Part 2 — CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (continued 26)

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 3, section. 4.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1005-1034. The kingdom acquires its final name.

"The mixed population of Picts and Scots had now become to a great extent amalgamated, and under the influence of the dominant race of the Scots were identified with them in name. Their power was now to be further consolidated, and their influence extended during the thirty years' reign of a king who proved to be the last of his race, and who was to bequeath the kingdom, under the name of Scotia, to a new line of kings. This was Malcolm, the son of Kenneth, who slew his predecessor, Kenneth, the son of Dubh, at Monzievaird. … With Malcolm the descendants of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the founder of the Scottish dynasty, became extinct in the male line."

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 1, chapter 8.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1039-1054. The reign of Macbeth or Macbeda.

Malcolm was succeeded by his daughter's son, Duncan. "There is little noticeable in his [Duncan's] life but its conclusion. He had made vain efforts to extend his frontiers southward through Northumberland, and was engaged in a war with the holders of the northern independent states at his death in the year 1039. … He was slain in 'Bothgowan,' which is held to be Gaelic for 'a smith's hut.' The person who slew him, whether with his own hand or not, was Macbeda, the Maarmor of Ross, or of Ross and Moray; the ruler, in short, of the district stretching from the Moray Frith and Loch Ness northwards. The place where the smith's hut stood is said to have been near Elgin. This has not been very distinctly established; but at all events it was near if not actually within the territory ruled by Macbeda, and Duncan was there with aggressive designs. The maarmor's wife was Gruach, a granddaughter of Kenneth IV. If there was a grandson of Kenneth killed by Malcolm, this was his sister. But whether or not she had this inheritance of revenge, she was, according to the Scots authorities, the representative of the Kenneth whom the grandfather of Duncan had deprived of his throne and his life. … The deeds which raised Macbeda and his wife to power were not to appearance much worse than others of their day done for similar ends. However he may have gained his power, he exercised it with good repute, according to the reports nearest to his time. {2842} It is among the most curious of the antagonisms that sometimes separate the popular opinion of people of mark from anything positively known about them, that this man, in a manner sacred to splendid infamy, is the first whose name appears in the ecclesiastical records both as a king of Scotland and a benefactor of the Church; and is also the first who, as king of Scotland, is said by the chroniclers to have offered his services to the Bishop of Rome. The ecclesiastical records of St. Andrews tell how he and his queen made over certain lands to the Culdees of Lochleven, and there is no such fact on record of any earlier king of Scotland. Of his connection with Rome, it is a question whether he went there himself. … That he sent money there, however, was so very notorious as not only to be recorded by the insular authorities, but to be noticed on the Continent as a significant event. … The reign of this Macbeda or Macbeth forms a noticeable period in our history. He had a wider dominion than any previous ruler, having command over all the country now known as Scotland, except the Isles and a portion of the Western Highlands. … With him, too, ended that mixed or alternative regal succession which, whether it was systematic or followed the law of force, is exceedingly troublesome to the inquirer. … From Macbeth downwards … the rule of hereditary succession holds, at all events to the extent that a son, where there is one, succeeds to his father. Hence this reign is a sort of turning-point in the constitutional history of the Scottish crown."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 10.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1066-1093. Effects of the Norman Conquest of England. Civilization and growth of the Northern Kingdom. Reign of Malcolm III.

"The Norman Conquest of England produced a great effect upon their neighbours. In the first place, a very great number of the Saxons who fled from the cruelty of William the Conqueror, retired into Scotland, and this had a considerable effect in civilizing the southern parts of that country; for if the Saxons were inferior to the Normans in arts and in learning, they were, on the other hand, much superior to the Scots, who were a rude and very ignorant people. These exiles were headed and accompanied by what remained of the Saxon royal family, and particularly by a young prince named Edgar Etheling, who was a near kinsman of Edward the Confessor, and the heir of his throne, but dispossessed by the Norman Conqueror. This prince brought with him to Scotland two sisters, named Margaret and Christian. They were received with much kindness by Malcolm III., called Canmore [Ceanmore] (or Great Head), who remembered the assistance which he had received from Edward the Confessor. … He himself married the Princess Margaret (1068), and made her the Queen of Scotland. … When Malcolm, King of Scotland, was thus connected with the Saxon royal family of England, he began to think of chasing away the Normans, and of restoring Edgar Etheling to the English throne. This was an enterprise for which he had not sufficient strength; but he made deep and bloody inroads into the northern parts of England, and brought away so many captives, that they were to be found for many years afterwards in every Scottish village, nay, in every Scottish hovel. No doubt, the number of Saxons thus introduced into Scotland tended much to improve and civilize the manners of the people. … Not only the Saxons, but afterwards a number of the Normans themselves, came to settle in Scotland, … and were welcomed by King Malcolm. He was desirous to retain these brave men in his service, and for that purpose he gave them great grants of land, to be held for military services; and most of the Scottish nobility are of Norman descent. And thus the Feudal System was introduced into Scotland as well as England, and went on gradually gaining strength, till it became the general law of the country, as indeed it was that of Europe at large. Malcolm Canmore, thus increasing in power, and obtaining re-enforcements of warlike and civilized subjects, began greatly to enlarge his dominions. At first he had resided almost entirely in the province of Fife, and at the town of Dunfermline, where there are still the ruins of a small tower which served him for a palace. But as he found his power increase, he ventured across the Frith of Forth, and took possession of Edinburgh, and the surrounding country, which had hitherto been accounted part of England. The great strength of the castle of Edinburgh, situated upon a lofty rock, led him to choose that town frequently for his residence, so that in time it became the metropolis, or chief city of Scotland. This king Malcolm was a brave and wise prince, though without education. He often made war upon King William the Conqueror of England, and upon his son and successor, William, who, from his complexion, was called William Rufus, that is, Red William. Malcolm was sometimes beaten in these wars, but he was more frequently successful; and not only made a complete conquest of Lothian, but threatened also to possess himself of the great English province of Northumberland, which he frequently invaded." Malcolm Canmore was killed in battle at Alnwick Castle (1093), during one of his invasions of English territory.

Sir W. Scott, Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland); abridged by E. Ginn, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 11.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1093-1153. Successors of Malcolm III. The reign of David I. His civilizing work and influence.

"Six sons and two daughters were the offspring of the marriage between Malcolm and Margaret. Edward, the eldest, perished with his father, and Ethelred, created Abbot of Dunkeld and Earl of Fife, appears to have survived his parents for a very short time: Edmund died in an English cloister, a penitent and mysterious recluse; Edgar, Alexander, and David, lived to wear, in succession, the crown of Scotland. Of the two daughters, Editha … became the queen of Henry of England. … Three parties may be said to have divided Scot·land at the period of Malcolm's death." One of these parties, inspired with jealousy of the English influence which had come into the kingdom with queen Margaret, succeeded in raising Donald Bane, a brother of the late king Malcolm, to the throne. Donald was soon displaced by Edmund, who is sometimes said to have been an illegitimate son of Malcolm; and in 1097 Edmund was dethroned by Edgar, the son of Malcolm and Margaret. Edgar, dying in 1107, was succeeded by Alexander I., and he, in 1124, by David I. {2843} The reign of David was contemporary with the dark and troubled time of Stephen in England, and he took an unfortunate part in the struggle between Stephen and the Empress Matilda, suffering a dreadful defeat in the famous Battle of the Standard (see STANDARD, BATTLE OF). But "the whole of the north of England beyond the Tees" was "for several years … under the influence, if not under the direct authority, of the Scottish king, and the comparative prosperity of this part of the kingdom, contrasting strongly with the anarchy prevailing in every other quarter, naturally inclined the population of the northern counties to look with favour upon a continuance of the Scottish connection. … Pursuing the policy inaugurated by his mother [the English princess Margaret] …, he encouraged the resort of foreign merchants to the ports of Scotland, insuring to native traders the same advantages which they had enjoyed during the reign of his father; whilst he familiarized his Gaelic nobles, in their attendance upon the royal court, with habits of luxury and magnificence, remitting three years' rent and tribute—according to the account of his contemporary Malmesbury—to all his people who were willing to improve their dwellings, to dress with greater elegance, and to adopt increased refinement in their general manner of living. Even in the occupations of his leisure moments he seems to have wished to exercise a softening influence over his countrymen, for, like many men of his character, he was fond of gardening, and he delighted in indoctrinating his people in the peaceful arts of horticulture, and in the mysteries of planting and of grafting. For similar reasons he sedulously promoted the improvement of agriculture, or rather, perhaps, directed increased attention to it; for the Scots of that period were still a pastoral, and, in some respects, a migratory people. … David hoped to convert the lower orders into a more settled and industrious population; whilst he enjoined the higher classes to 'live like noblemen' upon their own estates, and not to waste the property of their neighbours. … In consequence of these measures feudal castles began, ere long, to replace the earlier buildings of wood and wattles rudely fortified by earthworks; and towns rapidly grew up around the royal castles and about the principal localities of commerce. … The prosperity of the country during the last fifteen years of his reign [he died in 1153] contrasted strongly with the miseries of England under the disastrous rule of Stephen; Scotland became the granary from which her neighbour's wants were supplied; and to the court of Scotland's king resorted the knights and nobles of foreign origin, whom the commotions of the Continent had hitherto driven to take refuge in England."

E. W. Robertson, Scotland under her Early Kings, volume 1, chapters 6-8.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1153. Accession of Malcolm IV.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1165. Accession of William IV. (called The Lion).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1174-1189. Captivity of William the Lion, his oath of fealty to the English king, and his release from it.

In 1174, on the occasion of a general conspiracy of rebellion against Henry II., contrived at Paris, headed by his wife and sons, and joined by great numbers of the nobles throughout his dominions, both in England and in France, William the Lion, king of Scotland, was induced to assist the rebellion by the promise of Northumberland for himself. Henry was in France until July, 1174, when he was warned that "only his own presence could retrieve England, where a Scotch army was pouring in from the north, while David of Huntingdon headed an army in the midland counties, and the young prince was preparing to bring over fresh forces from Gravelines. Henry crossed the channel in a storm, and, by advice of a Norman bishop, proceeded at once to do penance at Becket's shrine. On the day of his humiliation, the Scotch king, William the Lion, was surprised at Alnwick and captured. This, in fact, ended the war, for David of Huntingdon was forced to return into Scotland, where the old feud of Gael and Saxon had broken out. The English rebels purchased peace by a prompt submission. In less than a month Henry was able to leave England to itself." The king of Scotland was taken as a prisoner to Falaise, in Normandy, where he was detained for several months. "By advice of a deputation of Scotch prelates and barons he at last consented to swear fealty to Henry as his liege lord, and to do provisional homage for his son. His chief vassals guaranteed this engagement; hostages were given; and English garrisons received into three Scotch towns, Roxburgh, Berwick, and Edinburgh. Next year [1175] the treaty was solemnly ratified at York."

C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, volume 1, chapter 31.

This engagement of fealty on the part of William the Lion is often referred to as the Treaty of Falaise. Fourteen years afterwards, when Henry's son, Richard, Cœur de Lion, had succeeded to the throne, the Scotch king was absolved from it. "Early in December [1189], while Richard was at Canterbury on his way to the sea [preparing to embark upon his crusade], William the Lion came to visit him, and a bargain was struck to the satisfaction of both parties. Richard received from William a sum of 10,000 marks, and his homage for his English estates, as they had been held by his brother Malcolm; in return, he restored to him the castles of Roxburgh and Berwick, and released him and his heirs for ever from the homage for Scotland itself, enforced by Henry in 1175."

K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 2, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: W. Burns, Scottish War of Independence, volume 1, chapter 12.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1214. Accession of Alexander II.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1249. Accession of Alexander III.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1263. The Norwegian invasion and the Battle of Largs.

"The western Highlands and Islands formed the original territory of the Scots. But we have seen how the Norwegians and Danes, seizing Shetland and Orkney, spread themselves over the western Archipelago, even as far south as Man, thereby putting an end, for 300 years, to the intercommunication between the mainlands of Scotland and Ireland. These islands long formed a sort of maritime community, sometimes under the active authority of the kings of Norway, sometimes connected with the Norwegian settlers in Ireland—Ostmen, as they were called; sometimes partially ruled by kings of Man, but more generally subject to chieftains more or less powerful, who, when opportunity offered, made encroachments even on the mainland. … {2844} Alexander II. seems to have determined to bring this sort of interregnum to a close, and he was engaged in an expedition for that purpose when he died at the little island of Kerrera, near Oban. His son, as he advanced to manhood, appears to have revived the idea of completely re-annexing the Islands. Complaints were made by the islanders to Haco, king of Norway, of aggressions by the earl of Ross and other mainland magnates, in the interest of the king of Scots; and Haco, who was at once a powerful and a despotic monarch, resolved to vindicate his claims as suzerain of the isles. … Haco accordingly fitted out a splendid fleet, consisting of 100 vessels, mostly of large size, fully equipped, and crowded with gallant soldiers and seamen. … On the 10th of July, 1263, 'the mightiest armament that ever left the shores of Norway sailed from the haven of Herlover.' … The island chieftains, Magnus of the Orkneys, Magnus, king of Man, Dougal MacRoderic, and others, met the triumphant fleet, swelling its numbers as it advanced amongst the islands. Most of the chiefs made their peace with Haco; though there were exceptions. … The invading fleet entered the Clyde, numbering by this time as many as 160 ships. A squadron of 60 sail proceeded up Loch-long; the crews drew their boats across the narrow isthmus at Tarbet, launched on Loch-lomond, and spread their ravages, by fire and sword, over the Lennox and Stirlingshire. … The alarm spread over the surrounding country, and gradually a Scottish army began to gather on the Ayrshire side of the firth. … Whether voluntarily, or from stress of weather, some portion of the Norwegians made a landing near Largs, on the Ayrshire coast, opposite to Bute. These being attacked by the Scots, reinforcements were landed, and a fierce but desultory struggle was kept up, with varying success, from morning till night. Many of the ships were driven ashore. Most of the Norwegians who had landed were slain. The remainder of the fleet was seriously damaged. … Retracing its course among the islands, on the 20th of October it reached Kirkwall in Orkney, where king Haco expired on 15th December. Such was the result of an expedition which had set out with such fair promises of success."

W. Burns, The Scottish War of Independence, chapter 13 (volume 1).

"In the Norse annals our famous Battle of Largs makes small figure, or almost none at all, among Hakon's battles and feats. … Of Largs there is no mention whatever in Norse books. But beyond any doubt, such is the other evidence, Hakon did land there; land and fight, not conquering, probably rather beaten; and very certainly 'retiring to his ships,' as in either case he behooved to do! It is further certain he was dreadfully maltreated by the weather on those wild coasts; and altogether credible, as the Scotch records bear, that he was so at Largs very specially. The Norse Records or Sagas say merely he lost many of his ships by the tempests, and many of his men by land fighting in various parts,—tacitly including Largs, no doubt, which was the last of these misfortunes to him. … To this day, on a little plain to the south of the village, now town, of Largs, in Ayrshire, there are seen stone cairns and monumental heaps, and, until within a century ago, one huge, solitary, upright stone; still mutely testifying to a battle there—altogether clearly to this battle of King Hakon's; who by the Norse records, too, was in these neighbourhoods at that same date, and evidently in an aggressive, high kind of humour."

T. Carlyle, Early Kings of Norway, chapter 15.

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 15 (volume 2).

See, also, NORMANS. NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES, and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1266. Acquisition of the Western Islands.

Three years after the battle of Largs, "in 1266, Magnus IV., the new King [of Norway], by formal treaty ceded to the King of Scots Man and all the Western Isles, specially reserving Orkney and Shetland to the crown of Norway. On the other hand, the King of Scots agreed to pay down a ransom for them of a thousand marks, and an annual rent of a hundred marks."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 15 (volume 2).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1286. Accession of Queen Margaret (called The Maid of Norway) who died on her way to Scotland in 1290.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305. Death of the Maid of Norway. Reign of John Balliol. English conquest by Edward I. Exploits of Wallace.

Alexander III. of Scotland, dying in 1286, left only an infant granddaughter to inherit his crown. This was the child of his daughter Margaret, married to the king of Norway and dead after her first confinement. The baby queen, known in Scottish history as the Maid of Norway, was betrothed in her sixth year to Prince Edward of England, son of Edward I., and all looked promising for an early union of the Scottish and English crowns. "But this project was abruptly frustrated by the child's death on her voyage to Scotland, and with the rise of claimant after claimant of the vacant throne Edward was drawn into far other relations to the Scottish realm. Of the thirteen pretenders to the throne of Scotland, only three could be regarded as serious claimants. By the extinction of the line of William the Lion, the right of succession passed to the daughters of his brother David. The claim of John Balliol, Lord of Galloway, rested on his descent from the eldest of these; that of Robert Bruce, Lord of Annandale, on his descent from the second; that of John Hastings, Lord of Abergavenny, on his descent from the third. … All the rights of a feudal suzerain were at once assumed by the English King; he entered into the possession of the country as into that of a disputed fief to be held by its overlord till the dispute was settled. … Scotland was thus reduced to the subjection which she had experienced under Henry II. … The commissioners whom he named to report on the claims to the throne were mainly Scotch; a proposal for the partition of the realm among the claimants was rejected as contrary to Scotch law, and the claim of Balliol as representative of the elder branch was finally preferred to that of his rivals. The castles were at once delivered to the new monarch, and Balliol did homage to Edward with full acknowledgment of the services due to him from the realm of Scotland. For a time there was peace." But, presently, Edward made claims upon the Scotch nobles for service in his foreign wars which were resented and disregarded. He also asserted for his courts a right of hearing appeals from the Scottish tribunals, which was angrily denied. Barons and people were provoked to a hostility that forced Balliol to challenge war. He obtained from the pope absolution from his oath of fealty and he entered into a secret alliance with the king of France. {2845} In the spring of 1296 Edward invaded Scotland, carried Berwick by storm, slaughtered 8,000 of its citizens, defeated the Scots with great slaughter at Dunbar, occupied Edinburgh, Stirling and Perth, and received, in July, the surrender of Balliol, who was sent to imprisonment in the Tower of London. "No further punishment, however, was exacted from the prostrate realm. Edward simply treated it as a fief, and declared its forfeiture to be the legal consequence of Balliol's treason. It lapsed in fact to the overlord, and its earls, barons and gentry swore homage in Parliament at Berwick to Edward as their king. … The government of the new dependency was intrusted to Warenne, Earl of Surrey, at the head of an English Council of Regency. … The disgraceful submission of their leaders brought the people themselves to the front. … The genius of an outlaw knight, William Wallace, saw in their smouldering discontent a hope of freedom for his country, and his daring raids on outlying parties of the English soldiery roused the country at last into revolt. Of Wallace himself, of his life or temper, we know little or nothing; the very traditions of his gigantic stature and enormous strength are dim and unhistorical. But the instinct of the Scotch people has guided it aright in choosing Wallace for its national hero. He … called the people itself to arms." At Stirling, in September, 1297, Wallace caught the English army in the midst of its passage of the Forth, cut half of it in pieces and put the remainder to flight. At Falkirk, in the following July, Edward avenged himself upon the forces of Wallace with terrible slaughter, and the Scottish leader narrowly escaped. In the struggle which the Scots still maintained for several years, he seems to have borne no longer a prominent part. But when they submitted, in 1303, Wallace refused Edward's offered amnesty; he was afterwards captured, sent to London for trial, and executed, his head being placed on London Bridge, according to the barbarous custom of the time.

J. R. Green, Short History of the English People, chapter 4, section 3.

ALSO: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapters 15 and 18-22.

C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, volume 2, chapters 12-13.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1305-1307. The rising under Robert Bruce.

After the submission of Scotland in 1303, King Edward of England "set to work to complete the union of the two kingdoms. In the meantime Scotland was to be governed by a Lieutenant aided by a council of barons and churchmen. It was to be represented in the English parliament by ten deputies,—four churchmen, four barons, and two members of the commons, one for the country north of the Firths, one for the south. These members attended one parliament at Westminster, and an ordinance was issued for the government of Scotland. … But the great difficulty in dealing with the Scots was that they never knew when they were conquered, and, just when Edward hoped that his scheme for union was carried out, they rose in arms once more. The leader this time was Robert Bruce, Lord of Annandale, Earl of Carrick in right of his mother, and the grandson and heir of the rival of Balliol. He had joined Wallace, but had again sworn fealty to Edward at the Convention of Irvine, and had since then received many favours from the English king. Bruce signed a bond with William Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, who had also been one of Wallace's supporters. In this bond each party swore to stand by the other in all his undertakings, no matter what, and not to act without the knowledge of the other. … This bond became known to Edward; and Bruce, afraid of his anger, fled from London to Dumfries. There in the Church of the Grey Friars he had an interview with John Comyn of Badenoch, called the Red Comyn, who, after Balliol and his sons, was the next heir to the throne. … What passed between them cannot be certainly known, as they met alone"—but Comyn was slain. "By this murder and sacrilege Bruce put himself at once out of the pale of the law and of the Church, but by it he became the nearest heir to the crown, after the Balliols. This gave him a great hold on the people, whose faith in the virtue of hereditary succession was strong, and on whom the English yoke weighed heavily. On March 27, 1306, Bruce was crowned [at Scone] with as near an imitation of the old ceremonies as could be compassed on such short notice. The actual crowning was done by Isabella, Countess of Buchan, who, though her husband was a Comyn, and, as such, a sworn foe of Bruce, came secretly to uphold the right of her own family, the Macduffs, to place the crown on the head of the King of Scots. Edward determined this time to put down the Scots with rigour. … All who had taken any part in the murder of the Red Comyn were denounced as traitors, and death was to be the fate of all persons taken in arms. Bruce was excommunicated by a special bull from the Pope. The Countess of Buchan was confined in a room, made like a cage, in one of the towers of Berwick Castle. One of King Robert's sisters was condemned to a like punishment. His brother Nigel, his brother-in-law Christopher Seaton, and three other nobles were taken prisoners, and were put to death as traitors. … Edward this time made greater preparations than ever. All classes of his subjects from all parts of his dominions were invited to join the army, and he exhorted his son, Edward Prince of Wales, and 300 newly-created knights, to win their spurs worthily in the reduction of contumacious Scotland. It was well for Scotland that he did not live to carry out his vows of vengeance. He died at Burgh-on-the-Sands, July 30th. His death proved a turning-point in the history of Scotland, for, though the English still remained in possession of the strongholds, Edward II. took no effective steps to crush the rebels. He only brought the army raised by his father as far as Cumnock in Ayrshire, and retreated without doing anything."

M. MacArthur, History of Scotland, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, volume 1, chapters 8-9.

W. Burns, Scottish War of Independence, volume 2, chapters 21-22.

{2846}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314. The Battle of Bannockburn.

"It is extremely difficult to give distinctness and chronological sequence to the events in Scotland from 1306 to 1310: the conditions are indeed antagonistic to distinctness. We have a people restless and feverishly excited to efforts for their liberty when opportunity should come, but not yet embodied in open war against their invaders, and therefore doing nothing distinct enough to hold a place in history. … The other prominent feature in the historical conditions was the new-made king [Robert Bruce], … a tall strong man, of comely, attractive, and commanding countenance. … He is steady and sanguine of temperament; his good spirits and good-humour never fail, and in the midst of misery and peril he can keep up the spirits of his followers by chivalrous stories and pleasant banter. … The English were driven out of the strong places one by one—sometimes by the people of the district. We hear of the fall of Edinburgh, Roxburgh, Linlithgow, Perth, Dundee, Rutherglen, and Dumfries. … In the beginning of the year 1309 Scotland was so far consolidated as to be getting into a place in European diplomacy. The King of France advised his son-in-law, Edward II., to agree to a souffrance or truce with the Scots. … While the negotiations with France went on, countenance still more important was given to the new order of things at home. The clergy in council set forth their adherence to King Robert, with the reasons for it. … This was an extremely important matter, for it meant, of course, that the Church would do its best to protect him from all ecclesiastical risk arising from the death of Comyn. … A crisis came at last which roused the Government of England to a great effort. After the fortresses had fallen one by one, Stirling Castle still held out. It was besieged by Edward Bruce [brother of Robert] before the end of the year 1313. Mowbray, the governor, stipulated that he would surrender if not relieved before the Feast of St. John the Baptist in the following year, or the 24th of June. The taking of this fortress was an achievement of which King Edward [I.] was prouder than of anything else he had done in the invasions of Scotland. … That the crowning acquisition of their mighty king should thus be allowed to pass away, and stamp emphatically the utter loss of the great conquest he had made for the English crown, was a consummation too humiliating for the chivalry of England to endure without an effort. Stirling Castle must be relieved before St. John's Day, and the relieving of Stirling Castle meant a thorough invasion and resubjection of Scotland." On both sides the utmost efforts were made,—the one to relieve the Castle, the other to strengthen its besiegers. "On the 23d of June [1314] the two armies were visible to each other. If the Scots had, as it was said, between 30,000 and 40,000 men, it was a great force for the country at that time to furnish. Looking at the urgency of the measures taken to draw out the feudal array of England, to the presence of the Welsh and Irish, and to a large body of Gascons and other foreigners, it is easy to be believed that the army carried into Scotland might be, as it was said to be, 100,000 in all. The efficient force, however, was in the mounted men, and these were supposed to be about equal in number to the whole Scottish army." The Scots occupied a position of great strength and advantage (on the banks of the Bunnock Burn), which they had skilfully improved by honeycombing all the flat ground with hidden pits, to make it impassable for cavalry. The English attacked them at daybreak on the 24th of June, and suffered a most ignominious and awful defeat. "The end was rout, confused and hopeless. The pitted field added to the disasters; for though they avoided it in their advance, many horsemen were pressed into it in the retreat, and floundered among the pitfalls. Through all the history of her great wars before and since, never did England suffer a humiliation deep enough to approach even comparison with this. Besides the inferiority of the victorious army, Bannockburn is exceptional among battles by the utter helplessness of the defeated. There seems to have been no rallying point anywhere. … None of the parts of that mighty host could keep together, and the very chaos among the multitudes around seems to have perplexed the orderly army of the Scots. The foot-soldiers of the English army seem simply to have dispersed at all points, and the little said of them is painfully suggestive of the poor wanderers having to face the two alternatives—starvation in the wilds, or death at the hands of the peasantry. The cavalry fled right out towards England. … Stirling Castle was delivered up in terms of the stipulation."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, volume 2, chapter 23.

"The defeated army … left dead upon the field about 30,000 men, including 200 knights and 700 esquires."

W. Burns, Scottish War of Independence, chapter 23 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 3.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314-1328. After Bannockburn. The consequences of the battle in different views.

"A very general impression exists, especially among Englishmen, that the defeat at Bannockburn put an end to the attempted subjugation of Scotland. This is a mistake. … No doubt the defeat was of so decisive a character as to render the final result all but certain. But it required many others, though of a minor kind, to bring about the conviction described by Mr. Froude [that the Scotch would never stoop to the supremacy inflicted upon Wales]; and it was yet fourteen long years till the treaty of Northampton."

W. Burns, The Scottish War of Independence, chapter 24 (volume 2).

"No defeat, however crushing, ever proved half so injurious to any country as the victory of Bannockburn did to Scotland. This is the testimony borne by men whose patriotism cannot be called in question. … It drove from Scotland the very elements of its growing civilization and its material wealth. The artisans of North Britain were at that time mostly English. These retired or were driven from Scotland, and with them the commercial importance of the Scottish towns was lost. The estates held by Englishmen in Scotland were confiscated, and the wealth which through the hands of these proprietors had found its way from the southern parts of the kingdom and fertilized the more barren soil of the north, at once ceased. The higher and more cultured clergy were English; these retired when the severance of Scotland from England was effected, and with them Scottish scholarship was almost extinguished, and the budding literature of the north disappeared. How calamitous was the period which followed upon Bannockburn may be partially estimated by two significant facts. Of the six princes who had nominal rule in Scotland from the death of Robert III. to James VI., not one died a natural death. Of the ten kings whose names are entered on the roll of Scottish history from the death of Robert Bruce, seven came to the throne whilst minors, and James I. was detained in England for nineteen years. The country during these long minorities, and the time of the captivity of James, was exposed to the strife commonly attendant on minorities.… {2847} The war commenced by Bruce lingered for almost three centuries, either in the shape of formal warfare proclaimed by heralds and by the ceremonials usually observed at the beginning of national strife, or in the informal but equally destructive hostilities which neighbours indulge in, and which partake of the bitterness of civil war. … For three centuries the lands south of the Tweed, and almost as far as the Tyne at its mouth, were exposed to the ceaseless ravages of moss-troopers. … For a while men were killed, and women outraged and murdered, and children slain without pity, and houses plundered and then burnt, and cattle swept off the grazing lands between Tweed and Tyne, until none cared, unless they were outlaws, to occupy any part of the country within a night's ride of the borders of Scotland. The sufferers in their turn soon learned to recognize no law save that of might, and avenged their wrongs by inflicting like wrongs upon others; and thus there grew up along the frontiers of either country a savage population, whose occupation was murder and plunder, and whose sole wealth was what they had obtained by violence. … The war, indeed, which has been called a war of independence, and fills so large a part of the annals of England and Scotland during the Middle Ages, was successful so far as its main object was concerned, the preservation of power in the hands of 'barbarous chieftains who neither feared the king nor pitied the people'; the war was a miserable failure if we regard the well-being of the people themselves and the progress of the nation."

W. Denton, England in the Fifteenth Century, pages 68-78.

On the other side: "It [the battle of Bannockburn] put an end for ever to all hopes upon the part of England of accomplishing the conquest of her sister country. … Nor have the consequences of this victory been partial or confined. Their duration throughout succeeding centuries of Scottish history and Scottish liberty, down to the hour in which this is written, cannot be questioned; and without launching out into any inappropriate field of historical speculation, we have only to think of the most obvious consequences which must have resulted from Scotland becoming a conquered province of England; and if we wish for proof, to fix our eyes on the present condition of Ireland, in order to feel the reality of all that we owe to the victory at Bannockburn, and to the memory of such men as Bruce, Randolph, and Douglas."

P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 3.

"It is impossible, even now, after the lapse of more than 570 years, to read any account of that battle—or still more to visit the field—without emotion. For we must remember all the political and social questions which depended on it. For good or for evil, tremendous issues follow on the gain or on the loss of national independence. … Where the seeds of a strong national civilisation, of a strong national character, and of intellectual wealth have been deeply sown in any human soil, the preservation of it from conquest, and from invasion, and from foreign rule, is the essential condition of its yielding its due contribution to the progress of the world. Who, then, can compute or reckon up the debt which Scotland owes to the few and gallant men who, inspired by a splendid courage and a noble faith, stood by The Bruce in the War of Independence, and on June 24, 1314, saw the armies of the invader flying down the Carse of Stirling?"

The Duke of Argyll, Scotland as it was and as it is, volume 1, chapter 2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603. The formation of the Scottish Parliament.

"As many causes contributed to bring government earlier to perfection in Eng]and than in Scotland; as the rigour of the feudal institutions abated sooner, and its defects were supplied with greater facility in the one kingdom than in the other; England led the way in all these changes, and burgesses and knights of the shire appeared in the parliaments of that nation, before they were heard of in ours. Burgesses were first admitted into the Scottish parliaments by Robert Bruce [A. D. 1326]; and in the preamble to the laws of Robert III. they are ranked among the constituent members of that assembly. The lesser barons were indebted to James I. [A. D. 1427] for a statute exempting them from personal attendance, and permitting them to elect representatives: the exemption was eagerly laid hold on, but the privilege was so little valued that, except one or two instances, it lay neglected during one hundred and sixty years; and James VI. first obliged them to send representatives regularly to parliament. A Scottish parliament, then, consisted anciently of great barons, of ecclesiastics, and a few representatives of boroughs. Nor were these divided, as in Eng]and, into two houses, but composed one assembly, in which the lord chancellor presided. … The great barons, or lords of parliament, were extremely few; even so late as the beginning of the reign of James VI. they amounted only to 53. The ecclesiastics equalled them in number, and, being devoted implicitly to the crown, … rendered all hopes of victory in any struggle desperate. … As far back as our records enable us to trace the constitution of our parliaments, we find a committee distinguished by the name of lords of articles. It was their business to prepare and to digest all matters which were to be laid before the parliament. There was rarely any business introduced into parliament but what had passed through the channel of this committee. … This committee owed the extraordinary powers vested in it to the military genius of the ancient nobles, too impatient to submit to the drudgery of civil business. … The lords of articles, then, not only directed all the proceedings of parliament, but possessed a negative before debate. That committee was chosen and constituted in such a manner as put this valuable privilege entirely in the king's hands. It is extremely probable that our kings once had the sole right of nominating the lords of articles. They came afterwards to be elected by the parliament, and consisted of an equal number out of each estate."

W. Robertson, History of Scotland, book 1.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328. The Peace of Northampton.

In 1327 King Edward III. of England collected a splendid army of 60,000 men for his first campaign against the Scots. After several weeks of tiresome marching and countermarching, in vain attempts to bring the agile Scots to an engagement, or to stop the bold ravages of Douglas and Randolph, who led them, the young king abandoned his undertaking in disgust. {2848} He next "convoked a parliament at York, in which there appeared a tendency on the part of England to concede the main points on which proposals for peace had hitherto failed, by acknowledging the independence of Scotland and the legitimate sovereignty of Bruce." A truce was presently agreed upon, "which it was now determined should be the introduction to a lasting peace. As a necessary preliminary, the English statesmen resolved formally to execute a resignation of all claims of dominion and superiority which had been assumed over the kingdom of Scotland, and agreed that all muniments or public instruments asserting or tending to support such a claim should be delivered up. This agreement was subscribed by the king on the 4th of March, 1328. Peace was afterwards concluded at Edinburgh the 17th of March, 1328, and ratified at a parliament held at Northampton, the 4th of May, 1328. It was confirmed by a match agreed upon between the princess Joanna, sister to Edward III., and David, son of Robert I., though both were as yet infants. Articles of strict amity were settled betwixt the nations, without prejudice to the effect of the alliance between Scotland and France. … It was stipulated that all the charters and documents carried from Scotland by Edward I. should be restored, and the king of England was pledged to give his aid in the court of Rome towards the recall of the excommunication awarded against king Robert. Lastly, Scotland was to pay a sum of £20,000 in consideration of these favourable terms. The borders were to be maintained in strict order on both sides, and the fatal coronation-stone was to be restored to Scotland. There was another separate obligation on the Scottish side, which led to most serious consequences in the subsequent reign. The seventh article of the Peace of Northampton provided that certain English barons … should be restored to the lands and heritages in Scotland, whereof they had been deprived during the war, by the king of Scots seizing them into his own hand. The execution of this article was deferred by the Scottish king, who was not, it may be conceived, very willing again to introduce English nobles as landholders into Scotland. The English mob, on their part, resisted the removal of the fatal stone from Westminster, where it had been deposited. … The deed called Ragman's Roll, being the list of the barons and men of note who subscribed the submission to Edward I. in 1296, was, however, delivered up to the Scots."

Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, chapter 12 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: J. Froissart, Chronicles (translated by Johnes), book 1, chapter 18.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1329. Accession of David II.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333. The Disinherited Barons. Balliol's invasion. Siege of Berwick and battle of Halidon Hill.

Until his death, in 1329, King Robert Bruce evaded the enforcement of that provision of the Treaty of Northampton which pledged him to restore the forfeited estates of English nobles within the Scottish border. His death left the crown to a child of seven years, his son David, under the regency of Randolph, Earl of Murray, and the regent still procrastinated the restoration of the estates in question. At length, in 1332, the "disinherited barons," as they were called, determined to prosecute their claim by force of arms, and they made common cause with Edward Balliol, son of the ex-king of Scotland, who had been exiled in France. The English king, Edward III. would not openly give countenance to their undertaking, nor permit them to invade Scotland across the English frontier; but he did nothing to prevent their recruiting in the northern counties an army of 3,300 men, which took ship at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire, and landed on the coast of Fifeshire, under Balliol's command. Marching westward, the invaders "finally took up a strong position in the heart of the country, with the river Earn in their front. Just before this crisis, the wise and capable Regent, Randolph, Earl of Murray, had died, and the great Sir James Douglas, having gone with King Robert's heart to offer it at the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre, had perished on his way, in conflict with the Moors of Spain. The regency had devolved upon the Earl of Mar, a man wanting both in energy and in military capacity; but so strong was the national antipathy to Balliol, as representing the idea of English supremacy, that Mar found no difficulty in bringing an army of 40,000 men into the field against him. He drew up over against the enemy on the northern bank of the Earn, on Dupplin Moor, while the Earl of March, with forces scarcely inferior to the Regent's, threatened the flank of the little army of the invaders. Balliol, however, was not wanting in valour or generalship, and there were, as usual, traitors in the Scotch army, one of whom led the English, by a ford which he knew, safe across the river in the darkness of the night. They threw themselves upon the scattered, over-secure, and ill-sentinelled camp of the enemy with such a sudden and furious onslaught, that the huge Scottish army broke up into a panic-stricken and disorganised crowd and were slaughtered like sheep, the number of the slain four times exceeding that of the whole of Balliol's army, which escaped with the loss of thirty men. The invaders now took possession of Perth, which the Earl of March forthwith surrounded, by land and water, and thought to starve into submission; but Balliol's ships broke through the blockade on the Tay, and the besiegers, despairing of success, marched off and disbanded without striking another blow. Scotland having been thus subdued by a handful of men, the nobles one by one came to make their submission. Young King David and his affianced bride were sent over to France for security, and Edward Balliol was crowned King at Scone on September 24, 1332, two months after his disembarkation in Scotland. As Balliol was thus actual (de facto) King of Scotland, Edward could now form an alliance with him without a breach of the treaty; and there seemed to be many arguments in favour of espousing his cause. The young Bruce and his dynasty represented the troublesome spirit of Scottish independence, and were closely allied with France, whose king, as will be seen, lost no opportunity of stimulating and supporting the party of resistance to England. Balliol, on the other hand, admitted in a secret despatch to Edward that the success of the expedition was owing to that King's friendly non-intervention, and the aid of his subjects; offered to hold Scotland 'as his man,' doing him homage for it as an English fief; and, treating the princess Joan's hastily formed union with David as a mere engagement, proposed to marry her himself instead. The King, as always, even on less important issues than the present, consulted his Parliament. … {2849} Balliol in the meanwhile, having dismissed the greater part of his English auxiliaries, was lying unsuspicious of danger at Annan, when his camp was attacked in the middle of the night by a strong body of cavalry under Murray, son of the wise Regent, and Douglas, brother of the great Sir James. The entrenchments were stormed in the darkness; noble, vassal and retainer were slaughtered before they were able to organise any resistance, and Balliol himself barely escaped with his life across the English border." In the following year, however, Edward restored his helpless vassal, invading Scotland in person, besieging Berwick, and routing and destroying, at Halidon Hill, a Scotch army which came to its relief.

W. Warburton, Edward III., chapter 2.

ALSO IN: W. Longman, Life and Times of Edward III., volume 1, chapter 4.

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, volume 3, chapter 25.

See, also, BERWICK-UPON-TWEED.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370. The long-continued wars with Edward III.

"Throughout the whole country of Scotland, only four castles and a small tower acknowledged the sovereignty of David Bruce, after the battle of Halidon; and it is wonderful to see how, by their efforts, the patriots soon afterwards changed for the better that unfavourable and seemingly desperate state of things. In the several skirmishes and battles which were fought all over the kingdom, the Scots, knowing the country, and having the good-will of the inhabitants, were generally successful, as also in surprising castles and forts, cutting off convoys of provisions which were going to the English, and destroying scattered parties of the enemy; so that, by a long and incessant course of fighting, the patriots gradually regained what they lost in great battles. … You may well imagine that, during those long and terrible wars which were waged, when castles were defended and taken, prisoners made, many battles fought, and numbers of men wounded and slain, the state of the country of Scotland was most miserable. There was no finding refuge or protection in the law. … All laws of humanity and charity were transgressed without scruple. People were found starved to death in the woods with their families, while the country was so depopulated and void of cultivation that the wild deer came out of the remote forests, and approached near to cities and the dwellings of men. … Notwithstanding the valiant defence maintained by the Scots, their country was reduced to a most disastrous state, by the continued wars of Edward III., who was a wise and warlike King as ever lived. Could he have turned against Scotland the whole power of his kingdom, he might probably have effected the complete conquest, which had been so long attempted in vain. But while the wars in Scotland were at the hottest, Edward became also engaged in hostilities with France, having laid claim to the crown of that kingdom. … The Scots sent an embassy to obtain money and assistance from the French; and they received supplies of both, which enabled them to recover their castles and towns from the English. Edinburgh Castle was taken from the invaders by a stratagem. … Perth, and other important places, were also retaken by the Scots, and Edward Baliol retired out of the country, in despair of, making good his pretensions to the crown. The nobles of Scotland, finding the affairs of the kingdom more prosperous, now came to the resolution of bringing back from France, where he had resided for safety, their young King, David II., and his consort, Queen Joanna. They arrived in 1341. David II. was still a youth, neither did he possess at any period of life the wisdom and talents of his father, the great King Robert. The nobles of Scotland had become each a petty prince on his own estates; they made war on each other as they had done upon the English, and the poor King possessed, no power of restraining them. Edward III. being absent in France, and in the act of besieging Calais, David was induced, by the pressing and urgent counsels of the French King, to renew the war, and profit by the King's absence from England. The young King of Scotland raised, accordingly, a large army, and, entering England on the west frontier, he marched eastward towards Durham, harassing and wasting the country with great severity; the Scots boasting that, now the King and his nobles were absent, there were none in England to oppose them, save priests and base mechanics. But they were greatly deceived. The lords of the northern counties of England, together with the Archbishop of York, assembled a gallant army. They defeated the vanguard of the Scots and came upon the main body by surprise. … The Scottish army fell fast into disorder. The King himself fought bravely in the midst of his nobles and was twice wounded with arrows. At length he was captured. …The left wing of the Scottish army continued fighting long after the rest were routed, and at length made a safe retreat. It was commanded by the Steward of Scotland and the Earl of March. Very many of the Scottish nobility were slain; very many made prisoners. The King himself was led in triumph through the streets of London, and committed to the Tower a close prisoner. This battle was fought at Neville's Cross, near Durham, on 17th October, 1346. Thus was another great victory gained by the English over the Scots. It was followed by farther advantages, which gave the victors for a time possession of the country from the Scottish Border as far as the verge of Lothian. But the Scots, as usual, were no sooner compelled to momentary submission, than they began to consider the means of shaking off the yoke. Edward III. was not more fortunate in making war on Scotland in his own name, than when he used the pretext of supporting Baliol. He marched into East-Lothian in spring, 1355, and committed such ravages that the period was long marked by the name of the Burned Candlemas, because so many towns and villages were burned. But the Scots had removed every species of provisions which could be of use to the invaders, and avoided a general battle, while they engaged in a number of skirmishes. In this manner Edward was compelled to retreat out of Scotland, after sustaining much loss. After the failure of this effort, Edward seems to have despaired of the conquest of Scotland, and entered into terms for a truce, and for setting the King at liberty. Thus David II. at length obtained his freedom from the English, after he had been detained in prison eleven years. The latter years of this King's life have nothing very remarkable. He died in 1370."

Sir W. Scott, Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland); abridged by E. Ginn, chapters 14-15.

{2850}

ALSO IN: J. Froissart, Chronicles (translated by Johnes), book 1.

W. Longman, Life and Times of Edward III., volume 1, chapters 4, 10, 15, 22.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1346. Founding of the Lordship of the Isles.

See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370. The accession of Robert II. the first of the Stewart or Stuart Dynasty.

On the death of David II. of Scotland (son of Robert Bruce) A. D. 1370, he was succeeded on the throne by his nephew, "Robert the High Steward of Scotland," whose mother was Marjory, daughter of Robert Bruce. The succession had been so fixed by act of the Scottish Parliament during "good King Robert's" life. The new King Robert began the Stewart line, as a royal dynasty. "The name of his family was Allan, or Fitz Allan, but it had become habitual to call them by the name of the feudal office held by them in Scotland, and hence Robert II. was the first of the Steward, or, as it came to be written, the Stewart dynasty. They obtained their feudal influence through the office enjoyed by their ancestors at the Court of Scotland—the office of Steward."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 26 (volume 3).

The succession of the family on the Scottish throne was as follows:

Robert II., Robert III., James I., James II., James III., James IV., James V., Mary, James VI.

The grandmother of Mary, the great grandmother of James VI., was Margaret Tudor, of the English royal family—sister of Henry VIII. The death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603 left the English throne with no nearer heir than the Scottish King James. He, therefore, united the two crowns and became James I. of England, as well as James VI. of Scotland. His successors of the dynasty in England were Charles I., before the Rebellion and Commonwealth, then Charles II., James II., Mary (of the joint reign of William and Mary), and Anne. The Hanoverian line, which succeeded, was derived from the Stuart, through a daughter of James I.—Elizabeth of Bohemia.

M. Noble, Historical Genealogy of the House of Stuart.

ALSO IN: Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, chapter 15 (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1388. The Battle of Otterburn.

See OTTERBURN.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1390. Accession of Robert III.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436. Homildon Hill and Shrewsbury. The captivity of James I.

From 1389 to 1399 there was a truce between England and Scotland, and the Scotch borderers watched impatiently for the termination of it, that they might be let loose on the northern English counties, "like hounds let off the leash. It was asserted on the part of England, indeed, that they did not wait for the conclusion. Ten years of peaceful husbandry had prepared a harvest for them, and they swept it off in the old way—the English borderers retaliating by an invasion of the Lowlands. The political aspect again became menacing for Scotland. The conditions which rendered peace almost a necessity for England had ceased with a revolution. It was no longer Richard II., but Henry IV., who reigned; and he began his reign by a great invasion of Scotland." He marched with a large army (A. D. 1400) as far as Leith and threatened Edinburgh Castle, which was stoutly defended by the Scottish king's son; but the expedition was fruitless of results. Henry, however, gained the adhesion of the Earl of March, one of the most powerful of the Scottish nobles, who had received an unpardonable affront from the Duke of Albany, then regent of Scotland, and who joined the English against his country in consequence. In the autumn of 1402 the Scotch retaliated Henry's invasion by a great plundering expedition under Douglas, which penetrated as far as Durham. The rievers were returning, laden with plunder, when they were intercepted by Hotspur and the traitor March, at Homildon Hill, near Wooler, and fearfully beaten, a large number of Scotch knights and lords being killed or taken prisoner. Douglas and others among the prisoners of this battle were subsequently released by Hotspur, in defiance of the orders of King Henry, and they joined him with a considerable force when he raised his standard of revolt. Sharing the defeat of the rebellious Percys, Douglas was again taken prisoner at Shrewsbury, A. D. 1403. Two years later the English king gained a more important captive, in the person of the young heir to the Scottish throne, subsequently King James I., who was taken at sea while on a voyage to France. The young prince (who became titular king of Scotland in 1406, on his father's death) was detained at the English court nineteen years, treated with friendly courtesy by Henry IV. and Henry V. and educated with care. He married Jane Beaufort, niece of Henry IV., and was set free to return to his kingdom in 1424, prepared by his English training to introduce in Scotland a better system of government and more respectful ideas of law. The reforms which he undertook gave rise to fear and hatred among the lawless lords of the north, and they rid themselves of a king who troubled them with too many restraints, by assassinating him, on the 20th of February, 1436.

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, volume 3, chapters 26-27.

ALSO IN: Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, volume 1, chapters 16-18.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1411. Battle of Harlaw. Defeat of the Lord of the Isles and the Highland clans.

See HARLAW.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1437-1460. Reign of James II. Feuds in the kingdom. The Douglases.

James II. was crowned (1437) at six years of age. "Sir Alexander Livingstone became guardian of his person; Sir William Crichton, Chancellor of his kingdom; and Archibald, fifth Earl of Douglas, … nephew of the late King, became Lieutenant-General. The history of the regency is the history of the perpetual strife of Livingstone and Crichton with each other and with the Earl of Douglas, who had become 'very potent in kine and friendis.' His 'kine and friend is' now spread over vast territories in southern Scotland, including Galloway and Annandale, and in France he was Lord of Longueville and possessor of the magnificent duchy of Touraine. The position the Douglases occupied in being nearly related to the house of Baliol (now extinct) and to the house of Comyn placed them perilously near the throne; but there was a greater peril still, and this lay in the very dearness of the name of Douglas to Scotland. … To the Queen-mother had been committed by Parliament the care of her son, but as Crichton, the Chancellor, seemed disposed to take this charge upon himself, she determined to outwit him and to fulfil her duties. Accordingly, saying she was bound on a pilgrimage, she contrived to pack the boy up in her luggage, and carried him off to Stirling Castle. {2851} He was soon, however, brought back to Edinburgh by those in power, and then they executed a wicked plot for the destruction of William, who, in 1439, had, at the age of sixteen, succeeded his father, Archibald, as Earl of Douglas. The Earl and his brother … were executed, and for a time it would appear that the mightiness of the Douglases received a shock. … The Queen-mother had been early thrust out of the regency by Livingstone and Crichton. Distrusted because she was by birth one 'of our auld enemies of England'; separated from her son; still comparatively young, and needing a strong protector, she gave her hand to Sir James Stewart, the Black Knight of Lorn. … After her second marriage she sinks out of notice, but enough is told to make it apparent that neglect and suffering accompanied the last years of the winning Jane Beaufort, who had stolen the heart of the King of Scots at Windsor Castle. … The long minority of James, and the first years of his brief reign, were too much occupied in strife with the Douglases to leave time for good government. … When there was peace, the King and his Parliament enacted many good laws. … Although the Wars of the Roses left the English little time to send armies to Scotland, and although there were no great hostilities with England, yet during this reign a great Scottish army threatened England, and a great English army threatened Scotland. James was on the side of the House of Lancaster; and 'the only key to the complicated understanding of the transactions of Scotland during the Wars of the two Roses is to recollect that the hostilities of James were directed, not against England, but against the successes of the House of York.' … Since the Battle of Durham, the frontier fortress of Roxburgh had been in English hands; and when, in 1460, it was commanded by the great partisan of York, the Earl of Warwick, James laid siege to it in person. Artillery had been in use for some time, and years before we hear of the 'cracks of war.' Still many of the guns were novelties, and, curious to study the strange new machinery of death, 'more curious than became the majesty of ane King,' James ventured too near 'ane misframed gun.' It burst, and one of its oaken wedges striking him, he fell to the ground, and 'died hastlie thairafter,' being in the thirtieth year of his age. … King James III., who was eight years old, was crowned at the Monastery of Kelso in 1460."

M. G. J. Kinloch, History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 16.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1460. Accession of James Ill.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488. Lauder Bridge and Sauchie Burn.

James III., who was an infant at the time of his father's death, developed a character, as he came to manhood, which the rude nobles of his court and kingdom could not understand. "He had a dislike to the active sports of hunting and the games of chivalry, mounted on horseback rarely, and rode ill. … He was attached to what are now called the fine arts of architecture and music; and in studying these used the instructions of Rogers, an English musician, Cochrane, a mason or architect, and Torphichen, a dancing-master. Another of his domestic minions was Hommil, a tailor, not the least important in the conclave, if we may judge from the variety and extent of the royal wardrobe, of which a voluminous catalogue is preserved. Spending his time with such persons, who, whatever their merit might be in their own several professions, could not be fitting company for a prince, James necessarily lost the taste for society of a different description, whose rank imposed on him a certain degree of restraint. … The nation, therefore, with disgust and displeasure, saw the king disuse the society of the Scottish nobles, and abstain from their counsel, to lavish favours upon and be guided by the advice of a few whom the age termed base mechanics. In this situation, the public eye was fixed upon James's younger brothers, Alexander duke of Albany, and John earl of Mar." The jealousy and suspicion of the king were presently excited by the popularity of his brothers and he caused them to be arrested (1478). Mar, accused of having dealings with witches, was secretly executed in prison and his earldom was sold to the king's favourite, Cochrane, who had amassed wealth by a thrifty use of his influence and opportunities. Albany escaped to France and thence to England, where he put himself forward as a claimant of the Scottish throne, securing the support of Edward IV. by offering to surrender the hard-won independence of the kingdom. An English army, under Richard of Gloucester (afterwards King Richard III.) was sent into Scotland to enforce his claim. The Scotch king assembled his forces and advanced from Edinburgh as far as Lauder (1482), to meet the invasion. At Lauder, the nobles, having becoming deeply exasperated by the arrogant state which the ex-architect assumed as Earl of Mar, held a meeting which resulted in the sudden seizure and hanging of all the king's favourites on Lauder Bridge. "All the favourites of the weak prince perished except a youth called Ramsay of Balmain, who clung close to the king's person," and was spared. Peace with Albany and his English allies was now arranged, on terms which made the duke lieutenant-general of the kingdom; but it lasted no more than a year. Albany became obnoxious and fled to England again. The doings of the king were still hateful to his nobles and people and a continual provocation of smouldering wrath. In 1488, the discontent broke out in actual rebellion, and James was easily defeated in a battle fought at Sauchie Burn, between Bannockburn and Stirling. Flying from the battlefield, he fell from his horse and was taken, badly injured, into the house of a miller near by, where he disclosed his name. "The consequence was, that some of the rebels who followed the chase entered the hut and stabbed him to the heart. The persons of the murderers were never known, nor was the king's body ever found."

Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, chapter 20 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: C. M. Yonge, Cameos from English History, series 3, chapters 18 and 22.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1488. Accession of James IV.

{2852}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502. The marriage which brought the crown of England to the Stuarts.

"On the 8th of August 1502 the ceremony of marriage between King James [IV. of Scotland] and Margaret, Princess of England [daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII.], was celebrated in the Chapel of Holyrood. A union of crowns and governments might be viewed as a possible result of such a marriage; but there had been others between Scotland and England whence none followed. It was long ere such a harvest of peace seemed likely to arise from this union—it seemed, indeed, to be so buried under events of a contrary tenor that it was almost forgotten; yet, a hundred and one years later, it sent the great-grandson of James IV. to be King of England."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 30 (volume 3).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502-1504. The Highlands brought to order. Suppression of the independent Lordship of the Isles.

"The marriage of James in 1502 with the Princess Margaret, daughter of Henry VII., helped to prolong the period of tranquillity. But, in fact, his energetic administration of justice had, almost from the beginning of his reign, restored confidence, and re-awakened in his subjects an industrial activity, that had slumbered since the death of Alexander III. Everywhere he set his barons the novel task of keeping their territories in order. The Huntlys in the North, the Argylls in the West, were made virtual viceroys of the Highlands; the Douglasses were charged with maintaining the peace of the Borders; and at length the formidable Lordship of the Isles, which had been the source of all the Celtic troubles of Scotland since the days of Somerled, was broken up in 1504, after a series of fierce revolts, and the claim to an independent sovereignty abandoned forever. Henceforth the chieftains of the Hebrides held their lands of the Crown, and were made responsible for the conduct of their clans."

J. M. Ross, Scottish History and Literature, chapter 5, page 177.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513. The Battle of Flodden.

In 1513, while Henry VIII. of England, who had joined the Holy League against France, was engaged in the latter country, besieging Terouenne, he received an embassy from James IV., king of Scotland, his brother-in-law. "French intrigues, and the long-standing alliance between the nations, had induced James to entertain the idea of a breach with England. Causes of complaint were not wanting. There was a legacy due from Henry VII.; Sir Robert Ker, the Scotch Warden of the Marches, had been killed by a Heron of Ford, and the murderer found refuge in England; Andrew Barton, who, licensed with letters of marque against the Portuguese in revenge for the death of his father, had extended his reprisals to general piracy, had been captured and slain by Lord Thomas and Sir Edward Howard, and the Scotch King demanded justice for the death of his captain. To these questions, which had been long unsettled, an answer was now imperiously demanded. Henry replied with scorn, and the Scotch King declared war. The safety of England had been intrusted to the Earl of Surrey, who, when James crossed the border, was lying at Pontefract. Without delay, he pushed forward northward, and, challenging James to meet him on the Friday next following, came up with him when strongly posted on the hill of Flodden, with one flank covered by the river Till, the other by an impassable morass, and his front rendered impregnable by the massing of his artillery. Ashamed, after his challenge, to avoid the combat, Surrey moved suddenly northward, as though bound for Scotland, but soon marching round to the left, he crossed the Till near its junction with the Tweed, and thus turned James's position. The Scots were thus compelled to fight [September 9, 1513]. On the English right, the sons of Surrey with difficulty held their own. In the centre, where Surrey himself was assaulted by the Scotch King and his choicest troops, the battle inclined against the English; but upon the English left the Highlanders were swept away by the archers, and Stanley, who had the command in that wing, fell on the rear of the successful Scotch centre, and determined the fortune of the day. The slaughter of the Scotch was enormous, and among the number of the slain was James himself, with all his chief nobility."

J. F. Bright, History of England, volume 2, pages 370-372.

"There lay slain on the fatal field of Flodden twelve Scottish earls, thirteen lords, and five eldest sons of peers—fifty chiefs, knights, and men of eminence, and about 10,000 common men. Scotland had sustained defeats in which the loss had been numerically greater, but never one in which the number of the nobles slain bore such a proportion to those of the inferior rank. The cause was partly the unusual obstinacy of the long defence, partly that when the common people began … to desert their standards, the nobility and gentry were deterred by shame and a sense of honour from following their example."

Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, chapter 21 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland, volume 2, chapter 6.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513. Accession of James V.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542. The disaster at Solway-frith.

James V. of Scotland, who was the nephew of Henry VIII. of England—the son of Henry's sister, Margaret Tudor—gave offense to his proud and powerful uncle (A. D. 1541) by excusing himself from a meeting which had been arranged to take place between the two kings, and for which Henry had taken the trouble to travel to York. It was the eager wish of the English king to persuade his royal nephew to take possession of the property of the monasteries of Scotland, in imitation of his own example. The appointed meeting was for the further urging of these proposals, more especially, and it had been frustrated through the influence of the Catholic clergy with young King James,—very much to the disgust of many among the Scottish nobles, as well as to the wrath of King Henry. Whence came results that were unexpectedly sad. Henry determined to avenge himself for the slight that had been put upon him, and, having made his preparations for war, he issued a manifesto, alleging various injuries which gave color to his declaration of hostilities. "He even revived the old claim to the vassalage of Scotland, and he summoned James to do homage to him as his liege lord and superior. He employed the Duke of Norfolk, whom he called the scourge of the Scots, to command in the war." After some preliminary raiding expeditions, the Duke of Norfolk advanced to the border with 20,000 men, or more. "James had assembled his whole military force at Fala and Sautrey, and was ready to advance as soon as he should be informed of Norfolk's invading his kingdom. The English passed the Tweed at Berwick, and marched along the banks of the river as far as Kelso; but hearing that James had collected near 30,000 men, they repassed the river at that village, and retreated into their own country. The King of Scots, inflamed with a desire of military glory, and of revenge on his invaders, gave the signal for pursuing them, and carrying the war into England. {2853} He was surprised to find that his nobility, who were in general disaffected on account of the preference which he had given to the clergy, opposed this resolution, and refused to attend him in his projected enterprise. Enraged at this mutiny, he reproached them with cowardice, and threatened vengeance; but still resolved, with the forces which adhered to him, to make an impression on the enemy. He sent 10,000 men to the western borders, who entered England at Solway-frith [or Solway Moss]; and he himself followed them at a small distance, ready to join them upon occasion." At the same time, he took the command of his little army away from Lord Maxwell, and conferred it on one of his favorites, Oliver Sinclair. "The army was extremely disgusted with this alteration, and was ready to disband; when a small body of English appeared, not exceeding 500 men, under the command of Dacres and Musgrave. A panic seized the Scots, who immediately took to flight, and were pursued by the enemy. Few were killed in this rout, for it was no action; but a great many were taken prisoners, and some of the principal nobility." The effect of this shameful disaster upon the mind of James was so overwhelming that he took to his bed and died in a few days. While he lay upon his deathbed, his queen gave birth to a daughter, who inherited his crown, and who played in subsequent history the unfortunate role of Mary, Queen of Scots."

D. Hume, History of England, chapter 33.

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 33.

W. Robertson, History of Scotland, book 1.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542. Accession of Queen Mary.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548. The English Wooing of Queen Mary.

Immediately on the death of James V., Henry VIII. of England began a most resolute undertaking to secure the hand of the infant queen Mary for his own infant son. Scotland, however, was averse to the union, and resisted all the influences which the English king could bring to bear. Enraged by his failure, Henry despatched the Earl of Hertford, in May 1544, with a military and naval force, commissioned to do the utmost destructive work in its power, without attempting permanent conquest, for which it was not adequate. The expedition landed at Newhaven and seized the town of Leith, before Cardinal Beaton or Beatoun, then governing Scotland in the name of the Regent, the Earl of Arran, had learned of its approach. "The Cardinal immediately deserted the capital and fled in the greatest dismay to Stirling. The Earl of Hertford demanded the unconditional surrender of the infant Queen, and being informed that the Scottish capital and nation would suffer every disaster before they would submit to his ignominious terms, he marched immediately with his whole forces upon Edinburgh. … The English army entered by the Water-gate without opposition, and assaulted the Nether Bow Port, and beat it open on the second day, with a terrible slaughter of the citizens. They immediately attempted to lay siege to the Castle. … Baffled in their attempts on the fortress, they immediately proceeded to wreak their vengeance on the city. They set it on fire in numerous quarters, and continued the work of devastation and plunder till compelled to abandon it by the smoke and flames, as well as the continual firing from the Castle. They renewed the work of destruction on the following day; and for three successive days they returned with unabated fury to the smoking ruins, till they had completely effected their purpose. The Earl of Hertford then proceeded to lay waste the surrounding country with fire and sword. … This disastrous event forms an important era in the history of Edinburgh; if we except a portion of the Castle, the churches, and the north-west wing of Holyrood Palace, no building anterior to this date now exists in Edinburgh. … The death of Henry VIII. in 1547 tended to accelerate the renewal of his project for enforcing the union of the neighbouring kingdoms, by the marriage of his son with the Scottish Queen. Henry, on his deathbed, urged the prosecution of the war with Scotland; and the councillors of the young King Edward VI. lost no time in completing their arrangements for the purpose. … In the beginning of September, the Earl of Hertford, now Duke of Somerset, and Lord Protector of England, during the minority of his nephew Edward VI., again entered Scotland at the head of a numerous army; while a fleet of about 60 sail co-operated with him, by a descent on the Scottish coast. At his advance, he found the Scottish army assembled in great force to oppose him. … After skirmishing for several days with various success in the neighbourhood of Prestonpans, where the English army was encamped,—a scene long afterwards made memorable by the brief triumph of Mary's hapless descendant, Charles Stuart,—the two armies at length came to a decisive engagement on Saturday the 10th of September 1547, long after known by the name of 'Black Saturday.' The field of Pinkie, the scene of this fatal contest, lies about six miles distant from Edinburgh. … The Scots were at first victorious, and succeeded in driving back the enemy, and carrying off the royal standard of England; but being almost destitute of cavalry … they were driven from the field, after a dreadful slaughter, with the loss of many of their nobles and leaders, both slain and taken prisoners." Notwithstanding their severe defeat, the Scots were still stubbornly resolved that their young queen should not be won by such savage wooing; and the English returned home, after burning Leith and desolating the coast country once more. Next year the royal maid of Scotland, then six years old, was betrothed to the dauphin of France and sent to the French court to be reared. So the English scheme of marriage was frustrated in a decisive way. Meantime, the Scots were reinforced by 8,000 French and 1,000 Dutch troops, and expelled the English from most of the places they held in the country.

D. Wilson, Memorials of Edinburgh, part 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland, volume 3, chapters 1-2.

J. A. Froude, History of England, chapter 22 (volume 4) and chapters 24-25 (volume 5).

{2854}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546. The murder of Cardinal Beatoun.

Cardinal Beatoun [who had acquired practical control of the government, although the Earl of Arran was nominally Regent] had not used his power with moderation, equal to the prudence by which he attained it. Notwithstanding his great abilities, he had too many of the passions and prejudices of an angry leader of a faction, to govern a divided people with temper. His resentment against one party of the nobility, his insolence towards the rest, his severity to the reformers, and, above all, the barbarous and illegal execution of the famous George Wishart, a man of honourable birth and of primitive sanctity, wore out the patience of a fierce age; and nothing but a bold hand was wanting to gratify the public wish by his destruction. Private revenge, inflamed and sanctified by a false zeal for religion, quickly supplied this want. Norman Lesly, the eldest son of the earl of Rothes, had been treated by the cardinal with injustice and contempt. It was not the temper of the man, or the spirit of the times, quietly to digest an affront. … The cardinal, at that time, resided in the castle of St. Andrew's, which he had fortified at great expense, and, in the opinion of the age, had rendered it impregnable. His retinue was numerous, the town at his devotion, and the neighbouring country full of his dependents. In this situation, sixteen persons undertook to surprise his castle, and to assassinate himself; and their success was equal to the boldness of the attempt. … His death was fatal to the catholic religion, and to the French interest in Scotland. The same zeal for both continued among a great party in the nation, but when deprived of the genius and authority of so skilful a leader, operated with less effect." The sixteen conspirators, having full possession of the castle of St. Andrew's, were soon joined by friends and sympathizers—John Knox being one of the party—until 150 men were within the walls. They stood a siege for five months and only surrendered to a force sent over by the king of France, on being promised their lives. They were sent as prisoners to France, and the castle of St. Andrew's was demolished.

W. Robertson, History of Scotland, book 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland, volume 3, chapters 1-2.

T. M'Crie, Life of John Knox, period 2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557. The birth of the Protestant Reformation.

In Scotland, the kings of the house of Stuart "obtained a decisive influence over the appointment to the high dignities in the Church, but this proved advantageous neither to the Church nor, at last, to themselves. … The French abuses came into vogue here also: ecclesiastical benefices fell to the dependents of the court, to the younger sons of leading houses, often to their bastards: they were given or sold 'in commendam,' and then served only for pleasure and gain: the Scotch Church fell into an exceedingly scandalous and corrupt state. It was not so much disputed questions of doctrine as in Germany, nor again the attempt to keep out Papal influence as in England, but mainly aversion to the moral corruption of the spirituality which gave the first impulse to the efforts at reformation in Scotland. We find Lollard societies among the Scots much later than in England: their tendencies spread through wide circles, owing to the anti-clerical spirit of the century, and received fresh support from the doctrinal writings that came over from Germany. But the Scotch clergy was resolved to defend itself with all its might. … It persecuted all with equal severity as tending to injure the stability of holy Church, and awarded the most extreme penalties. To put suspected heretics to death by fire was the order of the day; happy the man who escaped the unrelenting persecution by flight, which was only possible amid great peril. These two causes, an undeniably corrupt condition, and relentless punishment of those who blamed it as it well deserved, gave the Reform movement in Scotland, which was repressed but not stifled, a peculiar character of exasperation and thirst for vengeance. Nor was it without a political bearing, in Scotland as elsewhere. In particular, Henry VIII. proposed to his nephew, King James V., to remodel the Church after his example: and a part of the nobility, which was already favourably disposed towards England, would have gladly seen this done. But James preferred the French pattern to the English: he was kept firm in his Catholic and French sympathies by his wife, Mary of Guise, and by the energetic Archbishop Beaton. Hence he became involved in the war with England in which he fell, and after this it occasionally seemed, especially at the time of the invasions by the Duke of Somerset, as if the English, and in connexion with them the Protestant, sympathies would gain the ascendancy. But national feelings were still stronger than the religious. Exactly because England defended and recommended the religious change it failed to make way in Scotland. Under the regency of the Queen dowager, with some passing fluctuations, the clerical interests on the whole kept the upper hand. … It is remarkable how under these unfavourable circumstances the foundation of the Scotch Church was laid. Most of the Scots who had fled from the country were content to provide for their subsistence in a foreign land and improve their own culture. But there was one among them who did not reconcile himself for one moment to this fate. John Knox was the first who formed a Protestant congregation in the besieged fortress of S. Andrew's; when the French took the place in 1547 he was made prisoner and condemned to serve in the galleys. … After he was released, he took a zealous share in the labours of the English Reformers under Edward VI., but was not altogether content with the result; after the King's death he had to fly to the continent. He went to Geneva, where he became a student once more and tried to fill up the gaps in his studies, but above all he imbibed, or confirmed his knowledge of, the views which prevailed in that Church. … A transient relaxation of ecclesiastical control in Scotland made it possible for him to return thither … towards the end of 1555: without delay he set his hand to form a church-union, according to his ideas of religious independence, which was not to be again destroyed by any state power. … Sometimes in one and sometimes in another of the places of refuge which he found, he administered the Communion to little congregations according to the Reformed rite; this was done with greater solemnity at Easter 1556, in the house of Lord Erskine of Dun, one of those Scottish noblemen who had ever promoted literary studies and the religious movement as far as lay in his power. A number of people of consequence from the Mearns (Mearnshire) were present. But they were not content with partaking the Communion; following the mind of their preacher they pledged themselves to avoid every other religious community, and to uphold with all their power the preaching of the Gospel. In this union we may see the origin of the Scotch Church, properly so called. … {2855} At Erskine's house met together also Lord Lorn, afterwards Earl of Argyle, and the Prior of S. Andrew's, subsequently Earl of Murray; in December 1557 Erskine, Lorn, Murray, Glencairn (also a friend of Knox), and Morton, united in a solemn engagement, to support God's word and defend his congregation against every evil and tyrannical power even unto death. When, in spite of this, another execution took place which excited universal aversion, they proceeded to an express declaration, that they would not suffer any man to be punished for transgressing a clerical law based on human ordinances. What the influence of England had not been able to effect was now produced by antipathy to France. The opinion prevailed that the King of France wished to add Scotland to his territories, and that the Regent gave him aid thereto. When she gathered the feudal army on the borders in 1557 (for the Scots had refused to contribute towards enlisting mercenaries) to invade England according to an understanding with the French, the barons held a consultation on the Tweed, in consequence of which they refused their co-operation for this purpose. … It was this quarrel of the Regent with the great men of the country that gave an opportunity to the lords who were combined for the support of religion to advance with increasing resolution."

L. Von Ranke, History of England principally in the 17th Century, book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: T. M'Crie, Life of John Knox, period 1-6.

G. Stuart, History of the Establishment of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland, books 1-2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557. The First Covenant and the Lords of the Congregation.

In 1556 John Knox withdrew from Scotland and returned to Geneva—whether through fear of increasing dangers, or for other reasons, is a question in dispute. The following year he was solicited to come back to the Scottish field of labor, by those nobles who favored the reformation, and he gave up his Genevan congregation for the purpose of obeying their summons. "In the beginning of October he proceeded to Dieppe; but while he waited there for a vessel to convey him to Scotland, he received other letters which dashed all his hopes, by counselling him to remain where he was. The Reformers had suddenly changed their minds. … Sitting down in his lodging at Dieppe, Knox wrote a letter to the lords whose faith had failed, after inviting him to come to their help. … With it he despatched another addressed to the whole nobility of Scotland, and others to particular friends. … The letters of Knox had an immediate and powerful effect in stimulating the decaying zeal of the Reforming nobles. Like a fire stirred up just when ready to die out among its own ashes, it now burned more brightly than ever. Meeting at Edinburgh in the month of December, they drew up a bond which knit them into one body, pledged them to a definite line of conduct and gave consistency and shape to their plans. They had separated from the Roman communion; they now formed themselves into an opposing phalanx. This document is known in our Church history as the first Covenant, and is so important that we give it entire:

'We, perceiving how Satan, in his members, the anti-christs of our time, cruelly do rage, seeking to overthrow and destroy the gospel of Christ and His congregation, ought, according to our bounden duty, to strive in our Master's cause, even unto the death, being certain of the victory in Him. The which our duty being well considered, we do promise before the Majesty of God and His congregation, that we, by His grace, shall, with all diligence, continually apply our whole power, substance, and our very lives, to maintain, set forward, and establish the most blessed Word of God and His congregation; and shall labour, at our possibility, to have faithful ministers, truly and purely to administer Christ's gospel and sacraments to His people. We shall maintain them, nourish them, and defend them, the whole congregation of Christ, and every member thereof, at our whole powers and waging of our lives, against Satan and all wicked power that doth intend tyranny or trouble against the foresaid congregation. Unto the which holy word and congregation we do join us, and so do forsake and renounce the congregation of Satan, with all the superstitious abomination and idolatry thereof; and, moreover, shall declare ourselves manifestly enemies thereto, by this our faithful promise before God, testified to His congregation by our subscription to these presents, at Edinburgh, the 3rd day of December 1557 years. God called to witness—A., Earl of Argyle, Glencairn, Morton, Archibald, Lord of Lorn, John Erskine of Dun,' &c.