne, and so was un- 
likely to acquiesce in Henry's scheme, and the 
traitors were instructed to deal with him as they 

ii8 Engla7id and Scotland 

thought necessary. But the traitors, who had, 
of course, been joined by the Earl of Angus, 
proved false to Henry and were falsely true to 
Scotland. They imprisoned Beaton, but did 
not deliver him up to the English, and they came 
to terms with Arran; nor did they carry out 
Henry's projects further than to permit the cir- 
culation of " haly write, baith the new testament 
and the auld, in the vulgar toung", and to enter 
into negotiations for the marriage of the young 
queen to the Prince of Wales, afterwards Edward 
VI. The conditions they made were widely 
different from those suggested by Henry. Full 
precautions were taken to secure the indepen- 
dence of the country both during Mary's minority 
and for the future. Strongholds were to be re- 
tained in Scottish hands; should there be no child 
of the marriage, the union would determine, and 
the proper heir would succeed to the Scottish 
throne. In any case, no union of the kingdoms 
was contemplated, although the crowns might be 
united. These terms were slightly modified in 
the following May. Beaton, who had escaped to 
St. Andrews, did not oppose the treaty, but made 
preparations for war. The treaty was agreed to, 
and the war of intrigues went on, Henry offering 
almost any terms for the possession of the little 
queen. Finally, in September, Arran joined the 
cardinal, became reconciled to the Church, and 
left Henry to intrigue with the Earl of Lennox, 
the next heir after Arran. 

The Parting of the Ways 119 

Hostilities broke out in the end of 1543, when 
the Scots, enraged by Henry's having attacked 
some Scottish shipping, declared the treaty an- 
nulled. In the spring of 1544, the Earl of Hert- 
ford conducted his expedition into Scotland. 
The "English Wooing", as it was called, took 
the form of a massacre without regard to age or 
sex. The instructions given to Hertford by 
Henry and his council read like quotations from 
the book of Joshua. He was to leave none re- 
maining, where he encountered any resistance. 
Hertford, abandoning the usual methods of Eng- 
lish invaders, came by sea, took Leith, burned 
Edinburgh, and ravaged the Lothians. Lennox 
attempted to give up Dumbarton to the English, 
but his treachery was discovered and he fled to 
England, where he married Margaret, the 
daughter of Angus and niece of Henry VHI, 
by whom he became, in 1545, the father of Henry 
Stewart, Lord Darnley, who thus stood within 
the possibility of succession, in his own right, to 
both kingdoms. Angus and his brother. Sir 
George Douglas, seized the opportunity given 
them by the misery caused by the English 
atrocities to make a move against Arran and 
Beaton, and seized the person of the queen- 
mother. But their success was brought to an 
end by the meeting of a Parliament, summoned 
by Arran, in December, 1544, and the Douglases 
were reconciled and restored to their estates, 
deeming this the most profitable step for them- 

I20 England and Scotland 

selves. Their breach with Henry was widened 
by the events of the next two months. A body 
of Eng-Hshmen, under Sir Ralph Eure, defeated 
Arran at Melrose, and desecrated the abbey, the 
sepulchre of the Douglas family. In revenge, 
Angus, along with Arran, fell upon the English 
at Ancrum Moor in Roxburghshire, and inflicted 
on them a total defeat. This was followed by 
a second invasion of Hertford (this time by land). 
He ravaged the borders in merciless fashion. A 
counter-invasion by an army of Scots and French 
auxiliaries had proved futile owing to the in- 
competence or the treachery of Angus, who 
almost immediately returned to the English side. 
About the same time a descendant of the Lord 
of the Isles whom James IV had crushed made 
an agreement with Henry, but was of little use 
to his cause. Beaton, after some successful 
fighting on the borders, in the end of 1545, went 
to St. Andrews in the beginning of 1546. On 
the ist March, George Wishart, who had been 
condemned on a charge of heresy, was hanged, 
and his body was burned at the stake. On May 
29th the more fierce section of the Protestant 
party took their revenge by murdering the great 
cardinal in cold blood. We are not here con- 
cerned with Beaton's private character or with 
his treatment of heretics. His public actions, as 
far as foreign relations are concerned, are marked 
by a consistent patriotic aim. He represented 
the long line of Scottish churchmen who had 

The Parting of the Ways 121 

striven to maintain the integrity of the kingdom 
and the alliance with France. He had shown 
great ability and tact, and in politics he had been 
much more honest than his opponents. But for 
his support of the queen-dowager in 1542-43, 
and but for his maintaining the party to which 
Arran afterwards attached himself, it is possible 
that Scotland might have passed under the yoke 
of Henry VHI in 1543, instead of being peace- 
fully united to England sixty years later. With 
him disappeared any remaining hope of the 
French party. "We may say of old Catholic 
Scotland", writes Mr. Lang, *'as said the dying 
Cardinal: 'Fie, all is gone'." 

Though Beaton was dead, the effects of his 
work remained. He had saved the situation at 
the crisis of December, 1542, and the insensate 
cruelty of Henry VHI had made it impossible 
that the Cardinal's work should fall to pieces at 
once. It seemed at first as if the only difference 
was that the castle of St. Andrews was held by 
the English party. Ten months after Beaton's 
death, the small Protestant garrison was joined by 
John Knox, who was present when the regent 
succeeded, with help from France, in reducing 
the castle in July, 1547. Its defenders, including 
Knox, were sent as galley-slaves to France. 
Henry VIII had died in the preceding January, 
but Hertford (now Protector Somerset) continued 
the Scottish policy of the preceding reign. In 
the summer of 1547 he made his third invasion 

122 England and Scotland 

of Scotland, marked by the usual barbarity. 
In the course of it, on loth September, was 
fought the last battle between Scots and Eng- 
lish. Somerset met the Scots, under Arran, 
at Pinkiecleuch, near Edinburgh, and by the 
combined effect of artillery and a cavalry charge, 
completely defeated them with great slaughter. 
The English, after some further devastation, 
returned home, and the Scots at once entered 
into a treaty with France, which had been at 
war with England since 1544. It was agreed 
that the young queen should marry the dauphin, 
the eldest son of Henry II. While negotiations 
were in progress, she was placed for safety, first 
in the priory of Inchmahome, an island in the 
lake of Menteith, and afterwards in Dumbarton 
Castle. In June, 1548, a large number of French 
auxiliaries were sent to Scotland, and, in the 
beginning of August, Mary was sent to France. 
The English failed to capture her, and she landed 
about 13th August. The war lingered on till 
1550. The Scots gradually won back the strong- 
holds which had been seized by the English, and, 
although their French allies did good service, 
serious jealousies arose, which greatly weakened 
the position of the French party. Finally, 
Scotland was included in the peace made between 
England and France in 1550. 

All the time, the Reformed faith was rapidly 
gaining adherents, and when, in April, 1554, 
the queen-dowager succeeded Arran (now Duke 

The Parting of the Ways 123 

of Chatelherault) as regent, she found the problem 
of governing Scotland still more difficult. The 
relations with England had, indeed, been simpli- 
fied by the accession of a Roman Catholic queen 
in England, but the Spanish marriage of Mary 
Tudor made it difficult for a Guise to obtain 
any help from her. She continued the policy 
of obtaining French levies, and the irritation 
they caused was a considerable help to her 
opponents. Knox had returned to Scotland in 
^555) ^fi<i) except for a visit to Geneva in 1556-57, 
spent the rest of his life in his native country. 
In 1557 was formed the powerful assembly of 
Protestant clergy and laymen who took the title 
of "the Congregation of the Lord", and signed 
the National Covenant which aimed at the 
abolition of Roman Catholicism. Their hostility 
to the queen-regent was intensified by the events 
of the year 1558-59. In April, 1558, Queen 
Mary was married to the dauphin, and her 
husband received the crown-matrimonial and 
became known as Kino- of Scots. Scotland 
seemed to have passed entirely under France. 
We know that there was some ground for the 
Protestant alarm, because the girl queen had 
been induced to sign documents which transferred 
her rights, in case of her decease without issue, to 
the King of France and his heirs. These docu- 
ments were in direct antagonism to the assurance 
given to the Scottish Parliament of the mainten- 
ance of national independence. The French 

1 24 England and Scotland 

alliance seemed to have gained a complete 
triumph, while the shout of joy raised by its 
supporters was really the swan-song of the cause. 
Knox and the Congregation had rendered it for 
ever impossible. 

Nor was it long before this became apparent. 
In November, 1558, Mary Tudor died, and 
England was again Protestant. Henry II 
ordered Francis and Mary to assume the arms 
of England, in virtue of Mary's descent from 
Margaret Tudor, which made her in Roman 
Catholic eyes the rightful Queen of England, 
Elizabeth being born out of wedlock. The 
Protestant Queen of England had thus an 
additional motive for opposition to the govern- 
ment of Mary of Guise and her daughter. It 
was unfortunate for the queen-regent that, at 
this particular juncture, she was entering into 
strained relations with the Reformers. Hitherto 
she had succeeded in satisfying Knox himself; 
but, in the beginning of 1559, she adopted more 
severe measures, and the lords of the congrega- 
tion began to discuss a treasonable alliance with 
England, which proved the beginning of the 
end. The Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis set the 
French government free to pay greater attention 
to the progress of Scottish affairs, and Mary 
of Guise forthwith denounced the leading Pro- 
testant preachers as heretics. It was much 
too late. The immediate result was the Perth 
riots of May and June, 1559, which involved 

The Parting of the Ways 125 

the destruction of the religious houses which 
were the glory of the Fair City. The aspect 
of affairs was so threatening that the regent 
came to terms, and promised that she would 
take no vengeance on the people of Perth, and 
that she would not leave a French garrison 
in the town. The regent kept her word in 
garrisoning the town with Scotsmen, but her 
introduction of a French bodyguard, in attend- 
ance on her own person, was regarded as a breach 
of her promise. The destruction of religious 
buildings continued, although Knox did his 
endeavour to save the palace of Scone. The 
Protestants held St. Andrews while the regent 
entered into negotiations which they considered 
to be a mere subterfuge for gaining time, and, 
on the 29th June, they marched upon Edinburgh. 
In July, 1559, occurred the sudden death of 
Henry II; Francis and Mary succeeded, and the 
supreme power in France and in Scotland passed 
to the House of Guise. The Protestants who 
had been making overtures to Cecil and 
Elizabeth declared, in October, that the regent 
had been deposed. This bold step was justified 
by the help received from England, and by the 
indignation caused by the excesses of the regent's 
French troops in Scotland. So far had religious 
emotion outrun the sentiment of nationality that 
the Protestants were willing to admit almost any 
English claim. The result of Elizabeth's treaty 
with the rebels was that they were enabled to 

I 26 Ejigland and Scotland 

besiege Leith, by means of an English fleet, 
while the regent took refuge in Edinburgh Castle. 
The English attack on Leith was unsuccessful, 
but the dangerous illness of the queen-mother 
led to the conclusion of peace. A truce was 
made on condition that all foreign soldiers, 
French and English alike, should leave Scotland, 
and that the Scottish claim to the English throne 
should be abandoned. On the nth June, 1560, 
Mary died. The wisdom of the policy of her later 
years may be questioned, but her conduct during 
her widowhood forms a strange contrast to that 
of her Tudor mother-in-law in similar circum- 
stances. It is probable that her intentions 
were honest enough, and that the Protestant 
indignation at her "falsehoods" was based on in- 
vincible misunderstanding. Her gracious charm 
of manner was the concomitant of a tolerance 
rare in the sixteenth century; and she died at 
peace with all men, and surrounded by those 
who had been in arms against her, receiving "all 
her nobles with all pleasure, with a pleasant 
countenance, and even embracing them with 
a kiss of love ". 

Her death set the lords of the congregation 
free to carry out their ecclesiastical programme. 
In August Roman Catholicism was abolished by 
the Scottish Parliament and the celebration of the 
mass forbidden, under severe penalties. There 
remained the question of the ratification of the 
Treaty of Edinburgh, the final form of the agree- 

The Parting of the Ways 127 

ment by which peace had been made. The 
young- Queen of Scots objected to the treaty on 
the ground that it included a clause that "the 
most Christian King and Queen Mary, and each 
of them, abstain henceforth from using the title 
and bearing- the arms of the kingdom of Eng- 
land or of Ireland ".^ She interpreted the word 
"henceforth" as involving an absolute renunci- 
ation of her claim to the English throne, and so 
prejudicing her succession, should she survive 
Elizabeth. Cecil had suggested to the Scots 
that it might be advisable to raise the claim of 
the Lord James Stewart, an illegitimate son of 
James V, and afterwards Earl of Moray, to the 
throne, or to support that of the House of Hamil- 
ton. The Scots improved on this suggestion, 
and proposed that Elizabeth should marry the 
Earl of Arran, the eldest son of the Duke of 
Chatelherault, who might succeed to the throne. 
There were many reasons why Elizabeth should 
not wed the imbecile Arran, and it may safely be 
said that she never seriously considered the pro- 
ject although she continued to trifle with the 
suggestion, which formed a useful form of intrigue 
against Mary. 

The situation was considerably altered by the 
death of Francis H, in December, 1560. That 
event was, on the whole, welcome to Elizabeth, for 
it destroyed the power of the Guises, and Mary 

»Cf. the present writer's "Mary, Queen of Scots " (Scottish History 
from Contemporary Writers). 

128 England and Scotland 

Stuart^ had now to face her Scottish difficulties 
without French aid. She was not on g"ood terms 
with her mother-in-law, Catherine de Medici, who 
now controlled the destinies of France, and it 
was evident that she must accept the fact of the 
Scottish Reformation, and enter upon a conflict 
with the theocratic tendencies of the Church and 
with the Scottish nobles who were the pensioners 
of Elizabeth. On the other hand, although 
Francis II was dead, his widow survived, young, 
beautiful, charming, and a queen. The dis- 
solution of her first marriage had removed an 
actual difficulty from the path of the English 
queen, but, after all, it only meant that she might 
be able to contract an alliance still more dan- 
gerous. As early as December 31st, 1560, 
Throckmorton warned Elizabeth that she must 
"have an eye to" the second marriage of Mary 
Stuart.^ The Queen of England had a choice 
of alternatives. She might prosecute the in- 
trigue with the Earl of Arran, capture Mary on 
her way to Scotland, and boldly adopt the position 
of the leader of Protestantism. There were, 
however, many difficulties, ecclesiastical, foreign, 
and personal, in such a course. Arran was an 
impossible husband; Knox and the lords of the 
congregation made good allies but bad subjects; 
and the inevitable struggle with Spain would be 

'The spelling^ "Stuart", which Queen Mary brought with her from 
France, now superseded the older "Stewart". 

* Foreign Calendar: Elizabeth, December 31st, 1560. 

The Partiyig of the Ways 1 2y 

precipitated. The other course was to attempt 
to win Mary's confidence, and to prevent her 
from contracting' an alliance with the Hapsburgs, 
which was probably w^hat Elizabeth most feared. 
This was the alternative finally adopted by the 
Queen of England; but, very characteristically, 
she did not immediately abandon the other pos- 
sibility. On the pretext that Mary refused to 
confirm the Treaty of Edinburgh, her cousin 
declined to g^rant her request for a safe-conduct 
from France to Scotland, and spoke of the 
Scottish queen in terms which Mary took the 
first opportunity of resenting. "The queen, 
your mistress," she remarked to the English 
ambassador who brought the refusal, "doth say 
that I am young" and do lack experience. Indeed 
I confess I am young^er than she is, and do want 
experience; but I have age enough and ex- 
perience to use myself towards my friends and 
kinsfolk friendly and uprightly; and I trust my 
discretion shall not so fail me that my passion 
shall move me to use other language of her than 
it becometh of a queen and my next kinswoman."^ 
When, in August, 1561, Mary did sail from 
France to Scotland, Elizabeth made an effort to 
capture her. It was characteristically hesitating, 
and it succeeded only in giving Mary an impres- 
sion of Elizabeth's hostility. Some months later 
Elizabeth imprisoned the Countess of Lennox, 
the mother of Darnley, for giving God thanks be- 

^ Cabala, Sive Scrinia Sacra, pp. 345-349- 


130 England and Scotland 

cause ''when the queen's ships were almost near 
taking of the Scottish queen, there fell down a 
mist from heaven that separated them and pre- 
served her".^ The arrival of Mary in Scotland 
effectually put an end to the Arran intrigue, but 
the girl-widow of scarcely nineteen years had 
many difficulties with which to contend. As a 
devout Roman Catholic, she had to face the 
relentless opposition of Knox and the congre- 
gation, who objected even to her private exercise 
of her own faith. As the representative of the 
French alliance, now but a dead cause, she was 
confronted by an English party which included 
not only her avowed enemies but many of her 
real or pretended friends. Her brother, the Lord 
James Stewart, whom she made Earl of Moray, 
and who guided the early policy of her reign, 
was constantly in Elizabeth's pay, as were most 
of her other advisers. Her secretary, Maitland 
of Lethington, the most distinguished and the 
ablest Scottish statesman of his day, had, as the 
fixed aim of his policy, a good understanding 
with England. Furthermore, she was disliked 
by all the nobles who had seized upon the pro- 
perty of the Church and added it to their own 
possessions. Up to the age of twenty-five she 
had, by Scots law, the right of recalling all 
grants of land made during her minority, and 
her greedy nobles knew well that the victory of 
Roman Catholicism meant the restoration of 

* Foreign Calendar, May 7th, 1562. 

The Parting of the Ways 131 

Church lands. Her relations with France were 
uncertain, and the Guises found their attention 
fully occupied at home. As the next heir to the 
throne of England, she was bound to be very 
careful in her dealings with Elizabeth. United 
by every t?e of blood and sentiment to Rome and 
the Guises, she was forced, for reasons of policy, 
to remain on good terms with Protestantism and 
the Tudor Queen of England. The first years 
of Mary's reign in Scotland were marked by the 
continuance of good relations between herself and 
her half-brother, whom she entrusted with the 
government of the kingdom. In 1562 she sup- 
pressed the most powerful Catholic noble in 
Scotland, the Earl of Huntly. The result of 
this policy was to raise an unfounded suspicion 
in England and Spain that the Queen of Scots 
was " no more devout towards Rome than for the 
sustentation of her uncles".^ The indignation 
felt at Mary's conduct among Roman Catholics 
in England and in Spain may have been one of 
the reasons for Elizabeth's adopting a more dis- 
tinctly Protestant position in 1562. In the Act 
of Supremacy of that year the first avowed re- 
ference is. made to the authority used by Henry 
VIII and Edward VI, i.e. the Supreme Headship 
of the Church. It at all events made Elizabeth's 
position less difficult, because Spain and Austria 
were not likely to attack England in the inter- 
ests of a queen whose orthodoxy was doubtful. 

^Foreign Calendar, June 8th, 1562. 

132 England and Scotland 

Meanwhile Elizabeth was directing all her 
efforts to prevent Mary from contracting a second 
marriage, and, at all hazards, to secure that she 
should not marry Don Carlos of Spain or the 
Archduke of Austria. Her persistent endeavours 
to bribe Scottish nobles were directed, with con- 
siderable acuteness, to creating an English party 
strong enough to deter foreign princes from 
"seeking upon a country so much at her devo- 
tion".^ She warned Mary that any alliance with 
**a mighty prince" would offend England^ and 
so imperil her succession. Mary, on her part, 
was attempting to obtain a recognition of her 
position as "second person" [heir presumptive], 
and she professed her willingness to take Eliza- 
beth's advice in the all-important matter of her 
marriage. The English queen made various 
suggestions, and found objections to them all. 
Finally she proposed that Mary should marry 
her own favourite, Leicester, and a long corres- 
pondence followed. It was suggested that the 
two queens should have an interview, but this 
project fell through. Elizabeth, of course, was 
too fondly attached to Leicester to see him 
become the husband of her beautiful rival; 
Mary, on her part, despised the "new-made 
earl ", and Leicester himself apologized to 
Mary's ambassador for the presumption of the 
proposal, "alleging the invention of that pro- 

' Foreign Calendar, March 31st, 1561. 
* Foreign Calendar, 20th August, 1563. 

The Parting of the Ways 133 

position to have proceeded from Master Cecil, 
his secret enemy". ^ While the Leicester negotia- 
tions were in progress, the Earl of Lennox, who 
had been exiled in 1544, returned to Scotland 
with his son Henry, Lord Darnley, a handsome 
youth, eighteen years of age. As early as May, 
1564, Knox suspected that Mary intended to 
marry Darnley.^ There is little doubt that it 
was a love-match; but there were also political 
reasons, for Darnley was, after Mary herself, the 
nearest heir to Elizabeth's throne, and only the 
Hamiltons stood between him and the crown of 
Scotland. He had been born and educated in 
England, as also had been his mother, the 
daughter of Angus and Margaret Tudor, and 
Elizabeth might have used him as against Mary's 
claim. That claim the English queen refused 
to acknowledge, although, in the end of 1564, 
Murray and Maitland of Lethington tried their 
utmost to persuade her to do so. 

On the 29th July, 1565, Mary was married to 
Darnley in the chapel of Holyrood. Elizabeth 
chose to take offence, and Murray raised a re- 
bellion. There are two stories of plots : there are 
hints of a scheme to capture Mary and Darnley; 
and Murray, on the other hand, alleged that 
Darnley had entered into a conspiracy to kidnap 
him. It is, at all events, certain that Murray 
raised a revolt and that the people rallied to 

*Sir James Melville's Memoirs, pp. 116-130 (Bannatyne Club). 
*Laing's Knox, vi, p. 541. 

134 Eiigland and Scotland 

Mary, who drove her brother across the border. 
Elixabeth received Murray with coldness, and 
asked him ''how he, being a rebel to her sister 
of Scotland, durst take the boldness upon him to 
come within her realm?"^ But Murray, con- 
fident in Elizabeth's promise of aid, knew what 
this hypocritical outburst was worth, and the 
English queen soon afterwards wrote to Mary in 
his favour. The motive which Murray alleged 
for his revolt was his fear for the true religion in 
view of Mary's marriage to Darnley, nominally 
a Roman Catholic; but his position with regard 
to the Rizzio Bond renders it, as we shall see, 
somewhat difficult to give him credit for sincerity. 
It is more likely that he was ambitious of ruling 
the kingdom with Mary as a prisoner. About 
Elizabeth's complicity there can be no doubt. ^ 

Mary's troubles had only begun. On the i6th 
January, 1566, Randolph, the English ambas- 
sador, wrote from Edinburgh: "I cannot tell 
what mislikings of late there hath been between 
her grace and her husband ; he presses earnestly 
for the matrimonial crown, which she is loth 
hastily to grant". Darnley, in fact, had proved 
a vicious fool, and was possessed of a fool's am- 
bition. Rizzio, Mary's Italian secretary, who 
had urged the Darnley marriage, strongly warned 
Mary against giving her husband any real share 
in the government, and Darnley determined that 

'Laing-'s Knox, vol. ii, p. 513. Melville's Memoirs, p. 134. 
'Foreign Calendar, July-December, 1565. 

The Parti7ig of the Ways 135 

Rizzio should be "removed".'^ He therefore 
entered into a conspiracy with his natural 
enemies, the Scottish nobles, who professed to 
be willing to secure the throne for this youth 
whom they despised and hated. The plot in- 
volved the murder of Rizzio, the imprisonment 
of Mary, the crown -matrimonial for Darnley, 
and the return of Murray and his accomplices, 
who were still in exile. The English govern- 
ment was, of course, privy to the scheme. - 
The murder was carried out, in circumstances of 
great brutality, on the night of the 9th March. 
Mary's condition of health, "having then passed 
almost to the end of seven months in our birth", 
renders the carrying out of the deed in her pre- 
sence, and while Rizzio was her guest, almost 
certainly an attempt upon the queen's own life. 
There were numberless opportunities of slaying 
Rizzio elsewhere, and the ghastly details— the 
sudden appearance of Ruthven, hollow, pale, 
just risen from a sick bed, the pistol of Ker of 
Faudonside, — are so rich in dramatic effect that 
one can scarcely doubt what denouement was 
intended. The plot failed in its main purpose. 
Rizzio, indeed, was killed, and Murray made 
his appearance next morning and obtained for- 
giveness. The queen " embracit him and kisset 
him, alleging that in caice he had bene at hame, 

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

-Foreign Calendar, March, 1566. 

136 E^igland and Scotland 

he wald not have sufferit her to have bene sa 
uncourterly handlit". But the success ended 
here. Mary won over her husband, and together 
they escaped and fled to Dunbar. Darnley 
deserted his accompHces, proclaimed his inno- 
cence, and strongly urged the punishment of the 
murderers. They, of course, threw themselves 
on the hospitality of Queen Elizabeth, who sent 
them money, and lied to Mary, ^ who did not 
put too much faith in her cousin's assurances. 
On June 19th, a prince was born in Edinburgh 
Castle, but the event brought about only a par- 
tial reconciliation between his unhappy parents. 
Mary was shamefully treated by her worthless 
husband, and in the following November her 
nobles suggested to her the project of a divorce. 
Darnley, however, was not doomed to the fate 
which overtook his descendants, the life of a king 
without a crown. He had awakened the enmity 
of men whose feuds were blood-feuds, and the 
Rizzio conspirators were not likely to forgive the 
upstart youth whose inconstancy had foiled their 
plan for Mary's fall, and whose treachery had 
involved them in exile. Darnley had proved 
useless even as a tool for the nobles, he had 
offended Mary and disgusted everybody in Scot- 
land, and there were many who were willing to 
do without him. At this point a new tool was 
ready to the hands of the discontented barons. 
The Earl of Bothwell, whether with Mary's con- 

' Mary to Elizabeth, July, 1566. Keith's History, ii, p. 442. 

The Partmg of the Ways i,'^*' 


sent or not, aspired to the queen's hand, and 
devised a plan for the murder of Darnley. On 
the night of the loth February, 1566-67, the 
wretched boy, not yet twenty-one years of age, 
was strangled,^ and the house in which he had 
been Hving was blown up with gunpowder. 
Public opinion accused Bothwell of the murder; 
he was tried and found innocent, and Parliament 
put its seal upon his acquittal. On the 24th 
April he seized the person of the queen as she 
was travelling from Linlithgow to Edinburgh, 
and Mary married him on the 15th May. Mense 
Tnalum Maio mibere imlgiis ait. The nobles al- 
most immediately raised a rebellion, professedly 
to deliver the queen from the thraldom of Both- 
well. On June 15th she surrendered at Carberry 
Hill, and the nobles disregarded a pledge of 
loyalty to the queen given on condition of her 
abandoning Bothwell, alleging that she was still 
in correspondence with him. They now accused 
her of murdering her husband, and imprisoned 
her in Lochleven Castle. The whole affair is 
wrapped in mystery, but it is impossible to give 
the Earl of Morton and the other nobles any 
credit for honesty of purpose. There can be 
little doubt that they used Bothwell for their 
own ends, and, while they represented the mur- 
der as the result of a domestic conspiracy 
between the queen and Bothwell, they after- 
wards, when quarrelling among themselves, 

' It is almost certain that Darnley was murdered before the explosion. 

138 England and Scotland 

hurled at each other accusations of participation 
in the plot, and their leader, the Earl of Morton, 
died on the scaffold as a criminal put to death 
for the murder of Darnley. This, of course, does 
not exclude the hypothesis of Mary's guilt, and 
while the view of Hume or of Mr. Froude could 
not now be seriously advanced in its entirety, it 
is only right to say that a majority of historians 
are of opinion that she, at least, connived at the 
murder. The question of her implication as a 
principal in the plot depends upon the authenti- 
city of the documents known as the "Casket 
Letters", which purported to be written by the 
queen to Bothwell, and which the insurgent lords 
afterwards produced as evidence against her. ^ 

Moray had left Scotland in the end of April. 
When he returned in the beginning of August 
he found that the prisoner of Lochleven, to whom 
he owed his advancement and his earldom, had 
been forced to sign a deed of abdication, nomin- 
ating himself as regent for her infant son. On 
the 15th August he went to Lochleven and saw 
his sister, as he had done after the murder of 
Rizzio, when she was a prisoner in Holyrood. 
Till an hour past midnight, Elizabeth's pensioner 
preached to the unfortunate princess on righteous- 

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

The Parting of the Ways 139 

ness and judgment, leaving- her "that night in 
hope of nothing but of God's mercy". It was 
merely a threat; Mary's life was safe, for Eliza- 
beth, roused, for once, to a feeling of generosity, 
had forbidden Moray to make any attempt on 
that. Next morning he graciously accepted the 
regency and left his sister's prison with her kisses 
on his lips.^ 

On the 2nd May, 1568, Mary escaped from 
Lochleven, and her brother at once prepared a 
hostile force to meet her. Her army, composed 
largely of Protestants, marched towards Dun- 
barton Castle, where they desired to place the 
queen for safe keeping. The regent intercepted 
her at Langside, and inflicted a complete defeat 
upon her forces. Mary was again a fugitive, 
and her followers strongly urged her to take 
refuge in France. But Elizabeth had given her 
a promise of protection, and Mary, impelled by 
some fateful impulse, resolved to throw herself 
on the mercy of her kinswoman.'- On the i6th 
day of May, her little boat crossed the Solway. 
When the Queen of Scots, the daughter of the 
House of Guise, the widow of a monarch of the 
line of Valois, set foot on English soil as a 
suppliant for the protection which came to her 
only by death, the last faint hope must have 

* Keith's History, ii, pp. 736-739. 

2 In forming any moral judgment with regard to Elizabeth's conduct 
towards Mary, it must be remembered that Mary fled to England 

trusting to the English Queen's invitation. 


140 England and Scotland 

faded out of the hearts of the few who still 
longed for an independent Scotland, bound by 
gratitude and by ancient tradition to the ally 
who, more than once, had proved its salvation. 

The U7tion of the Crozuns 141 




When Mary fled to England, Elizabeth refused 
to see her, on the ground that she ought first to 
clear herself from the suspicion of guilt in con- 
nection with the murder of Darnley. In the end, 
Mary agreed that the case should be submitted 
to the judgment of a commission appointed by 
Elizabeth, and she appeared as prosecuting 
Moray and his friends as rebels and traitors. 
They defended themselves by bringing accusa- 
tions against Mary, and produced the Casket 
Letters and other documents in support of their 
assertions. Mary asked to be brought face to 
face with her accusers; Elizabeth thought the 
claim "very reasonable", and refused it. Mary 
then asked for copies of the letters produced as 
evidence against her, and when her request was 
pressed upon Elizabeth's notice by La Mothe 
F^nelon, the French ambassador, he was informed 
that Elizabeth's feelings had been hurt by Mary's 
accusing her of partiality.^ Mary's commissioners 
then withdrew, and Elizabeth closed the case, 
with the oracular decision that, "nothing has 
been adduced against the Earl of Moray and 
his adherents, as yet, that may impair their 

1 F^n^lon, i, 133 and 162, 

142 England and Scotland 

honour or allegiances; and, on the other part, 
there has been nothing sufficiently produced nor 
shown by them against the queen, their sovereign, 
whereby the Queen of England should conceive 
or take any evil opinion of the queen, her good 
sister, for anything yet seen". So Elizabeth's 
"good sister" was subjected to a rigorous im- 
prisonment, and the Earl of Moray returned to 
Scotland, with an increased allowance of English 
gold. Henceforth the successive regents of 
Scotland had to guide their policy in accordance 
with Elizabeth's wishes. If they rebelled, she 
could always threaten to release her prisoner, 
and, once or twice in the course of those long, 
weary years, Mary, whose nature was buoyant, 
actually dared to hope that Elizabeth would 
replace her on her throne. While Mary was 
plotting, and hope deferred was being succeeded 
by hope deferred and vain illusion by vain 
illusion, events moved fast. In November, 
1569, the Earls of Northumberland and West- 
moreland raised a rebellion in her favour, 
which was easily suppressed. In January, 1570, 
Moray was assassinated at Linlithgow, and the 
Earl of Lennox, the father of Darnley, and the 
traitor of Mary's minority, succeeded to the 
regency, while Mary's Scottish supporters, who 
had continued to fight for her desperate cause, 
were strengthened by the accession of Maitland 
of Lethington, who, with Kirkaldy of Grange, 
also a recruit from the king's party, held 

The Unio7i of the Crowns 143 

Edinburgh Castle for the queen. Mary's hopes 
were further raised by the rebelHon of the Duke 
of Norfolk, whose marriage with the Scottish 
queen had been suggested in 1569. Letters 
from the papal agent, Rudolfi, were discovered, 
and, in June, 1572, Norfolk was put to death. 
Lennox had been killed in September, 1571, 
and his successor, the Earl of Mar, was ap- 
proached on the subject of taking Mary's life. 
Elizabeth was unwilling to accept the responsi- 
bility for the deed, and proposed to deliver up 
Mary to Mar, on the understanding that she 
should be immediately killed. Mar, who was 
an honourable man, declined to listen to the 
proposal. But, after his death, which occurred 
in October, 1572, the new regent, the Earl of 
Morton, professed his willingness to undertake 
the accomplishment of the deed, if Elizabeth 
would openly acknowledge it. This she refused 
to do, and the plot failed. It is characteristic 
that the last Douglas to play an important part 
in Scottish history should be the leading actor 
in such a plot as this. 

The castle of Edinburgh fell in June, 1573, 
and with its surrender passed away Mary's last 
chance in Scotland. Morton held the regency 
till 1578, when he was forced to resign, and the 
young king, now twelve years old, became the 
nominal ruler. In 1581, Morton was condemned 
to death as '*airt and pairt " in Darnley's murder, 
and Elizabeth failed in her efforts to save him. 

144 England and Scotland 

Mary entered into negotiations with Elizabeth 
for her release and return to Scotland as joint- 
sovereign with James VI, and the English queen 
played with her prisoner, while, all the time, 
she was discussing projects for her death. The 
key to the policy of James is his desire to secure 
the succession to the English crown. To that 
end he was willing to sacrifice all other con- 
siderations; nor had he, on other grounds, any 
desire to share his throne with his mother. In 
1585, he negotiated a league with England, 
which, however, contained a provision that "the 
said league be without prejudice in any sort 
to any former league or alliance betwixt this 
realm and any other auld friends and confeder- 
ates thereof, except only in matters of religion, 
wheranent we do fully consent the league be 
defensive and offensive ". As we are at the era 
of religious wars, the latter section of the clause 
goes far to neutralize the former. Scotland was 
at last at the disposal of the sovereign of England. 
Even the tragedy of Fotheringay scarcely pro- 
duced a passing coldness. On the 8th February, 
1587, Elizabeth's warrant was carried out, and 
Mary's head fell on the block. She was accused 
of plotting for her own escape and against 
Elizabeth's life. It is probable that she had so 
plotted, and it would be childish to express 
surprise or indignation. The English queen, on 
her part, had injured her kinswoman too deeply 
to render it possible to be generous now. Mary 

The Union of the Crowns 145 

had sent her, on her arrival in England, "a 
diamond jewel, which", as she afterwards re- 
minded her, '' I received as a token from you, 
and with assurance to be succoured against my 
rebels, and even that, on my retiring towards 
you, you would come to the very frontiers in 
order to assist me, which had been confirmed 
to me by divers messengers".^ Had the pro- 
tection thus promised been vouchsafed, it might 
have spared Elizabeth many years of trouble. 
But it was now too late, and the relentless logic 
of events forced her to complete the tale of 
her treachery and injustice by a deed which she 
herself could not but regard as a crime. But 
while this excuse may be made for the deed 
itself, there can be no apology for the manner 
of it. The Queen of England stooped to urge 
her servants to murder her kinswoman ; when 
they refused, she was mean enough to contrive 
so as to throw the responsibility upon her 
secretary, Davison. After Mary's death, she 
wrote to King James and expressed her sincere 
regret at having cut off the head of his mother 
by accident. James accepted the apology, and, 
in the following year, made preparations against 
the Armada. Had the son of Mary Stuart been 
otherwise constituted, it would scarcely have been 
safe for Elizabeth to persevere in the execution 
of his mother; an alliance between Scotland and 

'Mary to Elizabeth, 8th Nov., 1582. Strickland's Letters of Mary 
Stuart, i, p. 294. 

146 England and Scotland 

Spain might have proved dangerous for England. 
But Elizabeth knew well the type of man with 
whom she had to deal, and events proved that 
she was wise in her generation. And James, 
on his part, had his reward. Elizabeth died in 
March, 1603, and her successor was the King 
of Scots, who entered upon a heritage, which 
had been bought, in the view of his Catholic 
subjects, by the blood of his mother, and which 
was to claim as its next victim his second son. 
Within eighty-five years of his accession, his 
House had lost not only their new kingdom, 
but their ancestral throne as well. In all James's 
references to the Union, it is clear that he 
regarded that event from the point of view of 
the monarch; had it proved of as little value to 
his subjects as to the Stuart line there would 
have been small reason for remembering it to-day. 
The Union of England and Scotland was one 
of the events most clearly fore-ordained by 
a benignant fate; but it is difficult to feel much 
sympathy for the son who would not risk its 
postponement, when, by the possible sacrifice 
of his personal ambition, he might have saved 
the life of his mother. 

There are certain aspects of James's life in 
Scotland that explain his future policy, and they 
are, therefore, important for our purpose. In 
the first place, he spent his days in one long 
struggle with the theocratic Church system 
which had been brought to Scotland by Knox 

The Union of the Croivns 147 

and developed by his great successor, Andrew 
Melville. The Church Courts, local and central, 
had maintained the old ecclesiastical jurisdiction, 
and they dealt out justice with impartial hand. 
In all questions of morality, religion, education, 
and marriage the Kirk Session or the Presbytery 
or the General Assembly was all-powerful. The 
Church was by far the most important factor in 
the national life. It interfered in numberless 
ways with legislative and executive functions : on 
one occasion King James consulted the Presby- 
tery of Edinburgh about the raising of a force to 
suppress a rebellion,^ and, as late as 1596, he 
approached the General Assembly with reference 
to a tax, and promised that "his chamber doors 
sould be made patent to the meanest minister in 
Scotland; there sould not be anie meane gentle- 
man in Scotland more subject to the good order 
and discipline of the Kirk than he would be"." 
Andrew Melville had told him that "there is twa 
kings and twa kingdomes in Scotland. Thair 
is Chryst Jesus the King and his Kingdom the 
Kirk, whase subject King James the Saxt is : 
and of whase Kingdom nocht a King, nor a lord, 
nor a heid, bot a member."^ James had done his 
utmost to assert his authority over the Church. 
He had tried to establish Episcopacy in Scotland 
to replace the Presbyterian system, and had 

^ Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scotland, v, 341-42. 

^ Ibid, pp. 396-97. 

2 James Melville's Autobiography and Diary, p. 370. 

148 Engla?id and Scotland 

succeeded only to a very limited extent. " Pres- 
bytery", he said, " agreeth as well with a king as 
God with the Devil." So he went to England, 
not only prepared to welcome the episcopal form 
of church-government and to g"raciously receive 
the episcopal adulation so freely showered upon 
him, but also determined to suppress, at all 
hazards, **the proud Puritanes, who, claining' 
to their Paritie, and crying-, ' We are all but vile 
wormes', yet will judge and give Law to their 
king, but will be judged nor controlled by 
none ".^ "God's sillie vassal" was Melville's 
summing--up of the royal character in James's 
own presence. "God hath given us a Solo- 
mon", exulted the Bishop of Winchester, and he 
recorded the fact in print, that all the world 
might know. James was wrong in mistaking 
the English Puritans for the Scottish Presby- 
terians. Alike in number, in influence, and in 
aim, his new subjects differed from his old ene- 
mies. English Puritanism had already proved 
unsuited to the genius of the nation, and it had 
given up all hope of the abolition of Episcopacy. 
The Millenary Petition asked only some changes 
in the ritual of the Church and certain moderate 
reforms. Had James received their requests in 
a more reasonable spirit, he might have suc- 
ceeded in reconciling, at all events, the more 
moderate section of them to the Church, and 
at the very first it seemed as if he were likely 

^ Basilikon Doron. 

The Unio7i of the Crozvfis 149 

to win for himself the blessing of the peace- 
maker, which he was so eager to obtain. But 
just at this crisis he found the first symptoms 
of Parliamentary opposition, and here again his 
training in Scotland interfered. The Church 
and the Church alone had opposed him in Scot- 
land ; he had never discovered that a Parliament 
could be other than subservient.^ It was, there- 
fore, natural for him to connect the Parlia- 
mentary discontent with Puritan dissatisfaction. 
Scottish Puritans had employed the General 
Assembly as their main weapon of offence; their 
English fellows evidently desired to use the 
House of Commons as an engine for similar 
purposes. Therefore said King James, "I shall 
make them conform themselves, or I will harry 
them out of the land, or else do worse". So he 
*'did worse", and prepared the way for the 
Puritan revolution. If the English succession 
enabled the king to suppress the Scottish As- 
sembly, the Assembly had its revenge, for the 
fear of it brought a snare, and James may justly 
be considered one of the founders of English 

A violent hatred of the temporal claims of the 
Church also affected James's attitude to Roman 
Catholicism. His Catholic subjects in Scotland 
had not been in a position to do him any harm, 
and the son of Mary Stuart could not but have 

^Cf. the present writer's Scottish Parliament before the Union of the 

150 England and Scotland 

some sympathy for his mother's fellow-sufferers. 
According-ly, we find him telling his first Parlia- 
ment: "I acknowledge the Roman Church to 
be our Mother Church, although defiled with 
some infirmities and corruption". But, after the 
Gunpowder Plot, and when he was engaged in a 
controversy with Cardinal Perron about the right 
of the pope to depose kings, he came to prove 
that the pope is Antichrist and '*our Mother 
Church " none other than the Scarlet Woman. 
His Scottish experience revealed clearly enough 
that the claims of Rome and Geneva were iden- 
tical in their essence. There is on record an 
incident that will serve to illustrate his position. 
In 161 5, the Scottish Privy Council reported to 
him the case of a Jesuit, John Ogilvie. He bade 
them examine Ogilvie : if he proved to be but 
a priest who had said mass, he was to go into 
banishment; but if he was a practiser of sedition, 
let him die. The unfortunate priest showed in 
his reply that he held the same view of the royal 
supremacy as did the Presbyterian clergy. It 
was enough : they hanged him. 

Once more, James's Irish policy seems to have 
been influenced by his experience of the Scottish 
Highlands. He had conceived the plan which 
was afterwards carried out in the Plantation of 
Ulster — "planting colonies among them of an- 
swerable inland subjects, that within short time 
may reforme and civilize the best-inclined among 
them; rooting out or transporting the barbarous 

The Uitiori of the Crowns 151 

or stubborne sort, and planting civilitic in their 
roomes ".^ Although James continued to carry 
on his efforts in this direction after 1603, yet it 
may be said that the English succession pre- 
vented his giving effect to his scheme, and that 
it also interfered with his intentions regarding 
the abolition of hereditary jurisdictions, which 
remained to ''wracke the whole land" till after 
the Rising of 1745. 

On the 5th April, 1603, Ki^^g" James set out 
from Edinburgh to enter upon the inheritance 
which had fallen to him ''by right divine". His 
departure made considerable changes in the con- 
dition of Scotland. The absence of any fear of 
an outbreak of hostilities with the " auld enemy" 
was a great boon to the borders, but there was 
little love lost between the two countries. The 
union of the crowns did not, of course, affect the 
position of Scotland to England in matters of 
trade, and beyond some thirty years of peace, 
James's ancient kingdom gained but little. King 
James, who possessed considerable powers of 
statesmanship, if not much practical wisdom, 
devised the impossible project of a union of thei 
kingdoms in 1604. "What God hathe con- 
joyned", he said, "let no man separate. I am 
the Husband, and all the whole Isle is my lawful 
wife. ... I hope, therefore, that no man will 
be so unreasonable as to think that I, that am a 
Christian King under the Gospel, should be a 

' Basilikon Doron. 

152 England and Scotla7id 

Polygamist and husband to two wives." He 
desired to see a complete union — one king, one 
law, one Church. Scotland would, he trusted, 
''with time, become but as Cumberland and 
Northumberland and those other remote and 
northern shires". Commissioners were appointed, 
and in 1606 they produced a scheme which in- 
volved commercial equality except with regard 
to cloth and meat, the exception being made by 
_mutual consent. The discussion on the Union 
question raised the subject of naturalization, and 
the rights of the post-natz, i.e. Scots born after 
James's accession to the throne. The royal pre- 
rogative became involved in the discussion and 
a test case was prepared. Some land in England 
was bought for the infant grandson of Lord Col- 
vill, or Colvin, of Culross. An action was raised 
against two defendants who refused him pos- 
session of the land, and they defended themselves 
on the ground that the child, as an alien, could 
not possess land in England. It was decided 
that he, as a natural-born subject of the King 
of Scotland, was also a subject of the King of 
England. This decision, and the repeal of the 
laws treating Scotland as a hostile country, proved 
the only result of the negotiations for union. 
The English Parliament would not listen to any 
proposal for commercial equality, and the king 
had to abandon his cherished project. 

James had boasted to his English Parliament 
that, if they agreed to commercial equality, the 

The Union of the Crowns 153 

Scottish estates would, in three days, adopt Eng- 
lish law. It is doubtful if the acquiescence even 
of the Scottish Parliament would have gfone so 
far; but there can be no doubt that the Eng-lish 
succession had made James more powerful in 
Scotland than any of his predecessors had been. 
"Here I sit", he said, "and g-overne Scotland 
with my pen. I write and it is done, and by a 
clearke of the councell I governe Scotland now, 
which others could not doe by the sword." The 
boast was justified by the facts. The king's 
instructions to his Privy Council, which formed 
the Scottish executive, are of the most dictatorial 
description. James gives his orders in the tone 
of a man who is accustomed to unswerving 
obedience, and he does not hesitate to reprove 
his erring ministers in the severest terms of 
censure. The whole business of Parliament was 
conducted by the Lords of the Articles, who 
represented the spiritual and temporal lords, and 
the Commons. All the bishops were the king's 
creatures, and by virtue of their position, entirely 
dependent on him. It was therefore arranged 
that the prelates should choose representatives 
of the temporal lords, and they took care to 
select men who supported the king's policy. The 
peers were allowed to choose representatives ot 
the bishops, and could not avoid electing the 
king's friends, while the representatives of the 
spiritual and temporal lords choose men to 
appear for the small barons and the burgesses. 

154 England and Scotland 

In this way the efficient power of Parliament was 
completely monopolized, and none dared to dis- 
pute the king's will. Even the Church was 
reduced to an unwilling submission, which, from 
its very nature, could only be temporary. He 
forbade the meeting of a General Assembly; and 
the convening of an Assembly at Aberdeen, in 
defiance of his command, in 1605, served to give 
him an opportunity of imprisoning or banishing 
the Presbyterian leaders. He had to give up his 
scheme of abolishing the Presbyterian Church 
courts, and contented himself with engrafting on 
to the existing system the institution of Episco- 
pacy, which had practically been in abeyance 
since 1560, although Scotland was never without 
its titular prelates. Bishops were appointed in 
1606; presbyteries and synods were ordered to 
elect perpetual moderators, and the scheme was 
devised so that the moderator of almost every 
synod should be a bishop. The members of 
the Linlithgow Convention, which accepted this 
scheme, were specially summoned by the king, 
and it was in no sense a free Assembly of the 
Church. But the royal power was, for the pre- 
sent, irresistible; in 1610 an Assembly which 
met at Glasgow established Episcopacy, and its 
action was, in 161 2, ratified by the Scots Parlia- 
ment. Three of the Scottish bishops^ received 

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

TJie Union of the Crozvns 155 

English orders, to ensure the succession; but, 
to prevent any claim of superiority, neither Eng- 
lish primate took any part in the ceremony. In 
1616, the Assembly met at Aberdeen, and the 
king made five proposals, which are known as the 
Five Articles of Perth, from their adoption there 
in 1618. The Five Articles included: — (i) The 
Eucharist to be received kneeling; (2) the ad- 
ministration of the sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper to sick persons in private houses; (3) the 
administration of Baptism in private houses in 
cases of necessity; (4) the recognition of Christ- 
mas, Good Friday, Easter, and Pentecost; and 
(5) the episcopal benediction. Scottish opposi- 
tion centred round the first article, which was 
not welcomed even by the Episcopalian party, 
and it required the king's personal interference to 
enforce it in Holyrood Chapel, during his stay 
in Edinburgh in 1616-17. His proposal to erect 
in the chapel representations of patriarchs and 
saints shocked even the bishops, on whose re- 
monstrances he withdrew his orders, incidentally 
administering a severe rebuke to the recalcitrant 
prelates, ''at whose ignorance he could not but 
wonder". Not till the following year were the 
articles accepted at Perth, under fear of the royal 
displeasure, and considerable difficulty was ex- 
perienced in enforcing them. 

The only other Scottish measures of James's 
reign that demand mention are his attempts to 
carry out his policy of plantations in the High- 


156 England and Scotland 

lands. As a whole, the scheme failed, and was 
productive of considerable misery, but here and 
there it succeeded, and it tended to increase the 
power of the g-overnment. The end of the reign 
is also remarkable for attempts at Scottish 
colonization, resulting in the foundation of Nova 
Scotia, and in the Plantation of Ulster. 


^^The Ti'otcbles in Scotland'' 157 


"the troubles in Scotland" 

The new reign had scarcely begun when 
trouble arose between King Charles and his 
Scottish subjects. On the one hand, he alienated 
the nobles by an attempt, partially successful, 
to secure for the Church some of its ancient 
revenues. More serious still was his endeavour 
to bring the Scottish Church into uniformity 
with the usage of the Church of England. 
James had understood that any further attempt 
to alter the service or constitution of the Church 
of Scotland would infallibly lead to serious 
trouble. He had given up an intention of 
introducing a new prayer-book to supersede 
the "Book of Common Order", known as 
"Knox's Liturgy", which was employed in the 
Church, though not to the exclusion of ex- 
temporary prayers. When Charles came to 
Edinburgh to be crowned, in 1633, he made a 
further attempt in this direction, and, although 
he had to postpone the introduction of this 
particular change, he left a most uneasy feeling, 
not only among the Presbyterians, but also 
among the bishops themselves. An altar was 
erected in Holyrood Chapel, and behind it was 
a crucifix, before which the clergy made genu- 
flexions. He erected Edinburgh into a bishopric. 

158 England and Scotland 

with the Collegiate Church of St. Giles for a 
cathedral, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, as they 
followed in rapid succession, gained the reputa- 
tion of innovators and supporters of Laud and 
the English. Even more dangerous in its effect 
was a general order for the clergy to wear 
surplices. It was widely disobeyed, but it 
created very great alarm. 
/ In 1635, canons were issued for the Church 
of Scotland, which owed their existence to the 
dangerous meddling of Laud, now Archbishop 
of Canterbury. James, who loved Episcopacy, 
~had dreaded the influence of Laud in Scotland; 
his fear was justified, for it was given to Laud 
to make an Episcopal Church impossible north 
of the Tweed. Although certain of the Scottish 
bishops had expressed approval of these canons, 
they were enjoined in the Church by royal 
authority, and the Scots, whose theory of the 
rights of the Church was much more "high" 
than that of Laud, would, on this account alone, 
have met them with resistance. But the canons 
used words and phrases which were intolerable 
to Scottish ears. They spoke of a "chancel" 
and they commended auricular confession; they 
gave the Scottish bishops something like the 
authority of their English brethren, to the 
detriment of minister and kirk-session, and 
they made the use of a new prayer-book com- 
pulsory, and forbade any objection to it. Two 
years elapsed before the book was actually 

*'''Tlie Troubles in Scotland'' 159 

introduced. It was English, and it had been 
forced upon the Church by the State, and, worse 
than this, it was associated with the hated name 
of Laud and with his suspected designs upon 
the Protestant reHgion. When it came it was 
found to follow the English prayer-book almost 
exactly; but such changes as there were seemed 
suspicious in the extreme. In the communion 
service the rubric preceding the prayer of con- 
secration read thus: ''During the time of 
consecration he shall stand at such a part of 
the holy table where he may with the more 
ease and decency use both his hands ". The 
reference to both hands was suspected to mean 
the Elevation of the Host, and this suspicion 
was confirmed by the omission of the sentences 
"Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ 
died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by 
faith, with thanksgiving", and "Drink this in 
remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for 
thee, and be thankful ", from the words of 
administration. On more general grounds, too, 
strong objection was taken to the book, and 
on July 23rd, 1637, there occurred the famous 
riot in St. Giles's, which has become connected 
with the name of Jennie Geddes. The objection 
was not, in any sense, to read prayers in them- 
selves; the Book of Common Order had been 
read in St. Giles's that very morning. The 
difficulty lay in the particular book, and it is 
notable that the cries which have come down 

i6o Eno-Iand and Scotland 


to us as prefacing the riot are all indicative of 
a suspected attempt to reintroduce Roman 
Catholicism. "The mass is entered upon us." 
"Baal is in the Church." "Darest thou sing- 
mass in my lug." 

The Privy Council was negligent in punishing 
the rioters, and it soon became evident that they 
had public opinion behind them. Alexander 
Henderson, who ministered to a Fifeshire con- 
gregation in the old Norman church of Leuchars, 
and whom the king was to meet in other circum- 
stances, issued a respectful and moderate protest, 
in which he did not deal with the particular points 
at issue, but asserted the ecclesiastical independ- 
ence of Scotland. Riots continued to disturb 
Edinburgh, and Charles was impotent to suppress 
them. He refused Henderson's " Supplication"; 
its supporters drew up a second petition boldly 
asking that the bishops should be tried as the 
real authors of the disturbances, and, in Novem- 
ber, 1637, they chose a body of commissioners to 
represent them. These commissioners, and some 
sub-committees of them, are known in Scottish 
history as The Tables, the name being applied 
to several different bodies. Charles replied to 
the second petition in wrathful terms, and it was 
decided to revive the National Covenant of 1581, 
to renounce popery. It had been drawn up 
under fear of a popish plot, and was itself an 
expansion of the Covenant of 1557. To it was 
now added a declaration suited to immediate 

^''The Troubles in Scotland'' i6i 

necessities. On the ist and 2nd March, 1638, 
it was signed by vast multitudes in the church- 
yard of Greyfriars, in Edinburgh, and it con- 
tinued to be signed, sometimes under pressure, 
throughout the land. Hamilton, Charles's agent 
in Scotland, was quite unable to meet the situa- 
tion. In the end Charles had to agree to the 
meeting of a General Assembly in Glasgow, in 
November, 1638. Hamilton, the High Com- 
missioner, attempted to obtain the ejection of 
laymen and to create a division among his op- 
ponents. When he failed in this, he dissolved the 
Assembly in the king's name. At the instance 
of Henderson, supported by Argyll, the Assem- 
bly refused to acknowledge itself dissolved, and 
proceeded to abolish Episcopacy and re-establish 
the Presbyterian form of Church government. 

The king, on his part, began to concert 
measures with his Privy Council for the sub- 
jugation of Scotland. The ''Committee on 
Scotch affairs" of the English Privy Council 
was obviously unconstitutional, but matters were 
fast drifting towards civil war, and it was no 
time to consider constitutional niceties. It is 
much more important that the committee was 
divided and useless. Wentworth, writing from 
Ireland, advised the king to maintain a firm 
attitude, but not to provoke an outbreak of war 
at so inconvenient a moment. Charles again 
attempted a compromise. He offered to with- 
draw Laud's unlucky service-book, the new 

1 62 England and Scotland 

canons, and even the Articles of Perth, and to 
limit the power of the bishops; and he asked the 
people to sign the Covenant of 1580-81, on 
which the new Covenant was based, but which, 
of course, contained no reference to immediate 
difficulties. But it was too late; the sentiment 
of religious independence had become united to 
the old feeling of national independence, and 
war was inevitable. The Scots were fortunate 
in their leaders. In the end of 1638 there re- 
turned to Scotland from Germany, Alexander 
Leslie, the great soldier who had fought for 
Protestantism under Gustavus Adolphus. In 
February, 1639, ^^ took command of the army 
of the Covenant, which had been largely rein- 
forced by veterans from the Thirty Years' War. 
A more attractive personality than Leslie's was 
that of the young Earl of Montrose, who had 
attached himself with enthusiasm to the national 
cause, and had attempted to convert the people 
of Aberdeen to covenanting principles. Charles, 
on his part, asserted that his throne was in dan- 
ger, and that the Scottish preparations consti- 
tuted a menace to the kingdom of England, and 
so attempted to rouse enthusiasm for himself. 

While the king was preparing to reinforce 
the loyalist Marquis of Huntly at Aberdeen, 
the news came that the garrisons of Edinburgh 
and Dunbarton had surrendered to the insurgents 
(March, 1639), who, a few days later, seized 
the regalia at Dalkeith. On March 30th Aber- 

''''The Troubles in Scotland'' i6 


deen fell into the hands of Montrose and Leslie, 
and Huntly was soon practically a prisoner. 
Charles had by this time reached York, and it 
was now evident that he had entirely miscal- 
culated the strength of the enemy. He had 
hoped to subdue Scotland through Hamilton 
and Huntly; he now saw that, if Scotland was 
to be conquered at all, it must be through an 
English army. The first blood in the Civil War 
was shed near Turriff, in Aberdeenshire (May 
14th, 1639), where some of Huntly's supporters 
gained a slight success, after which the city of 
Aberdeen fell into their hands for some ten days, 
when it was reoccupied by the Covenanters. 
Meanwhile Charles and Leslie had been facing 
each other near Berwick; the former unwilling to 
risk his raw levies against Leslie's trained soldiers, 
while the Covenanters were not desirous of en- 
tering into a war in which they might find the 
whole strength of England ultimately arrayed 
against them. On the i8th June the two parties 
entered into the Pacification of Berwick, in ac- 
cordance with which both armies were to be 
disbanded, and Charles promised to allow a free 
General Assembly and a free Parliament to 
govern Scotland. While the pacification was 
being signed at Berwick, a battle was in pro- 
gress at Aberdeen, where, on June iSth-igth, 
Montrose gained a victory, at the Bridge of 
Dee, over the Earl of Aboyne, the eldest son 
of the Marquis of Huntly. For the third time. 

164 England and Scotland 

Montrose spared the city of Aberdeen, and Scot- 
land settled down to a brief period of peace. 

It was clear that the pacification was only a 
truce, for no exact terms had been agreed upon, 
and both sides thoroughly distrusted each other. 
Disputes immediately arose about the constitu- 
tion of Parliament and the Assembly. Charles 
refused to rescind the acts constituting Episco- 
pacylegal, and it is clear that he never intended 
to keep his promise to the Scots, who, on their 
part, were too suspicious of his good faith to 
carry out their part of the agreement. In the 
end Assembly and Parliament alike abolished 
Episcopacy, and Parliament passed several acts 
to ensure its own supremacy. Charles refused 
to assent to these Acts, and prorogued Parlia- 
ment from November, 1639, to June, 1640. The 
result of the king's evident disinclination to im- 
plement the Treaty of Berwick, was an interest- 
ing attempt to undo the work of the preceding 
century by a reversion to the old policy of a 
French alliance. It was, of course, impossible 
thus to turn back, and Richelieu met the Scottish 
offers with a decisive rebuff, while the fact of 
these treasonable negotiations became known to 
Charles, and embittered the already bitter con- 
troversy. A new attempt at negotiation failed, 
and in June, 1640, the second Bishops' War 
beganj^^, As usual the north suffered, especially 
from the fierceness of the Earl of Argyll, who 
disliked the more moderate policy advocated by 

'■''The Troubles in Scotland^' 165 

Montrose. The king's English difficulties were 
increasing, and the Scots had now many sym- 
patFizers amono' Englishmen, who looked upon 
them as fip-htino- for the same cause of Protes- 
t antism . ..and constitutional government. 

In August the Scots invaded England for the 
first time since the minority of Mary Stuart, and, 
on August 28th, they defeated a portion of the 
king's army at Newburn, a ford near Newcastle. 
The town was immediately occupied, and from 
Newcastle the invaders advanced to the Tees 
and seized Durham. Charles was forced, a 
second time, to give way. In October he agreed 
that the Scottish army of occupation should be 
paid until the English Parliament, which he was 
about to summon, might make a final arrange- s, 
ment. By Parliament alone could the Scots be \ 
paid, and thus, by a strange irony of fate, the | 
(Occupation of the northern counties by a Scottish 
army was, for the time, the best guarantee of 
English liberties. There were, however, points 
on which the Scottish army and the English 
Parliament found it difficult to agree, and it was 
not till August, 1 64 1, that the Scots recrossed the 
Tweed. Charles, who hoped to enlist the sym- 
pathy of the Scots in his struggle with the 
English Parliament, paid a second visit to Edin- 
burgh, where he gave his assent to the abolition 
of Episcopacy, and to the repeal of the Acts which 
had given rise to the dispute. But it became evi- 
den t that the Parliament, and not the king, was to 


1 66 England and Scotland 

bear rule in Scotland. The king's stay in Edin- 
burgh was marked by what is known as "The 
Incident", a mysterious plot to capture Argyll 
and Hamilton, who was now the ally of Argyll. 
It was supposed that the king was cognizant 
of the plan; he had to defend himself from the 
accusation, and was declared guiltless in the 
matter. At the time of the Incident, Argyll 
fled, but soon returned, and Charles had to 
yield to him in all things. Parliament, under 
Argyll, appointed all officials. Argyll him- 
self was made a marquis, and Leslie became 
Earl of Leven. There was a general amnesty, 
and among those who obtained their liberty was 
the Earl of Montrose, who had been imprisoned 
in May for making terms with the king. In 
November, 1641, Charles left Scotland for Lon- 
don, to face the English Parliament. He can 
scarcely have hoped for Scottish aid, and when, 
a few months later, he was on the verge of 
hostilities and made a request for assistance, it 
was twice refused. 

With the general course of the Great Rebellion 
we~are not here concerned. It is important for 
our purpose to notice that it affected Scotland 
in two ways. The course of events converted, 
oh the one hand, the Episcopalian party into a 
Royalist party, and placed at its head the Cove- 
nanter, Montrose. On the other hand, the 
National Covenant was transformed into the 
Solemn League and Covenant, which had for 

'"''The Troubles in Scotland'' 167 

its aim the establishment of Presbytery in Eng- 
land as well as in Scotland'. This "'will o' the 
wisp " of covenanted uniformity led the Scottish 
Church into somewhat strange places. As early 
as January, 1643, Montrose had offered to strike 
a blow for the king in Scotland, but Charles 
would not take the responsibility of beginning 
the strife. In August negotiations began for 
the extension of the covenant to England. The 
Solemn League and Covenant, which provided 
for the abolition of Episcopacy in England, was 
adopted by the Convention of Estates at Edin- 
burgh on August 17th, and in the following 
month it passed both Houses of Parliament in 
England, and was taken both by the House of 
Commons and by the Assembly of Divines at 
Westminster. Its only ultimate results were the 
substitution in Scotland of the Westminster Con- 
fession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory for 
Public Worship, in place of the older Scottish 
documents, and the approximation of Scottish 
Presbytery to English Puritanism, involving a 
distinct departure from the ideals of the Scottish 
Reformation, and the introduction into Scotland 
of a form of Sabbatarianism which has come to 
be regarded as distinctively Scottish, but which 
owes its origin, historically, to English Noncon- 
formity.^ Its immediate effects were the short- 
lived predominance of Presbytery in England, 

* Sabbath observance had been introduced from England six centuries 

earlier. Of. p. 14. 

1 68 Englmid and Scotland 

and the crossing of the Tweed, in January, 
1644, by a Scottish army in the pay of the 
English Parliament. The part taken by the 
Scottish army in the war was not unimportant. 
In April they aided Fairfax in the siege of York; 
in July they took an honourable share in the 
battle of Marston Moor; they were responsible 
for the Uxbridge proposals which provided for 
peace on the basis of a Presbyterian settlement. 
In June, 1645, they advanced southwards to 
Mansfield, and, after the surrender of Carlisle, 
on June 28th, and its occupation by a Scottish 
garrison, Leven proceeded to Alcester and there- 
after laid siege to Hereford, an attempt which 
events in Scotland forced him to abandon. 
Finally, in May, 1646, the king surrendered to 
the Scottish army at Newark, which had been 
invested by Leven since the preceding November. 
While the Scottish army was thus aiding the 
Parliamentary cause, the Earl of Montrose had 
created an important diversion on the king's side 
in Scotland itself. In April, 1644, he occupied 
Dumfries and made an unsuccessful attempt on 
the Scottish Lowlands. In May Charles con- 
ferred on him a marquisate, and in August he 
prepared to renew the struggle. To his old 
foes, the Gordons, he first looked for assistance, 
but was finally compelled to raise his forces in the 
Highlands, and to obtain Irish aid. On Sep- 
tember ist he gained his first victory at Tipper- 
muir, near Perth, on which he had marched with 

'"''Tie Troubles m Scotland'' 169 

his Highland host. From Perth he marched on 
Aberdeen, ga'ning some reinforcements from the 
northern gent y, and in particular from the Earl 
of Airlie. Once again Montrose fought a battle 
which delivered the city of Aberdeen into his 
power (September 13th), but now he was un- 
willing or unable to protect the captured town, 
which was cruelly ravaged. From Aberdeen 
Montrose proceeded by Rothiemurchus to Blair 
Athole, but suddenly turned backwards to Aber- 
deenshire, where he defended Fyvie Castle, 
slipped past Argyll, and again reached Blair 
Athole. The enemies of Argyll crowded to 
his banner, but his army was still small when, 
in December, 1644, he made his descent upon 
Argyll, and reached the castle of Inverary, 
From Inverary he went northwards, ravaging 
as he went, till he found, at Loch Ness, that 
there was an army of 5000 men under the Earl 
of Seaforth prepared to resist his advance, while 
Argyll was behind him at Inverlochy. Al- 
though Argyll's army considerably outnumbered 
his own, Montrose turned southwards and made 
a rapid dash at Argyll's forces as they lay at 
Inverlochy, and won a complete victory, the 
news of which dispersed Seaforth's men and 
enabled Montrose to invite Charles to a country 
which lay at his mercy. At Elgin he was joined 
by the heir of the Marquis of Huntly, his forces 
increased, and the excommunication which the 
Church immediately published against him seemed 

I/O Efigland and Scotlani 

of but little importance. On Apri 4th he seized 
Dundee, and on May 9th won a fresh victory 
at Auldearn, which was followed, in rapid suc- 
cession, by a victory at Alford in July, and in 
August by the ''crowning- mercy ' of Kilsyth, 
which made him master of the stuation, and 
forced Leven to raise the siege of Hereford. 
From Kilsyth he marched to Glasgow, where 
both the Highlanders and the Gordons began to 
desert him. From England, Leven sent David 
Leslie to meet Montrose as he marched by the 
Lothians into the border counties. On Sep- 
tember 13th, 1645, just one year after his victory 
at Aberdeen, Montrose was completely defeated 
at Philiphaugh. He escaped, but his power was 
broken, and he was unable henceforth to take 
any important share in the war. 

When Charles surrendered himself to the Scots, 
in May, 1646, his friends in Scotland were help- 
less, and he had to meet the Presbyterian leaders 
without any hope beyond that of being able to 
take advantage of the differences of opinion 
between Presbyterians and Independents, which 
were fast assuming critical importance. The 
king held at Newcastle a conference with 
Alexander Henderson, which led to no definite 
result. In the end the Scots offered to adopt 
the king's cause if he would accept Presby- 
terianism. This he declined to do, and his 
refusal left the Scots no choice except keeping 
him a prisoner or surrendering him to his 

'"''The Troubles in Scotland'^ 171 

English subjects. They owed him no gratitude, 
and, while it might be chivalrous, it could scarcely 
be expedient to retain his person. While he was 
unwilling to accede to their conditions they were 
powerless to give him any help. He was 
therefore handed over to the commissioners of 
the English Parliament, and the Scots, on the 
30th January, 1647, returned home, having been 
paid, as the price of the king's surrender, the 
money promised them by the English Parliament 
when they entered into the struggle in 1644. 

In the end of 1647 the Scots again entered 
into the long series of negotiations with the 
king. When Charles was a prisoner at Newport, 
and while he was arranging terms with the 
English, he entered into a secret agreement 
with commissioners from Scotland. The ''En- 
gagement ", as it was called, embodied the 
conditions which Charles had refused at New- 
castle — the recognition of Presbytery in Scotland 
and its establishment in England for three years, 
the king being allowed toleration for his own 
form of worship. The Engagement was by no 
means unanimously carried in the Scottish 
Parliament, and its results were disastrous to 
Charles himself. It caused the English Parlia- 
ment to pass the vote of No Addresses, and the 
second civil war, which it helped to provoke, 
had a share in bringing about his death. The 
Duke of Hamilton led a small army into 

England, where in August 17th, 1648, it was 


172 England and Scotland 

totally defeated by Cromwell at Preston. Mean- 
while the Hamilton party had lost power in 
Scotland, and when Cromwell entered Scotland, 
Argyll, who had opposed the Engagement, 
willingly agreed to his conditions, and accepted 
the aid of three English regiments. In the 
events of the next six months Scotland had no 
part nor loL The responsibility for the king's 
death rests on the English Government alone. 

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

^^The Tf'otibles in Scotland'''' 173 

The pressure of misfortune finally drove Charles 
to accept the Scottish offers. Even while Mon- 
trose was fio-hting' his last battle, his young" 
master was negotiating with the Covenanters. 
Conferences were held at Breda in the spring 
of 1650, and Charles landed at the mouth of 
the river Spey on the 3rd July, having taken 
the Covenant. In the middle of the same 
month Cromwell crossed the Tweed at the 
head of an English army. The Scots, under 
Eeven and David Leslie, took up a position 
near Edinburgh, and, after a month's fruitless 
skirmishing, Cromwell had to retire to Dunbar, 
whither Leslie followed him. By a clever 
manoeuvre, Leslie intercepted Cromwell's retreat 
on Berwick, while he also seized Doon Hill, 
an eminence commanding Dunbar. The Par- 
liamentary Committee, under whose authority 
Leslie was acting, forced him to make an attack 
to prevent Cromwell's force from escaping by 
sea. The details of the battle have been dis- 
puted, and the most convincing account is that 
given by Mr, Firth in his "Cromwell". When 
Leslie left the Doon Hill his left became shut 
in between the hill and "the steep ravine of the 
Brock burn ", while his centre had not sufficient 
room to move. Cromwell, therefore, after a feint 
on the left, concentrated his forces against Leslie's 
right, and shattered it. The rout was complete, 
and Leslie had to retreat to Stirling, while the 
Lowlands fell into Cromwell's hands. Cromwell 

174 England and Scotland 

was conciliatory, and a considerable proportion 
of Presbyterians took up an attitude hostile to 
the king's claims. The supporters of Charles 
were known as Resolutioners, or Engagers, and 
his opponents as Protesters or Remonstrants. 
The consequence was that the old Royalists and 
Episcopalians began to rejoin Charles. Before 
the battle of Dunbar (September 2nd) Charles 
had been really a prisoner in the hands of the 
Covenanters, who had ruled him with a rod of 
iron. As the stricter Presbyterians withdrew, 
and their places were filled by the " Malignants " 
whom they had excluded from the king's service, 
the personal importance of Charles increased. 
On January ist, 1651, he was crowned at Scone, 
and in the following summer he took up a position 
near Stirling, with Leslie as commander of his 
army. Cromwell outmanoeuvred Leslie and 
seized Perth, and the royal forces retaliated by 
the invasion of England, which ended in the 
defeat of Worcester on September 3rd, 1651, 
exactly one year after Dunbar. The king 
escaped and fled to France. 

Scotland was now unable to resist Monk, whom 
Cromwell had left behind him when he went 
southwards to defeat Charles at Worcester. On 
the 14th August he captured Stirling, and on 
the 28th the Committee of Estates was seized at 
Alyth and carried off to London. There was no 
further attempt at opposition, and all Scotland, for 
the first time since the reign of Edward I, was 

''^Tlie Troubles in Scotland''' 175 

in military occupation by English troops. The 
property of the leading supporters of Charles II 
was confiscated. In 1653 the General Assembly 
was reduced to pleading that "we were an 
ecclesiastical synod, a spiritual court of Jesus 
Christ, which meddled not with anything civil"; 
but their unwonted humility was of no avail to 
save them. An earlier victim than the Assembly 
was the Scottish Parliament. It was decided in 

1652 that Scotland should be incorporated with 
England, and from February of that year till the 
Restoration, the kingdom of Scotland ceased to 
exist. The "Instrument" of Government of 

1653 gave Scotland thirty members in the British 
Parliament. Twenty were allotted to the shires — 
one to each of the larger shires and one to each 
of nine groups of less important shires. There 
were also eight groups of burghs, each group 
electing one member, and two members were 
returned by the city of Edinburgh. Between 
1653 and 1655 Scotland was governed by parlia- 
mentary commissioners, and, from 1655 onwards, 
by a special council. The Court of Session was 
abolished, and its place taken by a Commission 
of Justice.- The actual union dates from 1654, 
when it was ratified by the Supreme Council of 
the Commonwealth of England, but Scotland 
was uiider English rule from the battle of Wor- 
cester. The wise policy of allowing freedom of 

* Justices of the peace were appointed throug-hout the country, and 
heritable jurisdictions were abolished. 

176 England and Scotland 

trade, like the improvement in the administration 
of justice, failed to reconcile the Scots to the 
union, and, to the end, it required a military 
force to maintain the new government. 

As Scotland had no share in the execution of 
Charles I, so it had none in the restoration of 
his son. The "Committee of Estates", which 
met after the 29th of May, was not lacking in 
loyalty. All traces of the union were swept away, 
and the pressure of the new Navigation Act was 
severely felt in contrast to the freedom of trade 
that had been the great boon of the Common- 
wealth. But worse evils were in store. The 
'* Covenanted monarch" was determined to re- 
store Episcopacy in Scotland, and for this purpose 
he employed as a tool the notorious James 
Sharpe, who had been sent up to London to 
plead the cause of Presbytery with Monk. Sharpe 
returned to Scotland in the spring of 1661 as 
Archbishop of St. Andrews. Parliament meL. 
by royal authority and passed a General Act 
ResciLsory, which rendered void all acts passed 
since 1638. The episcopal form of church 
government was immediately established. The 
Privy Council received enlarged powers, and was 
again completely subservient to the king. The 
execution of Argyll atoned for the death of Mon- 
trose, in the eyes of Royalists, and two notable 
ecclesiastical politicians, Johnston of Warriston 
and James Guthrie, were also put to death. An 
Indemnity Act was passed, but many men found 

^^The Troubles in Scotland^' 177 

that the king's pardon had its price. On October 
I St, 1662, an act was passed ordering recusant 
ministers to leave their parishes, and the council 
improved on the English Five Mile Act, by 
ordering that no recusant minister should, on 
pain of treason, reside within twenty miles of his 
parish, within six miles of Edinburgh or any 
cathedral town, or within three miles of any royal 
burgh. A Court of High Commission, which had 
been established by James VI in 1610, was again 
entrusted with all religious cases. The effect of 
these harsh measures was to rouse the insurrec- 
tions which are the most notable feature of the 
reign. In 1666 the Covenanters were defeated 
at the battle of Pentland, or Rullion Green, and 
those who were suspected of a share in the rising 
were subjected to examination under torture, 
which now became one of the normal features of 
Charles's brutal government. Prisoners were 
hanged or sent as slaves to the plantations. In 
1669, an Indulgence was passed, permitting 
Presbyterian services under certain conditions, 
but in 1670, Parliament passed a Conventicle Act, 
making it a capital crime to ''preach, expound 
scripture, or pray", at any unlicensed meeting. 
On May 5th, 1679, Sharpe was assassinated near 
St. Andrews. The murderers escaped, and some 
of them joined the Covenanters of the west. The 
Government had determined to put a stop to the 
meetings of conventicles, and had chosen for this 
purpose John Graham of Claverhouse. On 

178 England and Scotland 

the nth June, Claverhouse was defeated at 
Drumclog", but eleven days later he routed the 
Covenanting army at Bothwell Bridge, and took 
over a thousand prisoners. Only seven were 
executed, but the others were imprisoned in 
Greyfriars' churchyard, and a large number of 
them were sold as plantation slaves. A small 
rising at Aird's Moss in Ayrshire, in 1680, was 
easily suppressed. In 168 1 the Scottish Parlia- 
ment prescribed as a test the disavowal of the 
National Covenant of 1638 and the Solemn 
League and Covenant of 1644, and it declared 
that any attempt to alter the succession involved 
the subjects "in perjury and rebellion". In con- 
nection with the Test Act, an opportunity was 
found for convicting the Earl of Argyll^ of 
treason. His property was confiscated, but he 
himself was allowed to escape. The last years 
of the reign, under the administration of the 
Duke of York, were marked by exceptional 
cruelty in connection with the religious persecu- 
tions. The expeditions of Claverhouse, the case 
of the Wigtown martyrs, and the horrible 
cruelties of the torture-room have given to these 
years the title of ''the Killing time". 

The Scottish Parliament welcomed King James 
VII with fulsome adulation. But the new king 
was scarcely seated on the throne before a re- 
bellion broke out. The Earl of Argyll adopted 

^The son of the Marquis who was executed in 1661. The earldom, but 
not the marquisate, had been restored in 1663. 

'■''The Troubles in Scotland'' 179 

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

i8o England and Scotland 


I 689- I 707 

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

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

The Union of the Parliaments i8i 

The opponents of the revolution settlement 
consisted mainly of the old Royalist and Episco- 
palian party, the representatives of those who 
had followed Montrose to victory, and the sup- 
porters of the Restoration Government. As the 
Great Rebellion had made Royalists of the Scot- 
tish Episcopalians, so the Revolution could not 
but convert them into Jacobites. Their leader 
was James Graham of Claverhouse, who retreated 
from Edinburgh to the north to prepare for a 
campaign against the new government. The 
discontent was not confined to the Episcopalian 
party. Such Roman Catholics as there were in 
Scotland at the time were prepared to take up 
arms for a Stuart king who was a devout adherent 
of their religion. Moreover, the Presbyterians 
themselves were not united. A party which was 
to grow in strength, and which now included a 
considerable number of extreme Presbyterians, 
still longed, in spite of their experience of Charles 
II, for a covenanted king, and looked with great 
distrust upon William and Mary. The trium- 
phant party of moderate Presbyterians, who 
probably represented most faithfully the feeling 
of the nation, acted throughout with considerable 
wisdom. The acceptance of the crown converted 
the Convention into a Parliament, and the Estates 
set themselves to obtain, in the first place, their 
own freedom from the tyranny of the committee 
known as the ''Lords of the Articles", through 
which James VI and his successors had kept the 

i82 England and Scotland 

Parliament in subjection. William was unwilling 
to lose entirely this method of controlling his 
new subjects, but he had to give way. The 
Parliament rescinded the Act of Charles II as- 
serting his majesty's supremacy "over all persons 
and in all causes ecclesiastical" as "inconsistent 
with the establishment of Church government 
now desired ", but, in the military crisis which 
threatened them, they proceeded no further than 
to bring in an Act abolishing Prelacy and all 
superiority of office in the Church of Scotland. 

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

The ecclesiastical settlement followed the sup- 

The Unio7i of the Parliaments 183 

pression of the rebellion. The deprivation of 
nonjuring clergymen had been proceeding since 
the establishment of the new Government, and 
in i6go an act was passed restoring to their 
parishes the Presbyterian clergy who had been 
ejected under Charles II. A small temporary 
provision was made for their successors, who 
were now, in turn, expelled. On the 26th May, 
1690, the Parliament adopted the Confession of 
Faith, although it refused to be committed to the 
Covenant. The Presbyterian form of Church 
government was established; but King William 
succeeded in maintaining some check on the 
General Assembly, and toleration was granted 
to such Episcopalian dissenters as were willing 
to take the oath of allegiance. On the other 
hand, acceptance of the Confession of Faith was 
made a test for professors in the universities. 
The changes were carried out with little disturb- 
ance to the peace, there was no blood spilt, and 
except for some rough usage of Episcopalians 
in the west (known as the "rabbling of the 
curates "), there was nothing in the way of out- 
rage or insult. The credit of the settlement 
belongs to William Carstares, afterwards Prin- 
cipal of the University of Edinburgh, whose tact 
and wisdom overcame many difficulties. 

The personal union of Scotland and England 
had created no special difficulties while both 
countries were under the rule of an absolute 
monarch. The policy of both was alike, because 

184 England and Scotland 

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

There were two events, in particular, which 
roused widespread resentment in Scotland. 
These were the Massacre of Glencoe, and the 
failure of the scheme for colonizing the Isthmus 
of Darien. The story of Glencoe has been 

The Union of the Parliaments 185 

often told. The 31st December, 169 1, had been 
appointed as the latest day on which the 
Pl-overnment would receive the submission of 
the Highland chiefs. MacDonald of Glencoe 
delayed till the last moment, and then pro- 
ceeded to Fort-William, where a fortress had 
just been erected, to take the oath in the 
presence of its commander, who had no power 
to receive it. From Fort-William he had to 
go to Inverary, to take the oath before the 
sheriff of Argyll, and he did so on the 6th 
January, 1692. The six days' delay placed 
him and his clan in the power of men who 
were unlikely to show any mercy to the name 
of MacDonald. Acting under instructions from 
King William, the nature of which has been 
matter of dispute, Campbell of Glenlyon, acting 
with the knowledge of Breadalbane and Sir John 
Dalrymple of Stair, the Secretary of State, and 
as their tool, entered the pass of Glencoe on 
the ist February, 1692. The MacDonalds, 
trusting in the assurances which had been given 
by the Government, seem to have suspected no 
evil from this armed visit of their traditional 
enemies, the Campbells, and received them 
with hospitality. While they were living peace- 
ably, all possible retreat was being cut off from 
the unfortunate MacDonalds by the closing of 
the passes, and on the 13th effect was given 
to the dastardly scheme. It failed, however, 
to achieve its full object — the extirpation of the 

1 86 England and Scotland 

clan. Many escaped to the hills; but the chief 
himself and over thirty others were murdered in 
cold blood. The news of the massacre roused 
a fierce flame of indignation, not only in the 
Highlands, but throughout the Lowlands as 
well, and the Jacobites did not fail to make 
use of it. A commission was appointed to 
enquire into the circumstances, and it severely 
censured Dalrymple, and charged Breadalbane 
with treason, while many blamed, possibly 
unjustly, the king himself. 

The other grievance was of a different nature. 
About 1695, William Paterson, the founder of 
the Bank of England, suggested the formation 
of a Scottish company to trade to Africa and the 
Indies. It was originally known as the African 
Company, but it was destined to be popularly 
remembered by the name of its most notable 
failure — the Darien Company. It received very 
full powers from the Scottish Parliament, powers 
of military colonization as well as trading privi- 
leges. These powers aroused great jealousy and 
indignation in England, and the House of Com- 
mons decided that, as the company had its head- 
quarters in London, the directors were guilty of 
hieh crimes and misdemeanours. There followed 
a failure of the English capital on which the 
promoters had reckoned, but shares to the value 
of ;^400,ooo (on which ;^2 19,094 was paid up) 
were subscribed in Scotland. At first the com- 
pany was a prosperous trading concern, but its 

The Union of the Parliaments 187 

only attempt at colonization involved it in ruin. 
Paterson wished his fellow-countrymen to found 
a colony in the Isthmus of Panama, and to attract 
thither the whole trade of North and South 
America. The ports of the colony were to be 
open to ships of all nations. In the end of 1698 
twelve hundred Scots landed on the shore of the 
Gulf of Darien, without organization and without 
the restraint of responsibility to any government. 
They soon had difficulties with their Spanish 
neighbours, and the English colonists at New 
York, Barbadoes, and Jamaica were warned to 
render them no assistance. Disease and famine 
completed the tale of misery, and the first col- 
onists deserted their posts. Their successors, 
who arrived to find empty huts, surrounded by 
lonely Scottish graves, were soon in worse plight, 
and they were driven out by a band of Spaniards. 
The unfortunate company lingered on for some 
time, but merely as traders. The Scots blamed 
the king's ill-will for their failure, and he became 
more than ever unpopular in Scotland. The 
moral of the whole story was that only through 
the corporate union of the two countries could 
trade jealousies and the danger of rival schemes 
of colonization be avoided. 

In the reign of Charles II the Scots, who felt 
keenly the loss of the freedom of trade which they 
had enjoyed under Cromwell, had themselves 
broached the question of union, and William had 

brought it forward at the beginning of his reign. 


i88 England and Scotland 

It was, however, reserved for his successor to see 
it carried. In March, 1702, the king died. The 
dea'h of " WilHam 11", as his title ran in the 
kingdom of Scotland, was received with a feeling 
amounting almost to satisfaction. The first Eng- 
lish Parliament of Queen Anne agreed to the 
appointment of commissioners to discuss terms 
of union, and the Estates of Scotland chose 
representatives to meet them. But the English 
refused to give freedom of trade, and so the 
negotiations broke down. In reply, the Scottish 
Parliament removed the restrictions on the import 
of wines from France, with which country Eng- 
land was now at war. In the summer of 1703 
the Scots passed an Act of Security, which in- 
vested the Parliament with the power of the 
crown in case of the queen's dying without heirs, 
and entrusted to it the choice of a Protestant 
sovereign "from the royal line". It refused to 
such king or queen, if also sovereign of England, 
the power of declaring war or making peace with- 
out the consent of Parliament, and it enapted that 
the union of the crowns should ^nfet^mtfte after 
the queen's death unless Scotland was admitted 
to equal trade and navigation privileges with 
England. Further, the act provided for the com- 
pulsory training of every Scotsman to bear arms, 
in order that the country might, if necessary, 
defend its independence by the sword. The 
queen's consent to the Act of Security was re- 
fused, and the bitterness of the national feeling 

The Union of the Parliaments 189 

was accentuated by the suspicion of a Jacobite 
plot. Parliament had been adjourned on i6th 
September, 1703. When it met in 1704 it again 
passed the Act of Security, and an important 
section began to argue that the royal assent was 
merely a usual form, and not an indispensable 
authentication of an act. For some time, it 
seemed as if the two countries were on the brink 
of war. But, as the union of the crowns had 
been rendered possible by the self-restraint of a 
nation who could accept their hereditary enemy 
as their hereditary sovereign, so now Queen 
Anne's advisers resolved, with patient wisdom, 
to secure, at all hazards, the union of the 

It was not an easy task, even in England, for 
there could be no union without complete free- 
dom of trade, and many Englishmen were most 
unwilling to yield on this point. In Scotland 
the difficulties to be overcome were much greater. 
The whole nation, irrespective of politics and 
religion, felt bitterly the indignity of surrender- 
ing the independent existence for which Scotland 
had fought for four hundred years. It could not 
but be difficult to reconcile an ancient and high- 
spirited people to incorporation with a larger and 
more powerful neighbour, and the whole popula- 
tion mourned the approaching loss of their 
Parliament and their autonomy. Almost every 
section had special reasons for opposing the 
measure. For the Jacobites an Act of Union 

iQO Ejiglajid and Scotland 

meant that Scotland was irretrievably committed 
to the Hanoverian succession, and whatever force 
the Jacobites might be able to raise after the 
queen's death must take action in the shape of 
a rebellion ag-ainst the de facto government. It 
deprived them of all hope of seizing the reins of 
power, and of using the machinery of govern- 
ment in Scotland for the good of their cause — a 
coup d'etat of which the Act of Security gave 
considerable chance. On this very account the 
triumphant Presbyterians were anxious to carry 
the union scheme, and the correspondence of 
the Electress Sophia proves that the negotia- 
tions for union were looked upon at Hanover 
as solely an important factor in the succession 
controversy. But the recently re-established 
Presbyterian Church of Scotland regarded with 
great anxiety a union with an Episcopalian 
country, and hesitated to place their dearly won 
freedom at the mercy of a Parliament the large 
majority of whom were Episcopalians. The 
more extreme Presbyterians, and especially the 
Cameronians of the west, were bitterly opposed 
to the project. They protested against becoming 
subject to a Parliament in whose deliberations 
the English bishops had an important voice, and 
against accepting a king who had been educated 
as a Lutheran, and they clamoured for cove- 
nanted uniformity and a covenanted monarch. 
By a curious irony of fate, the Scottish Episco- 
palians were forced by their Jacobite leanings 

The Union of the Parliaments 191 

to act with the extreme Presbyterians, and to 
oppose the scheme of amalgamation with an 
Episcopalian country. The legal interest was 
strongly against a proposal that might reduce 
the importance of Scots law and of Scottish 
lawyers, while the populace of Edinburgh were 
furious at the suggestion of a union, whose 
result must be to remove at once one of the 
glories of their city and a valuable source of 
income. There was still another body of oppo- 
nents. The reign of William had been remark- 
able for the rise of political parties. The two 
main factions were known as Williamites and 
Cavaliers, and in addition to these there had 
grown up a Patriot or Country party. It was 
brought into existence by the enthusiasm of 
Fletcher of Saltoun, and it was based upon an 
antiquarian revival which may be compared with 
the mediaeval attempts to revive the Republic 
of Rome. The aim of the patriots was to main- 
tain the independence of Scotland, and they 
attempted to show that the Scottish crown had 
never been under feudal obligations to England, 
and that the Scottish Parliament had always 
possessed sovereign rights, and could govern 
independently of the will of the monarch. They 
were neither Jacobites nor Hanoverians; but they 
held that if the foreign domination, of which they 
had complained under William, were to continue, 
it mattered little whether it emanated from St. 
Germains or from the Court of St. James's, and 

192 England and Scotland 

they had combined with the Jacobites to pass the 
Act of Security. 

Such was the complicated situation with which 
the English Government had to deal. Their 
first step was to advise Queen Anne to assent to 
the Act of Security, and so to conserve the 
dignity and amour propre of the Scottish 
Parliament. Commissioners were then ap- 
pointed to negotiate for a union. No attempt 
was made to conciliate the Jacobites, for no 
attempt could have met with any kind of 
success. Nor did the commissioners make any 
effort to satisfy the more extreme Presbyterians, 
who sullenly refused to acknowledge the union 
when it became an accomplished fact, and who 
remained to hamper the Government when the 
Jacobite troubles commenced. An assurance 
that there would be no interference with the 
Church of Scotland as by law established, and 
a guarantee that the universities would be 
maintained in their status quo^ satisfied the 
moderate Presbyterians, and removed their 
scruples. Unlike James VI and Cromwell, the 
advisers of Queen Anne declared their intention 
of preserving the independent Scots law and 
the independent Scottish courts of justice, and 
these guarantees weakened the arguments of the 
Patriot party. But above all the English 
proposals won the support of the ever-increasing 
commercial interest in Scotland by conceding 
freedom of trade in a complete form. They 

The Union of the Parliaments 193 

agreed that *'all parts of the United Kingdom 
of Great Britain be under the same regulations, 
prohibitions, and restrictions, and Hable to equal 
impositions and duties for export and import". 
The adjustment of financial obligations was 
admitted to involve some injustice to Scotland, 
and an '* equivalent " was allowed, to compensate 
for the responsibility now accruing to Scotland 
in connection with the English National Debt. 
It remained to adjust the representation of Scot- 
land in the united Parliament. It was at first 
proposed to allow only thirty-eight members, 
but the number was finally raised to forty-five. 
Thirty of these represented the shires. Each 
shire was to elect one representative, except the 
three groups of Bute and Caithness, Clack- 
mannan and Kinross, and Nairn and Cromarty. 
In each group the election was made alternately 
by the two counties. Thus Bute, Clackmannan, 
and Nairn each sent a member in 1708, and 
Caithness, Kinross, and Cromarty in 17 10. The 
device is sufficiently unusual to deserve mention. 
The burghs were divided into fifteen groups, each 
of which was given one member. In this form, 
after considerable difficulty, the act was carried 
both in Scotland and in England. It was a union 
much less extensive than that which had been 
planned by James VI or that which had been in 
actual force under Cromwell. The existence of 
a separate Church, governed differently from the 
English Establishment, and the maintenance of 

194 England and Scotland 

a separate legal code and a separate judicature 
have helped to preserve some of the national 
characteristics of the Scots. Not for many years 
did the union become popular in Scotland, and 
not for many years did the two nations become 
really united. It might, in fact, be said that the 
force of steam has accomplished what law has 
failed to do, and that the real incorporation of 
Scotland with England dates from the introduc- 
tion of railways. 




I. AELRED (i2th Century) 
Account of the Battle of the Standard 

" Rex interim, coactis in unum comitibus, optimisque 
reg'ni sui proceribus, coepil cum eis de belli ratione tractare, 
placuitque plurimis, ut quotquot aderant armati milites et 
sagittarii cunctum praeirent exercitum, quatenus armati 
armatos impeterent, milites cong-rederentur militibus, sagittae 
sagfittis obviarent. Restitere Galwenses, dicentes sui esse 
juris primam construere aciem. . . Cum rex militum 

magis consiliis acquiescere videretur, Malisse comes Strad- 
arniae plurimum indignatus : 'Quid est,' inquit, 'o rex, quod 
Gallorum te magis committis voluntati, cum nuUus 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 deput- 
avit." — Aelred, De Bello Stmidardii, Migne, Patrologia Latina, 
vol. cxcv, col. 702-712. 

196 England and Scotland 

2. JOHN OF FORDUN(d. 1394?) 
{a) Descriptio7i of the Highlanders 

'* Mores autem Scotorum secundum diversitatem linguarum 
variantur; duabus enim utuntur linguis, Scotica videlicet, 
at 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 immori- 
gerata, raptu capax, otium diligens, ingenio docilis et callida; 
forma spectabilis, sed amictu deformis ; populo quidem 
Anglorum et linguae, sed et propriae nationi, propter lin- 
guarum diversitatem, infesta jugiter et crudelis. Regi tamen 
et regno fidelis et obediens, nee 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 English- 
men. He represents the whole nation (outside the old North- 
umbrian 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 bar- 
barian race who had been civilized by David : — 

" Unde tota ilia gentis illius barbaries mansuefacta, tanta 
se mox benevolentia et humilitate substravit, ut naturalis 
oblita saevitiae, legibus quas regia mansuetudo dictabat, 

Appendix 197 

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 bar- 
baros mores tuos Christiana religione composuit. . . ." — 
Bk. V, ch. xliii. 

(p) Coronation of Alexmider 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. Nee uspiam aliquis regum in 
Scocia regnare solebat,^ nisi super eundem lapidem regium 
in accipiendum nomen prius sederet in Scona, sede vero 
superiori, videlicet Albaniae constituta reg'ibus 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 difiicultatem loquelae. Deinde dictam genealo- 
giam dictus Scotus ab homine in hominem continuando 
perlegit donee ad primum Scotum, videlicet, Iber Scot, 
pervenit." — Annals, xlviii. 

^ This was written after the stone had been carried to England. 

198 E7igla7id and Scotland 

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 Ang-usiae, 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 undectmo, 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 ilia 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 Dund6, Alexander 
de Irevin, Robertus de Malvile et Thomas Murrave milites, 
Willelmus de Abirnethy . . . et aHi 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 quin- 
genti, et fere omnes generosi de Buchane." — Lib. xv, ch. xxi. 

Appendix 199 

5. JOHN MAJOR OR MAIR (1469-1550) 

(«) 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 
octing-entos 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. 

(6) 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 

200 England and Scotland 

apud Harlaw occurrunt. Fit atrox et acerrima pugna; nee 
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 vulg^o 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 (i465?-i536) 

{a) Account of the differences between Highlanders 

and Lowlanders 

"Nos vero qui in confinio Angliae sedes habemus, sicut 
Saxonum ling-uam per multa commercia bellaque ab illis 
didicimus nostramque deseruimus; ita priscos omnes mores 
reliquimus, priscusque nobis scribendi mos ut et sermo 
incog'nitus est. At qui montana incolunt ut linguam ita et 
caetera prope omnia arctissime tuentur. . . . Labentibus 
autem seculis idque maxime circa Malcolmi Canmoir tem- 
pera 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 Ang-lis 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 baud recta insistentes via umbras 
germanae g-loriae 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, 

Appendix 201 

qui Thani id est quaestores regii dicebantur illis muneribus 
ob fidem virtutemque donari." — Scotorum Regni Description 
prefixed to his History. 

if)) 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 Hali- 
dounhil periisse supra memoratum est,' duas habuit filias, 
quarum natu maiorem Walter© Leslie viro nobilissimo 
coniugem dedit una cum Rossiae comitatu. Walterus 
susceptis ex ea filio Alexandre nomine, quem comitem 
Rossiae fecit, et filia, quam Donaldo Hebridiano uxorem 
dedit, defunctus est. Alexander ex filia Roberti guberna- 
toris, quam duxerat, unam duntaxat filiam reliquit, Eu- 
femiam nomine, quae admodum adhuc adolescentula erat, 
dum pater decederet, parumque rerum perita. Earn guber- 
nator [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 loannes, quum antea Buthquhaniae comes fuisset Rossiae 
comitatum acquisivit, et unicam tantum filiam reliquit, quam 
Willelmus k Setoun eques auratus in coniugem accepit; 
unde factum est ut eius familiae principes ius sibi Buth- 
quhaniae vendicent. At Donaldus qui amitam Eufemiae 
Alexandri Leslie sororem, uxorem habebat, ubi Eufemiam 
defunctam audivit, k gubernatore postulavit ex haereditate 
Rossiae comitatum; ubi quum ille nihil aequi respondisset, 
collecta ex Hebridibus ingenti manu, partim vi, partim bene- 

^He had fallen in the front rank of the Scottish army at Halidon Hill. 

202 Engl mid and Scotland 

volentia, secum ducens Rossiam invadit, nee magno negotio 
in ditionem suam redegit, Rossianis verum recipere haeredem 
haud quaquam recusantibus. Verum eo successu non con- 
tentus, nee se in eorum quae iure petiverat, finibus continens, 
Moraviam. Bogaevallem iisque vicinas regiones hostiliter 
depopulando in Gareotham pervenit, Aberdoniam, uti minita- 
batur, 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 suspi- 
cantes) 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 ceci- 
dere cum Makgillane et Maktothe praecipuis post Donaldum 
ducibus. Ex Scotis adversae partis vir nobilis Alexander 
Ogilvy Angusiae vicecomes singulari iustitia ac probitate 
praeditus, Jacobus Strimger Comestabulis Deidoni magno 
animo vir ac insigni virtute, et ad posteros clarus, Alexander 
Irrvein 4 Drum ob praecipuum robur conspicuus, Robertus 
Maul i Pammoir, Thomas Moravus, Wilhelmus Abernethi 
k Salthon, Alexander Strathon k 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, nee deinceps iniuriam ullam illa- 
turum iurantem in gratiam recepit." — Scotorum Historiae, 
Lib. xvi. 

Appendix 203 

7. JOHN LESLEY (1527-1596) 
Contrast between Highlanders and Lowlanders 

" Angli etenim sicut et politiores Scoti antiqua ilia 
Saxonum lingua, quae nunc Angelica 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 dici- 
mus, prisca sua Hibernica lingua utuntur." — De Gestis 
Scotortim, Lib. i. {De Populis Regnis et Lhiguis.) 

8. GEORGE BUCHANAN (1506-1582) 

Account of Harlaw 

" Altero vero post anno, qui fuit a Christo 141 1, Donaldus 
Insulanus Qibudarum dominus cum Rossiam iuris calumnia 
per Gubernatorem sibi ablatam, velut proximus haeres (uti 
erat) repeteret, ac nihil aequi impetraret, coUectis insulanorum 
decern millibus in continentem descendit; ac Rossiam facile 
occupavit, cunctis libenter ad iusti domini imperium redeunti- 
bus. Sed ea Rossianorum parendi facilitas animum praedae 
avidum ad maiora audenda impulit. In Moraviam trans- 
gressus earn praesidio destitutam statim in suam potestatem 
redegit. Deinde Bogiam praedabundus transivit; et iam 
Abredoniae imminebat. Adversus hunc subitum et inexpec- 
tatum hostem Gubernator copias parabat ; sed cum magnitudo 
et propinquitas periculi auxilia longinqua expectare non 
sineret, Alexander Marriae Comes ex Alexandre Gubernatoris 
fratre genitus cum tota ferme nobilitate trans Taum ad Har- 
laum vicum ei se objecit. Fit praelium inter pauca cruentum 
et memorabile : nobilium hominum virtute de omnibus for- 
tunis, 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 

204 England and Scotland 

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. 



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

The kingdom^ of which Malcolm Canmore became the 
ruler in 1058 was not inhabited by clans. It had been, from 
of old, divided into seven provinces, each of which was 
inhabited by tribes. The tribe or tuath was governed by 
its own chief or king (Ri or Toisech); each province or 
Mor Tuath was governed by Ri Mor Tuath or Mormaer,^ 
and these seven Mormaers seem (in theory, at all events) 
to have elected the national king, and to have acted as his 
advisers. The tribe was divided into freemen and slaves, 
and freemen and slaves alike were subdivided into various 
classes — noble and simple; serfs attached to land, and per- 
sonal bondmen. The land was held, not by the tribe in 
general, but by the ciniod or near kin of the flath or senior 
of each family within the tribe. On the death of a senior, 
the new senior was chosen (generally with strict regard to 
primogeniture) from among the nearest in blood, and all who 
were within three degrees of kin to him, shared in the joint- 

' In this discussion the province of Lothian is not included. 
2 Ri Mortuath is an Irish term. We find, more usually, in Scotland, 
the Mormaer. 

Appe7idix 205 

proprietary of the proceeds of the land. The senior had 
special privileges and was the representative and surety 
of the ciniod, and the g-uardian of their common interests. 
After the third generation, a man ceased to be reckoned 
among the ciiiiod, and probably received a small personal 
allotment. Most of his descendants would thus be landless, 
or, if they held land, would do so by what soon amounted 
to servile tenure. Thus the majority of the tribe had little 
or nothing to lose by the feudalization that was approaching. 

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

"Qua [Margerita] mortua, Dufenaldum regis Malcolmi 
fratrem Scotti sibi in regem elegerunt, et omnes Anglos 
qui de curia regis extiterunt, de Scotia expulerunt. Quibus 
auditis, filius regis Malcolmi Dunechan regem Willelmum, 
cui tunc 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 nonnuUi Scottorum in unum congregati, 
homines illius pene omnes peremerunt. Ipse vero vix cum 
paucis evasit. Veruntamen post haec ilium regnare permis- 
erunt, ea ratione, ut amplius in Scotiam nee Anglos nee 
Normannos introduceret, sibique militare permitteret." — 
Rolls Series edn., vol. ii, p. 222, 

It was not till the reign of Alexander I (1107-1124) that 
the new influences made any serious modification of ancient 
custom. The peaceful Edgar had surrounded himself with 


2o6 England and Scotla^id 

English favourites, and had granted Saxon charters to Saxon 
landholders in the Lothians. His brother, Alexander, made 
the first efforts to abolish the old Celtic tenure. In 1114, 
he gave a charter to the monastery of Scone, and not only 
did the charter contemplate the direct holding of land from 
the king, but the signatories or witnesses described themselves 
as Earls, not as Mormaers. The monastery was founded 
to commemorate the suppression of a revolt of the Celts 
of Moray, and the earls who witnessed the charter bore 
Celtic names. This policy of taking advantage of rebellions 
to introduce English civilization became a characteristic 
method of the kings of Scotland. Alexander's successor, 
David I, set himself definitely to carry on the work which 
his brother had begun. He found his opportunity in the 
rising of Malcolm MacHeth, Earl of Moray. To this rising 
we have already referred in the Introduction. It was the 
greatest eff^ort made against the innovations of the anti- 
national sons of Malcolm Canmore, and its leader, Malcolm 
MacHeth, was the representative of a rival line of kings. 
David had to obtain the assistance, not only of the Anglo- 
Normans by whom he himself was surrounded, but also of 
some of the barons of Northumberland and Yorkshire, with 
whom he had a connection as Earl of Huntingdon, for the 
descendant of the Celtic kings of Scotland was himself an 
English baron. We have seen that David captured MacHeth 
and forfeited the lands of Moray, which he regranted, on 
feudal terms, to Anglo-Normans or to native Scots who 
supported the king's new policy. The war with England 
interrupted David's work, as a long struggle with the Church 
had prevented his brother, Alexander, from giving full scope 
to the principles that both had learned in the English Court; 
but, by the end of David's reign, the lines of future develop- 
ment had been quite clearly laid down. The Celtic Church 
had almost disappeared. The bishops of St. Andrews, Dun- 
keld, Moray, Glasgow, Ross, Caithness, Aberdeen, Dunblane, 
Brechin, and Galloway were great royal officers, who incul- 
cated upon the people the necessity of adopting the new 

Appendix 207 

political and ecclesiastical system. The Culdee monasteries 
were dying- out; north of the Forth, Scone had been founded 
by Alexander I as a pioneer of the new civilization, and, after 
the defeat of Malcolm MacHeth and the settlement of Moray, 
David, in 11 50, founded the Abbey of Kinloss. The Celtic 
official terms were replaced by English names ; the Mormaer 
had become the Earl, the Toisech was now the Thane, and 
Earl and Thane alike were losing- their position as the royal 
representative, as David gradually introduced the Anglo- 
Norman vice-comes or sheriff, who represented the royal 
Exchequer and the royal system of justice. David's police 
regulations tended still further to streng-then the nascent 
Feudalism; like the kings of England, he would have none 
of the " lordless man, of whom no law can be g-ot", and 
commendation was added to the forces which produced the 
disintegration of the tribal system. Not less important was 
the introduction of written charters. Alexander had given 
a written charter to the monastery of Scone ; David gave 
private charters to individual land-owners, and made the 
possession of a charter the test of a freeholder. Finally, 
it is from David's reign that Scottish burg-hs take their origin. 
He encourag-ed the rise of towns as part of the feudal system. 
The burgesses were tenants-in-chief of the king, held of him 
by charter, and stood in the same relation to him as other 
tenants-in-chief. So firmly grounded was this idea that, 
up to 1832, the only Scottish burgesses who attended Parlia- 
ment were representatives of the ancient Royal Burghs, and 
their right depended, historically, not on any g-ift of the 
franchise, but on their position as tenants-in-chief. That 
there were strangers among the new burgesses cannot be 
doubted ; Saxons and Normans mingled with Danes and 
Flemish merchants in the humble streets of the villages that 
were protected by the royal castle and that g-rew into Scottish 
towns ; but their numbers were too few to give us any ground 
for believing- that they were, in any sense, foreign colonies, 
or that they seriously modified the ethnic character of the 
land. Men from the country would, for reasons of protection. 

2o8 England and Scotland 

or from the impulse of commerce, find their way into the 
towns; it is certain that the population of the towns did not 
mig-rate into the country. The real importance of the towns 
lies in the part they played in the spread of the English 
tongue. To the influence of Court and King, of land tenure, 
of law and police, of parish priest and monk, and Abbot and 
Bishop, was added the persuasive force of commercial interest. 
The death of David I, in 1153, was immediately followed 
by Celtic revolts against Anglo-Norman order. The pro- 
vince of Moray made a final effort on behalf of Donald Mac 
Malcolm Mac Heth, the son of the Malcolm MacHeth of the 
previous reign, and of a sister of Somerled of Argyll, the 
ancestor of the Lord of the Isles. The new king, Malcolm 
IV, the grandson of David, easily subdued this rising-, and 
it is in connection with its suppression that Fordun makes 
the statement, quoted in the Introduction, about the dis- 
placement of the population of Moray. There is no earlier 
authority for it than the fourteenth century, and the inherent 
probability in its favour is so very slight that but little 
weight can reasonably be assigned to it. David had already 
granted Moray to Anglo-Normans who were now in posses- 
sion of the Lowland portion and who ruled the Celtic popu- 
lation. We should expect to hear something definite of any 
further change in the Lowlands, and a repopulation of the 
Highlands of Moray was beyond the limits of possibility. 
The king-, too, had little time to carry out such a measure, 
for he had immediately to face a new rebellion in Galloway ; 
he reigned for twelve years in all, and was only twenty-four 
years of age when he died. The only truth in Fordun's 
statement is probably that Malcolm IV carried on the policy 
of David I in regard to the land-owners of Moray, and for- 
feited the possessions of those who had taken part in Mac 
Heth's rising. In Galloway, a similar policy was pursued. 
Some of the old nobility, ofi"ended perhaps by Malcolm's 
attendance on Henry II at Toulouse, in his capacity as an 
English baron, joined the defeated Donald MacHeth in an 
attempt upon Malcolm, at Perth, in 1160. MacHeth took 

Appendix 209 

refuge in Galloway, which the king had to invade three times 
before bringing it into subjection. Before his death, in 1165, 
Galloway was part of the feudal kingdom of Scotland. 

Only once again was the security of the Anglo-Celtic 
dynasty seriously threatened by the supporters of the older 
civilization. When William the Lion, brother and successor of 
Malcolm IV, was the prisoner of Henry II, risings took place 
both in Galloway and in Moray. A Galloway chieftain, by 
name Gilbert, maintained an independent rule to his death 
in 1 185, when William came to terms with his nephew and 
successor, Roland. In the north, Donald Bane Mac William, 
a great-grandson of Malcolm Canmore, raised the standard 
of revolt in 1181, and it was not till 1187 that the rebellion 
was finally suppressed, and Donald Bane killed. There were 
further risings, in Moray in 12 14 (on the accession of Alex- 
ander II), and in Galloway in 1235. The chronicler, Walter 
of Coventry, tells us that these revolts were occasioned by 
the fact that recent Scottish kings had proved themselves 
Frenchmen rather than Scots, and had surrounded them- 
selves solely with Frenchmen. This is the real explanation 
of the support given to the Celtic pretenders. A new civili- 
zation is not easily imposed upon a people. Elsewhere in 
Scotland, the process was more gradual and less violent. 
In the eastern Lowlands there were no pretenders and no 
rebellions, and traces of the earlier civilization remained 
longer than in Galloway and in Moray. "In Fife alone", 
says Mr. Robertson, "the Earl continued in the thirteenth 
century to exercise the prerogatives of a royal Maor, and, 
in the reign of David I, we find in Fife what is practically 
the clan MacDuff."^ Neither in the eastern Lowlands, nor 
in the more disturbed districts of Moray and Galloway, is 
there any evidence of a radical change in the population. 
The changes were imposed from above. Mr. Lang has 
pointed out that we do not hear "of feuds consequent on 
the eviction of prior holders. . . . The juries, from 
Angus to Clyde, are full of Celtic names of the gentry. The 

* Op. cit., vol. i, p. 254. 

2IO England and Scotland 

Steward (FitzAlan) got Renfrew, but the prohi homines, or 
gentry, remain Celtic after the reigns of David and William."^ 
The contemporary chronicler, Aelred, gives no hint that 
David replaced his Scottish subjects by an Anglo-Norman 
population; he admits that he was terrible to the men of 
Galloway, but insists that he was beloved of the Scots. It 
must not be forgotten that the new system brought Anglo- 
Norman justice and order with it, and must soon have com- 
mended itself by its practical results. The grants of land 
did not mean dispossession. The small owners of land and 
the serfs acquiesced in the new rule and began to take new 
names, and the Anglo-Norman strangers were in actual 
possession, not of the land itself, but of the privilegia owed 
by the land. Even with regard to the great lords, the 
statements have been slightly exaggerated; Alexander II 
was aided in crushing the rebellion of 12 14-15 by Celtic 
earls, and in 1235 he subdued Galloway by the aid of a 
Celtic Earl of Ross. 

We have attempted to explain the .Anglicization of 
Scotland, south and east of "the Highland line", by the 
combined forces of the Church, the Court, Feudalism, and 
Commerce, and it is unnecessary to lay further stress upon 
the importance of these elements in twelfth century Ufe. It 
may be interesting to compare with this the process by which 
the Scottish Highlands have been Anglicized within the 
last century and a half. It must, in the first place, be fully 
understood that the interval between the twelfth century 
and the suppression of the last Jacobite rising was not void 
of development even in the Highlands. "It is in the reign 
of David the First", says Mr. Skene,^ "that the sept or 
clan first appears as a distinct and prominent feature in 
the social organization of the Gaelic population", and it is 
not till the reign of Robert III that he finds "the first 
appearance of a distinct clan ". Between the end of the 

'^History of Scotland, vol. i, pp. 135-6. 
^Celtic Scotland, vol. Hi, pp. 303, 309. 

Appendix 211 

fourteenth century and the middle of the eighteenth, the 
clan had developed a complete organization, consisting- of 
the chief and his kinsmen, the common people of the same 
blood, and the dependants of the clan. Each clan contained 
several septs, founded by such descendants of chiefs as 
had obtained a definite possession in land. The writer of 
Letters frojn a Gentleman in the North of Scotland in 1726, 
mentions that the Highland clans were "subdivided into 
smaller branches of fifty or sixty men, who deduce their 
original from their particular chieftains, and rely upon them 
as their more immediate protectors and defenders ". 

The Hanoverian government had thus to face, in 1746, 
a problem in some respects more difficult than that which 
the descendants of Malcolm Canmore had solved. The clan 
organization was complete, and clan loyalty had assumed 
the form of an extravagant devotion ; a hostile feeling had 
arisen between Highlands and Lowlands, and all feeling 
of common nationality had been lost. There was no such 
important factor as the Church to help the change; religion 
was, on the whole, perhaps rather adverse than favourable 
to the process of Anglicization. On the other hand, the 
task was, in other aspects, very much easier. The High- 
lands had been affected by the events of the seventeenth 
century, and the chiefs were no longer mere freebooters and 
raiders. The Jacobite rising had weakened the Highlands, 
and the clans had been divided among themselves. It was 
not a united opposition that confronted the Government. 
Above all, the methods of land-tenure had already been ren- 
dered subject to very considerable modification. Since the 
reign of James VI, the law had been successful in attempting 
to ignore "all Celtic usages inconsistent with its principles", 
and it "regarded all persons possessing a feudal title as 
absolute proprietors of the land, and all occupants of the 
land who could not show a right derived from the proprietor, 
as simple tenants".^ Thus the strongest support of the 
clan system had been removed before the suppression of 

^Celtic Scotland, vol. iii, p. 368. 

212 England and Scotland 

the clans. The Government of George II placed the High- 
lands under military occupation, and began to root out 
every tendency towards the persistence of a clan organiza- 
tion. The clan, as a military unit, ceased to exist when 
the Highlanders were disarmed, and as a unit for admm- 
istrative purposes when the heritable jurisdictions were 
abolished, and it could no longer claim to be a political 
force of any kind, for every vestige of independence was 
removed. The only individual characteristic left to the clan 
or to the Highlander was the tartan and the Celtic garb, 
and its use was prohibited under very severe penalties. 
These were measures which were not possible in the days 
of David as they were in those of George. But a further 
step was common to both centuries — the forfeiture of lands, 
and although a later Government restored many of these to 
descendants of the attainted chiefs, the magic spell had been 
broken, and the proprietor was no longer the head of the 
clan. Such measures, and the introduction of sheep-farm- 
ing, had, within sixty years, changed the whole face of the 

Another century has been added to Sir Walter's Sixty 
Years Since, and it may be argued that all the resources 
of modern civilization have failed to accomplish, in that 
period, what the descendants of Malcolm Canmore effected 
in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. This is true as far 
as language is concerned, but only with regard to language. 
The Highlanders have not forgotten the Gaelic tongue as 
the Lowlanders had forgotten it by the outbreak of the War 
of Independence.^ Various facts account for this. One of 
the features of recent days is an antiquarian revival, which 
has tended to preserve for Highland children the great 
intellectual advantage of a bi-lingual education. The very 
severance of the bond between chieftain and clan has helped 
to perpetuate the ancient language, for the people no longer 

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

Appendix 213 

adopt the speech of their chief, as, in earlier days, the Celt 
of Moray or of Fife adopted the tongue spoken by his Anglo- 
Norman lord, or learned by the great men of his own race 
at the court of David or of William the Lion. The Bible 
has been translated into Gaelic, and Gaelic has become the 
language of Highland religion. In the Lowlands of the 
tv/elfth century, the whole influence of the Church was 
directed to the extermination of the Culdee religion, asso- 
ciated with the Celtic language and with Celtic civilization. 
Above all, the difference lies in the rise of burghs in the 
Lowlands. Speech follows trade. Every small town on 
the east coast was a school of English language. Should 
commerce ever reach the Highlands, should the abomination 
of desolation overtake the waterfalls and the valleys, and 
other temples of nature share the degradation of the Falls 
of Foyers, we may then look for the disappearance of the 
Gaelic tongue. 

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

X r. 










































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, 

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, no, in, 112. 
Alcester, 168. 

Alexander I, 17, 205, 207. 

— II, 28, 29, 32, 35, 36, 47, 209, 210. 

— Ill, 29, 30, 31, 36, loi, 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, 
no, ni, n2, \\2>, n5, n8, n9,. 
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 In- 
vective ", xxxiv. 

Antiquiti de la Nation et de Id. 
Langue des Celtes autrement ap- 
pellez 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, no, 
III, 112, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 

— 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. 
Baug^, 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. 
Big-od, Earl of Norfolk, 44. 
Biland Abbey, 58. 
Birnam Wood, 9. 
Bishops' War, 164. 

*' Black Agnes ", 71. 
Blair Athole, 169. 

Castle, 182. 

Blind Harry's M^«//ac<', xxvii, xxxiii. 
Boece, Hector, xxvii, xxviii, xxix, 

xxxi, 9, 200. 
Boniface VHI, 45. 
"Book of the Howlat", the, xxxiii. 
" Book of Pluscarden ", the, xxx, 

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, i. 

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, rb, 72, 85, 86. 

— Robert of Annandale, 32, 34, 35, 


— 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. 

Csesar, Julius, i, 2. 
Caithness, xxiii, 87, 193. 

— Bishop of, 206. 
Calderwood's History of the Kirk, 

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, 16S. 
Carrick, xxiv, 47, 51. 

— earldom of, 45. 

— men of, 56, 85. 
Carrickfergfus, 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, 17s, 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. 
Cre^y, 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, m. 
Dalkeith, 163. 
Dalriada, kingdom of, 3, 4. 
Dairy, defeat at, 51. 
Dalrymple, Father James, xxix. 

— Sir John, of Stair, 185, 186. 

' ' Dance of the Seven Deadly Sins ", 

Dare, Joan, 90. 
Darien Scheme, 184, 186, 187. 
Darnley, 90. 

— Lord, no, 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, 


— 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 Northynbrortun 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 W^illiam, 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, 

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 Lome, 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, 

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. 

Edinburgh, 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. 5°. 
51. 52. 59. 60, 62, 64, 66, 70, 74, 

— II, 32, Z7>^ 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 


— 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^ 

Falkland, 81. 
Falls of Foyers, 213. 
Fast Castle, 84. 
F^n^lon, 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. 
Flamboroug-h Head, 83. 
Fletcher of Saltoun, 184, 191. 
Flodden, battle of, xxiv, 21, 72, 103, 

104, 105, 106, 107, 108, III. 
Florence of Worcester, 7, 9. 
Flower, the, 98. 
" Flyting", xxxiv. 
Fordun, John of, xxii, xxvii, xxx, 

1 96, 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, iii, 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, I. 

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, i6i 

— 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, 16S, 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, 

Henry I, 17, 19. 



Henry II, 23, 25, 26, 27, 208, 209. 

— Ill, 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, loi, 102, 103. 

— VIII, X, 103, 104, 105, 109, no, 
III, 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, 

Hotspur, Sir Harry, 78, 82. 
Howard, Sir Edmund, 106. 
Hugo of Ross, 201 
Humber, river, xii. 
Hume, the historian, 138. 
Huntingdon, earldom of, 18, ig, 25, 

26, 27, 28, 35. 
Huntly, Earl of, 99, 131. 

— Marquis of, 162, 163, 164, 169, 

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, 


— of Spain, 99. 
Italy, 18. 

Jamaica, 187. 

James I, 83, 84, 89, 90, 91, 93. 

— n, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 109, 

— Ill, 95, 96, 97, 98, loi. 

— IV, xxiv, xxvii, xxviii, xxxv, 62, 
97. 98, 99. 100, loi, 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. 15s. 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. 

King's 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, 

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, Due 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. 

Mac Alexander, 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. 

Mac Lane, 198. 

Madeline, daughter of Francis I, 

113, 114. 
Madoc of Wales, 38. 
Mahomet, xxxv. 

Maitland of Lethington, 130, 1 33, 142. 
Major, John, xxvi, xxviii, xxix, 

XXX, xxxi, xxxii, 199. 
Malcolm I, 6. 

— II, xii, 7, 8, 9. 

— Ill (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. 

— loth Earl of, 50. 

— nth 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, 
831 84, 88. 

Margaret, daughter of Alexander 

— daughter of Angus, 1 10, 119, 129, 



Margaret, daughter of Christian I, 


— daughter of David, 34. 

— daughter of Henry III, 31. 

— daughter of Henry VH, 99, loi, 
102, 103, 108, 109, no, HI, 112, 
113, 114, 116, 124, 133. 

— daughter of James I, 90, 91. 

— daughter of WiUiam the Lion, 28. 

— grand -daughter of Alexander 
ni, 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. '42, 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, xxxtv, 


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, Gu}' de, 70. 

Napoleon, 46. 

National Covenant, 160, 162, 166, 

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, 

Northampton, battle of, 93. 

— Treaty of, 59, 64, 65, loi. 
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. 
Og-ilvie, John, 150. 
Oman, Mr., xii, 21, 44. 
Orkneys, 8, 97. 
Orleans, siegfe 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. 
Philiphaugfh, 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. 

Randolph, Earl of Moray, the 
younger, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73. 

— the ambassador, 134. 
Rathlin, island of, 51. 
Ratisbon, xxix. 
Regnold, King, 5. 
Renfrew, lo. 

Rhys, Dr., 3. 
Richard I, 27, 35. 

— II, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82. 

— Ill, 97- 

Richard of Hexham, 22. 
Richelieu, Cardinal, 164. 
Rizzio, David, 134, 135, 136, 13S. 
Robert II, the Steward, 59, 69, 72, 

73. 75, 78. 86. 

— Ill, 78, 80, 8i, 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, no. 

— 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, ist battle of, 93. 

— 2nd battle of, 94. 

St. Andrews, 34, 118, 120, 121, 125, 

— Archbishop of, 176, 206. 

— castle of, 95. 
St. Duthac, 51. 
St. Germains, 191. 

2 24 


St. Giles' Collegiate Church, 158, 

St. James's, 191. 
Salisbury, Earl of, 70. 
— meetingf at, 32. 
Sark, battle of, 92. 
Scone, 32, 40, 42, 66, 174. 
Scoti-chro?ticon, 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 Scotlatid, 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, 

I PS- 
Stanley, 106. 

Stephen, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25. 
Stewart, Henry, 113. 

— Lord James, 127, 130, 133, 134, 

135. 138, 139. 141. J42. 

— 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,. 

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, Due de, 113. 
Verneuil, battle of, 90. 
Vienne, John de, 77. 
Virgil, Polydore, xxxii, loi. 

Wales, I, 81. 

Wallace, William, xxxiii, 41, 42, 43, 

44. 45. 48, 54. 55. 62. 
Walter I'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. 
Wigftown, martyrs of, 178. 
Winchester, Bishop of, 148. 

— Chronicle, 5. 

— defeat at, 23. 
Wishart, George, 120. 

William I, xiv, xv, 11, I2, 13, 14, 17. 

— Ill, 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, homagfe 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. 

«2 5 8 



Los Angeles 

This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 

J.^f^ ^ ^07' 


i^LB 81978 



9 1980 

Form L9-Series 444 




^>' • 


3 1158 00140 6478 


AA 000 393 119 3 

•-• v,,N Htfirf 



"-.•., -;;rrtl 












iTC.svr ft-- >.■■»..» wi^^Vi^ 

^.-».^. /.-.w*« .-.-fir*- - -■...i.x''-'H»-.,*/. ^ ■■ ■^.^^Mti^iSW.^^i^iiW 

" -■— " -^ - .. - ,, ,vi»,i,J«t*tM.»««-- — ■- 




"1 '■'^\*^» '••^-■T***^-'*-*'***^'**-'*****'***-^'****^**'*^