Chapter CCCXCIX: Section 7 (27)

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.