Chapter II (1)

CONDITION OF SCOTLAND IN THE FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES.

Early in the fifteenth century, the alliance between the Crown and the Church, and the determination of that alliance to overthrow the nobles, became manifest. Indications of this may be traced in the policy of Albany, who was Regent from 1406 to 1419, and who made it his principal object to encourage and strengthen the clergy.[88] He also dealt the first great blow upon which any government had ventured against the aristocracy. Donald, who was one of the most powerful of the Scottish chieftains, and who, indeed, by the possession of the Western Isles, was almost an independent prince, had seized the earldom of Ross, which, if he could have retained, would have enabled him to set the Crown at defiance. Albany, backed by the Church, marched into his territories, in 1411, forced him to renounce the earldom, to make personal submission, and to give hostages for his future conduct.[89] So vigorous a proceeding on the part of the executive, was extremely unusual in Scotland;[90] and it was the first of a series of aggressions, which ended in the Crown obtaining for itself, not only Ross, but also the Western Isles.[91] The policy inaugurated by Albany, was followed up with still greater energy by James I. In 1424, this bold and active prince procured an enactment, obliging many of the nobles to show their charters, in order that it might be ascertained what lands they held, which had formerly belonged to the Crown.[92] And, to conciliate the affections of the clergy, he, in 1425, issued a commission, authorizing the Bishop of Saint Andrews to restore to the Church whatever had been alienated from it; while he at the same time directed that the justiciaries should assist in enforcing execution of the decree.[93] This occurred in June; and what shows that it was part of a general scheme is, that in the preceding spring, the king suddenly arrested, in the parliament assembled at Perth, upwards of twenty of the principal nobles, put four of them to death, and confiscated several of their estates.[94] Two years afterwards, he, with equal perfidy, summoned the Highland chiefs to meet him at Inverness, laid hands on them also, executed three, and imprisoned more than forty, in different parts of the kingdom.[95]

[88] 'The Church was eminently favoured by Albany.' _Pinkerton's History
of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 86. But Pinkerton misunderstands his
policy in regard to the nobles.

[89] _Skene's Highlanders_, vol. ii. pp. 72-74; _Browne's History of the
Highlands_, vol. i. p. 162, vol. iv. pp. 435, 436.

[90] Chalmers (_Caledonia_, vol. i. pp. 826, 827), referring to the state
of things before Albany, says, 'There is not a trace of any attempt
by Robert II. to limit the power of the nobles, whatever he may
have added, by his improvident grants, to their independence. He
appears not to have attempted to raise the royal prerogative from
the debasement in which the imprudence and misfortunes of David II.
had left it.' And, of his successor, Robert III., 'So mild a
prince, and so weak a man, was not very likely to make any attempt
upon the power of others, when he could scarcely support his own.'

[91] In 1476, 'the Earldom of Ross was inalienably annexed to the Crown;
and a great blow was thus struck at the power and grandeur of a
family which had so repeatedly disturbed the tranquillity of
Scotland.' _Gregory's History of the Western Highlands_, Edinburgh,
1836, p. 50. In 1493, 'John, fourth and last Lord of the Isles, was
forfeited, and deprived of his title and estates.' _Ibid._ p. 58.

[92] As those who held crown lands were legally, though not in reality,
the king's tenants, the act declared, that 'gif it like the king,
he may ger s[=u]monde all and sindry his tenand at lauchfull day
and place to schawe thar chartis.' _The Acts of the Parliament of
Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 4, § 9, edit. folio, 1814.

[93] 'On the 8th June, 1425, James issued a commission to Henry, bishop
of St. Andrews, authorising him to resume all alienations from the
Church, with power of anathema, and orders to all justiciaries to
assist.' This curious paper is preserved in Harl. Ms. 4637, vol.
iii. f. 189. _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 116.
Archbishop Spottiswoode, delighted with his policy, calls him a
'good king,' and says that he built for the Carthusians 'a
beautiful monastery at Perth, bestowing large revenues upon the
same.' _Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i.
p. 113. And Keith assures us that, on one occasion, James I. went
so far as to give to one of the bishops 'a silver cross, in which
was contained a bit of the wooden cross on which the apostle St.
Andrew had been crucified.' _Keith's Catalogue of Scotch Bishops_,
Edinburgh, 1755, 4to, p. 67.

[94] Compare _Balfour's Annales_, vol. i. pp. 153-156, with _Pinkerton's
History_, vol. i. pp. 113-115. Between these two authorities there
is a slight, but unimportant, discrepancy.

[95] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. pp. 95-98; _Skene's
Highlanders_, vol. ii. p. 75; and an imperfect narrative in
_Gregory's History of the Western Highlands_, p. 35.

By these measures, and by supporting the Church with the same zeal that he attacked the nobles, the king thought to reverse the order of affairs hitherto established, and to secure the supremacy of the throne over the aristocracy.[96] But herein, he overrated his own power. Like nearly all politicians, he exaggerated the value of political remedies. The legislator and the magistrate may, for a moment, palliate an evil; they can never work a cure. General mischiefs depend upon general causes, and these are beyond their art. The symptoms of the disease they can touch, while the disease itself baffles their efforts, and is too often exasperated by their treatment. In Scotland, the power of the nobles was a cruel malady, which preyed on the vitals of the nation; but it had long been preparing; it was a chronic disorder; and, having worked into the general habit, it might be removed by time, it could never be diminished by violence. On the contrary, in this, as in all matters, whenever politicians attempt great good, they invariably inflict great harm. Over-action on one side produces reaction on the other, and the balance of the fabric is disturbed. By the shock of conflicting interests, the scheme of life is made insecure. New animosities are kindled, old ones are embittered, and the natural jar and discordance are aggravated, simply because the rulers of mankind cannot be brought to understand, that, in dealing with a great country, they have to do with an organization so subtle, so extremely complex, and withal so obscure, as to make it highly probable, that whatever they alter in it, they will alter wrongly, and that while their efforts to protect or to strengthen its particular parts are extremely hazardous, it does undoubtedly possess within itself a capacity of repairing its injuries, and that to bring such capacity into play, there is merely required that time and freedom which the interference of powerful men too often prevents it from enjoying.

[96] Tytler (_History of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 126), under the year
1433, says: 'In the midst of his labours for the pacification of
his northern dominions, and his anxiety for the suppression of
heresy, the king never forgot his great plan for the diminution of
the exorbitant power of the nobles.' See also p. 84. 'It was a
principle of this enterprising monarch, in his schemes for the
recovery and consolidation of his own power, to cultivate the
friendship of the clergy, whom he regarded as a counterpoise to the
nobles.' Lord Somerville (_Memorie of the Somervilles_, vol. i. p.
173) says, that the superior nobility were 'never or seldome called
to counsell dureing this king's reign.'

Thus it was in Scotland, in the fifteenth century. The attempts of James I. failed, because they were particular measures directed against general evils. Ideas and associations, generated by a long course of events, and deeply seated in the public mind, had given to the aristocracy immense power; and if every noble in Scotland had been put to death, if all their castles had been razed to the ground, and all their estates confiscated, the time would unquestionably have come, when their successors would have been more influential than ever, because the affection of their retainers and dependents would be increased by the injustice that had been perpetrated. For, every passion excites its opposite. Cruelty to-day, produces sympathy to-morrow. A hatred of injustice contributes more than any other principle to correct the inequalities of life, and to maintain the balance of affairs. It is this loathing at tyranny, which, by stirring to their inmost depth the warmest feelings of the heart, makes it impossible that tyranny should ever finally succeed. This, in sooth, is the noble side of our nature. This is that part of us, which, stamped with a godlike beauty, reveals its divine origin, and, providing for the most distant contingencies, is our surest guarantee that violence shall never ultimately triumph; that, sooner or later, despotism shall always be overthrown; and that the great and permanent interests of the human race shall never be injured by the wicked counsels of unjust men.

In the case of James I., the reaction came sooner than might have been expected; and, as it happened in his lifetime, it was a retribution, as well as a reaction. For some years, he continued to oppress the nobles with impunity;[97] but, in 1436, they turned upon him, and put him to death, in revenge for the treatment to which he had subjected many of them.[98] Their power now rose as suddenly as it had fallen. In the south of Scotland, the Douglases were supreme,[99] and the earl of that family possessed revenues about equal to those of the Crown.[100] And, to show that his authority was equal to his wealth, he, on the marriage of James II., in 1449, appeared at the nuptials with a train composed of five thousand followers.[101] These were his own retainers, armed and resolute men, bound to obey any command he might issue to them. Not, indeed, that compulsion was needed on the part of a Scotch noble to secure the obedience of his own people. The servitude was a willing one, and was essential to the national manners. Then, and long afterwards, it was discreditable, as well as unsafe, not to belong to a great clan; and those who were so unfortunate as to be unconnected with any leading family, were accustomed to take the name of some chief, and to secure his protection by devoting themselves to his service.[102]

[97] Compare _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. ii. p. 263, with _Buchanan's
Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. x. p. 286.

[98] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. pp. 157, 158.

[99] Lindsay of Pitscottie (_Chronicles_, vol. i. p. 2) says, that
directly after the death of James I., 'Alexander, Earle of Douglas,
being uerie potent in kine and friendis, contemned all the kingis
officeris, in respect of his great puissance.' The best account I
have seen of the rise of the Douglases is in Chalmers' learned, but
ill-digested, work, _Caledonia_, vol. i. pp. 579-583.

[100] In 1440, 'the chief of that family had revenues perhaps equivalent
to those of the Scottish monarch.' _Pinkerton's History of
Scotland_, vol. i. p. 192.

[101] 'It may give us some idea of the immense power possessed at this
period by the Earl of Douglas, when we mention, that on this
chivalrous occasion, the military suite by which he was
surrounded, and at the head of which he conducted the Scottish
champions to the lists, consisted of a force amounting to five
thousand men.' _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 215.
The old historian of his family says: 'He is not easy to be dealt
with; they must have mufles that would catch such a cat. Indeed,
he behaved himself as one that thought he would not be in danger
of them; he entertained a great family; he rode ever well
accompanied when he came in publick; 1000 or 2000 horse were his
ordinary train.' _Hume's History of the House of Douglas_, vol. i.
pp. 273, 274, reprinted Edinburgh, 1743.

[102] In the seventeenth century, 'To be without a chief, involved a kind
of disrepute; and those who had no distinct personal position of
their own, would find it necessary to become a Gordon or a
Crichton, as prudence or inclination might point out.' _Burton's
Criminal Trials in Scotland_, vol. i. p. 207. Compare _Pitcairn's
Criminal Trials in Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 250, on 'the protective
surname of Douglas;' and _Skene's Highlanders_, vol. ii. p. 252,
on the extreme importance attached to the name of Macgregor.

What the Earl of Douglas was in the south of Scotland, that were the Earls of Crawford and of Ross in the north.[103] Singly they were formidable; united they seemed irresistible. When, therefore, in the middle of the fifteenth century, they actually leagued together, and formed a strict compact against all their common enemies, it was hard to say what limit could be set to their power, or what resource remained to the government, except that of sowing disunion among them.[104]

[103] 'Men of the greatest puissance and force next the Douglases that
were in Scotland in their times.' _Hume's History of the House of
Douglas_, vol. i. p. 344. The great power of the Earls of Ross in
the north, dates from the thirteenth century. See _Skene's
Highlanders_, vol. i. pp. 133, 134, vol. ii. p. 52.

[104] In 1445, the Earl of Douglas concluded 'ane offensiue and defensiue
league and combinatione aganist all, none excepted, (not the king
himselue), with the Earle of Crawfurd, and Donald, Lord of the
Isles; wich was mutually sealled and subscriued by them three, the
7 day of Marche.' _Balfour's Annales_, vol. i. p. 173. This
comprised the alliance of other noble families. 'He maid bandis
with the Erle of Craufurd, and with Donald lorde of the Ylis, and
Erle of Ross, to take part every ane with other, and with dyvers
uther noble men also.' _Lesley's History of Scotland_, from 1436
to 1561, p. 18.

But, in the mean time, the disposition of the nobles to use force against the Crown, had been increased by fresh violence. Government, instead of being warned by the fate of James I., imitated his unscrupulous acts, and pursued the very policy which had caused his destruction. Because the Douglases were the most powerful of all the great families, it was determined that their chiefs should be put to death; and because they could not be slain by force, they were to be murdered by treachery. In 1440, the Earl of Douglas, a boy of fifteen, and his brother, who was still younger than he, were invited to Edinburgh on a friendly visit to the king. Scarcely had they arrived, when they were seized by order of the chancellor, subjected to a mock trial, declared guilty, dragged to the castle-yard, and the heads of the poor children cut off.[105]

[105] An interesting account of this dastardly crime is given in _Hume's
History of the House of Douglas_, vol. i. pp. 274-288, where
great, but natural, indignation is expressed. On the other hand,
Lesley, bishop of Ross, narrates it with a cold-blooded
indifference, characteristic of the ill-will which existed between
the nobles and the clergy, and which prevented him from regarding
the murder of two children as an offence. 'And eftir he was set
doun to the burd with the governour, chancellour, and otheris
noble men present, the meit was sudantlie removed, and ane bullis
heid presented, quhilk in thay daies was ane signe of executione;
and incontinent the said erle, David his broder, and Malcolme
Fleming of Cummernald, wer heidit before the castell yett of
Edenburgh.' _Lesley's History_, p. 16.

Considering the warm feelings of attachment which the Scotch entertained for their chiefs, it is difficult to overrate the consequences of this barbarous murder, in strengthening a class it was hoped to intimidate. But this horrible crime was committed by the government only, and it occurred during the king's minority: the next assassination was the work of the king himself. In 1452, the Earl of Douglas[106] was, with great show of civility, requested by James II. to repair to the court then assembled at Stirling. The Earl hesitated, but James overcame his reluctance by sending to him a safeconduct with the royal signature, and issued under the great seal.[107] The honour of the king being pledged, the fears of Douglas were removed. He hastened to Stirling, where he was received with every distinction. The evening of his arrival, the king, after supper was over, broke out into reproaches against him, and, suddenly drawing his dagger, stabbed him. Gray then struck him with a battle-axe, and he fell dead on the floor, in presence of his sovereign, who had lured him to court, that he might murder him with impunity.[108]

[106] The cousin of the boys who were murdered in 1440. See _Hume's
History of the House of Douglas_, vol. i. pp. 297, 816.

[107] 'With assurance under the broad seal.' _Hume's House of Douglas_,
vol. i. p. 351. See also _Nimmo's History of Stirlingshire_,
Edinb. 1777, pp. 246, 322, 323.

[108] _Hume's House of Douglas_, vol. i. pp. 351-353. The king 'stabbed
him in the breast with a dagger. At the same instant Patrick Gray
struck him on the head with a pole-ax. The rest that were
attending at the door, hearing the noise, entred, and fell also
upon him; and, to show their affection to the king, gave him every
man his blow after he was dead.' _Compare Lindsay of Pitscottie's
Chronicles of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 103. 'He strak him throw the
bodie thairwith; and thairefter the guard, hearing the tumult
within the chamber, rusched in and slew the earle out of hand.'

The ferocity of the Scotch character, which was the natural result of the ignorance and poverty of the nation, was, no doubt, one cause, and a very important one, of the commission of such crimes as these, not secretly, but in the open light of day, and by the highest men in the State. It cannot, however, be denied, that another cause was, the influence of the clergy, whose interest it was to humble the nobles, and who were by no means scrupulous as to the means that they employed.[109] As the Crown became more alienated from the aristocracy, it united itself still closer with the Church. In 1443, a statute was enacted, the object of which was, to secure ecclesiastical property from the attacks made upon it by the nobles.[110] And although, in that state of society, it was easier to pass laws than to execute them, such a measure indicated the general policy of the government, and the union between it and the Church. Indeed, as to this, no one could be mistaken.[111] For nearly twenty years, the avowed and confidential adviser of the Crown was Kennedy, bishop of Saint Andrews, who retained power until his death, in 1466, during the minority of James III.[112] He was the bitter enemy of the nobles, against whom he displayed an unrelenting spirit, which was sharpened by personal injuries; for the Earl of Crawford had plundered his lands, and the Earl of Douglas had attempted to seize him, and had threatened to put him into irons.[113] The mildest spirit might well have been roused by this; and as James II., when he assassinated Douglas, was more influenced by Kennedy than by any one else, it is probable that the bishop was privy to that foul transaction. At all events, he expressed no disapprobation of it; and when, in consequence of the murder, the Douglases and their friends rose in open rebellion, Kennedy gave to the king a crafty and insidious counsel, highly characteristic of the cunning of his profession. Taking up a bundle of arrows, he showed James, that when they were together, they were not to be broken; but that, if separated, they were easily destroyed. Hence he inferred, that the aristocracy should be overthrown by disuniting the nobles, and ruining them one by one.[114]

[109] In _Nimmo's History of Stirlingshire_, pp. 99, 100, the alienation
of the nobles from the Church is dated 'from the middle of the
fifteenth century;' and this is perhaps correct in regard to
general dislike, though the movement may be clearly traced fifty
years earlier.

[110] See _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 33, edit.
folio, 1814; respecting the 'statute of haly kirk quhilk is
oppressit and hurt.'

[111] In 1449, James II., 'with that affectionate respect for the clergy,
which could not fail to be experienced by a prince who had
successfully employed their support and advice to escape from the
tyranny of his nobles, granted to them some important privileges.'
_Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 226. See also p. 309.
Among many similar measures, he conceded to the monks of Paisley
some important powers of jurisdiction that belonged to the Crown.
Charter, 13th January, 1451-2, in _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. iii.
p. 823.

[112] _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 188, 209, 247, 254.
_Keith's Catalogue of Scotch Bishops_, p. 19. _Ridpath's Border
History_, p. 298. _Hollinshead's Scottish Chronicle_, vol. ii. p.
101. In _Somerville's Memorie of the Somervilles_, vol. i. p. 213,
it is stated, under the year 1452, that fear of the great nobles
'had once possest his majestie with some thoughts of going out of
the countrey; but that he was perswaded to the contrary by Bishop
Kennedie, then Archbishop of Saint Andrewes, whose counsell at
that tyme and eftirward, in most things he followed, which at
length proved to his majesties great advantage.' See also
_Lesley's History_, p. 23. 'The king wes put to sic a sharp point,
that he wes determinit to haif left the realme, and to haif passit
in Fraunce by sey, were not that bischop James Kennedy of St.
Androis causit him to tarrye.'

[113] 'His lands were plundered by the Earl of Crawford and Alexander
Ogilvie of Inveraritie, at the instigation of the Earl of Douglas,
who had farther instructed them to seize, if possible, the person
of the bishop, and to put him in irons.' Memoir of Kennedy, in
_Chambers' Lives of Scotchmen_, vol. iii. p. 307, Glasgow, 1834.
'Sed Kennedus et ætate, et consilio, ac proinde auctoritate
cæteros anteibat. In eum potissimum ira est versa. Crafordiæ comes
et Alexander Ogilvius conflato satis magno exercitu, agros ejus in
Fifa latè populati, dum prædam magis, quam causam sequuntur, omni
genere cladis in vicina etiam prædia grassati, nemine congredi
auso pleni prædarum in Angusiam revertuntar. Kennedus ad sua arma
conversus comitem Crafordiæ disceptationem juris fugientem diris
ecclesiasticis est prosecutus.' _Buchanan_, _Rerum Scoticarum
Historia_, lib. xi. p. 306.

[114] 'This holie bischop schew ane similitud to the king, quhilk might
bring him to experience how he might invaid againes the Douglass,
and the rest of the conspiratouris. This bischop tuik furth ane
great scheife of arrowes knitt togidder werrie fast, and desired
him to put thame to his knie, and break thame. The king said it
was not possible, becaus they war so many, and so weill fastened
togidder. The bischop answeired, it was werrie true, bot yitt he
wold latt the king sea how to break thame: and pulled out on be
on, and tua be tua, quhill he had brokin thame all; then said to
the king, "Yea most doe with the conspiratouris in this manner,
and thair complices that are risen againes yow, quho are so many
in number, and so hard knit togidder in conspiracie againes yow,
that yea cannot gett thame brokin togidder. Butt be sick pratick
as I have schowin yow be the similitud of thir arrowes, that is to
say, yea must conqueis and break lord by lord be thamselffis, for
yea may not deall with thame all at once."' _Lindsay of
Pitscottie's Chronicles of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 172, 173.

In this he was right, so far as the interests of his own order were concerned; but, looking at the interest of the nation, it is evident that the power of the nobles, notwithstanding their gross abuse of it, was, on the whole, beneficial, since it was the only barrier against despotism. The evil they actually engendered, was indeed immense. But they kept off other evils, which would have been worse. By causing present anarchy, they secured future liberty. For, as there was no middle class, there were only three orders in the commonwealth; namely, government, clergy, and nobles. The two first being united against the last, it is certain that if they had won the day, Scotland would have been oppressed by the worst of all yokes, to which a country can be subjected. It would have been ruled by an absolute king and an absolute Church, who, playing into each other's hands, would have tyrannized over a people, who, though coarse and ignorant, still loved a certain rude and barbarous liberty, which it was good for them to possess, but which, in the face of such a combination, they would most assuredly have forfeited.

Happily, however, the power of the nobles was too deeply rooted in the popular mind to allow of this catastrophe. In vain did James III. exert himself to discourage them,[115] and to elevate their rivals, the clergy.[116] Nothing could shake their authority; and, in 1482, they, seeing the determination of the king, assembled together, and such was their influence over their followers, that they had no difficulty in seizing his person, and imprisoning him in the Castle of Edinburgh.[117] After his liberation, fresh quarrels arose;[118] and in 1488, the principal nobles collected troops, met him in the field, defeated him, and put him to death.[119] He was succeeded by James IV., under whom the course of affairs was exactly the same; that is to say, on one side the nobles, and on the other side the Crown and the Church. Every thing that the king could do to uphold the clergy, he did cheerfully. In 1493, he obtained an act to secure the immunities of the sees of Saint Andrews and of Glasgow, the two most important in Scotland.[120] In 1503, he procured a general revocation of all grants and gifts prejudicial to the Church, whether they had been made by the Parliament or by the Council.[121] And, in 1508, he, by the advice of Elphinston, bishop of Aberdeen, ventured on a measure of still greater boldness. That able and ambitious prelate induced James to revive against the nobility several obsolete claims, by virtue of which the king could, under certain circumstances, take possession of their estates, and could, in every instance in which the owner held of the Crown, receive nearly the whole of the proceeds during the minority of the proprietor.[122]

[115] 'He wald nocht suffer the noblemen to come to his presence, and to
governe the realme be thair counsell.' _Lesley's History of
Scotland_, p. 48. 'Wald nocht use the counsall of his nobilis.' p.
55. 'Excluding the nobility.' _Hume's History of the House of
Douglas_, vol. ii. p. 33. 'The nobility seeing his resolution to
ruin them.' p. 46. 'Hes conteming his nobility.' _Balfour's
Annales_, vol. i. p. 206.

[116] Also to aggrandize them. See, for instance, what 'has obtained the
name of the golden charter, from the ample privileges it contains,
confirmed to Archbishop Shevez by James III. on 9th July 1480.'
_Grierson's History of Saint Andrews_, p. 58, Cupar, 1838.

[117] 'Such was the influence of the aristocracy over their warlike
followers, that the king was conveyed to the castle of Edinburgh,
without commotion or murmur.' _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_,
vol. i. p. 308.

[118] 'The king and his ministers multiplied the insults which they
offered to the nobility.' ... 'A proclamation was issued,
forbidding any person to appear in arms within the precincts of
the court; which, at a time when no man of rank left his own house
without a numerous retinue of armed followers, was, in effect,
debarring the nobles from all access to the king.' ... 'His
neglect of the nobles irritated, but did not weaken them.'
_History of Scotland_, book i. p. 68, in _Robertson's Works_,
edit. London, 1831.

[119] _Balfour's Annales_, vol. i. pp. 213, 214; Buchanan, _Rerum
Scoticarum Historia_, lib. xii. p. 358. Lindsay of Pitscottie
(_Chronicles_, vol. i. p. 222) says: 'This may be ane example to
all kingis that cumes heirefter, not to fall from God.' ... 'For,
if he had vsed the counsall of his wyse lordis and barrones, he
had not cum to sick disparatioun.'

[120] _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, folio, 1814, vol. ii.
p. 232. 'That the said abbaceis confirmit be thame sall neid na
prouisioun of the court of Rome.'

[121] _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 240; and the
summary of the statute (p. 21), 'Revocation of donations,
statutis, and all uthir thingis hurtand the croune or hali kirk.'
In the next year (1504), the king 'greatly augmented' the revenues
of the bishoprick of Galloway. _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. iii. p.
417.

[122] _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 63; _Calderwood's
History of the Kirk of Scotland_, vol. viii. p. 135, edit. Wodrow
Society, Edinburgh, 1849. The latter authority states, that 'The
bishop devysed wayes to King James the Fourth, how he might
attaine to great gaine and profit. He advised him to call his
barons and all those that held any lands within the realme, to
show their evidents by way of recognition; and, if they had not
sufficient writings for their warrant, to dispone upon their lands
at his pleasure; for the which advice he was greatlie hated. But
the king, perceaving the countrie to grudge, agreed easilie with
the possessors.'

To make such claims was easy; to enforce them was impossible. Indeed, the nobles were at this time rather gaining ground than losing it; and, after the death of James IV., in 1513, they, during the minority of James V., became so powerful, that the regent, Albany, twice threw up the government in despair, and at length abandoned it altogether.[123] He finally quitted Scotland in 1524, and with him the authority of the executive seemed to have vanished. The Douglases soon obtained possession of the person of the king, and compelled Beaton, archbishop of Saint Andrews, the most influential man in the Church, to resign the office of chancellor.[124] The whole command now fell into their hands; they or their adherents filled every office; secular interests predominated, and the clergy were thrown completely into the shade.[125] In 1528, however, an event occurred by which the spiritual classes not only recovered their former position, but gained a preëminence, which, as it turned out, was eventually fatal to themselves. Archbishop Beaton, impatient at proceedings so unfavourable to the Church, organized a conspiracy, by means of which James effected his escape from the Douglases, and took refuge in the castle of Stirling.[126] This sudden reaction was not the real and controlling cause, but it was undoubtedly the proximate cause, of the establishment of Protestantism in Scotland. For, the reins of government now passed into the hands of the Church; and the most influential of the nobles were consequently persecuted, and some of them driven from the country. But, though their political power was gone, their social power remained. They were stripped of their honours and their wealth. They became outcasts, traitors, and beggars. Still, the real foundation of their authority was unshaken, because that authority was the result of a long train of circumstances, and was based on the affections of the people. Therefore it was, that the nobles, even those who were exiled and attainted, were able to conduct an arduous, but eventually a successful, struggle against their enemies. The desire of revenge whetted their exertions, and gave rise to a deadly contest between the Scotch aristocracy and the Scotch Church. This most remarkable conflict was, in some degree, a continuation of that which began early in the fifteenth century. But it was far more bitter; it lasted, without interruption, for thirty-two years; and it was only concluded by the triumph of the nobles, who, in 1560, completely overthrew the Church, and destroyed, almost at a blow, the whole of the Scotch hierarchy.

[123] The Regency of Albany, little understood by the earlier
historians, has been carefully examined by Mr. Tytler, in whose
valuable, though too prolix, work, the best account of it will be
found. _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 98-160,
Edinburgh, 1845. On the hostility between Albany and the nobles,
see _Irving's History of Dumbartonshire_, p. 99; and, on the
revival of their power in the north, after the death of James IV.,
see _Gregory's History of the Western Highlands_, pp. 114, 115.

[124] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 180-182: 'Within a
few months, there was not an office of trust or emolument in the
kingdom, which was not filled by a Douglas, or by a creature of
that house.' See also pp. 187, 194; and _Keith's Catalogue of
Scotch Bishops_, pp. 22, 23. Beaton, who was so rudely
dispossessed of the chancellorship, that, according to Keith, he
was, in 1525, obliged 'to lurk among his friends for fear of his
life,' is mentioned, in the preceding year, as having been the
main supporter of Albany's government; 'that most hath favoured
the Duke of Albany.' _State Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII._,
vol. iv. p. 97, 4to, 1836.

[125] The complete power of the Douglases lasted from the cessation of
Albany's regency to the escape of the king, in 1528. _Keith's
History of the Affairs of Church and State in Scotland_, edit.
Edinburgh, 1835, vol. i. pp. 33-35. Compare _Balfour's Annales_,
vol. i. p. 257. 'The Earle of Angus violentley takes one him the
gouerniment, and retanes the king in effecte a prisoner with him;
during wich tyme he, the Earle of Lennox, and George Douglas, his
auen brother, frely disposses vpone all affaires both of churche
and staite.'

[126] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 195, 196. The curious
work, entitled _A Diurnal of Occurrents_, p. 10, says, 'In the
zeir of God 1500, tuantie aucht zeiris, the kingis grace by slicht
wan away fra the Douglassis.' From Stirling, he repaired to
Edinburgh, on 6th July 1528, and went to 'the busshop of Sainct
Andros loegeing.' See a letter written on the 18th of July 1528,
by Lord Dacre to Wolsey, in _State Papers of Henry VIII._, vol.
iv. p. 501, 4to, 1836. Compare a proclamation on 10th September
1528, in _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in Scotland_, vol. i. part i.
pp. 138*, 139*, Edinburgh, 4to, 1833. I particularly indicate
these documents, because Lindsay of Pitscottie (in his _Chronicles
of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 335) erroneously places the flight of
James in 1527; and he is generally one of the most accurate of the
old writers, if indeed he be the author of the work which bears
his name.

The events of this struggle, and the vicissitudes to which, during its continuance, both parties were exposed, are related, though somewhat confusedly, in our common histories: it will be sufficient if I indicate the salient points, and, avoiding needless detail, endeavour to throw light on the general movement. The unity of the entire scheme will thus be brought before our minds, and we shall see, that the destruction of the Catholic Church was its natural consummation, and that the last act of that gorgeous drama, so far from being a strained and irregular sequence, was in fit keeping with the whole train of the preceding plot.

When James effected his escape in 1528, he was a boy of sixteen, and his policy, so far as he can be said to have had any mind of his own, was of course determined by the clergy, to whom he owed his liberty, and who were his natural protectors. His principal adviser was the Archbishop of Saint Andrews; and the important post of chancellor, which, under the Douglases, had been held by a layman, was now conferred on the Archbishop of Glasgow.[127] These two prelates were supreme; while, at the same time, the Abbot of Holyrood was made treasurer, and the Bishop of Dunkeld was made privy seal.[128] All nobles, and even all followers, of the house of Douglas, were forbidden to approach within twelve miles of the court, under pain of treason.[129] An expedition was fitted out, and sent against the Earl of Caithness, who was defeated and slain.[130] Just before this occurred, the Earl of Angus was driven out of Scotland, and his estates confiscated.[131] An act of attainder was passed against the Douglases.[132] The government, moreover, seized, and threw into prison, the Earl of Bothwell, Home, Maxwell, and two Kerrs, and the barons of Buccleuch, Johnston, and Polwarth.[133]

[127] _State Papers of Henry VIII._, vol. iv. p. 501.

[128] 'Archibald was depryvit of the thesaurarie, and placit thairin
Robert Cairncorse, abbot of Halyrudhous. And als was tane fra the
said Archibald the privie seill, and was givin to the bischope of
Dunkell.' _A Diurnal of Occurrents_, p. 11.

[129] Tytler (_History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 196) says: 'His first
act was to summon a council, and issue a proclamation, that no
lord or follower of the house of Douglas should dare to approach
within _six_ miles of the court, under pain of treason.' For this,
no authority is cited; and the historian of the Douglas family
distinctly states, 'within _twelve_ miles of the king, under pain
of death.' _Hume's House of Douglas_, vol. ii. p. 99. See also
_Diurnal of Occurrents_, p. 10: 'that nane of thame nor thair
familiaris cum neir the king be tuelf myllis.' The reason was,
that 'the said kingis grace haid greit suspicioun of the temporall
lordis, becaus thaj favourit sum pairt the Douglassis.' _Diurnal_,
p. 12.

[130] 'The Erle of Caithnes and fyve hundreth of his men wes slayne and
drownit in the see.' _Lesley's History of Scotland_, p. 141.

[131] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 203, 204.

[132] _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 324, edit.
folio, 1814.

[133] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 207.

All this was vigorous enough, and was the consequence of the Church recovering her power. Other measures, equally decisive, were preparing. In 1531, the king deprived the Earl of Crawford of most of his estates, and threw the Earl of Argyle into prison.[134] Even those nobles who had been inclined to follow him, he now discouraged. He took every opportunity of treating them with coldness, while he filled the highest offices with their rivals, the clergy.[135] Finally, he, in 1532, aimed a deadly blow at their order, by depriving them of a large part of the jurisdiction which they were wont to exercise in their own country, and to the possession of which they owed much of their power. At the instigation of the Archbishop of Glasgow, he established what was called the College of Justice, in which suits were to be decided, instead of being tried, as heretofore, by the barons, at home, in their castles. It was ordered that this new tribunal should consist of fifteen judges, eight of whom must be ecclesiastics; and to make the intention still more clear, it was provided that the president should invariably be a clergyman.[136]

[134] _Tytler_, vol. iv. p. 212.

[135] 'His preference of the clergy to the temporal lords disgusted these
proud chiefs.' _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 230.
See also p. 236. His reasons are stated by himself, in a curious
letter, which he wrote so late as 1541, to Henry VIII. 'We
persaif,' writes James, 'be zoure saidis writingis yat Ze ar
informyt yat yair suld be sum thingis laitlie attemptat be oure
kirkmen to oure hurte and skaith, and contrar oure mynde and
plesure. We can nocht understand, quhat suld move Zou to beleif
the samyn, assuring Zou _We have nevir fund bot faithfull and trew
obedience of yame at all tymes_, nor yai seik nor attemptis
nouthir jurisdictioun nor previlegijs, forthir nor yai have usit
sen the first institutioun of the Kirk of Scotland, quhilk We may
nocht apoun oure conscience alter nor change in the respect We
have to the honour and faith of God and Halikirk, and douttis na
inconvenient be yame to come to Ws and oure realme yerthrou; for
sen the Kirk wes first institute in our realme, the stait yairof
hes nevir failzeit, bot _hes remanyt evir obedient to oure
progenitouris, and in our tyme mair thankefull to Ws, nor evir yai
wer of before_.' This letter, which, in several points of view, is
worth reading, will be found in _State Papers of Henry VIII._,
vol. v. pp. 188-190, 4to, 1836.

[136] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 212, 213, and _Arnot's
History of Edinburgh_, 4to, 1788, p. 468: 'fifteen ordinary
judges, seven churchmen, seven laymen, and a president, whom it
behoved to be a churchman.' The statute, as printed in the folio
edition of 1814 (_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii.
p. 335) says 'xiiij psouñs half sp[=u]ale half temporall wt ane
president.' Mr. Lawson (_Roman Catholic Church in Scotland_,
Edinburgh, 1836, p. 81) supposes that it was the Archbishop of St.
Andrews who advised the erection of this tribunal.

This gave the finishing touch to the whole, and it, taken in connexion with previous measures, exasperated the nobles almost to madness. Their hatred of the clergy became uncontrollable; and, in their eagerness for revenge, they not only threw themselves into the arms of England, and maintained a secret understanding with Henry VIII., but many of them went even further, and showed a decided leaning towards the principles of the Reformation. As the enmity between the aristocracy and the Church grew more bitter, just in the same proportion did the desire to reform the Church become more marked. The love of innovation was encouraged by interested motives, until, in the course of a few years, an immense majority of the nobles adopted extreme Protestant opinions; hardly caring what heresy they embraced, so long as they were able, by its aid, to damage a Church from which they had recently received the greatest injuries, and with which they and their progenitors had been engaged in a contest of nearly a hundred and fifty years.[137]

[137] Keith, who evidently does not admire this part of the history of
his country, says, under the year 1546, 'Several of our nobility
found it their temporal interest, as much as their spiritual, to
sway with the new opinions as to religious matters.' _Keith's
Affairs of Church and State_, vol. i. pp. 112, 113. Later, and
with still more bluntness: 'The noblemen wanted to finger the
patrimony of the kirkmen.' vol. iii. p. 11.

In the mean time, James V. united himself closer than ever with the hierarchy. In 1534, he gratified the Church, by personally assisting at the trial of some heretics, who were brought before the bishops and burned.[138] The next year, he was offered, and he willingly accepted, the title of Defender of the Faith, which was transferred to him from Henry VIII.; that king being supposed to have forfeited it by his impiety.[139] At all events, James well deserved it. He was a stanch supporter of the Church, and his privy-council was chiefly composed of ecclesiastics, as he deemed it dangerous to admit laymen to too large a share in the government.[140] And, in 1538, he still further signalized his policy, by taking for his second wife Mary of Guise; thus establishing an intimate relation with the most powerful Catholic family in Europe, whose ambition, too, was equal to their power, and who made it their avowed object to uphold the Catholic faith, and to protect it from those rude and unmannerly invasions which were now directed against it in most parts of Europe.[141]

[138] 'In the month of August (1534), the bishops having gotten fitt
opportunitie, renewed their battell aganest Jesus Christ. David
Stratilon, a gentelman of the House of Lawrestoune, and Mr. Norman
Gowrlay, was brought to judgement in the Abby of Halyrudhouse. The
king himself, all cloathed with reid, being present, grait pains
war taken upon David Stratoun to move him to recant and burn his
bill; bot he, ever standing to his defence, was in end adjudged to
the fire. He asked grace at the king. The bishops answred
proudlie, that "the king's hands war bound, and that he had no
grace to give to such as were by law condemned." So was he, with
Mr. Norman, after dinner, upon the 27th day of Agust, led to a
place beside the Rude of Greenside, between Leth and Edinbrug, to
the intent that the inhabitants of Fife, seeing the fire, might be
striken with terrour and feare.' _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in
Scotland_, vol. i. part i. p. 210*. Also _Calderwood's History of
the Kirk of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 106, 107.

[139] 'It appears, by a letter in the State-paper Office, that Henry
remonstrated against this title being given to James.' _Tytler's
History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 223. See also p. 258.

[140] In 1535, 'his privy council were mostly ecclesiastics.' _Ibid._
vol. iv. p. 222. And Sir Ralph Sadler, during his embassy to
Scotland in 1539-40, writes: 'So that the king, as far as I can
perceive, is of force driven to use the bishops and his clergy as
his only ministers for the direction of his realm. They be the men
of wit and policy that I see here; they be never out of the king's
ear. And if they smell any thing that in the least point may touch
them, or that the king seem to be content with any such thing,
straight they inculk to him, how catholic a prince his father was,
and feed him both with fair words and many, in such wise as by
those policies they lead him (having also the whole governance of
his affairs) as they will.' _State Papers and Letters of Sir Ralph
Sadler_, Edinb., 1809, 4to, vol. i. p. 47.

[141] _State Papers of Henry VIII._, vol. v. p. 128. _A Diurnal of
Occurrents_, p. 22. The Reverend Mr. Kirkton pronounces that the
new queen was 'ane egge of the bloody nest of Guise.' _Kirkton's
History of the Church of Scotland_, edited by Sharpe, Edinburgh,
1817, 4to, p. 7.

This was hailed by the Church as a guarantee for the intentions of the king. And so indeed it proved to be. David Beaton, who negotiated the marriage, became the chief adviser of James during the rest of his reign. He was made Archbishop of Saint Andrews in 1539,[142] and, by his influence, a persecution hotter than any yet known, was directed against the Protestants. Many of them escaped into England,[143] where they swelled the number of the exiles, who were waiting till the time was ripe to take a deadly revenge. They, and their adherents at home, coalesced with the disaffected nobles, particularly with the Douglases,[144] who were by far the most powerful of the Scotch aristocracy, and who were connected with most of the great families, either by old associations, or by the still closer bond of the interest which they all had in reducing the power of the Church.[145]

[142] 'At his return home, he was made coadjutor, and declared future
successor to his uncle in the primacy of St. Andrews, in which see
he came to be fully invested upon the death of his uncle the next
year, 1539.' _Keith's Catalogue of Scotch Bishops_, pp. 23, 24.

[143] _M'Crie's Life of Knox_, p. 20. _Spottiswoode's History of the
Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 139. _Lawson's Roman Catholic
Church in Scotland_, p. 178. _Wodrow's Collections upon the Lives
of the Reformers_, vol. i. p. 100.

[144] Tytler (_History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 241) says, that the
cruelties of 1539 forced 'many of the persecuted families to
embrace the interests of the Douglases.'

[145] It is asserted of the Douglases, that, early in the sixteenth
century, their 'alliances and power were equal to one-half of the
nobility of Scotland.' _Brown's History of Glasgow_, vol. i. p. 8.
See also, on their connexions, _Hume's House of Douglas_, vol. i.
pp. xix. 252, 298, vol. ii. p. 293.

At this juncture, the eyes of men were turned towards the Douglases, whom Henry VIII. harboured at his court, and who were now maturing their plans.[146] Though they did not yet dare to return to Scotland, their spies and agents reported to them all that was done, and preserved their connexions at home. Feudal covenants, bonds of manrent, and other arrangements, which, even if illegal, it would have been held disgraceful to renounce, were in full force; and enabled the Douglases to rely with confidence on many of the most powerful nobles, who were, moreover, disgusted at the predominance of the clergy, and who welcomed the prospect of any change which was likely to lessen the authority of the Church.[147]

[146] Henry VIII., 'in the year 1532, sought it directly, among the
conditions of peace, that the Douglas, according to his promise,
should be restored. For King Henry's own part, he entertained them
with all kind of beneficence and honour, and made both the Earl
and Sir George of his Privy Council.' _Hume's History of the House
of Douglas_, vol. ii. pp. 105, 106. James was very jealous of any
communication taking place between the Douglases and his other
subjects; but it was impossible for him to prevent it. See a
letter which he wrote to Sir Thomas Erskine (in _Miscellany of the
Spalding Club_, vol. ii. p. 193, Aberdeen, 1842, 4to), beginning,
'I commend me rycht hartly to yow, and weit ye that it is murmuryt
hyr that ye sould a spolkyn with Gorge and Archebald Dougles in
Ingland, quhylk wase again my command and your promys quhan we
departyt.' See also the cases of Lady Trakware, John Mathesone,
John Hume, and others, in _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in
Scotland_, vol. i. part i. pp. 161*, 177*, 202*, 243*, 247*.

[147] 'The Douglases were still maintained with high favour and generous
allowances in England; their power, although nominally extinct,
was still far from being destroyed; their spies penetrated into
every quarter, followed the king to France, and gave information
of his most private motions; their feudal covenants and bands of
manrent still existed, and bound many of the most potent nobility
to their interest; whilst the vigour of the king's government, and
his preference of the clergy to the temporal lords, disgusted
these proud chiefs, and disposed them to hope for a recovery of
their influence from any change which might take place.' _Tytler's
History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 229, 230. These bonds of
manrent, noticed by Tytler, were among the most effective means by
which the Scotch nobles secured their power. Without them, it
would have been difficult for the aristocracy to have resisted the
united force of the Crown and the Church. On this account, they
deserve special attention. Chalmers (_Caledonia_, vol. i. p. 824)
could find no bond of manrent earlier than 1354; but in Lord
Somerville's _Memorie of the Somervilles_, edit. Edinburgh, 1815,
vol. i. p. 74, one is mentioned in 1281. This is the earliest
instance I have met with; and they did not become very common till
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Compare _Hume's History of
the House of Douglas_, vol. ii. p. 19. _Somerville's Memorie of
the Somervilles_, vol. i. p. 234. _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in
Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 83. _Irving's History of Dumbartonshire_,
pp. 142, 143. _Skene's Highlanders_, vol. ii. p. 186. _Gregory's
History of the Western Highlands_, p. 126. _Kennedy's Annals of
Aberdeen_, vol. i. p. 55. _Miscellany of the Spalding Club_, vol.
ii. pp. cvi. 93, 251, vol. iv. pp. xlviii. 179. As these covenants
were extremely useful in maintaining the balance of power, and
preventing the Scotch monarchy from becoming despotic, acts of
parliament were of course passed against them. See one in 1457,
and another in 1555, respecting 'lige' and 'bandis of manrent and
mantenance,' in _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, folio,
1814, vol. ii. pp. 50, 495. Such enactments being opposed to the
spirit of the age, and adverse to the exigencies of society,
produced no effect upon the general practice, though they caused
the punishment of several individuals. Manrent was still frequent
until about 1620 or 1630, when the great social revolution was
completed, by which the power of the aristocracy was subordinated
to that of the Church. Then, the change of affairs effected,
without difficulty, and indeed spontaneously, what the legislature
had vainly attempted to achieve. The nobles, gradually sinking
into insignificance, lost their spirit, and ceased to resort to
those contrivances by which they had long upheld their order.
Bonds of manrent became every year less common, and it is doubtful
if there is any instance of them after 1661. See _Chalmers'
Caledonia_, vol. iii. pp. 32, 33. It is, however, so dangerous to
assert a negative, that I do not wish to rely on this date, and
some few cases may exist later; but if so, they are very few, and
it is certain that, speaking generally, the middle of the
seventeenth century is the epoch of their extinction.