Chapter I (1)

CONDITION OF SCOTLAND TO THE END OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.

In the preceding view of the rise and decay of Spain, I have sought to exhibit the successive steps by which what was formerly one of the greatest nations of the earth, was broken, and cast down from its high estate. As we look back on that scene, the picture is, indeed, striking. A country rich in all natural productions, inhabited by a brave, a loyal, and a religious people, removed, too, by its geographical position from the hazards of European revolutions, did, by the operation of those general causes which I have indicated, suddenly rise to unparalleled grandeur; and then, without the occurrence of any new combination, but by a mere continuance of the same causes, fall with an equal velocity. Yet, these vicissitudes, strange and startling as they appear, were perfectly regular. They were the legitimate consequence of a state of society, in which the spirit of protection had reached its highest point, and in which, every thing being done for the people, nothing was done by the people. Whenever this happens, there may be great political progress, but there can be no really national progress. There may be accessions of territory, and vast increase of fame and of power. There may be improvements in the practice of administration, in the management of finances, in the organization of armies, in the art and theory of war, in the tricks of diplomacy, and in those various contrivances by which one nation is able to outwit and insult another. So far, however, from this benefiting the people, it will injure them in two different ways. In the first place, by increasing the reputation of the ruling classes, it encourages that blind and servile respect which men are too apt to feel for those who are above them, and which, wherever it has been generally practised, has been found fatal to the highest qualities of the citizen, and therefore to the permanent grandeur of the nation. And, in the second place, it multiplies the resources of the executive government, and thus renders the country unable, as well as unwilling, to correct the errors of those who are at the head of affairs. Hence, in Spain, as in all countries similarly circumstanced, it was at the very moment when things were most prosperous at the surface, that they were most rotten at the foundation. In presence of the most splendid political success, the nation hastened to its downfall, and the crisis was fast approaching, in which, the whole edifice being overturned, nothing would be left, except a memorable warning of the consequences which must ensue, when the people, giving themselves up to the passions of superstition and loyalty, abdicate their own proper functions, forego their own responsibility, renounce their highest duties, and degrade themselves into passive instruments to serve the will of the Church and the throne.

Such is the great lesson taught by the history of Spain. From the history of Scotland, we may gather another lesson, of a different, and yet of a similar, kind. In Scotland, the progress of the nation has been very slow, but, on the whole, very sure. The country is extremely barren; the executive government has, with rare exceptions, been always weak; and the people have never been burdened with those feelings of loyalty which circumstances had forced upon the Spaniards. Certainly, the last charge that will be brought against the Scotch, is that of superstitious attachment to their princes.[1] We, in England, have not always been very tender of the persons of our sovereigns, and we have occasionally punished them with what some consider excessive severity. With this, we have been frequently taunted by the more loyal nations of the Continent; and, in Spain in particular, our conduct has excited the greatest abhorrence. But, if we compare our history with that of our northern neighbours, we must pronounce ourselves a meek and submissive people.[2] There have been more rebellions in Scotland than in any other country; and the rebellions have been very sanguinary, as well as very numerous. The Scotch have made war upon most of their kings, and put to death many. To mention their treatment of a single dynasty, they murdered James I. and James III. They rebelled against James II. and James VII. They laid hold of James V., and placed him in confinement. Mary, they immured in a castle, and afterwards deposed. Her successor, James VI., they imprisoned; they led him captive about the country, and on one occasion attempted his life. Towards Charles I., they showed the greatest animosity, and they were the first to restrain his mad career. Three years before the English ventured to rise against that despotic prince, the Scotch boldly took up arms, and made war on him. The service which they then rendered to the cause of liberty it would be hard to overrate; but the singular part of the transaction was, that having afterwards got possession of the person of Charles, they sold him to the English for a large sum of money, of which they, being very poor, had pressing need. Such a sale is unparalleled in history; and although the Scotch might have plausibly alleged that this was the only gain they had derived, or ever could derive, from the existence of their hereditary prince, still the event is one which stands alone; it was unprecedented; it has never been imitated; and its occurrence is a striking symptom of the state of public opinion, and of the feelings of the country in which it was permitted.

[1] One of their own historians complacently says, 'but the Scots were
seldom distinguished for loyalty.' _Laing's History of Scotland_,
vol. iii. p. 199, edit. 1819. See also p. 366. To the same effect,
Brodie (_History of the British Empire_, Edinburgh, 1822, vol. i. p.
388): 'The little respect paid to royalty is conspicuous in every
page of Scottish history.' Or, as Wilkes expressed himself in the
House of Commons, 'Scotland seems, indeed, the natural _foyer_ of
rebellion, as Egypt is of the plague.' _Parliamentary History_, vol.
xix. p. 810, London, 1814; and Nimmo (_History of Stirlingshire_,
Edinburgh, 1777, p. 219): 'Never was any race of monarchs more
unfortunate than the Scottish. Their reigns were generally turbulent
and disastrous, and their own end often tragical.'

[2] Indeed, a well-known Scotchman of the seventeenth century,
scornfully says of the English, 'such is the obsequiousness, and
almost superstitious devotion of that nation towards their prince.'
_Baillie's Letters_, vol. i. p. 204, edit. Laing, Edinburgh, 1841.
This, however, was written in 1639, since which we have effectually
wiped off that reproach. On the other hand, an English writer of
the seventeenth century, indignantly, though with evident
exaggeration, imputes to the Scotch that 'forty of their kings have
been barbarously murdered by them; and half as many more have
either made away with themselves, for fear of their torturing of
them, or have died miserably in strait imprisonment.' _Account of
Scotland in_ 1670, in _Harleian Miscellany_, vol. vi. p. 140, edit.
Park, 4to, 1810. Compare two curious passages in _Shields' Hind let
loose_, 1687, pp. 8, 9, 15.

While, however, in regard to loyalty, the opposition between Scotland and Spain is complete, there is, strange to say, the most striking similarity between those countries in regard to superstition. Both nations have allowed their clergy to exercise immense sway, and both have submitted their actions, as well as their consciences, to the authority of the Church. As a natural consequence, in both countries, intolerance has been, and still is, a crying evil; and in matters of religion, a bigotry is habitually displayed, discreditable indeed to Spain, but far more discreditable to Scotland, which has produced many philosophers of the highest eminence, who would willingly have taught the people better things, but who have vainly attempted to remove from the national mind that serious blemish which mars its beauty, and tends to neutralize its many other admirable qualities.

Herein lies the apparent paradox, and the real difficulty, of Scotch history. That knowledge should not have produced the effects which have elsewhere followed it; that a bold and inquisitive literature should be found in a grossly superstitious country, without diminishing its superstition; that the people should constantly withstand their kings, and as constantly succumb to their clergy; that while they are liberal in politics, they should be illiberal in religion; and that, as a natural consequence of all this, men who, in the visible and external department of facts and of practical life, display a shrewdness and a boldness rarely equalled, should nevertheless, in speculative life, and in matters of theory, tremble like sheep before their pastors, and yield assent to every absurdity they hear, provided their Church has sanctioned it; that these discrepancies should coexist, seems at first sight a strange contradiction, and is surely a phenomenon worthy of our careful study. To indicate the causes of this anomaly, and to trace the results to which the anomaly has led, will be the business of the remaining part of this volume; and although the investigation will be somewhat lengthy, it will not, I hope, be considered prolix, by those who recognise the importance of the inquiry, and are aware how completely it has been neglected, even by those who have written most fully on the history of the Scottish nation.

In Scotland, as elsewhere, the course of events has been influenced by its physical geography; and by this I mean, not only its own immediate peculiarities, but also its relation to adjoining countries. It is close to Ireland; it touches England; and by the contiguity of the Orkney and Shetland Isles, it was eminently exposed to the attacks of that great nation of pirates, which for centuries inhabited the Scandinavian peninsula. Considered merely by itself, it is mountainous and sterile; nature has interposed such obstacles, that it was long impossible to open regular communications between its different parts, which, indeed, in regard to the Highlands, was not effected till after the middle of the eighteenth century.[3] Finally, and this, as we shall presently see, was a matter of great importance, the most fertile land in Scotland is in the south, and was, therefore, constantly ravaged by the English borderers. Hence, the accumulation of wealth was hindered; the growth of towns was discouraged, by the serious hazards to which they were liable; and it was impossible to develop that municipal spirit, which might have existed, if the districts most favoured by nature had been situated in the north of Scotland, instead of in the south. If the actual state of things had been reversed, so that the Highlands were in the south,[4] and the Lowlands in the north, it can hardly be doubted, that, after the cessation in the thirteenth century of the great Scandinavian invasions, the most fertile parts of Scotland, being comparatively secure, would have been the seat of towns, which the active spirit of the people would have caused to prosper, and the prosperity of which would have introduced a new element into Scotch affairs, and changed the course of Scotch history. This, however, was not to be; and, as we have to deal with events as they actually are, I will now endeavour to trace the consequences of the physical peculiarities which have just been noticed; and by coördinating their results, I will, so far as I am able, show their general meaning, and the way in which they have shaped the national character.

[3] In England, the travelling was bad enough; in Scotland, it was far
worse. Morer, stating what he saw in 1689, says 'Stage-coaches they
have none; yet there are a few Hackney's at Edinburgh, which they
may hire into the country upon urgent occasions. The truth is, the
roads will hardly allow 'em those conveniences, which is the reason
that their gentry, men and women, chuse rather to use their horses.'
_Morer's Account of Scotland_, London, 1702, p. 24.

As to the northern parts, we have the following account, written in
Inverness, between 1726 and 1730. 'The Highlands are but little
known even to the inhabitants of the low country of Scotland, for
they have ever dreaded the difficulties and dangers of travelling
among the mountains; and, when some extraordinary occasion has
obliged any one of them to such a progress, he has, generally
speaking, made his testament before he set out, as though he were
entering upon a long and dangerous sea-voyage, wherein it was very
doubtful if he should ever return.' _Letters from a Gentleman in the
North of Scotland_, edit. London, 1815, vol. i. p. 4. Between 1720
and 1730, military roads were cut through parts of the Highlands,
but they were 'laid down by a practical soldier, and destined for
warlike purposes, with scarcely any view towards the ends for which
free and peaceful citizens open up a system of internal transit,'
_Burton's History of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 255. See also _Chalmers'
Caledonia_, vol. ii. p. 36. This is confirmed by the fact, that even
between Inverness and Edinburgh, 'until 1755, the mail was conveyed
by men on foot.' Account of Inverness-shire, in _M^cCulloch's
British Empire_, London, 1847, vol. i. p. 299; to which I may add,
that in _Anderson's Essay on the Highlands_, Edinburgh, 1827, pp.
119, 120, it is stated, that 'A postchaise was first seen in
Inverness itself in 1760, and was, for a considerable time, the only
four-wheeled carriage in the district.' As to the communications in
the country about Perth, see _Penny's Traditions of Perth_, pp. 131,
132, Perth, 1836; and as to those from Aberdeen to Inverness, and
from Aberdeen to Edinburgh, see _Kennedy's Annals of Aberdeen_, vol.
ii. pp. 269, 270, London, 4to, 1818.

The history of the improvement of the roads during the latter half
of the eighteenth century, has never been written; but it is of the
greatest importance for its intellectual results, in causing
national fusion, as well as for its economical results, in helping
trade. Some idea may be formed of the extraordinary energy displayed
by Scotland in this matter, by comparing the following passages:
_Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. ii. pp. 494, 865, 939, vol. iii. pp.
599, 799; _Crawfurd's History of the Shire of Renfrew_, part ii. pp.
128, 160; _Irving's History of Dumbartonshire_, pp. 245, 246;
_Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 109, 210,
367, 430, 496; vol. ii. p. 498; vol. iii. pp. 331, 352, 353; vol.
iv. p. 313; vol. v. pp. 128, 234, 235, 315, 364, 365; vol. vi.
pp. 107, 154, 180, 458; vol. vii. pp. 135, 251, 275, 299, 417; vol.
viii. pp. 81, 243, 344, 345, 541; vol. ix. pp. 414, 530; vol. x.
pp. 221, 237, 238, 466, 618; vol. xi. pp. 127, 380, 418, 432, 522,
541; vol. xii. p. 59; vol. xiii. pp. 42, 141, 488, 542, 663; vol.
xiv. pp. 217, 227, 413, 443, 466, 506; vol. xv. pp. 54, 88, 276;
vol. xvi. p. 120; vol. xvii. pp. 5, 267, 297, 377, 533; vol. xviii.
p. 309; vol. xx. p. 156.

[4] I use the word Highlands, in the common, though improper, sense of
including all Scotland from the Pentland Firth to the beginning of
the mountains, a few miles north of Glasgow, Stirling, Perth, and
Dundee. All such distinctions are necessarily somewhat vague,
because the boundaries of nature are never clearly marked. Compare
_Macky's Scotland_, p. 124, London, 1732, with _Anderson's Guide to
the Highlands_, Edinburgh, 1847, pp. 17, 18.

The earliest fact with which we are acquainted respecting the history of Scotland, is the Roman invasion under Agricola, late in the first century. But neither his conquests, nor those of his successors, made any permanent impression. The country was never really subjugated, and nothing was effected except a military occupation, which, in spite of the erection of numerous forts, walls, and ramparts, left the spirit of the inhabitants unbroken. Even Severus, who, in the year 209, undertook the last and most important expedition against Scotland, does not appear to have penetrated beyond the Firth of Moray;[5] and directly he retired, the natives were again in arms, and again independent. After this, nothing was attempted upon a scale large enough to give a chance of success. Indeed, the Romans, far from being equal to such an effort, were themselves deteriorating. In their best days, their virtues were the virtues of barbarians, and even those they were now about to lose. From the beginning, their scheme of life was so one-sided and imperfect, that the increase of wealth, which improves the civilization of really civilized countries, was to the Romans an irreparable mischief; and they were corrupted by luxury, instead of being refined by it. In our time, if we compare the different nations of Europe, we find that the richest are also the most powerful, the most humane, and the most happy. We live in that advanced state of society, in which wealth is both the cause and the effect of progress, while poverty is the fruitful parent of weakness, of misery, and of crime. But the Romans, when they ceased to be poor, began to be vicious. So unstable was the foundation of their greatness, that the very results which their power produced, were fatal to the power itself. Their empire gave them wealth, and their wealth overthrew their empire. Their national character, notwithstanding its apparent strength, was in truth of so frail a texture, that it was ruined by its own development. As it grew, it dwarfed. Hence it was, that, in the third and fourth centuries, their hold on mankind visibly slackened. Their authority being undermined, other nations, of course, stepped in; so that the inroads of those strange tribes which came pouring from the north, and to whose appearance the final catastrophe is often ascribed, were at best the occasion, but by no means the cause, of the fall of the Roman Empire. Towards that great and salutary event, every thing had long been pointing. The scourgers and oppressors of the world, whom a false and ignorant sympathy has invested with noble qualities which they never possessed, had now to look to themselves; and when, after receding on all sides, they, in the middle of the fifth century, withdrew their forces from the whole of Britain, they merely executed a movement, which a train of circumstances, continued through several generations, had made inevitable.

[5] Browne (_History of the Highlands_, vol. i. p. 33) says that 'he
traversed the whole of North Britain, from the wall of Antoninus to
the very extremity of the island.' The same thing is stated in
_Pennant's Scotland_, vol. i. p. 90. Neither of these writers quote
their authority for this; but they probably relied on a passage in
_Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. iv. p. 94. 'Neque tamen
desideratis quinquaginta millibus (ut scribit Dion) prius ab
inc[oe]pto destiterunt, quam ad finem insulæ penetrassent.' I
believe, however, that Scotch antiquaries are now agreed that this
is wrong, as Chalmers was one of the first to perceive. See his
_Caledonia_, vol. i. p. 187; a very valuable and learned, but
unhappily ill-arranged, book, and written in a style which is
absolutely afflicting. See also _Irving's History of
Dumbartonshire_, 4to, 1860, p. 14.

It is at this point that we begin to discern the operation of those physical and geographical peculiarities which I have mentioned as influencing the fortunes of Scotland. The Romans, gradually losing ground, the proximity of Ireland caused repeated attacks from that fertile island, whose rich soil and great natural advantages gave rise to an exuberant, and therefore a restless, population. An overflow, which, in civilized times, is an emigration, is, in barbarous times, an invasion. Hence the Irish, or Scotti as they were termed, established themselves by force of arms in the west of Scotland, and came into collision with the Picts, who occupied the eastern part. A deadly struggle ensued, which lasted four centuries after the withdrawal of the Romans, and plunged the country into the greatest confusion. At length, in the middle of the ninth century, Kenneth M'Alpine, king of the Scotti, gained the upper hand, and reduced the Picts to complete submission.[6] The country was now united under one rule; and the conquerors, slowly absorbing the conquered, gave their name to the whole, which, in the tenth century, received the appellation of Scotland.[7]

[6] The history of Scotland, in this period, is in great confusion, and
perhaps will never be recovered. For the statements made in the
text, I have chiefly used the following authorities: _Fordun's
Scotichronicon_, vol. i.; _Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum Historia_,
lib. v. pp. 121-132, and the beginning of the sixth book. Also
various parts of _Bede_; _Pinkerton's Enquiry into the Early History
of Scotland_; _Chalmers' Caledonia_; the first volume of _Browne's
History of the Highlands_; and, above all, Mr. Skene's acute and
learned work on the Highlanders. In the last-named book, the western
boundary of the Picts is traced with great ingenuity, though perhaps
with some uncertainty. _Skene's Highlanders of Scotland_, vol. i.
pp. 26-33, London, 1837.

[7] Here, again, we are involved in doubt; it being uncertain when the
name Scotia was first applied to Scotland. The date, therefore,
which I have given, is only intended as an approximative truth. In
arriving at it, I have compared the following different, and often
conflicting, passages: _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. i. p. 339.
_Browne's History of the Highlands_, vol. i. p. 34. _Pinkerton's
Enquiry into the Early History of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 253, 254,
vol. ii. pp. 151, 228, 237, 240. _Spottiswoode's History of the
Church of Scotland_, edit. Russell, 1851, vol. i. p. 16, note,
where, however, Pinkerton's authority is appealed to for an
assertion which he did not make. _Skene's Highlanders_, vol. i. pp.
45, 61, 244. _Anderson's Prize Essay on the Highlands_, p. 34.

But the kingdom was to have no rest. For, in the mean time, circumstances, which it would be tedious to relate, had raised the inhabitants of Norway to be the greatest maritime power in Europe. The use which that nation of pirates made of their strength, forms another and a very important link in the history of Scotland, and moreover illustrates the immense weight, which, in an early period of society, should be assigned to mere geographical considerations. The nearest land to the centre of the long coast of Norway is the Shetland Isles, whence it is an easy sail to the Orkneys. The northern pirates naturally seized these small, but, to them, most useful islands, and, as naturally, made them intermediate stations, from which they could conveniently pillage the coasts of Scotland. Being constantly reinforced from Norway, they, in the ninth and tenth centuries, advanced from the Orkneys, made permanent settlements in Scotland itself, and occupied not only Caithness, but also great part of Sutherland. Another body of them got possession of the Western Islands; and as Skye is only separated from the mainland by a very narrow channel, these pirates easily crossed over, and fixed themselves in Western Ross.[8] From their new abodes, they waged incessant and destructive war against every district within their reach; and, keeping a large part of Scotland in constant alarm, they, for about three centuries, prevented the possibility of its social improvement. Indeed, that unhappy country was never free from the dangers of Norwegian invasion, until the failure of the last great attack, in 1263, when Haco left Norway with a prodigious armament, which he further strengthened by reinforcements from the Orkneys and Hebrides. Scotland could offer but little resistance. Haco, with his allies, sailed along the western coast to the Mull of Kentire, wasted the country with fire and sword, took Arran and Bute, entered the Firth of Clyde, suddenly fell upon Loch Lomond, destroyed all the property on its shores and on its islands, ravaged the whole county of Stirling, and threatened to descend with all his force upon Ayrshire. Fortunately, the inclemency of the weather broke up this great expedition, and scattered or destroyed the entire fleet.[9] After its dispersal, the course of affairs in Norway prevented the attempt from being renewed; and danger from that quarter being over, it might have been hoped that Scotland would now enjoy peace, and would have leisure to develop the natural resources which she possessed, particularly those in the southern and more favoured districts.

[8] _Pinkerton's Enquiry into the Early History of Scotland_, vol. i.
pp. 136, 317, vol. ii. pp. 179, 298. _Skene's Highlanders_, vol. i.
pp. 90, 91, 94, 106, 114, 258, 259. _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. i.
pp. 340-347.

[9] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 38-54. The account in
_Hollinshead's Scottish Chronicle_, vol. i. pp. 399-403, ascribes
too much to the prowess of the Scotch, and too little to the
elements which dispersed the fleet. Compare _Irving's History of
Dumbartonshire_, second edition, 4to, 1860, pp. 48, 49.

This, however, was not to be. For, scarcely were the attacks from Norway at an end, when those from England began. Early in the thirteenth century, the lines of demarcation which separated Normans from Saxons, were, in our country, becoming so obliterated, that in many cases it was impossible to distinguish them.[10] By the middle of the same century, the two races were fused into one powerful nation; and, as that nation had a comparatively feeble neighbour, it was certain that the stronger people would try to oppress the weaker.[11] In an ignorant and barbarous age, military success is preferred to all other kinds of fame; and the English, greedy for conquest, set their eyes upon Scotland, which they were sure to invade at the first opportunity. That Scotland was near, made it tempting; that it was believed to be defenceless, made the temptation irresistible. In 1290, Edward I. determined to avail himself of the confusion into which Scotland was thrown by disputes respecting the succession of the crown. The intrigues which followed, need not be related; it is enough to say, that, in 1296, the sword was drawn, and Edward invaded a country which he had long desired to conquer. But he little recked of the millions of treasure, and the hundreds of thousands of lives, which were to be squandered, before that war was over.[12] The contest that ensued was of unexampled length and severity; and in its sad course, the Scotch, notwithstanding their heroic resistance, and the victories they occasionally gained, had to endure every evil which could be inflicted by their proud and insolent neighbour. The darling object of the English, was to subjugate the Scotch; and if anything could increase the disgrace of so base an enterprise, it would be that, having undertaken it, they ignominiously failed.[13] The suffering, however, was incalculable, and was aggravated by the important fact, that it was precisely the most fertile part of Scotland which was most exposed to the English ravages. This, as we shall presently see, produced some very curious results on the national character; and for that reason, I will, without entering into many details, give a slight summary of the more immediate consequences of this long and sanguinary struggle.

[10] _Buckle's History of Civilization_, vol. ii. pp. 116, 117.

[11] In _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 18, 'the early part
of the reign' of Alexander III. is indicated as the period in which
'the first approaches were made towards the great plan for the
reduction of Scotland, by the English.' Alexander III. came to the
throne in 1249. Earlier, the feeling was very different. Thus, late
in the twelfth century, 'the two nations, according to Fordun,
seemed one people; Englishmen travelling at pleasure through all
the corners of Scotland (?); and Scotchmen in like manner through
England.' _Ridpath's Border History_, p. 76. Compare _Dalrymple's
Annals of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 158. At that time, England, being
weak, was peaceably disposed.

[12] An old Scotch writer says, with some exaggeration, 'The year 1296,
at which tyme, the bloodyest and longest warr that ever was betwixt
two nationes fell out, and continued two hundreth and sextie years,
to the undoeing and ruineing of many noble families, with the
slaughter of a million of men.' _Somerville's Memorie of the
Somervilles_, vol. i. p. 61.

[13] See some just and biting remarks in _Hume's History of the House
of Douglas_, vol. i. p. 85.

In 1296, the English entered Berwick, the richest town Scotland possessed, and not only destroyed all the property, but slew nearly all the inhabitants.[14] They then marched on to Aberdeen and Elgin; and so completely desolated the country, that the Scotch, flying to the mountains, and stripped of their all, had no resource left but to wage from their native fastnesses a war similar to that which their savage ancestors, twelve centuries earlier, had conducted against the Romans.[15] In 1298, the English again broke in, burnt Perth and St. Andrews, and ravaged the whole territory south and west.[16] In 1310, they invaded Scotland by the eastern march, and carrying off such provisions as were left, caused so terrible a dearth, that the people were forced to feed on horses and other carrion.[17] All over southern Scotland, both east and west, the inhabitants were now reduced to a horrible condition, being for the most part houseless and starved. In 1314, made desperate by their state, they rallied for a moment, and, in the battle of Bannockburn, gloriously defeated their oppressors. But their unrelenting enemy was at hand, and pressed them so hard, that, in 1322, Bruce, in order to baffle an English invasion, was obliged to lay waste all the districts south of the Firth of Forth; the people taking refuge, as before, in the mountains.[18] This time, therefore, when Edward II. reached Edinburgh, he plundered nothing, because, the country being a desert, there was nothing to plunder; but, on his return, he did what he could, and meeting with some convents, which were the only signs of life that he encountered, he fell upon them, robbed the monasteries of Melrose and Holyrood, burnt the abbey of Dryburgh, and slew those monks who, from age or disease, were unable to escape.[19] In 1336, the next king, Edward III., equipped a numerous army, devastated the Lowlands, and great part of the Highlands, and destroyed every thing he could find, as far as Inverness.[20] In 1346, the English overran the districts of Tweeddale, the Merse, Ettrick, Annandale, and Galloway;[21] and in 1355, Edward, in a still more barbarous inroad, burnt every church, every village, and every town he approached.[22] And scarcely were these frightful losses somewhat repaired, when another storm burst upon the devoted land. In 1385, Richard II. traversed the southern counties to Aberdeen, scattering destruction on every side, and reducing to ashes the cities of Edinburgh, Dunfermline, Perth, and Dundee.[23]

[14] 'Anno gratiæ MCCXCVI. tertio kalendas Aprilis, villa et castro de
Berevvico, per magnificum regem Angliæ Eadvvardum captis, omnes
ibidem inuentos Angli gladio occiderunt, paucis exceptis, qui ipsam
villam postmodum abiurar[=u]t.' _Flores Historiarum per Matthæum
Westmonasteriensem collecti_, Lond. 1570, folio, lib. ii. p. 403.
'Atque modo prædicto villâ captâ, civibus prostratis, rex Angliæ
prædictus nulli ætati parcens aut sexui, duobus diebus rivulis de
cruore occisorum fluentibus, septem millia et quingentas animas
promiscui sexûs jusserat, in sua tyrannide desæviens, trucidari.'
_Fordun's Scotichronicon, curâ Goodall_, Edinb. 1775, folio, vol.
ii. pp. 159, 160. 'Secutus Rex cum peditum copiis miserabilem omnis
generis cædem edit.' _Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum Historia_,
Abredoniæ, 1762, lib. viii. p. 200. 'They left not one creature
alive of the Scotish blood within all that toune.' _Hollinshead's
Scottish Chronicle_, Arbroath, 1805, 4to, vol. i. p. 418. In 1286,
that is, only ten years earlier, 'No other part of Scotland, in
point of commercial importance, came near to a comparison with
Berwick.' _Macpherson's Annals of Commerce_, London, 4to, 1805,
vol. i. p. 446. Such were the brutal crimes of our wretched and
ignorant ancestors.

[15] 'The Scots assembled in troops and companies, and betaking
themselves to the woods, mountains, and morasses, in which their
fathers had defended themselves against the Romans, prepared for a
general insurrection against the English power.' _Scott's History
of Scotland_, London, 1830, vol. i. p. 70. Elgin appears to have
been the most northern point of this expedition. See _Tytler's
History of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 119, and _Chalmers' Caledonia_,
vol. i. p. 657. The general results are summed up by Buchanan:
'Hanc stragem ex agrorum incultu consecuta est fames, et famem
pestis, unde major quàm è bello clades timebatur.' _Rerum
Scoticarum Historia_, lib. viii. p. 203.

[16] 'The army then advanced into Scotland by moderate marches, wasting
and destroying every thing on their way.' ... 'A party of Edward's
army, sent northwards, wasted the country, and burnt Perth and
Saint Andrews.' _Ridpath's Border History_, pp. 146, 147.

[17] 'The king entered Scotland by the eastern march with a great army.'
... 'There was this year so terrible a dearth and scarcity of
provisions in Scotland, arising from the havoc of war, that many
were obliged to feed on the flesh of horses and other carrion.'
_Ibid._ pp. 164, 165. See also _Fordun's Scotichronicon_, vol. ii.
pp. 242, 243. 'Quo anno, propter guerrarum discrimina, tanta erat
panis inopia et victualium caristia in Scotia, quòd in plerisque
locis, compellente famis necessitate, multi carnibus equorum et
aliorum pecorum immundorum vescebantur.'

[18] Bruce 'carefully laid the whole borders waste as far as the Firth
of Forth, removing the inhabitants to the mountains, with all their
effects of any value. When the English army entered, they found a
land of desolation, which famine seemed to guard.' _Scott's History
of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 145. See also _Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum
Historia_, lib. viii. p. 218.

[19] 'Eadwardus, rex Angliæ, intravit Scotiam cum magno exercitu equitum
et peditum, ac navium multitudine copiosa, duodecimo die mensis
Augusti, et usque villam de Edinburgh pervenit.' ... 'Spoliatis
tamen tunc in reditu Anglorum et prædatis monasteriis Sanctæ Crucis
de Edinburgh et de Melros, atque ad magnam desolationem perductis.
In ipso namque monasterio de Melros dominus Willelmus de Peblis,
ejusdem monasterii Prior, unus etiam monachus tunc infirmus, et duo
conversi cæci effecti, in dormitorio eorundem ab eisdem Anglis sunt
interfecti, et plures monachi lethaliter vulnerati. Corpus
Dominicum super magnum altare fuit projectum, ablatâ pixide
argenteâ in quâ erat repositum. Monasterium de Driburgh igne
penitùs consumptum est et in pulverem redactum. Ac _alia pia loca
quamplurima_ per prædicti regis violentiam ignis flamma consumpsit:
quod, Deo retribuente, eisdem in prosperum non cessit.' _Fordun's
Scotichronicon_, vol. ii. p. 278. 'In redeundo sacra juxta ac
prophana spoliata. Monasteria Driburgum et Mulrossia etiam cæsis
monachis infirmioribus, qui vel defectu virium, vel senectutis
fiducia soli remanserant, incensa,' _Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum
Historia_, lib. viii. p. 219.

[20] _Fordun's Scotichronicon_, vol. ii. pp. 322, 323. _Dalrymple's
Annals_, vol. ii. pp. 232, 447. _Scott's History of Scotland_,
vol. i. pp. 187, 188.

[21] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 451.

[22] _Dalrymple's Annals_, vol. ii. p. 288. _Fordun's Scotichronicon_,
vol. ii. pp. 352-354.

[23] 'Rex Angliæ, Richardus secundus ægrè ferens Scotos et Francos tam
atrociter terram suam deprædare, et municipia sua assilire et ad
terram prosternere, exercitum collegit grandem, et intravit
Scotiam, ætate tunc novemdecim annorum, in multitudine superba
progrediens, omnia circumquaque perdens, et nihil salvans; templa
Dei et sanctuaria religiosorum monasteria viz. Driburgh, Melros et
Newbottel, ac nobilem villam de Edinburgh, cum ecclesia Sancti
Ægidii ejusdem, voraci flammâ incineravit; et, destructione
permaximâ factâ per eum in Laudonia, ad propria sine damno
repatriavit' _Fordun's Scotichronicon_, vol. ii. p. 401. 'En ce
séjour que le roi Richard fit en Haindebourch les Anglois coururent
tout le pays d'environ et y firent moult de desrois; mais nullui
n'y trouvèrent; car tout avoient retrait ens ès forts, et ens ès
grands bois, et là chassé tout leur bétail.' ... 'Et ardirent les
Anglois la ville de Saint-Jean-Ston en Ecosse, où la rivière du Tay
cuert, et y a un bon port pour aller partout le monde; et puis la
ville de Dondie; et n'épargnoient abbayes ni moûtiers; tout
mettoient les Anglois en feu et en flambe; et coururent jusques à
Abredane les coureurs et l'avant-garde.' _Les Chroniques de
Froissart_, edit. Buchon, vol. ii. pp. 334, 335, Paris, 1835. See
also, on this ruffianly expedition, _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. ii.
pp. 592, 593, and _Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. ix.
p. 253: 'Nulli loco, neque sacro, neque profano, nulli homini, qui
modò militari esset ætate, parcebat.'

By these disasters, the practice of agriculture was every where interrupted, and in many places ceased for several generations.[24] The labourers either fled, or were murdered; and there being no one to till the ground, some of the fairest parts of Scotland were turned into a wilderness, overgrown with briers and thickets. Between the invasions, a few of the inhabitants, taking courage, issued from the mountains, and raised wretched huts in the place of their former abodes. But, even then, they were pursued to their very doors by wolves, searching for food, and maddened with hunger. If they escaped from these famished and ferocious animals, they and their families were exposed to a danger still more horrible. For, in those terrible days, when famine stalked abroad, despair perverted the souls of men, and drove them to new crime. There were cannibals in the land; and we have it on contemporary authority, that a man and his wife, who were at length brought to justice, subsisted during a considerable period on the bodies of children, whom they caught alive in traps, devouring their flesh, and drinking their blood.[25]

[24] 'Agriculture was ruined; and the very necessaries of life were lost,
when the principal lords had scarcely a bed to lye on.' _Chalmers'
Caledonia_, vol. ii. p. 142. See also, in p. 867 of the same volume
of this learned work, some curious extracts from Scotch charters
and other sources, illustrating the horrible condition of the
country. And on the difficulty of obtaining food, compare _Fordun's
Scotichronicon_, vol. ii. pp. 242, 324; _Dalrymple's Annals_, vol.
i. p. 307, vol. ii. pp. 238, 330; and _Tytler's History of
Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 94.

[25] Notices of Scotch cannibals will be found in _Lindsay of
Pitscottie's Chronicles of Scotland_, edit. 1814, vol. i. p. 163;
and in _Hollinshead's Scottish Chronicle_, 4to, 1805, vol. ii. pp.
16, 99. In _Fordun's Scotichronicon_, vol. ii. p. 331, the
following horrible account is given: it refers to the neighbourhood
of Perth in the year 1339: 'Tota illa patria circumvicina eo
tempore in tantum fuit vastata, quòd non remansit quasi domus
inhabitata, sed feræ et cervi de montanis descendentes circa villam
sæpiùs venabantur. Tanta tunc temporis facta est caristia, et
victualium inopia, ut passim plebicula deficeret, et tanquam oves
herbas depascentes, in foveis mortua reperirentur. Prope illinc in
abditis latitabat quidam robustus rusticus, Crysticleik nomine, cum
viragine sua, qui mulierculis et pueris ac juvenibus insidiabantur,
et, tanquam lupi eos strangulantes, de ipsorum carnibus
victitabant.'

Thus the fourteenth century passed away. In the fifteenth century, the devastations of the English became comparatively rare; and although the borders were the scene of constant hostilities,[26] there is no instance, since the year 1400, of any of our kings invading Scotland.[27] An end being put to those murderous expeditions, which reduced the country to a desert, Scotland drew breath, and began to recover her strength.[28] But, though the material losses were gradually repaired; though the fields were again cultivated, and the towns rebuilt, there were other consequences, which were less easy to remedy, and from whose effects the people long smarted. These were inordinate power of the nobles, and the absence of the municipal spirit. The strength of the nobles, and the weakness of the citizens, are the most important peculiarities of Scotland during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; and they, as I am about to show, were directly encouraged by the ravages committed by the English troops. We shall, moreover, see that this combination of events increased the authority of the clergy, weakened the influence of the intellectual classes, and made superstition more prevalent than it would otherwise have been. It is in this way, that in Scotland, as in all other countries, every thing is linked together; nothing is casual or accidental; and the whole march of affairs is governed by general causes, which, owing to their largeness and remoteness, often escape attention, but which, when once recognized, are found to be marked by a simplicity and uniformity, which are the invariable characteristics of the highest truths that the mind of man has reached.

[26] Even when the two nations were at peace, the borderers were at war.
See _Ridpath's Border History_, pp. 240, 308, 394; and for other
evidence of this chronic anarchy, compare _Hollinshead's Scottish
Chronicle_, vol. ii. p. 30. _Lesley's History of Scotland_, pp. 40,
52, 67. _Sadler's State Papers_, vol. i. pp. 300, 301, 444, 449.
_State Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII._, 4to, 1836, vol. iv. pp.
366, 370, 569, 570, vol. v. pp. 17, 18, 161. _Historie of James the
Sext_, pp. 21, 91, 146.

[27] In 1400, Henry IV. made 'the last invasion which an English monarch
ever conducted into Scotland.' _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol.
ii. p. 406. It is said, however, that it was not till the reign of
Elizabeth than an English sovereign 'had the policy to disavow any
claim of sovereignty over Scotland.' _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. i.
p. 650.

[28] But very slowly. Pinkerton (_History of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 166,
167) says: 'The frequent wars between Scotland and England, since
the death of Alexander III., had occasioned to the former country
the loss of more than a century in the progress of civilization.
While in England, only the northern provinces were exposed to the
Scotish incursions, Scotland suffered in its most civilized
departments. It is apparent that in the reign of Alexander III.,
the kingdom was more abundant in the useful arts and manufactures,
than it was in the time of Robert III.'

The first circumstance favourable to the authority of the nobles, was the structure of the country. Mountains, fens, lakes, and morasses, which even the resources of modern art have only recently made accessible supplied the great Scottish chieftains with retreats, in which they could with impunity defy the power of the crown.[29] The poverty of the soil also, made it difficult for armies to find means of subsistence; and from this cause alone, the royal troops were often unable to pursue the lawless and refractory barons.[30] During the fourteenth century, Scotland was constantly ravaged by the English; and in the intervals of their absence, it would have been a hopeless undertaking for any king to try to repress such powerful subjects, since he would have had to march through districts so devastated by the enemy, that they no longer yielded the common necessaries of life. Besides this, the war with the English lessened the authority of the crown, absolutely as well as relatively. Its patrimony, lying in the south, was incessantly wasted by the borderers, and before the middle of the fourteenth century, greatly deteriorated in value.[31] In 1346, David II. fell into the hands of the English, and during his captivity of eleven years, the nobles carried all before them, and affected, says an historian, the style and title of princes.[32] The longer the war with England continued, the more these consequences were felt; so that before the close of the fourteenth century, a few of the leading Scotch families had raised themselves to such preëminence, that it was evident, either that a deadly struggle must ensue between them and the crown, or else that the executive government would have to abdicate its most essential functions, and leave the country a prey to these headstrong and ferocious chiefs.[33]

[29] Owing to this, their castles were, by position, the strongest in
Europe; Germany alone excepted. Respecting their sites, which were
such as to make them in many instances almost unassailable, see
_Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. ii. pp. 122, 406, 407, 918, 919, vol.
iii. pp. 268, 269, 356-359, 864; _Pennant's Scotland_, vol. i. pp.
175, 177; _Sinclair's Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 169, vol. vii. p.
510, vol. xi. pp. 102, 212, 407, 408, vol. xii. pp. 25, 58, vol.
xiii. p. 598, vol. xv. p. 187, vol. xvi. p. 554, vol. xviii. p.
579, vol. xix. p. 474, vol. xx. pp. 56, 312; _Macky's Scotland_,
pp. 183, 297; and some good remarks in _Nimmo's History of
Stirlingshire_, p. 56. Neither England, nor France, nor Italy, nor
Spain, afforded such immense natural advantages to their
aristocracy.

[30] 'By retiring to his own castle, a mutinous baron could defy the
power of his sovereign, it being almost impracticable to lead an
army through a barren country, to places of difficult access to a
single man.' _History of Scotland_, book i. p. 59, in _Robertson's
Works_, edit. London, 1831. Notwithstanding the immense materials
which have been brought to light since the time of Robertson, his
_History of Scotland_ is still valuable; because he possessed a
grasp of mind which enabled him to embrace general views, that
escape ordinary compilers, however industrious they may be.

[31] 'The patrimony of the Crown had been seriously dilapidated during
the period of confusion which succeeded the battle of Durham,'
_Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 86.

[32] 'During the long captivity of David,' the nobles had been completely
insubordinate, and 'affected the style and title of princes,'
_Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 85. See also, on the
state of the barons under David II., _Skene's Highlanders_,
vol. ii. pp. 63-67.

[33] In 1299, 'a superior baron was in every respect a king in
miniature.' _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 150. In
1377, 'the power of the barons had been decidedly increasing since
the days of Robert the First,' p. 332. And, by 1398, it had risen
still higher, p. 392.

At this crisis, the natural allies of the throne would have been the citizens and free burgesses, who in most European countries were the eager and resolute opponents of the nobles, whose licentious habits interfered not only with their trade and manufactures, but also with their personal liberty. Here again, however, the long war with England was favourable to the aristocracy of Scotland. For, as the invaders ravaged the southern parts of Scotland, which were also the only tolerably fertile parts, it was impossible that towns should flourish in the places which nature had appointed for them. There being no large cities, there was no asylum for the citizens, and there could be no municipal spirit. There being no municipal spirit, the crown was deprived of that great resource, which enabled the English kings to curtail the power of the nobles, and to punish a lawlessness which long impeded the progress of society.

During the middle ages, the Scotch towns were so utterly insignificant, that but few notices have been preserved of them; contemporary writers concentrating their attention upon the proceedings of the nobles and clergy. Respecting the people, who found shelter in such miserable cities as then existed, our best accounts are very imperfect; it is, however, certain that, during the long English wars, the inhabitants usually fled at the approach of the invaders, and the wretched hovels in which they lived were burned to the ground.[34] Hence the population acquired a fluctuating and vagabond character, which prevented the formation of settled habits of industry, and thus took away one reason which men have for congregating together. This applied more especially to the southern Lowlands; for the north, there were other evils equally threatening. The ferocious Highlanders, who lived entirely by plunder, were constantly at hand; and to them were not unfrequently added the freebooters of the Western Isles. Any thing which bore even the semblance of wealth, was an irresistible excitement to their cupidity. They could not know that a man had property, without longing to steal it; and, next to stealing, their greatest pleasure was to destroy.[35] Aberdeen and Inverness were particularly exposed to their assaults; and twice during the fifteenth century, Inverness was totally consumed by fire, besides having to pay at other times a heavy ransom, to save itself from a similar fate.[36]

[34] On this burning of Scotch towns, which appears to have been the
invariable practice of our humane forefathers, see _Chalmers'
Caledonia_, vol. ii. pp. 592, 593; _Kennedy's Annals of Aberdeen_,
vol. i. pp. 18, 27, 375, vol. ii. p. 304; _Mercer's History of
Dunfermline_, pp. 55, 66; _Sinclair's Scotland_, vol. v. p. 485,
vol. x. p. 584, vol. xix. p. 161; _Ridpath's Border History_,
pp. 147, 221, 265.

[35] A curious description of them is given in a Scotch statute, of the
year 1597. 'They hawe lykwayis throche thair barbarus inhumunitie
maid and presentlie makis the saidis hielandis and Iles qlk are
maist c[=o]modious in thame selwes alsueill be the ferteillitie of
the ground as be riche fischeingis altogidder vnproffitabill baithe
to thame selffis and to all vthuris his hienes liegis within this
realme; Thay nathair intertening onie ciuill or honest societie
amangis thame selffis neyther, zit admittit vtheris his hienesse
lieges to trafficque within thair boundis vithe saiftie of thair
liues and gudes; for remeid quhairof and that the saidis
inhabitantis of the saidis hilandeis and Iles may the better be
reduced to ane godlie, honest, and ciuill maner of living, it is
statute and ordanit,' &c. _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_,
vol. iv. p. 138, edit. folio, 1816.

These little peculiarities of the Highlanders remained in full
force until about the middle of the eighteenth century, as will
appear in the course of this history. But without anticipating what
will be narrated in a subsequent chapter, I will merely refer the
reader to two interesting passages in _Pennant's Scotland_, vol. i.
p. 154, and in _Heron's Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 218, 219; both of
which illustrate the state of things a little before 1745.

[36] Inverness was burned in 1429. _Gregory's History of the Western
Highlands_, p. 36; and again in 1455, _Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum
Historia_, lib. xi. p. 322. 'The greatest part' of it was also
burned in 1411. See _Anderson on the Highlands_, Edinb. 1827,
p. 82.

Aberdeen, being richer, was more tempting, but was likewise more
able to defend itself. Still, its burgh records supply curious
evidence of the constant fear in which the citizens lived, and of
the precautions which they took to ward off the attacks, sometimes
of the English, and sometimes of the clans. See the _Council
Register of Aberdeen_ (published by the Spalding Club, Aberdeen,
1844-1848, 4to), vol. i. pp. 8, 19, 60, 83, 197, 219, 232, 268,
vol. ii. p. 82. The last entry, which is dated July 31, 1593,
mentions 'the disordourit and lawles helandmen in Birss,
Glentanner, and their about, nocht onlie in the onmerciful
murthering of men and bairnis, bot in the maisterfull and violent
robbing and spulzeing of all the bestiall, guidis, and geir of a
gryt pairt of the inhabitantis of theas boundis, rasing of gryt
hairschip furth of the samen, being committit to ewous and nar this
burgh, within xx mylis theirunto, deuysit and ordanit for
preservation of this burgh and inhabitantis theirof, fra the
tyrannous invasion of the saidis hieland men, quha has na respect
to God nor man; that the haill inhabitantis of this burgh,
fensiball persones als weill onfrie as frie, salbe in reddiness
weill armit for the defence of this burgh, thair awin lyvis, gudis,
and geir, and resisting and repressing of the said heland men, as
occasioun salbe offered, at all tymes and houris as thay salbe
requirt and chargit.'

Even in 1668 we find complaints that Highlanders had forcibly
carried off women from Aberdeen or from its neighbourhood. _Records
of the Synod of Aberdeen_, p. 290. Other evidence of their attacks
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, may be seen in
_Kennedy's Annals of Aberdeen_, vol. i. p. 133; _Spalding's History
of the Troubles_, vol. i. pp. 25, 217; _Extracts from the
Presbytery Book of Strathbogie_, pp. 62, 73.

Such insecurity[37] both on the north and on the south, made peaceful industry impossible in any part of Scotland. No where could a town be built, without being in danger of immediate destruction. The consequence was, that, during many centuries, there were no manufactures; there was hardly any trade; and nearly all business was conducted by barter.[38] Some of the commonest arts were unknown. The Scotch were unable to make even the arms with which they fought. This, among such a warlike people, would have been a very profitable labour; but they were so ignorant of it, that, early in the fifteenth century, most of the armour which they wore was manufactured abroad, as also were their spears, and even their bows and arrows; and the heads of these weapons were entirely imported from Flanders.[39] Indeed, the Flemish artizans supplied the Scotch with ordinary farming implements, such as cart-wheels and wheel-barrows, which, about the year 1475, used to be regularly shipped from the Low Countries.[40] As to the arts which indicate a certain degree of refinement, they were then, and long afterwards, quite out of the question.[41] Until the seventeenth century, no glass was manufactured in Scotland,[42] neither was any soap made there.[43] Even the higher class of citizens would have deemed windows absurd in their wretched abodes;[44] and as they were alike filthy in their persons as in their houses, the demand for soap was too small to induce any one to attempt its manufacture.[45] Other branches of industry were equally backward. In 1620, the art of tanning leather was for the first time introduced into Scotland;[46] and it is stated, on apparently good authority, that no paper was made there until about the middle of the eighteenth century.[47]