Another great invasion of Scotland was resolved on, and in August

1322, Edward II. marched into the doomed kingdom at the head of an

army numbering one hundred thousand men. Bruce adopted the tactics

of starving out the enemy, and all the cattle and provisions in the

Merse and the Lothians were removed to places beyond the reach of the

invading host. This was completely effective, as Edward II. and his

vast army, without striking a single blow, were compelled to retreat

in a state of wretchedness; many of the soldiers having died from

starvation and the effects of the fine generalship of their King.

In their retreat the English were harassed by Douglas and Randolph,

who, with a body of the Scots, hung on their rear and slew the

stragglers. When Bruce received tidings of the success of his tactics,

he immediately recrossed the Forth, marched rapidly southward, and

with a strong army advanced into England. On hearing that Edward II.

was encamped with the remnant of his army at Biland Abbey in Yorkshire,

Bruce determined to surprise him, and at once marched forward. He found

his enemies posted in a strong position on the summit of a steep hill,

accessible only on one side. But the sagacity and experience of Bruce

was equal to the occasion; and he ordered a party of the men of the

Isles and Argyle to march to a certain spot at the foot of the hill,

and then climb the rocks and attack the flank and rear of the enemy

posted on the summit. The Islemen shortly reached the ridge of the

hill and drove the English from the heights, and then the main body of

the Scots advanced and attacked the enemy. The English were completely

defeated, and fled in all directions; Edward escaped and rode to York,

hotly pursued by the Steward of Scotland. The baggage of the army, the

privy seal of England, and several prisoners of note, amongst whom were

the Earl of Richmond and Henry de Sully, fell into the hands of the

Scots. They proceeded to waste the country and advanced to the banks

of the Humber, levying contributions. In the middle of October they

returned home with their booty.¹

¹ _Walsingham_, Volume I., page 166; Barbour’s _Bruce_; Hailes’

_Annals_, Volume II., pages 216‒218.

Indeed it had become manifest that if peace was not soon concluded

with Scotland, the consequences would be disastrous to England.

The inhabitants of the border counties of England saw and felt that

Edward II. was quite unable to protect them; and if the war was to be

continued, it seemed probable that these counties would soon be annexed

to Scotland. The prospect of this induced the English government to

make proposals of peace. Still the difficulty of Edward II. and his

advisers was their extreme reluctance to recognise Bruce as the King

of an independent kingdom; a truce, however, was agreed to, on the 7th

of June 1323, which was to continue in force for thirteen years.¹

¹ _Fœdera_, Volume II., page 510, _et seq._

Although Edward II. and his government were very anxious for a

truce with the Scots, they were loth to relinquish their ideas of

the conquest of Scotland, which they had received from the great

hammer――Edward I. Accordingly Edward II. continued his efforts to stir

up the Pope against Bruce and the Scots; and he intimated to the Pope

that the Scotch clergy encouraged the people in their rebellion to the

utmost; and by their contempt of the solemn censures of the Church,

they had certainly incurred the suspicion of heresy; and therefore he

thought that no Scotsman should be elected to the office of a bishop in

his native land. Bruce sent Randolph, the Earl of Moray, to the papal

court; and he so far succeeded as to induce the Pope to address a Bull

to Bruce with the title of King. On his way home, Randolph was joined

by other Scotch envoys, and they concluded a treaty of alliance with

France, in which it was agreed that in future wars with England, France

and Scotland were to assist each other against her.¹

¹ _Fœdera_, Volume II., page 541.

Further attempts were made to arrange a final peace; but the English

government was still invidious, and persistently continued to instigate

the papal court to renew its denunciatory edicts against Scotland. On

the 20th of January 1327, Edward II. was dethroned. He was murdered

on the 21st of September, the same year; and his son was crowned on

the 25th of January under the title of Edward III. The new King and

government of England, however, was not inclined to recognise the

independence of Scotland, and the negotiations were broken off. The

truce was terminated, and both kingdoms prepared for a renewal of the

struggle.

The King ordered the Scots to muster, and in June 1327, an army

of twenty thousand men, under the command of Randolph and Douglas,

marched over the western border and plundered Northumberland. They

out-manœuvred the English army, and after staying three weeks in the

enemy’s country they returned home. Preparations were immediately

made for another expedition. Bruce himself at the head of a large

army invaded England; one division of the army under the King

besieged the castle of Norham; another division attacked the castle of

Alnwick; and the third division proceeded to waste the open country of

Northumberland. Thus Bruce by his energy at last compelled the English

government to sue for peace on equal terms, as commissioners came to

the Scottish camp and offered proposals of a peaceful character. One

of these was, that a marriage should be contracted between David, the

King’s son, and Joanna, the sister of Edward III.

But Bruce determinedly insisted that the independence of Scotland

should be first recognised as the basis of any treaty between the two

kingdoms. This was conceded. In a Parliament held at York, on the 1st

of March 1328, it was agreed that England should renounce for ever all

claims of superiority over Scotland; the main points of this document

were these:――“Whereas we, and others of our predecessors, Kings of

England, have endeavoured to obtain a right of dominion and superiority

over the kingdom of Scotland, and have thereby been the cause of long

and atrocious wars between the kingdoms, ... we have, by the assent

of the prelates, barons, and commons of our kingdom, in parliament

assembled, granted, and hereby do grant, for us, and our heirs and

successors, that the kingdom of Scotland shall remain for ever to

the magnificent prince and lord, Robert, by the grace of God the

illustrious King of Scots, our ally and dear friend, and to his heirs

and successors, free, entire, and separated from the kingdom of England

by its respective marches, as in the time of Alexander III., King of

Scotland, without any subjection, servitude, claim or demand whatsoever.

And we hereby renounce and convey to the said King of Scotland, his

heirs and successors, whatsoever right we or our ancestors in times

past, have laid claim to in any way over the kingdom of Scotland.

And we renounce and declare void, for ourselves and our heirs and

successors, all obligations, agreements, or treaties, touching the

subjection of the kingdom of Scotland and the inhabitants thereof,

entered into between our predecessors, and any of the Kings thereof,

or any of their subjects.”

After the adjustment of this preliminary condition, the negotiations

proceeded smoothly and rapidly; the treaty of peace was concluded

at Edinburgh on the 17th of March 1328, and formally ratified by the

English parliament at Northampton, on the 4th of May, the same year.

The stipulations of the treaty of peace may be indicated thus: The King

of England and the King of Scotland promised to be faithful allies of

each other; reserving the obligations of the King of Scots to his ally,

the King of France. If the Irish people rebelled against the King of

England, the King of Scots should not assist them; and, if any one rose

in arms against the King of Scots in the Isle of Man or in the other

islands of Scotland, the King of England should not assist them. It was

provided that a marriage should be solemnised between David, son and

heir of the King of Scots, and Joanna, sister of the King of England.

Scotland agreed to pay a sum of £20,000 sterling to England, within

three years, at three separate terms: further, it was stipulated

that Sir James Douglas should be reinstated in the lands which he had

forfeited in Northumberland; and that Henry Beaumont, Earl of Buchan,

Thomas, Lord Wake of ♦Liddel, and Henry Percy, should be restored to

their lands and lordships in Scotland. The King of England promised to

aid in obtaining the recall of all proceedings instituted by the Pope’s

authority against the King and people of Scotland.¹

♦ “Liddell” replaced with “Liddel” for consistency

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., page 126;

_National Manuscripts_, Part II., Number 26; _Fœdera_,

Volume II., pages 762, 806.

Robert I. had now secured to the people of Scotland the full

acknowledgment of their national independence and liberty. To obtain

this he had struggled hard and long against fearful odds, cheerfully

endured the utmost privation, and bore with a strength of spirit

unrivalled in the annals of the world, the successive blows of

bereavement inflicted upon him by the implacable rage of his enemies.

The justice and the glory of his culminated achievement, was amply

attested by his enemies, when they at last pleaded guilty as above,

admitted, and stated that they had been the cause of the manifold and

extreme suffering inflicted upon the people of Scotland and the people

of England.

The King’s son, David, who had been made Earl of Carrick, a boy five

years of age, proceeded with a large retinue from Cardross to Berwick

to meet his bride; and there Joanna, a girl of eleven years, was handed

over, in accordance with the treaty, to Sir James Douglas and the Earl

of Moray. On the 18th of July 1328, the marriage was celebrated at

Berwick, amid great rejoicing. Robert I. was unable to be present at

the marriage of his young son, as he had been for years afflicted with

an illness brought on by the privations which he had endured in the

early stage of his career. In the latter years of his life, he spent

much of his time at Cardross on the Clyde, a manor which he acquired

in 1326. He occupied his attention and in some measure assuaged the

tedium and pain of his malady by improving his residence at Cardross.

He repaired the park there, and greatly improved the garden; he had a

house for falcons which was surrounded by a hedge, and it appears that

he kept a pet lion. The Earl of Moray, Randolph, was often with the

King, and both devoted much of their time to shipbuilding. The King had

a ship of his own which plied on the Clyde and the neighbouring waters.

At Cardross the King lived in a quiet but hospitable style, as appears

from the large number of sheep, salted salmon, haddocks, eels, lampreys,

and other provisions which were consumed. He gave gifts and pensions to

a number of persons, and charities to poor men.¹

¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.

Robert I. had done his work; and when he found his life drawing to its

close, he dictated a letter to his son, giving him his last paternal

advice, and directing that his heart should be buried at Melrose. A

portion of this letter may be quoted:――“Robert, by the grace of God

King of the Scots, to David his most beloved son and the rest of his

successors, wishes health, and so to keep his precepts that they may

reign with his blessing. Dearest son, he appears worthy to be esteemed

a son, who, imitating his father’s example in good things, endeavours

to follow out his devout wishes, nor does he properly take the name

of heir who does not adhere to the goodly designs of his predecessor.

Desiring therefore that you, and the rest of our successors, should

follow out in devout sincerity that pious love and sincere regard

which we have conceived toward the Monastery of Melrose, where, of our

special devotion, we have appointed our heart to be buried.... And this

exhortation, supplication and command, do you our son, and the rest

of our successors, take care with earnest resolution to fulfil, if ye

would have our blessing together with the blessing of the Son of the

Most High King, who taught sons to do the will of their fathers, in

that which is right.... And in witness of our devotion towards Melrose,

so loved and chosen by us, we give this present letter to the aforesaid

religious, to be shown to our successors in time to come.”¹ This letter

was written twenty-seven days before the King’s death, yet we know that

the instructions which it gave touching the burial of his heart were

superseded by a later expression of his wishes. There appears to be

no doubt that Bruce in his last hours besought Sir James Douglas to

carry his heart to Jerusalem. It is also certain that Douglas actually

made an attempt to fulfil the wishes of the King, although he failed to

reach Jerusalem. It is, however, uncertain what became of Bruce’s heart

in the end.

¹ _National Manuscripts_, Part II., Number 29.

Robert I. died at Cardross on the 7th of June, 1329, in the fifty-fifth

year of his age, and thus ended a remarkable career and a memorable

reign. His remains were interred in the choir of the Abbey Church of

Dunfermline, and a marble monument, made in Paris, was erected over the

grave. Bruce married Isabella, a daughter of the Earl of Mar. By her he

had one daughter, Marjory, who married Walter the Steward of Scotland.

Bruce’s second wife was Elizabeth, a daughter of the Earl of Ulster,

and by her he had two sons, David, mentioned in preceding pages, and

John, who died in infancy, and two daughters. King Robert had two

natural sons, Walter of Odistown, on the Clyde, who predeceased his

father, and Sir Robert Bruce, who fell at the battle of Dupplin in

1332. A papal bull, dated a few days after the death of Robert I.,

but addressed to him, finally cleared Scotland from the interdict,

and authorised the Bishop of St. Andrews, or the Bishop of Glasgow,

to solemnly anoint and crown the Kings of Scotland.

CHAPTER VII.

_Narrative to the Return of James I._

ON the death of Robert I., in accordance with his expressed request,

Randolph, Earl of Moray, assumed the government of the kingdom. He

was an energetic man, and during his short regency the kingdom was

admirably governed. The regent became aware that Edward III. had begun

to entertain hostile intentions against Scotland, as in 1330, Edward

Baliol, a son of the deposed King John, received permission from Edward

III. to reside in England as long as he pleased. Baliol, in concert

with a number of nobles who had forfeited their Scotch estates, was

then projecting an invasion of Scotland, under the connivance of

Edward III. After the battle of Bannockburn, the nobles who held lands

in Scotland, but preferred to give their allegiance to the King of

England, then forfeited their lands on the north of the Tweed; as

it had at last, from bitter experience, become plain that a divided

allegiance had already caused enormous suffering in Scotland. Still

these forfeited nobles were extremely loth to relinquish their hold

upon the lands of Scotland, and, as we have seen, the claims of three

of them were recognised in the treaty of Northampton. But the regent

was unwilling to restore extensive territories to the sworn enemies of

the kingdom.

On the 24th of November, 1331, King Robert’s son, a boy of eight years,

was crowned and anointed by the Bishop of St. Andrews, under the title

of David II. But perils were impending. The regent received tidings

of Baliol’s movements, and immediately mustered an army to defend the

kingdom. At this crisis the regent suddenly died at Musselburgh, on

the 20th of July, 1332. The Earl of Mar was elected regent, but he

had no qualification for the office, and led the nation to disaster.

In the beginning of August 1332, eleven days after the death of

Randolph, Edward Baliol appeared in the Firth of Forth with a fleet,

and immediately landed his troops on the coast of Fifeshire. His force

numbered about three thousand men on foot, and four hundred cavalry;

and his most ardent supporters were Henry Beaumont, who claimed the

earldom of Buchan, Lord Wake of Liddel, and Henry Percy. Besides these

there were many others under Baliol’s banner who were hungering for

land in Scotland, and pretended that they had claims to it. Among the

Scotch supporters of Baliol the most notable was the Earl of Athole;

he had estates in the south of England; his territories in Athole

and in Strathbogie were forfeited by Robert I., who gave Strathbogie

to Sir Adam Gordon. Thus Baliol’s supporters were animated by strong

motives, and they marched forward to Strathern with remarkable spirit,

surprised the Scotch army, under Mar, at Dupplin on the 11th of August,

and completely defeated the Scots. Mar himself, Robert Bruce, Earl

of Carrick, the Earl of Monteith, and many of the Scots were slain.

The day after the battle, Baliol and his followers took possession of

Perth, and commenced to fortify it.

The Earl of March was at the head of another Scotch army superior in

numbers to Baliol’s force, but it appears that he secretly favoured

the invaders. March advanced towards Perth, as if he intended to

attack Baliol; but he soon disbanded his army without striking a single

blow. Baliol for the moment was master, and accordingly on the 24th

of September he was crowned at Scone. He then proceeded southward to

Roxburgh, surrendered the independence of Scotland to Edward III., and

gave up Berwick and territories on the borders to his Lord Superior.

But whilst he was transacting this business, Sir Robert Keith, and

James and Simon Fraser, surprised and captured Perth. A party led by

the young Earl of Moray, Randolph’s son, and Sir Archibald Douglas,

then proceeded southward in search of the new made King, who lay

encamped at Annan. At midnight they entered his camp, and after a

short resistance, his men were utterly routed and many of them slain,

and Baliol himself fled half-naked into England.¹

¹ Hemingford’s _Chronicles_, Volume II., pages 303, 306;

_Register of the Great Seal_, pages 4, 14, 15; Hailes’

_Annals_, Volume II., pages 158‒161; _Fœdera_, Volume II.,

pages 876, 888; Volume III., page 317, _et seq._

Edward III. threw off the mask and openly assisted Baliol, who returned

to Scotland in March, 1333. The English army besieged Berwick, and

made the utmost efforts to take it. Sir Archibald Douglas, who was then

regent, attempted to raise the siege, and with an army numbering about

ten thousand men, attacked the English at Halidon Hill on the 20th of

July. But the Scots were completely defeated, Douglas, the regent, was

slain, and the Earls of Lennox, Strathern, Ross, and Sutherland, and

the greater part of the Scotch army. Berwick immediately surrendered,

and the southern part of the kingdom was under the heel of the invader.

Baliol held a Parliament at Edinburgh in February 1334, at which he

parcelled out the southern half of Scotland among his own adherents;

and then formally rendered homage to Edward III., surrendering to him

the remainder of the kingdom. His supporters, however, soon began to

quarrel with him, as he had no real hold of the nation. The Scots still

held the castles of Dumbarton, Lochleven, Lochdun in Carrick, Kildrummy,

and Inverness. In May, 1334, the young King, David II., and his queen

were sent to France for safety, and Philip VI. rendered material aid to

the national party.

About this time Sir Andrew Moray, who had been taken prisoner, returned

from England after two years imprisonment, and the Steward, who had

taken refuge in the Island of Bute, also appeared on the scene, and

the people began to rally round them. The invaders were driven out

of Renfrew, Kyle, and Carrick, and Beaumont, the Earl of Buchan, was

captured in his Castle of Dundarg, but on the payment of a large ransom

was allowed to return to England. Baliol fled a second time across the

Border to seek the protection of his Lord Superior. Edward III., like

his grandfather, was always willing to oppress the people of Scotland,

and within five years he led, in person, four successive invasions into

the kingdom. During the short intervals between these invasions the

Scots assailed Baliol’s supporters, and allowed them no rest. The Earl

of Athole wavered, and repeatedly changed sides. In the service of

Edward III. he besieged the castle of Kildrummy, but in 1335 he was

attacked by Sir Andrew Moray at ♦Culblean, and defeated and slain. The

fall of Athole was a severe blow to Edward III., and his tool Baliol.

At a meeting held in Dunfermline, Sir Andrew Moray was elected Regent

of the kingdom, and he struggled to the utmost against the enemies

of the nation. Edward III. resolved to crush all resistance, and in

1336 invaded Scotland at the head of a great army. He proceeded by

Perth, and thence marched to Aberdeen, wasting the country and burning

villages and towns along his route. He then advanced through the

counties of Aberdeen and Banff, crossed the Spey, and onward till he

reached Inverness. Moray, the regent, wisely avoided a battle, but he

♠harassed his enemy most effectively, and Edward returned to England

without having subdued Scotland. Shortly after Edward III. concentrated

his attention on France, where he found a more tempting field for his

inordinate ambition.

♦ “Culblen” replaced with “Culblean”

♠ “harrassed” replaced with “harassed”

Sir Andrew Moray, the Stewart, Sir William Douglas, and others,

assisted by the body of the people, continued their efforts to expel

the invaders. Several of the castles were retaken from the enemy. The

upstart Baliol, when left to his own resources, soon disclosed his

nakedness. The regent, Moray, died in 1338, and the Steward of Scotland

succeeded him as regent. He besieged Perth, which had been for years

the headquarters of the English, and the citadel of Baliol’s supporters.

After the siege had continued for some time, the governor of the town

capitulated on terms, and he and the garrison were permitted to retire

into England. By this time Baliol had become an object of hatred,

suspicion, and contempt, among all classes of the Scots, and in 1339

he finally fled from the kingdom, and assumed his natural position as

a pensioned dependant on England.¹

¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.; Hemingford’s

_Chronicles_, Volume II., pages 336‒340; Buchanan’s _History

of Scotland_, Book IX., Chapter 27.

The regent proceeded with the work of expelling the invaders and the

re-organisation of the government. He besieged Stirling castle, which

was captured in 1341; and Edinburgh castle was surprised and taken on

the 17th of April the same year. At this time the regent reported to

the King that the country was almost clear of the enemy, and suggested

that he should return to his kingdom. The King and Queen embarked

for Scotland, and landed safely at Inverbervie on the 4th of June

1341; thence they proceeded to Aberdeen, and were warmly received and

hospitably entertained by the magistrates and the citizens. After a

short stay in the city, the royal party paid a visit to the aged sister

of Robert I., the widow of Sir Andrew Moray, who then resided in the

castle of Kildrummy. The King returned to Aberdeen, and was present at

a council held there on the 21st of February 1342; and on the 14th of

April he was again at Kildrummy. This year the King sojourned for some

time at Ayr, and visited Dumbarton, Stirling, Linlithgow, Haddington,

Inverkeithing, Cupar, Scone, and other towns. The King along with

the Queen and his sisters spent a night at Banff; and in August and

November he was again at Kildrummy; on this occasion the royal party

stayed for some time at Aberdeen. It appears that the King took part in

the popular amusements of the period. So far it seemed that the young

King had a bright future before him, and it was evident that the people

had great faith and hope in the son of Robert I.¹

¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.

David II. was then a youth of eighteen years, and, on his return from

France, the Steward gave over the government to him. The state of the

kingdom then needed a ruler who possessed the characteristics of energy,

sagacity, and experience, but unhappily it became apparent that David

II. lacked these qualifications. The war with England still continued

on the borders; a truce was concluded in 1344, which was to continue

till November 1346; but so long as the English held any portion of the

kingdom, the Scots could not refrain from attempting to recover it.

In 1346, at the request of his French ally, David II. mustered

an army at Perth and marched southward. He entered England by the

western marches and plundered the country, advancing as far as the

neighbourhood of Durham. There the English army approached, and the

Scots hastily formed for action in three divisions. Their left wing

was under the Steward, their right under the Earl of Moray, and their

centre led by the King himself. At Neville’s Cross, on the 17th of

October, the English began the battle by an attack on the right wing

of the Scots. The Earl of Moray was slain, and his division was driven

back and thrown into disorder; the English then assailed the centre in

flank and in front; but David II. fought bravely, and for three hours

he maintained the contest against fearful odds; although severely

wounded, he continued to encourage his men, who fell fast around him,

till he was seized and disarmed by the enemy. When the royal banner

fell, the Steward retreated with the remnant of his army. The battle

was extremely disastrous to the Scots. The High Chancellor of Scotland,

the Chamberlain, the Marshall and the Constable, the Earls of Moray

and Strathern, many other nobles, and about fourteen thousand men were

slain upon the field. While the King, the Earls of Fife, Sutherland,

Monteith, and many other nobles and knights were taken prisoners.

The King and the prisoners were conveyed to London. By the orders of

Edward III., the Earls of Monteith and Fife were selected as traitors,

and tried and condemned. Monteith was executed with all the shocking

cruelties of the English law of treason, but Fife’s life was spared.¹

¹ _Walsingham_, Volume I., page 269; _History of Scotland_,

Winton, Volume III., pages 476‒477; _Rotuli Scotiæ_, Volume

I., pages 690‒696, 705; _Fœdera_, Volume III.

The English followed up their victory, entered Scotland, and overran

anew the greater part of the kingdom south of the Forth. The castles

of Roxburgh and Hermitage were surrendered to the enemy. But the

national spirit of resistance survived the calamitous defeat of Durham.

The Steward was elected guardian of the kingdom, and he assumed the

functions of his office, and exerted himself to the utmost to maintain

the liberty of the nation. In 1347 a truce was concluded between

England and France, which included Scotland, and it was continued by

renewals to 1354.

The adjustment of the King’s ransom was a most difficult and tedious

matter. It appeared that the main aim of Edward III. was to extort an

enormous ransom for his royal prisoner, accompanied by stipulations

which the Scots, impoverished to the brink of utter ruin by a war of

fifty years, would be unable to implement; by this and secret intrigue,

Edward hoped and endeavoured to obtain possession of the throne of

Scotland. Attempts were made to treat with David II. on conditions

entirely subversive of the independence of Scotland; the poor, captive

King, however, could give no assurance that such conditions would be

fulfilled, so this came to nothing. After many abortive negotiations

and much wrangling, the King’s ransom was fixed at 100,000 marks, to

be paid to England by ten yearly instalments of 10,000 marks; twenty

hostages drawn from the chief families of the kingdom were to be placed

in the hands of the King of England until the ransom was paid; and a

truce was to be observed between the two kingdoms for ten years. The

treaty was concluded at Berwick on the 3rd of October 1357, and the

payment of the first instalment of the ransom was to be due on the

25th of June 1358. After the ratification of this treaty David II. was

released and returned to Scotland.¹

¹ _Fœdera_, Volume III., pages 242, 365, _et seq._; _Acts of

the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., page 155 _et seq._

The first matter that demanded attention was how to raise the money to

pay the annual instalment of the King’s ransom. On the 6th of November

1357, David II. met his Parliament which assembled at Scone to concert

measures to raise this money. It was proposed that the King should be

empowered to purchase all the wool and fleeces in the kingdom at the

price of four marks for each sack of wool, which was two-thirds of the

actual market price of wool at the time, thus giving two marks as a tax

on every sack. The Estates sanctioned this provision. Directions were

given for a re-valuation of all the lands and rents of the kingdom; the

produce, corn, cattle, sheep, and every kind of goods, and also lists

of the names of all the merchants and tradesmen in the country, as a

tax was to be laid on the rents and profits of land according to their

real value; and an inquiry was to be made as to how much each person

was likely voluntarily to contribute toward the payment of the King’s

ransom. Various arrangements were made for collecting these taxes, and

for punishing those who might attempt to avoid payment. It was then

enacted that all the lands, rents, and other rights of the Crown which

had been alienated should now be resumed; that such alienations by the

King in the future should not be made without mature deliberation with

his council. The great customs of the Crown were raised to three times

their former amount.

The payment of the King’s ransom pressed extremely hard upon the

impoverished nation. In spite of all the efforts of the parliament and

the people, the payment of the annual instalment fell into arrears.

This caused new arrangements to be proposed and concluded, which always

entailed more expense and increased the national taxes and debt. The

King himself was irregular and extravagant in his habits. It seems that

after his release he found little in Scotland to satisfy him, as he

frequently returned to England, and thus he entailed more annoyance and

expense upon his people; while the internal government of the kingdom

was neglected and the higher nobles became turbulent and lawless.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages

133‒134.

David II. had no children by his wife, the princess Joanna, and she

died in England on the 14th of August 1362. The following year the King

married Margaret Logie, but he had no family by her, and it seems she

had been superseded by a new favourite, Agnes of Dunbar, a daughter of

the Earl of March, who had attracted David’s attention. Accordingly, in

1369 David II. divorced his queen, Margaret Logie. These facts enable

us in some measure to understand the public conduct of David II., and

his proceedings with Edward III., touching the succession to the throne

of Scotland.

In the month of October 1363, David II. proceeded to London, and a

project was then matured for transferring the Crown of Scotland to

England. The main points of the project agreed on between Edward III.

and David II., were that an immediate discharge of the ransom would

be given, on the condition of the Crown of Scotland being settled

on Edward III., in the event of David leaving no male issue; and

elaborate provisions were framed for preserving the separate laws

and institutions of Scotland. David II. undertook to ascertain the

inclinations of the Scots on the matter, and report the result to

Edward. In a parliament held at Scone on the 4th of March, 1364, David

suggested that the Estates should choose Edward III., or one of his

sons, to fill the throne of Scotland after his own death; but the

Estates rejected the proposal and threw it out with scorn, although

they were quite willing to make great concessions for peace. The

negotiations were continued; and at a General Council, which met

at Perth on the 13th of January, 1365, in order to obtain peace and

relieve the kingdom from its financial embarrassment, the meeting

agreed to offer to restore the forfeited nobles to the estates which

they claimed in Scotland, to settle the Isle of Man and the lands

of the Baliols on one of Edward’s sons, if the unpaid balance of the

ransom was totally remitted. The result of this was a treaty, which

was ratified by David II. on the 12th of June, 1365, and by Edward III.

on the 20th of the same month. This treaty contained an agreement to

pay £100,000 by annual instalments of £4000; and a truce to continue

for four years. The Scots desired a peace for a much longer period,

and sent envoys to England empowered to make further concessions. But

Edward III. expected greater concessions than the Scots were even yet

prepared to yield, before he would listen to proposals of a permanent

peace. At a council which met at Holyrood on the 8th of May, 1366, it

was declared that the proposals of Edward III., touching the homage,

the succession, and the dismemberment of the kingdom, were intolerable,

and could not be admitted as matter for deliberation. The Estates were

to attempt, if necessary, to pay the whole ransom within the four years

of the truce; and, with this in view, valuation rolls of all the lands

in the kingdom were ordered to be presented to the next parliament.¹

¹ _Fœdera_, Volume III., pages 715, 770; _Acts of the

Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 134, 137‒139;

_Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume II.

When parliament met at Scone on the 20th of July, 1366, the new

valuation, which had been made under the Act of 1357, was laid before

it. Orders were then issued for a further valuation of the property

of burgesses and husbandmen, to be presented to a council which was

to be held on the 8th of September next. But £8000 had to be raised

immediately to pay the debts of the King and the expenses of the envoys,

who were again to proceed to England and attempt to negotiate for a

peace or a truce to continue for twenty-five years. The efforts to

obtain peace or a long truce with Edward III. failed, and he seemed

to be resolved on driving Scotland to the utmost extremities. The

extravagance of David II. was excessive, considering the financial

condition of his kingdom; he had borrowed large sums from burgesses

both in Scotland and in England. In spite of all the efforts to

extricate the nation, her financial difficulties were increasing.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages

140‒143; _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume II.

Meantime the kingdom was drifting into a deplorable state of internal

disorder. The nobles were becoming lawless; and it appears that the

Earl of Ross, the Lord of Lorne, some other nobles, and John, the

Lord of the Isles, had declined to pay their share of the national

taxes, and defied the royal authority and absented themselves from the

meetings of parliament. But in 1369 the Earls of Ross and Mar promised

to assist the royal officers within their territories, and the Steward

promised to extinguish disorder in the districts of Athole, Strathern,

and Monteith. The Lord of the Isles, however, maintained that his

vassals were under no obligation to pay any portion of the national

taxes. In the end of the year 1369 he tendered his submission at

Inverness, and undertook to assist the royal authority; and he actually

paid a contribution to the national tax.¹

¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume II., page 431; _Acts

of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 145‒149.

The four years truce was almost expired; year after year Edward III.

had spurned all the concessions and offers and efforts of the Scots to

make a lasting peace between the two kingdoms. The Scots were burdened

with a load of taxation, and the national debt was still accumulating,

while the prospect of a renewal of the war was impending over the

nation. But the historic relations between England and France took

a sudden turn, and war ensued between them. Edward III. then thought

fit to come to terms with Scotland, and granted a truce for fourteen

years, which was proclaimed on the 18th of June, 1369, and ratified at

Edinburgh on the 20th of July, and at Westminster on the 24th of August.

By this treaty 56,000 marks were recognised as the balance of the

ransom due, which the Scots undertook to pay by annual instalments of

4000 marks. All other claims under the treaty of 1365 were cancelled;

Edward III. also allowed the Scots half the rent of the lands subject

to him in the sheriffdom of Roxburgh.¹ In January 1370, David II.

paid his creditors by a composition of 13s. 4d. in the pound; and a

parliament which met in February 1370, at Perth, cancelled all the

remaining debts which he had contracted before 1368, and then enjoined

his majesty to live within his means for the future. The instalments of

the ransom were pretty regularly paid up till 1377, but it seems that a

balance of 24,000 marks was never paid.²

¹ _Fœdera_; _Rotuli Scotiæ_, Volume I., page 924.

² _Fœdera_; _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume II. The

point of the non-payment of this balance is discussed in the

Preface to the third volume of the _Exchequer Rolls_. See

pages 54‒59.

David II. had been a costly King to the Scots. The circumstances in

which he was placed in his youth were unfavourable to the development

of his faculties, his character, and his habits. He was not responsible

for his marriage with Joanna, the sister of Edward III.; he was not

responsible for his residence in France, or for his training there:

these were the result of the exigences of the position of the nation.

This partly accounts for the strange career which he ran after his

return from France, and his unfortunate capture at Durham. His race was

approaching its close, and he died on the 22nd of February, 1371, in

Edinburgh Castle, in the forty-seventh year of his age, after a nominal

reign of forty-two years.

David II. having died without issue, under the settlement of 1318,

was succeeded by his nephew, Robert, the Steward of Scotland. He was

crowned and anointed by the Bishop of St. Andrews at Scone on the

26th of March, 1371, under the title of Robert II., in presence of

the nobles, the clergy, and a great assemblage of the people from all

quarters of the kingdom. Robert II. was then in his fifty-fifth year,

and, as we have seen, he had been twice regent. He was a man of ability

and good judgment, and was inclined to follow the paths of peace,

but unhappily the Scotch nobles were not as yet disposed to tread in

the quiet walks of life. The King had been twice married, and had a

large family of sons and daughters. The day after his coronation, in

the parliament assembled for the occasion, a declaration was read and

passed touching the succession to the Crown, a part of which may be

quoted:――“The most serene Prince Lord Robert, by the grace of God the

illustrious King of Scots, being at Scone at the time of his coronation,

the bishops, earls, barons, and others of the clergy and people of

his kingdom assisting, after the solemn rites of the anointing and

coronation completed, and a declaration made of the law by which the

most serene prince succeeded, and ought to succeed, as well by nearness

of blood as in virtue of a certain declaration made in the time of Lord

Robert, of illustrious memory, King of Scotland, the grandfather and

predecessor of the said Lord our King, there produced and read: also

having received the usual oaths of homage and fealty from the bishops,

earls, barons, and others of the clergy and people there present, which

of old were accustomed and required to be taken at the coronation of

the kings of Scotland; and willingly, after the manner and example

of that good King, of illustrious memory, Robert, his grandfather,

in presence of the clergy and people, to declare there his successor

and true heir, although with regard to him it was, and is evident, yet

for the greater certainty and with the unanimous consent and assent

of the said bishops, earls, nobles, and great men indicated, asserted

and acknowledged, declared and willed, that when it shall happen that

he, by the Divine dispensation, departs this life, the Lord John,

his first born son, Earl of Carrick and Steward of Scotland, shall

and ought to be his true and lawful heir; and, the Lord so ordaining,

shall and ought to sit upon the throne of his kingdom.” In 1373, in

a Parliament held at Scone on the 4th of April, another declaration

was made which limited the succession to the male line. The reasons

given for this limitation were that evils and calamities had happened

from the succession of female heirs. The assembled Estates of the

realm――“declared, ordained, and enacted that the sons of the King of

his first and second wives now born, and their heirs male only, shall

succeed one after another to the said King in the kingdom and in the

right of reigning; and the said Lord John and his heirs――male happening

to fail, but may it not be, the Lord Robert, Earl of Fife and Menteith,

the second born son of our Lord the King by his first wife, and his

heirs――male only, shall in turn and immediately succeed to the kingdom

and the right of reigning; and the said Robert and such heirs of his

happening also to fail, but may it not be, the Lord Alexander, Lord

of Badenoch, the third born son of our Lord the King by the same wife,

and his heirs male only, shall, after their death, in like manner, in

turn and immediately succeed to the kingdom and the right of reigning;

and the said Lord Alexander and his heirs happening in like manner to

fail, but may it not be, the Lord David, Earl of Strathern, son of our

Lord the King, born of his second wife, and his heirs――male only, the

said parties thus failing wholly, shall, in like manner, in turn and

immediately succeed to the kingdom and the right of reigning; and the

said Lord David and his heirs happening in like manner to fail, Walter,

son of our Lord the King, and his heirs male only, shall in like manner

succeed to the kingdom and the right of reigning: and the aforesaid

five brothers and their heirs male from them descending, happening

finally and wholly to fail, but may it not be, the true and lawful

heirs of the royal blood and parentage shall thenceforward succeed

to the kingdom and the right of reigning.” The above was enacted and

ordained by the Estates of the kingdom, and the bishops, earls, nobles,

and others present, each individually touched the “Holy Gospels and

swore their bodily oath that they would inviolably observe these

declarations, ordinances and statutes for themselves and their heirs,

and cause them to be observed for ever by others to the utmost of

their power. And immediately thereafter the whole multitude of the

clergy and the people in the church of Scone, before the great altar,

being specially convened for that purpose, the aforesaid declaration,

ordinance, and statute thus sworn, being explained to them in a

loud and public voice, each raising his hand, after the manner of

faith-giving, in token of the universal consent of the whole clergy

and people, publicly expressed and declared their consent and assent.

In witness of all which our Lord the King ordered his great seal to be

affixed to the present writing. And for the greater evidence and fuller

security all the bishops, earls, barons, and nobles above named caused

their seals to be affixed to this writing for the sake of testimony and

for a perpetual memorial to posterity.”¹

¹ _National Manuscripts_ Part II., Numbers 43 A, 43 B.

In the spring of 1371 Archibald Douglas and three other envoys were

sent to France, empowered to treat for the renewal and the amendment of

the former treaty of friendship and alliance between the two kingdoms.

On the 30th of June, at Vincennes, the new treaty was concluded, and

ratified by Robert II. at Edinburgh on the 28th of October. The two

nations agreed to mutually assist each other against English aggression,

and that no truce or peace should be concluded by either kingdom in

which the other was not included; this was an important stipulation,

which past experience had no doubt suggested to the Scots. In the event

of a disputed succession for the crown of Scotland the king of France

should support the right of the man whose claims were sanctioned by

the Parliament of the kingdom. The truce with England was continued,

although it was not strictly observed on either side. So long as

England held portions of Scotch territory in the southern countries,

the Scots could not refrain from driving out the invaders, but they

frequently went farther and made destructive and irritating raids into

the north of England.

Robert II. was anxious for peace, but a number of his nobles and

several of his own sons delighted to make inroads into England. In

1380 the Duke of Lancaster advanced to the Border with a strong army

to check the raids of the Scots and make peace. The Earls of Douglas

and March and the Bishops of Glasgow and Dunkeld were commissioned to

meet the Duke of Lancaster at Berwick, where a truce was concluded to

continue for a year. Lancaster then disbanded his army, and promised

to meet the Scotch commissioners in the summer of 1381 to continue the

negotiations. The Earl of Carrick and other Scotch envoys met the Duke

of Lancaster near Ayton, in Berwickshire, and they agreed to a renewal

of the truce for three years; but a party of the Scots, in spite of the

orders of the King, would not desist from hostilities.

The French Government had resolved to stimulate the Scots against

England. In May, 1385, a French force of two thousand men arrived at

Leith, under the command of John de Vienne, Admiral of France. The

French Admiral also brought with him a thousand stand of arms, and

fifty thousand franks of gold. The gold pieces were distributed between

the King and the chief nobles; but there was much difficulty in finding

quarters for the French army. As Edinburgh could only afford quarters

to a limited number, parties of them were billeted in Dalkeith,

Dunfermline, Kelso, Dunbar, and other places. They gave the Scots much

annoyance, and their foraging parties were sometimes resisted by them.

Misunderstandings and quarrels arose between the French soldiers and

the people, and on the 1st of July Parliament passed an ordinance, to

which the French Admiral agreed, to regulate the relations between the

French soldiers and the Scotch people. In this ordinance it was stated

that no pillage was permitted in Scotland, under the penalty of death,

and everything which the French troops required from the people was

to be duly paid. If one soldier killed another he should be hanged,

and if any servant defied a gentleman, he should lose his ears. If a

riot arose between the French and the Scots no appeal to arms should

be permitted, but the ringleaders should be immediately arrested, and

tried and punished by a council of officers.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages

190, 191.

But the French had the pleasures of a raid into England, and of wasting

Northumberland to the gates of Newcastle. The French and Scotch modes

of warfare, however, were so different that disputes arose between the

leaders of the Scots and the Admiral. The French commander insisted

that they should face the English in battle, and at once strike a blow;

the Scots said such an attempt would be disastrous. The dispute waxed

warm; the Frenchmen talked contemptuously of the spirit of their allies,

and they were only silenced when taken to the top of a mountain and

shown the strength of the enemy’s force. Still the French Admiral said,

“if you do not give the English battle they will destroy your country.”

The Earl of Douglas replied, “Let them do their worst, they will find

but little to destroy.” The English army entered Scotland and advanced

to Edinburgh, burning empty villages and homesteads, and plundering the

churches and monasteries. But provisions soon began to fail, and many

of the English troops perished from want of food, and their commander

was forced to order a retreat. Meanwhile the Scots and their French

allies invaded and plundered the district of Cumberland.¹

¹ _Froissart_, Volume II., pages 49‒55, 1842.

After returning from the raids to Edinburgh, the French prepared to

go home. The Admiral settled various claims for damages and injuries

which the Scots alleged to have been caused by the French troops.

The Scots then provided vessels in which the French troops departed,

much displeased with their Scotch allies. The war with England still

continued; the Scots made many destructive inroads into the northern

counties of England; the result of these intensified the animosity of

the two nations towards each other and produced much evil. Robert II.

was averse to this incessant warfare, but the nobles followed their own

counsel and disregarded the views of their King.

In the summer of 1388 the Earls of Douglas, Fife, Moray, and other

nobles, held a conference, and resolved to muster an army near Jedburgh

in the beginning of August, in order to make a great invasion of

England. On the appointed day this army was arranged in two divisions.

The first division consisted of three hundred cavalry and two thousand

men on foot, under the command of the Earl of Douglas, with the Earls

of Moray and March, Sir James Lindsay, and others; the second division

consisted of the main body of the army, under the command of the Earl

of Fife, with the Earls of Strathern, Monteith, Mar, and Sutherland,

and Archibald Douglas. The main army marched on Carlisle, while the

Earl of Douglas advanced through the eastern marches. Douglas rapidly

marched through Northumberland till he reached the diocese of Durham,

and then the plundering began. After wasting this district to the

gates of Durham, the Scots retired to Newcastle, where Sir Henry Percy,

“Hotspur,” his brother, Sir Ralph, and other English barons were lying.

Douglas remained two days in the vicinity of the town; but the English

seemed to have imagined that the main body of the Scotch army was not

far off, and therefore they did not then attack the Scots. Douglas

resumed his march towards Scotland, and the Scots pitched their camp

in a strong position on the banks of the Reed water, near Otterburn,

thirty miles from Newcastle. Percy having ascertained that Douglas

was not supported by the main body of the Scots, at once mustered five

hundred cavalry and a strong body of infantry and marched in pursuit

of Douglas. After sunset on the evening of the 10th of August 1388, the

Scots descried Percy approaching, and their leaders were at supper when

the war cry of “Percy!” “Percy!” startled them. The English attacked

the Scottish camp furiously, but the camp followers defended the

waggons and baggage for some time, and Douglas rapidly advanced round

a wooded height and attacked the flank of the English while they were

entangled in the marsh near the Scottish camp. But Percy drew back

his men to firm ground and met the attack of the Scots with surprising

valour. The battle raged furiously for hours. Then the Scots began

to fall back, but Douglas followed by a few fought his way into the

midst of the enemy, where he was borne down and mortally wounded. The

combat continued to rage, and Sir James Lindsay and Sir John Sinclair

found Douglas lying in a dying state, but he was able to tell them to

raise his banner and cry Douglas, which was instantly done. The Scots

imagining that their leader was still on his feet, assailed the enemy

with unbearable fury. At last the English began to waver and then broke,

and many of them were slain. Henry Percy, Hotspur, and his brother

Ralph, and a number of other English barons were taken prisoners. The

body of Douglas was carried to Scotland, and interred at the Abbey of

Melrose.¹ The main body of the Scotch army, under the Earl of Fife,

were plundering the western district of England when tidings of the

victory at Otterburn reached them.

¹ _Froissart._

While the warfare briefly touched on in the preceding pages was

engrossing the attention and energy of the nobles, the material and

social progress of the nation was much retarded. The power of the

nobles was rapidly increasing, but the power of the Crown was becoming

feeble. The age and infirmity of Robert II. rendered it necessary that

something should be immediately done to maintain order in the kingdom.

Robert’s eldest son was lame and deemed unfit for public life; but his

second son, the Earl of Fife, was a man of energy, and in a Council

held at Edinburgh in December 1388, he was appointed regent. This man,

afterwards known in history under the title of the Duke of Albany,

held the reins of government for many years. A truce was concluded

between France and England in 1389, which was accepted by Scotland,

and continued by renewals to 1399. This cheered the last days of the

aged King, who had long desired peace. He died in April 1390, in the

seventy-fourth year of his age and the twentieth of his reign, and was

interred at Scone.

Robert II. was succeeded by his eldest son, John, Earl of Carrick.

But “King John” was a name extremely odious to the Scots, owing to its

association with the hapless Baliol, and Carrick assumed the favourite

name of Robert. After the funeral of his father he was immediately

crowned at Scone, under the title of Robert III. He was an amiable

and discreet man, but he lacked the strength of character to restrain

the restless and lawless nobles. His brother, the Earl of Fife, who

acted as regent in the later years of his father’s reign, continued to

wield the chief authority under the name of Governor of the kingdom.

Alexander, another brother of the King, Lord of Badenoch and Earl of

Buchan, who ruled the northern part of the country, earned for himself

the name of “the Wolf of Badenoch.” Amongst other oppressive acts he

took possession of land which belonged to the bishopric of Moray. For

this he was excommunicated; but he retaliated by advancing with a body

of his followers to Elgin, and burning the grand cathedral, the chantry,

and the city.¹

¹ _Registrum Episcopatus Moraviensis_, pages 204, 348‒349,

376, 381.

Shortly afterwards the Wolf’s natural son, Duncan Stewart, led a

party of his adherents across the mountains which divide the counties

of Aberdeen and Forfar, and plundered the Lowlands. In 1392 the landed

gentry, headed by Sir Walter Ogilvie, Sheriff of Angus, mustered

and met him at Gasklune, near the water of Isla; but he completely

defeated them. Ogilvie the sheriff, his brother, and others were

slain. The Government, in a General Council held at Perth, ordered

Duncan Stewart and his accomplices to be proclaimed outlaws, for the

slaughter of Walter Ogilvie and others. The weakness of the Crown and

the lawlessness of the nobles were the most striking features of this

period. The state of the kingdom and the suffering of the people were

deplorable. In 1397 parliament passed an act, which opened with a

declaration that continual burnings, harryings, and slaughters, were

common throughout the country. It was then enacted that no one should

ride through the kingdom with a greater retinue than they could pay for,

as it was common for such riders to seize whatever they wanted without

payment, and besides, they burned and destroyed the property of the

people. Those who committed such oppressive acts in future were to

suffer the penalty of death, and the sheriffs were enjoined to proclaim

this statute, bring offenders to trial, and execute them.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages

208, 217.

In a Parliament which assembled at Perth on the 27th of January, 1399,

it was asserted, in the preamble to the acts, that the misgovernment

of the kingdom and the maladministration of the laws should be imputed

to the King and his officers. “If, therefore, the King chose to make

excuses for his own shortcomings then, if he thinks fit, he can call

his officers to whom he had given commission, and accuse them in the

presence of his council; and their answers heard, the council should be

ready to judge their defaults, since no man ought to be condemned until

he be called and accused.” This seems a fine and important statement,

but it is quite certain that the greatest offenders were amongst those

very men who drew up the statement itself, and they knew well that the

feeble King was not in a position to accuse them in any way. Parliament

then announced that, owing to the infirmities of the King, he could

not govern the kingdom nor repress trespassers and rebels. The Duke

of Rothesay, the King’s eldest son, was appointed Lieutenant-General

of the kingdom for three years, and entrusted with full regal power.

He took the coronation oath to preserve the freedom and rights of the

Church, the laws and the loveable customs of the people, to restrain

and punish all manslayers, robbers, and other masterful misdoers,

and especially all cursed men and heretics who were expelled from the

Church. Parliament appointed a council to assist the Duke of Rothesay

in the Government; amongst those named were his uncle, the Duke of

Albany, the Earls of Douglas, Moray, Ross, and Crawford, the bishops

of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Aberdeen, and his acts as ruler were to be

recorded, with the date, place, and the names of those present, that it

might be known on whom to fix responsibility.

The act lately passed at Stirling touching those who rode through

the country without paying their way was repeated. The sheriffs were

ordered to proclaim the laws, to search out and arrest vagabonds and

criminals, and bind them to appear in court and stand their trial at

the next justiciary circuit.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages

210‒212.

It appears that the King, instead of being in a position to accuse

the chief offenders or the administrative officials of the Crown, was

entering into bonds with the nobles for the protection of himself and

his heir. Indeed, the weak monarch was reduced to the extremity of

purchasing the favour of the nobles. The bonds between the King and his

nobles were numerous, and assumed the form of annual grants of money

under the condition that they were to defend him and his eldest son.

Thus he bound himself to give large sums annually to individual nobles

for the natural period of their lives, and in some instances of the

lives of their children. The Duke of Albany, Lord Stewart of Brechin,

Lord Murdoch Stewart, the Earl of Moray, Sir John Montgomery of

Eglisham, Sir William Stewart of Jedworth, Sir William Lindsay, and

many others, were parties to bonds of this character.¹

¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume III., pages 251, 287,

280, 326, _et seq._

The truce terminated in 1399, and war was immediately recommenced on

the Borders. The Scots entered into the northern counties of England

and plundered the country; the English retaliated, and thus the former

mode of cruel warfare proceeded. The Duke of Rothesay had promised to

marry a daughter of the Earl of March, but the young prince changed

his mind, and contracted a marriage with a daughter of the Earl of

Douglas; thus he incurred the bitter enmity of the Earl of March, who

at once fled to England, and gave his allegiance to Henry IV. The King

of England, in return for the Earl’s homage, granted him lands and

possessions; the Earl of Douglas then seized his estates in Scotland.

Thus the personal and family affairs of two Scotch nobles embittered

the political relations of both nations.

Two English invasions of Scotland soon followed. The first one was led

by Sir Henry Percy and the Earl of March. They marched into Scotland

at the head of two thousand men, advanced through the Earldom of March,

wasted the country, burned villages, and collected booty, and pitched

their camp at Linton. A strong body of the Scots, under Archibald

Douglas, rapidly marched from Edinburgh to attack them, but on the

approach of Douglas they fled, and left their tents and plunder behind

them. In the summer of 1400 Henry IV. mustered his army and marched

northward, and despatched a herald to summon Robert III. and the

nobles of Scotland to meet him at Edinburgh on the 23rd of August,

and there to render homage to him as their Lord Paramount; but no

response was returned to this ghostly demand. Henry, at the head of his

army, advanced to Edinburgh, and his fleet appeared in the Forth and

supplied his troops with provisions; for, unlike all his predecessors,

he did not stain his name by acts of cruelty and pillage. The Castle

of Edinburgh was defended by Rothesay, the Lieutenant-General of the

kingdom, who had a strong and well provisioned garrison under him. The

Duke of Albany mustered an army and advanced towards Edinburgh, and

pitched his tents on a moor near Calder. Henry’s troops began to suffer

from want of provisions, and a rebellion, which was raging in Wales,

caused him to return home with his army without effecting anything of

the slightest importance in Scotland. He was the last English king who

led an army in person against Scotland, and henceforth the scheme of a

complete conquest of the kingdom seems to have been relinquished.

Rothesay was a somewhat rash young man, impatient of opposition, yet

open and courageous, and not beyond hope of improvement under the

sobering effect of experience. But his uncle Albany, the late governor,

was an ambitious man, fond of power, calculating and crafty, and

cold and pitiless: their position made them rivals, if not enemies of

each other; and it seems that Albany laid a trap to ensnare the young

prince, who was unable to cope with his unscrupulous relative. Sir John

Ramorgny, Sir William Lindsay, and others joined Albany, and means were

soon found for executing their purpose. The Bishop of St. Andrews died

in 1401. It was then customary for the castle of a deceased bishop to

be occupied by the Crown till the election of a new one. With this idea

in his mind Rothesay was proceeding to occupy the castle of St. Andrews,

but when within a mile of it he was arrested on a warrant obtained from

the King on the representations of Albany and Lindsay, and conveyed to

the castle of Falkland and imprisoned. The warrant for arresting him

was granted on the ground that his excesses and irregularities should

be restrained. A few weeks after his imprisonment, his body was removed

and interred in the monastery of Lindores, and a report issued that

he had died of a bowel complaint; but the people asserted that he had

been murdered by the cruel mode of utter starvation, and suspicion

pointed to Albany and the Earl of Douglas as his murderers. There was

a parliamentary inquiry into the cause of his death, in which it was

gravely stated that “he died by the visitation of Divine Providence,

and not otherwise.” Albany and Douglas admitted their share in

his arrest, and they and all their accomplices were indemnified

for whatever breach of the law this act involved, and everyone

was forbidden to spread false rumours against them.¹ The aged and

unhappy King bitterly lamented the fate of his son, but he was utterly

powerless. On the death of Rothesay, Albany resumed his position as

governor of the kingdom.

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., page 220.

The evidence that Rothesay was murdered is mainly circumstantial, but

it is very strong. Although it may be difficult to see what motive the

Earl of Douglas had which could have induced him to become a party to

this crime――the acts of a Scotch noble of the fourteenth century were

often strange――while the murdered prince was the husband of Douglas’

daughter: yet the extensive territories of the Earl of March were then

hanging in the balance, and may have come into Douglas’ reckoning in

connection with this crime. The circumstantial evidence against Albany

is almost complete. The national records show that Rothesay during his

few years of office was not inattentive to his public duties,¹ though

he had not escaped from the follies of youth.

¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume III., pages 378, 465,

472, 402, 412, _et seq._

The border warfare continued, and on the 14th of September 1402, the

Scots sustained a severe defeat at Homeldon Hill in Northumberland. In

this battle the Earl of March fought in the English ranks against the

Scots.

It was resolved that the King’s other son, Prince James, a boy of

fourteen years, should be sent to France for safety and to complete

his education. He sailed early in March, 1406, and when off Flamborough

Head he was captured by the English, conveyed to London, and lodged

in the Tower. When his guardians remonstrated, Henry IV. replied that

he knew the French language very well, and therefore his father could

not have sent him to a better master. The Duke of Albany seems to have

looked at the capture of the prince very calmly, but when the tidings

of his son’s capture reached the unhappy King he sank rapidly, and died

on the 4th of April, 1406, having reigned sixteen years. His remains

were interred in front of the high altar in the Abbey Church of Paisley.

On the death of Robert III. the captive prince was recognised as the

heir to the throne, in a Council which met at Perth in June; and Albany,

as the next in the male line of succession, was elected regent, and

continued to rule the kingdom. In February, 1407, the league between

France and Scotland was renewed.¹

¹ _Extracta ex variis chronicis Scotiæ_, page 216; Winton;

Buchanan.

The Scots were gradually pressing the English out of the positions

which they had long occupied in the southern counties. In 1409 the

Castle of Jedburgh was recovered, which had been in the enemy’s

hands since 1346, and to prevent the enemy from retaking it the Scots

levelled it to the ground. About the same time the castle of Fast

was taken. A truce with England was concluded, in which it was stated

that from the River Spey to the Mount of St. Michael, in Cornwall, all

hostilities between the two kingdoms should cease after the 17th of

May, 1412, for a period of six years.¹

¹ _Fœdera_, Volume X., page 166, _et seq._

In 1411 an event occurred which has been strangely mis-interpreted

and exaggerated, namely, the Battle of Harlaw. This battle has been

represented as a great and decisive contest between the Celtic race

and the Lowland race. Now, as a matter of historic fact it was nothing

of the kind; it was entirely a personal and family quarrel, in its

origin, its cause, and its effect, and it arose in this way:――Robert

II. married, as his second wife, a sister of William, Earl of Ross;

Margaret, a daughter of Robert II., married John, Lord of the Isles,

and their son, Donald, succeeded to the Lordship of the Isles, and he

married Mary, a daughter of Walter Lesley, Earl of Ross; but Mary’s

brother, Alexander Lesley, who in due time became Earl of Ross, married

Isabel, a daughter of the Duke of Albany, Regent of Scotland, and they

had an only daughter, Euphemia, Countess of Ross, who, on the death of

her father in 1406, became a nun, and she then proposed to assign the

earldom of Ross to her maternal uncle, the Earl of Buchan, the second

son of Albany, the regent. But Donald of the Isles, in right of his

wife, had a legal claim to the earldom of Ross, which was preferable

to that of the Earl of Buchan, Albany’s son, and therefore Donald was

legally and morally right in resisting the ambition and the enormous

greed of the Duke of Albany, to aggrandise his own family in defiance

of law and justice. Eventually, after the death of Albany, Donald’s

right to the earldom of Ross was recognised and confirmed by James I.

Such, then, was the origin and the cause of the Battle of Harlaw; a

mere family quarrel from beginning to end, with no more real national

or racial significance than any other family quarrel and battle between

two nobles.

Owing to the determination of Albany to ignore the claim of Donald of

the Isles to the earldom in question, the island chief mustered his

vassals and followers, and at the head of about six thousand men he

crossed to the mainland, and marched through the earldom of Ross, in

which he received much support, and greatly increased the strength of

his army. Proceeding onward he advanced through Moray, crossed the Spey,

and continued his advance through the higher grounds of Strathbogie

and the Garioch, and pitched his camp on the Hill of Benachie. There

he posted his army, and awaited the attack of his adversary, the Duke

of Albany, but that grasping schemer had not the courage to face the

man whom he had been the cause of bringing so far from home. Albany

found a fit agent in Alexander Stewart, a natural son of “the Wolf

of Badenoch,” and who was then Earl of Mar, and the Regent entered

into a bond with him for mutual support. This Earl of Mar had been a

freebooter and a murderer of the deepest dye, so in the family cause

of the Duke of Albany, Mar led the people of Angus and Mearns and

Aberdeenshire against Donald of the Isles. The battle was fought on

the 24th of July, 1411, on a moor edging up the Hill of Benachie.

The action was long and furiously contested; many fell on both sides,

and night put an end to the desperate struggle. There was no victory

on either side, but Donald and his followers retreated. Many of the

Lowland barons and a considerable number of their followers, and of

the citizens of Aberdeen and Dundee, were slain on the field, and thus,

locally, the Battle of Harlaw was a great event; but it had not the

slightest national or racial significance, being entirely a family

affair from beginning to end. As stated above, Albany failed in his

object, for Donald retained possession of the earldom of Ross, and his

son succeeded him.

The Regent’s eldest son, Murdoch, was a prisoner in England, and his

father managed to obtain his liberation in 1416. Many of the people

were longing for the return of James I., and efforts were made to

negotiate for his freedom, but these were abruptly broken off. Albany

died on the 3rd of September, 1420, at the advanced age of eighty-one.

He had ruled the kingdom for a period of thirty years, though his

regency only extended to sixteen years, but he had established his

power so firmly that his son quietly succeeded him in the regency.

Murdoch, however, had not the energy and talent of his father, but he

imitated his father’s style, and granted crown charters under his great

seal; and, like his father, he had £1000 a year as Governor of the

kingdom, and 200 marks as Keeper of Stirling Castle, and other sums

from the burghs of Linlithgow, Cupar, and Aberdeen. It seems probable

that Murdoch had also bound himself to uphold the acts of the Earl of

Douglas, for in the year 1421 Douglas received more than two-thirds of

the gross customs of Edinburgh.¹

¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume IV., page 310, Preface,

page 79.

In August, 1423, negotiations were opened for the release of the

King, and the following year a treaty was concluded. It was agreed

that Scotland should pay to England £40,000, within six years, by

half-yearly instalments, and for this sum the burghs of Edinburgh,

Dundee, Perth, and Aberdeen, were to give security, and the Earls of

Crawford, Moray, and a number of other nobles were to become hostages

as additional security. It was stipulated that the King should contract

a marriage with some English lady, and 10,000 marks was to be deducted

from the ransom and given to such lady as a dowry. On these conditions

James I. was to obtain his freedom. James selected Johanna Beaufort,

a daughter of the Earl of Somerset, and their marriage was celebrated

at Southwark in March, 1424, with great regal pomp. A truce for seven

years was concluded. All the arrangements for the King’s return having

been completed, he moved northward, accompanied by many of his own

subjects. He crossed the Border on the 9th of April, and was warmly

welcomed by the people.

CHAPTER VIII.

_Reign of James I._

THE return of James I. was an important event in the history of

Scotland. He was crowned at Scone on the 21st of May 1424. He then

with his Queen visited Dundee, and thence returned to Perth. His

first parliament was opened in Perth on the 26th of May 1424, in

which many important acts were passed. An inquiry was ordered to be

made concerning the Crown lands and rents since the death of Robert I.

onward to the regency of Murdoch, Duke of Albany. The object of this

was plain. It was further announced that if the King thought fit, he

could summon all his vassals and freeholders to produce their charters

or other evidence, that it might be seen what lands lawfully belonged

to them. This act was executed with a determination which convinced

the turbulent nobles that the hand of a master was upon them. James I.

had resolved to humble the power of the nobles, and his plans were well

conceived, and carried out with remarkable energy. Acts were passed for

restoring order and a more efficient administration of justice.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 2‒8.

On the 13th of May 1424, Sir Walter Stewart, eldest son of the Duke of

Albany, Malcolm Fleming, brother-in-law of Albany, and Thomas Boyd, one

of the Kilmarnock family, were arrested and imprisoned; and about the

end of this year, the Earl of Lennox, father-in-law of Albany, and Sir

Robert Graham, were seized and imprisoned. But these acts of the King

were only the prelude of the tragedy, for he was then meditating a bold

and desperate move.

James summoned a parliament which met at Perth on the 12th of March

1425. For eight days it was engaged in passing laws against the

diffusion of heresy, bonds among the nobles, the reform of hospitals,

and the restoration of the lands of the Church, which had been wrested

from her and illegally possessed, the imposition of new customs, and

an inquiry touching the execution of the acts passed in the last

parliament. On the ninth day, the Duke of Albany and his son, Sir

Alexander Stewart, the Earls of Douglas, March, and Angus; William Hay

of Errol, Sir Alexander Seton of Gordon, Sir Alexander Irvine of Drum,

and others, altogether about thirty nobles and knights were arrested.

At the same time the King seized the castles of Falkland and Doune, and

imprisoned Albany’s wife in the castle of ♦Tantallon. These proceedings

astonished the aristocracy, and were presented as a lesson to the whole

body of the nobles, but the move was specially directed against the

Duke of Albany and his family. So the other nobles were released after

a very short imprisonment.

♦ “Tantallion” replaced with “Tantallon”

Parliament reassembled at Stirling in May, and prepared to settle

the fate of Albany and his family. A court was held in the palace of

Stirling, and on the 26th of May 1425, Walter Stewart, the eldest

son of Albany, was brought to trial before the King and a jury of

twenty-one nobles. Walter was found guilty, condemned, and immediately

beheaded. The next day the King’s own cousin Albany, and his son

Alexander, and the aged Earl of Lennox, were tried, convicted, and

sentenced to death, and they were all executed before the castle of

Stirling. No record has been preserved of these trials, so the nature

of the crimes of which they were accused can only be conjectured; some

of the chronicles report that they were accused of robbery. Albany and

his sons were men of stalwart and commanding presence, and their fate

excited much sympathy among the people.¹ Indeed this action of the King,

which flooded the scaffold with the blood of his own kindred, cannot

be justified. It was not even wise as a political measure. Although

probably James intended to exhibit a striking example of severity,

he may have wished the nobles to understand that a change had taken

place in the government and the administration of justice, and that the

lawlessness which had prevailed must henceforth cease.

¹ _Scotichronicon_, Volume II., pages 484, 485; _Extracta ex

variis chronicis Scotiæ_, page 228. It may be mentioned that

Alexander Earl of Ross and Lord of the Isles, son of Donald

who led at Harlaw, was one of the jurymen in the above

trials.

After the executions, it followed as a consequence that the large

estates of the families of Albany and the Earl of Lennox were forfeited

to the Crown. Unfortunately James I. had failed to forecast the

inherent strength of the class whose feelings and passions he had

aroused, and whose interests he had infringed. In 1425 the King,

however, proclaimed his intention to grant a remission of any injury

committed on persons or property in the Lowlands, on the condition

that the offenders made reparation to the injured parties, in all cases

where the extent of the loss could be ascertained by a jury of the good

men, who were to modify and fix the amount of damages.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., page 8.

James I., having thus far restored order in the Lowlands, next directed

his attention to the Highlands and the Western Isles, and summoned a

parliament to meet at Inverness. In 1427 he mustered an armed force and

proceeded to Inverness, and summoned the Lord of the Isles and upwards

of fifty of the most notable chiefs to attend his parliament. They

obeyed and attended, and were instantly seized, put in fetters, and

imprisoned. On this occasion, as when Albany and the other nobles were

arrested and imprisoned, James I. exhibited a characteristic craftiness

and duplicity. Amongst those arrested were, the Lord of the Isles and

his mother; Angus Duff with his four sons, leader of four thousand

men; Kenneth More with his son-in-law, leader of two thousand men;

John Ross, Angus of Moray, William Leslie, and many others. A number

of the chiefs were immediately executed, and the rest were conveyed to

various prisons; and after a time some of them were executed and others

liberated. The Lord of the Isles and his mother were among those who

were liberated. But he seems to have been displeased with the whole

proceedings of the parliament at Inverness, and after the departure of

the King and his army he mustered his followers in Ross and the Isles.

He then advanced on Inverness, wasted the Crown lands, and set the town

on fire. The King returned to the north at the head of a strong force,

and the Lord of the Isles retreated to Lochaber; and there the King

attacked and defeated him, and pursued his retreating followers over

the mountains and from glen to glen. At last he surrendered to the

King, and in 1429 he was imprisoned in the castle of ♦Tantallon, and

his mother was arrested and imprisoned in Inchcolm.¹

♦ “Tantallion” replaced with “Tantallon”

¹ _Scotichronicon_, Volume II., pages 488, 489; _Exchequer

Rolls_, Volume IV., pages 541, 621, 633.

But a rising in the Highlands under Donald Balloch, a cousin of the

Lord of the Isles, ensued, and he encountered the royal army under the

command of the Earls of Mar and Caithness, at Inverlochy in 1431. After

a severe engagement, the royal troops were completely defeated, and

the Earl of Mar, and many others were slain on the field. Shortly after

this the Lord of the Isles was liberated, and the King appointed him to

the office of Justiciary of Scotland north of the Forth.¹

¹ _Coronation of James I._, page 11; Dr. Skene’s _Celtic

Scotland_, Volume III., page 298.

In July 1428, a treaty of marriage was concluded between the Dauphin of

France and the princess Margaret, daughter of James I. The marriage was

celebrated at Tours in 1436, when the princess had attained her twelfth

year and the Dauphin his thirteenth. It appears that the King’s ransom

money promised to England was never paid, except a part of the first

year’s instalment; and in consequence of this, the Scotch hostages

were detained in England. Many of them died in England, some ransomed

themselves, a few escaped; and in June 1453, the Earl of Strathern, who

had gone to England as a hostage, was liberated from Pontefract castle,

when his son Alexander surrendered himself in his stead, the Earl of

Douglas and Lord Hamilton becoming sureties for his return in case of

the escape of his son. Many allusions to the ransom hostages occur in

the _Rotuli Scotiæ_ long after the death of James I.¹

¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume IV., Preface pages

133‒134.

James I. was an able legislator, administrator, and organiser, and

it may be said that the regular statute law of Scotland commenced in

his reign. The chief aim of his policy was to make the nobles more

dependent upon the Crown, to restrain them from oppressing the people,

and to rule the kingdom through Parliament, acting with the executive

power of the Crown. He attempted to introduce the principle of

representation in the election of members of Parliament. In his short

reign Parliament was assembled fifteen times; and besides transacting

other important business, his Parliaments passed upwards of one hundred

and sixty distinct statutes, which were written and proclaimed in the

language of the people. These Acts were admirably brief, incisive, and

clearly expressed, and dealt with many important matters, especially

the reform of the administration of justice.

At the outset it was announced that all the subjects of the kingdom

should be governed by the King’s laws and statutes, not under any

special laws or spiritual privileges of any foreign authorities. In

1426 a notable attempt was made to give precision to the common law of

the kingdom, as it was then enacted by the King in Parliament that six

wise and discreet men who knew the laws best should be selected from

each of the three Estates, “and since fraud ought not to help any man,

they should examine the books of the law of this realm, and amend the

laws that needed amendment, and to carefully expunge all fraudulent and

frivolous exceptions, so that no man might obtain an unjust judgment

against another.” In the same year James I. instituted the court known

under the name of “the Session.”

As it is a primary requisite that the laws should be made intelligible

to the people, and more especially to those who have to administer

the law, therefore the King, with the consent of Parliament, commanded

that all the statutes should be recorded in the King’s register, and

copies of them given to all the sheriffs throughout the kingdom. Every

sheriff was directed to proclaim the statutes in the chief towns of the

sheriffdom and in other places, and also to give copies of them to the

bishops, the barons, and burghs of barony. The sheriffs were ordered

to cause the tenor of the Acts to be obeyed in town and country, and

to declare to the people that it was their duty to obey the laws, so

that no man might have any ground to allege ignorance as an excuse for

his crime. To render the administration of justice free from outside

influence it was enacted that parties coming to the courts with their

causes should not appear with a multitude of their armed followers, but

simply accompanied only by their counsel and the necessary witnesses

for the trial of their causes. The King commanded that justice should

be equally distributed in every quarter of the kingdom, “to the rich as

to the poor, without fraud or favour”; and it was further enacted that

“If there be any poor creature who, for want of means, cannot follow

his case, then the King, for the love of God, shall ordain that the

judge provide and get a wise advocate to follow such a one’s case; and

if such a case be gained, the wrongdoer shall pay the injured party

and the advocate’s expenses: and if any judge refuses to obey this law,

then the party who has been defrauded shall have recourse to the King,

who shall so punish such a judge that he shall be a striking example to

all others.”

It was enacted that the statutes should be interpreted according to

their real tenor and the intention of the legislature. With a similar

aim it was ordered that no one should be permitted to practice in the

King’s courts unless they were known to have sufficient knowledge and

discretion for the proper performance of such functions; while no judge

or officer of justice in the kingdom, nor any man who had indicted

another for any action, should be allowed at the trial to sit as

a juryman under a penalty of ten pounds. Many acts bearing on the

internal order of the kingdom, and the arrestment and punishment of

criminals were passed. Rebellion against the king was proclaimed to

entail the loss of life and lands. Various attempts were made to attach

more responsibility to all those in positions of authority throughout

the nation.

Measures were passed relating to commerce, the coinage, and weights

and measures. Careful regulations were framed for preventing and

extinguishing fires in the towns, which were ordered to be strictly

observed. Every burgh was enjoined to provide a number of ladders at

the public cost――six, seven, eight, or more, according to the extent

of the town――and to keep them always in a convenient place ready for

use in case of fire; they were also to keep in readiness three or four

saws, and six or more iron clicks to pull down the timber and roofs

at fires. These and many other minute regulations were to be enforced

under penalties.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages

2‒24.

James I. was a firm friend of the Church. His Parliaments passed

several acts in favour of the privileges of the Church and the

searching out of heretics, and it was stated that the secular power

would support the Church in her mission of executing heretics. In the

year 1433 the Church found a heretic, Paul Crawar, a native of Bohemia.

He was a skilful physician, but it was reported that he embraced every

opportunity of sowing opinions contrary to the doctrines of the Church,

so he was seized and accused of heresy, and, although he argued and

defended his views with much force and clearness, that only rendered

his conviction more certain. He was convicted and condemned, and as

he declined to renounce his opinions, he was brought to the stake and

burned at St. Andrews on the 23rd of July.¹ It seems that he had made

some converts in Scotland.

¹ _Ibid._, pages 3, 7, 9; _Scotichronicon_, page 495.

But the King was aware of the state of the Church. On the 8th of June,

1425, he sent a mandate to the Bishop of St. Andrews commanding him

to take immediate steps to recover the possessions of his See, which

had been robbed by the greed and the nepotism of his predecessors. The

same year he addressed a letter to the abbots and the priors of the

Benedictine and Augustine monasteries of Scotland, which exhorted them

to shake off their torpor and sloth and set themselves to restore their

fallen discipline and rekindle their decaying fervour, that they might

save their houses from the ruin which menaced them.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages

24, 25.

James I. encouraged industry and commerce; he had an establishment of

his own at Leith, which was used as a shipbuilding-yard, a workshop,

and a storehouse. He had several ships, and entered into trading on his

own account. The wool and hides of the crown lands, instead of being

sold to the Scotch merchants, were directly exported by the King to

Flanders duty free. The remissions of custom show that in one year the

King had exported wool and hides representing a value of about £900.

The King’s ships were frequently mentioned in the records; and John

Hannay, a burgess of Aberdeen, Andrew Baxter, and Henry of Crawford,

were named as masters of King’s ships. James I. commenced to rebuild

the palace of Linlithgow, and in many other ways left traces of his

energy.¹

¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume IV.

But the great aim of James I. was to reduce the overgrown power of

the nobles. To accomplish this he endeavoured to raise the influence

of the small barons and freeholders as a counterpoise to the higher

nobles. Although it is impossible not to admire the legislative and

administrative abilities of James I., still some of his proceedings

against the nobles were not wise politically, or morally defensible.

After the execution of the Duke of Albany and his family, the Earldoms

of Fife and Monteith became the property of the Crown. In the case of

the Earl of Lennox, though no sentence of forfeiture was pronounced

against him, yet the King took possession of his estates and Earldom,

and retained them in his own hands during his reign. Yet James went

further, and in 1431, in a parliament held at Perth, it was decided

that the late regent Albany had no power to alienate any lands which,

by the death of a bastard, might have fallen to the Crown, and on this

ground, a grant of land to Adam Ker was declared to be invalid. In

this way the King prepared for a great stroke. The Earl of March, who

usually commanded the castle of Dunbar, and held large estates in the

south of the kingdom, had often been a cause of annoyance to the Crown.

As we have seen, the Earl of March fled to England in the reign of

Robert III., renounced his allegiance, and fought in the English ranks

against the Scots in several engagements; but he returned to Scotland,

and in 1409 his estates were restored to him by the regent Albany. He

died in 1420, and his son George succeeded to the lands of the Earldom;

and it was this man that the King resolved to humble. His loyalty was

not questioned, and he had rendered service to James I. in many ways;

but in 1434 his castle of Dunbar was seized, and he was arrested and

imprisoned in the castle of Edinburgh, on the ground that Albany had

exceeded the powers of a regent in restoring his father. A parliament

was assembled at Perth in January ♦1435, and proceeded to discuss

the cause of the Earldom of March. It was debated on both sides at

length:――First, touching the treason and forfeiture of the late Earl,

and the consequent reversion of his estates to the Crown; and second,

the position and claim of his son then in possession. After a long

debate, it was affirmed that Albany had exceeded his powers, and,

therefore, the verdict of the judges was against the Earl, and all the

lands of the Earldom were annexed to the Crown. The dispossessed Earl

and his family retired to England.¹

♦ “1335” replaced with “1435”

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages

22, 23.

In 1435 the Earl of Mar, Alexander Stewart, the hero of Harlaw, died,

and on the ground of his illegitimacy, the Earldom reverted to the

Crown. The King ignored the claim of Robert, Lord Erskine, the rightful

heir to the Earldom of Mar. The Scotch nobles were greatly alarmed

and enraged at the proceedings of the King. One of James’ bitterest

enemies was Sir Robert Graham, uncle of the deprived Earl of Strathern,

mentioned in a preceding page as one of the ransom hostages detained

in England. Graham in the parliament of 1435 had delivered a vehement

speech, in which he touched on the encroachments of the King upon the

nobles, and in his presence denounced him as a cruel tyrant. He was

immediately arrested and banished. Graham retired, brooding on revenge,

and matured the plot against the King. He addressed a letter to the

King renouncing his allegiance, and stating that James had ruined his

family and rendered himself houseless and landless; and, therefore,

he warned the King that he would pursue him to the utmost as his enemy

and slay him. The King issued a proclamation for his apprehension, and

offered a sum of gold for his head.¹

¹ _Contemporary Account of the Death of James I._

Yet it appears from circumstantial and direct evidence that Graham was

not the originator of the plot against the King, although he was one of

the chief actors in the tragedy. The real originator of the dismal plot

was Walter Stewart, Earl of Athole, son of Robert II., and uncle of

the King. In the preceding chapter, it was stated that Robert II. had

been twice married, and at the date of his settlement of the succession

to the crown in the male line (which was quoted at length) there were

three sons of the first marriage, and two of the second, named in the

instrument of the succession, these were all dead, except Walter, Earl

of Athole, who was the second son of Robert’s second wife. Then it

had been known that several of Robert’s children by his first wife

were born before he married their mother, and in spite of the solemn

settlement of the succession, a doubt hung over the legitimacy of the

first family of Robert II., and the children of the second marriage

cherished the idea that they had been unjustly excluded from the

throne; and the Earl of Athole was the representative of this branch

in the male line. It was suspected that he had been concerned in the

proceedings which terminated in the death of the young Duke of Rothesay.

He was one of James’ most trusted advisers, and he was one of the jury

who sanctioned the execution of the Duke of Albany and his sons; then

only James I. and his boy stood between him and the throne. It seems

that the King had no suspicion of Athole, and conferred on him honours

and wealth. He was appointed Justiciary of Scotland, and the _Exchequer

Rolls_ from year to year contain remissions of custom and gifts to him,

and his grandson and heir was made private Chamberlain to the King.

Meanwhile Athole had been devising his plot against the King, with his

grandson as his accomplice, and Graham and others as his tools.¹

¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume IV.

The King was gifted with a bold and fearless spirit, and he seems to

have forgot or disregarded the threats of Graham. James had resolved

to hold his Christmas at Perth, in the Black Friars Monastery. Thus he

unwittingly placed himself in the midst of his enemies; although he had

been warned of the impending danger to his life before he had crossed

the Forth, still he disregarded it and proceeded to Perth. The King was

cheerful and bent on enjoying himself; and on the arrival of the royal

party at Perth, day after day was spent in the pleasures and amusements

which were then customary at that happy season. It seems that the

King had not the slightest suspicion of the fate that was hanging over

him. The Earl of Athole, the arch-conspirator, and his grandson the

Chamberlain, were amongst the royal guests, and contributing their

share of mirth to the company, while everything was going on in the

most harmonious style.

The outside and subordinate agents of the conspiracy, headed by Sir

Robert Graham, had completed the arrangements, and they resolved to

execute the horrid crime on the night of the 20th of February 1437.

They proceeded in their dismal work with great calmness and surprising

cunning; the hour of the attack was fixed, and the conspirators

inside the monastery executed their part in the tragedy. Stewart the

Chamberlain removed the bolts of the doors which made communication

in the interior of the building easy. On this night the amusements of

the court were continued till past midnight, and the Earl of Athole

remained till a late hour, and when the King called for a parting cup,

the company retired, and Stewart, the Chamberlain, was the last to

leave the apartment. The King had undressed, and was standing in his

nightgown before the fire talking with the Queen and the ladies of

the bedchamber, when suddenly he was alarmed by the clang of arms and

the glare of torchlights in the outer court. The Queen and the ladies

rushed to secure the door, but the bolts were gone. The King instantly

saw his peril, and called to the ladies to keep the door as long as

they could; he tried to force the windows, but they were barred with

iron stanchions; he then seized the tongs, wrenched up a flag, and

descended to a vault below. The Queen and the women replaced the flag,

and tried to barricade the door; but the cruel ruffians soon forced it,

and broke Catherine Douglas’ arm, which she had heroically thrust into

the staple to replace the removed bolt. The conspirators on not finding

the King in the room, rushed in fury through the buildings and feared

that their victim had escaped. But Thomas Chambers suspected what had

happened, and returned to the bedchamber, and seeing that the floor

had been newly broken, instantly tore it up, and their victim appeared.

Although the King was unarmed and half naked, he made a desperate

resistance. Sir John Hall leaped down with a dagger in his hand, the

King seized him by the throat and threw him under his feet. A brother

of Hall’s followed and met with the same fate. Sir Robert Graham then

entered the room, and sprang down with his drawn sword, and the King

implored for mercy; but Graham called him a cruel tyrant, who had

never shown mercy to his own kindred, and in an instant thrust his

sword through the King’s body. Thus perished, by the hands of atrocious

villains, the ablest King of all the Stuart line.

By this time the citizens of Perth were hastening to the monastery

with torches and weapons, and on their approach the conspirators

fled and escaped. The pursuit of the murderers and conspirators was

prosecuted with the utmost energy, and within a month after the murder

the principal culprits and actors were captured and executed. The

record of their trials has not been preserved, but the chronicles

present details of the horrible modes in which they were tortured and

put to death. The Earl of Athole was seized by the Earl of Angus, tried,

condemned, tortured, and executed. Robert Stewart, the Chamberlain,

Graham, Chambers, and others, were captured and executed, and the

public feeling was at last appeased.¹

¹ Contemporary account.

James I. was cut off in the forty-fourth year of his age and the

thirteenth of his reign. He was popular among the people, who

appreciated the advantages and the effects of his Government. He

struggled hard to redress the oppression and to reform the intolerable

evils which Norman feudalism had generated in Scotland. He clearly

understood and thoroughly realised in his mind that which all his

♦predecessors had failed to see, namely, that Norman feudalism

contained in itself the essence of anarchy and injustice. He had a

true conception of the form of government which the people of Scotland

needed; though, unhappily, his ideas were too far in advance of his

time. No historian who has studied his legislation can fail to admire

his grasp of the fundamental principles of effective government, and

the efficient administration of justice. Still the historian may not

justify all his proceedings, and it seems to me that James I. sometimes

pushed his depression of the nobles beyond the limits of justice and

political wisdom.

♦ “precedessors” replaced with “predecessors”

CHAPTER IX.

_Narrative to the Battle of Flodden._

JAMES I. was succeeded by his son, a boy of seven years of age, who

was crowned at Edinburgh in the monastery of Holyrood on the 25th of

March, 1437, under the title of James II. The custody and care of the

young prince was entrusted to his mother, while the Earl of Douglas was

appointed Lieutenant of the kingdom. As the Government of the late King

had been extremely hostile to the nobles, they naturally regarded his

death with feelings of satisfaction. The tendency of his policy had

been to render the institutions and the laws of the kingdom effective,

but his presence and energy being gone, the Government soon relapsed.

During the minority the factions of the nobles struggled to kidnap

the King, and in this contest for power Sir William Crichton, the

Chancellor, and Governor of Edinburgh Castle, and Sir Alexander

Livingston of Callender, became prominent actors. The Queen, with

her son, had taken refuge in the Castle of Edinburgh, but Sir William

Crichton isolated the boy from his mother and made him almost a

prisoner. Then the Queen outwitted him and conveyed her son to Stirling

Castle, which Sir Alexander Livingston commanded. This move intensified

the rivalry between Crichton and Livingston; while the contests of

the rival factions increased the disorder of society. Fortunately

England was not then in a position to harass Scotland, and a truce was

concluded to continue for nine years.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 31,

32, 55.

In 1439 the Queen married Sir James Stewart, son of Sir James Stewart

of Innermeath and Lorne, called the Black Knight of Lorne, with the

hope of strengthening her position; but Livingston imprisoned them both,

and kept the young prince a captive in Stirling Castle. The Earl of

Douglas, the Lieutenant of the kingdom, died in 1439, and his son, a

youth of seventeen years, succeeded to the earldom. He soon assumed

an arrogant attitude, kept a host of retainers, and scorned to appear

at court or parliament. The factions of Livingston and Crichton saw

that the Earl must be crushed; as they were unable to attack him in the

field, they resolved to allure him into a trap. They invited the Earl

to visit the young King in Edinburgh Castle. The Earl and his brother

proceeded there, and were received with much show of respect; but in a

few days after their arrival, they were both beheaded; and the Earl’s

chief adviser, Malcolm Fleming, was also executed. Although Douglas was

slain, his earldom was not forfeited to the Crown; for the Government

was unable to seize the possessions of the head of the Douglas family;

the adherents of the chief were numerous and strongly attached to

him. This blow, however, stunned the family. A portion of the estates

of the earldom reverted to a sister of the murdered Earl, while his

grand-uncle, James Douglas, succeeded to the title and the greater

part of the lands; but the French possessions of the house, which were

limited to male heirs in the direct line of descent, reverted to the

Crown of France. This Earl was known in history as James the Fat, and

he died in 1443. He was succeeded by his son, William, a man of energy

and ambition. His power soon became enormous and inconsistent with

order, while the kingdom presented a scene of turmoil.¹

¹ Pitscottie; Buchanan’s _History of Scotland_, Book XI.,

Chapters xvi., xvii.; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_,

Volume II., page 33.

Crichton and Livingston were unable to offer effective resistance

to Douglas. To make himself complete master of the kingdom he sought

admittance to the King’s presence at Stirling Castle, and Livingston,

who had the custody of the Prince, granted the request. Livingston and

Douglas then became friends, and Crichton saw with dismay that he was

undone. Douglas pretended to be greatly pleased with the favour which

the young King had graciously shown him, and then he assumed the title

and power of Lieutenant-General of the kingdom, called a parliament,

and summoned Crichton and his adherents to appear and answer to a

charge of high treason. Crichton, instead of obeying the summons,

mustered his followers, plundered the lands of Douglas, then retired

into the Castle of Edinburgh, and defied his enemies; but they

afterwards came to terms with him.¹

¹ ♦_Auchinleck Chronicles_, page 36; Lesley’s _History of

Scotland_, page 17; Pitscottie.

♦ “Auclinleck” replaced with “Auchinleck”

The Earl of Douglas divorced his wife, then married his cousin, the

“Fair Maid of Galloway,” and thus reunited the domains of his house.

His power rapidly increased, and a struggle with the Crown became

inevitable. He strengthened himself by coalitions with other nobles,

and entered into a bond of alliance and mutual defence with the Earls

of Crawford and Ross. When Douglas desired the assistance of the

knights and gentry, and persons in his own neighbourhood, he summoned

them to attend the meetings at which he presided; and if any of them

failed to appear he soon brought them to obedience, and taught them a

lesson which would be remembered.

In 1449 James II. married a daughter of the Duke of Gueldres, and began

to show some energy and ability; but he mainly relied on the counsel

of Crichton the Chancellor, and Bishop Kennedy. The King had not the

command of a force which could venture to attack Douglas openly in the

field, and so the faction of the Livingstons was first crushed. They

had enriched themselves during the King’s minority, but they and their

active associates were now seized and imprisoned. The head of the house,

an old man, was granted his life, but his property was forfeited to the

Crown, and his son, and several others were executed.¹

¹ Pitscottie; Balfour’s _Annals of Scotland_, Volume I.,

page 173.

The parliament which crushed the Livingstons passed a number of Acts

and re-enacted others of the reign of James I., which were mostly

directed to the re-establishment of order. It was enacted that if any

man “commit treason against the King’s person or majesty, or wage war

against him, or lay violent hands upon him, whether young or old, and

all who reset, sustain, or advise any one convicted of treason, should

be punished as rebels. Those who rebel against the King should be

punished, according to the extent of their rebellion, by the sanction

of the Three Estates. Those who openly revolted and made war upon the

people, the King ought immediately to proceed against them with all

the force of the kingdom, and inflict condign ♦punishment upon them.”

When men of such power committed robbery and theft that the Justiciary

was unsafe to hold his court, or put the law in force against these

masterful evil-doers, then in such cases, he should inform the King,

who, with the advice of his council, will devise a remedy. That these

great criminals may not have the chance of escaping from justice, the

Justice Clerk was enjoined not to reveal his action to any one whatever,

or in any way to alter the form of the process which was given to

him, under the penalty of forfeiting his office and his goods. It was

enacted that the justiciaries, the justices, chamberlains, and other

officers, in their progresses through the kingdom, should travel with

a small train, and not oppress the people by their retinues.¹

♦ “puuishment” replaced with “punishment”

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages

33‒37.

Douglas continued to hold a haughty attitude towards the King, and kept

up communications with the leaders of parties in England and political

personages abroad. In 1450 he proceeded on a pilgrimage to Rome,

attended by a train of his retainers, passed through France, where he

was joined by his brother, and thence to Rome. During his absence some

of his vassals had caused disturbance, and were punished by the command

of the King. He returned to Scotland in 1451.

The King and his advisers were unwilling to attack Douglas, as they

were doubtful of the issue of the struggle that would ensue. As the

vassals of Douglas’s allies, the Earls of Ross and Crawford, and his

own vassals, and those of his kindred were numerous, and seeing that

the Earl of Ross was also Lord of the Isles, Douglas and his allies

could have mustered an army probably more numerous than any force which

the King could command. In these circumstances it was resolved to try

the effect of a personal interview; and in February 1452, Douglas was

invited to visit the King at Stirling Castle, and he complied. Douglas

proceeded to Stirling with a small retinue, and was received by the

King with respect. He dined and supped with the royal party; and then

the King took him aside to an inner room, where they entered into a

private conversation. One matter after another was touched on, till

the question of Douglas’s bonds with the Earls of Crawford and Ross

was broached. Their talk waxed hot, the King insisted that Douglas

must break these secret bonds, but he declined to desert his allies.

At last the King exclaimed, “This shall,” and instantly drew his

dagger and twice stabbed his guest. The nobles at hand rushed upon the

bleeding man and killed him outright. There can be no justification or

palliation of this murder; perhaps it was unpremeditated, as there was

no preparation made to meet its consequences.

The rash act of the King hastened the crisis, and civil war raged from

the borders to Inverness. The murdered Earl had four brothers then in

Stirling, and they immediately met with other friends of the family and

recognised James, the eldest brother, as his successor to the earldom.

They agreed to meet at Stirling on the 25th of March. Having mustered

their followers they met accordingly, proclaimed James II. a perjured

man, and then pillaged and burned the town of Stirling. The struggle

was desperate, and for some time the King was hard and sorely pressed

on every side. He appointed the Earl of Huntly Lieutenant-General of

the kingdom, and entrusted to him the task of suppressing the rebellion

of the Earls of Crawford and Ross. Huntly mustered a strong army from

the valley of the Deveron, Strathbogie, and the north, and marched

southward towards Stirling. But the Earl of Crawford was prepared to

oppose his advance, and had taken up a position near Brechin. On the

18th of May, 1452, Huntly, at the head of the loyal army, attacked

Crawford, and after a fierce and severe battle, completely defeated

him, when he fled to his castle of Finhaven. Two of Huntly’s brothers,

Gordon of Methlic, ancestor of the Earl of Aberdeen, and many of his

men were slain. One of Crawford’s brothers, and many of his chief

supporters fell upon the field.

Huntly returned to chastise the Earl of Moray, who had invaded

and wasted Strathbogie. He crossed the Spey, advanced into Moray,

and destroyed that part of the city of Elgin which belonged to the

adherents of the Earl of Moray. Thus the rebellion was subdued in the

north, but in the south and other parts of the country the war raged

with intense fury. The Earl of Crawford, infuriated by his defeat

at Brechin, wasted the lands, and destroyed the houses of the King’s

adherents in Angus; while the new Earl of Douglas and his brothers,

assisted by their numerous vassals, defied and scorned the King’s

authority, and wasted and burned the country. At last the Earl of Angus,

a member of the Douglas tribe, joined the King’s standard. His kinsmen

looked on this as an unpardonable crime, and attacked his possessions

with extreme ferocity. Sir John Douglas of Dalkeith also adhered

to the King, and his kinsmen besieged his castle of Dalkeith, and

having failed to take it, they burned the town and the villages in

the neighbourhood.¹

¹ Pitscottie; _Auchinleck Chronicles_, pages 46‒48; Buchanan’s

_History of Scotland_, Book XI., Chapters 37, 38. Though

John, Earl of Ross and Lord of the Isles was in league with

Douglas and Crawford, it appears that he did not engage

much in the rebellion. _Historical Records of the Family of

Lesley_, Volume I., page 88.

After many fruitless efforts, the King mustered an army which numbered

nearly thirty thousand men, on a moor near Edinburgh. At the head

of this force he advanced against the Earl of Douglas, and proceeded

through Peeblesshire, Selkirk Forest, Dumfries, and Galloway. When the

royal army appeared before Douglas Castle the Earl parleyed, and peace

was concluded on the 24th of August, 1452. Douglas agreed to renounce

his claim to the earldom of Wigton and the lands of Stewarton, and

to abandon all quarrels arising out of recent events, and all illegal

bonds. Shortly after the Earl of Crawford submitted to the King, and

was pardoned.

But it soon became apparent that the struggle was not finally

terminated. Douglas obtained a papal dispensation for his marriage

with the Fair Maid of Galloway, the widow of his late brother, and thus

once more united the extensive territories of the family. He entered

into communication with the Yorkish party in England, and conspired

to overthrow the Government and the Stuart dynasty. An appeal to arms

again became necessary. The King raised an army, and the castle of

Abercorn was besieged; Douglas advanced with a strong force to relieve

his castle, and a battle seemed to be imminent. At this critical

moment many of Douglas’s adherents, including Lord Hamilton, deserted

his standard, and consequently he was unable to offer battle to the

besieging army, and retired, while his castle of Abercorn was captured.

The King, then, at the head of a strong army, marched into the lands

of his enemy, attacked and reduced Douglas Castle, and subdued his

territories. Douglas made his last stand at Arkinholm, in the summer of

1455, but he was defeated by the royal troops under the Earl of Angus;

the Earl of Moray, one of Douglas’s brothers, was slain, and the Earl

of Ormond, his other brother, was taken prisoner. The Earl of Douglas

himself fled to England.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages

75, 77; _Auchinleck Chronicles_, page 53.

Parliament assembled at Edinburgh on the 9th of June, 1455, and

proceeded to deal with the estates and offices of the Douglas family.

The Earl of Douglas, his mother, Countess of Douglas, the Earl of Moray,

his slain brother, and John Douglas of Balveny, were declared traitors,

and their lands and titles forfeited to the Crown, and other three of

the adherents of the Earl of Douglas were forfeited. Acts were then

passed which aimed at securing these forfeited lands and castles to

the Crown. It was enacted that certain lordships and castles should

for ever remain in possession of the Crown, and be given to no person

whatever. “If it should happen that James II. or any of his successors

alienated any of the castles and lordships belonging to the Crown,

it shall not be valid, as it shall always be lawful for the reigning

King to retake these castles and lands whenever he thinks fit,

without any process of law whatever.” This enactment was not well

observed, but several of the succeeding kings occasionally put it into

practical operation. Acts were passed which aimed at the restriction

of hereditary offices, and the jurisdiction and powers associated

with regalities. All the regalities which had fallen to the Crown were

to be annexed to it, and no new ones were to be granted without the

consent of Parliament. The hereditary Wardenship of the Marches was

to be abolished. In 1457 a Parliament, which assembled at Edinburgh,

passed many Acts and commanded all the sheriffs of the kingdom, and

the commissioners of the burghs to obtain copies of all the statutes

of this Parliament from the Register Clerk, and then to proclaim them

through all the counties and towns of the realm.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages

41‒43, 52, 75.

The raids on the Borders were continued, and had become habitual. The

Scots, however, had still the object in view of driving the English out

of the castle of Roxburgh, and retaking Berwick. The English had held

this ancient stronghold for upwards of a century. In the summer of 1460

the King mustered a force, and having provided cannon and war-engines,

marched southward to the attack. This castle, however, was built on

a strong position, and the garrison made a determined and vigorous

defence. The King was actively urging on the siege, and he was

extremely eager to observe the effect of the cannon which were brought

to bear upon the castle. One of the great guns, which were purchased

in Flanders, was placed in position, and when it was discharged some of

the wedges, which were used to tighten the iron hoops, were driven out,

and one of them struck and killed the King. Thus fell James II., on 3rd

of August, 1460, in the thirtieth year of his age and the twenty-fourth

of his reign. But the siege was continued; and the Queen, with her son,

appeared upon the scene. The castle was taken, and having been more

serviceable to the enemy than to Scotland it was levelled with the

ground.¹

¹ _Extracta ex variis chronicis Scotiæ_, page 243; Mair’s

_History of Scotland_, page 325.

James II. was succeeded by his son, a boy of nine years of age, who was

crowned at Kelso on the 10th of August, 1460, under the title of James

III. The care of the young prince mainly devolved upon his mother,

Mary of Gueldres. The Earl of Angus was appointed Lieutenant-General of

the kingdom, and James Kennedy, Bishop of St. Andrews, was for several

years the leading man in the Government. Kennedy was the friend and

trusted adviser of the late King, and he continued to serve the nation.

The wars of York and Lancaster were then distracting England; and Henry

VI., after his crushing defeat at Towton on the 29th of March, 1461,

fled into Scotland, and was hospitably received. In return for the

kindness shown to him by the Government, he surrendered Berwick to the

Scots, which act for a time threatened to involve the nation in a war

with England. But this was avoided by a truce which left Berwick in the

possession of the Scots, on the condition that they should immediately

cease to assist Henry VI. On the 16th of November, 1463, Mary of

Gueldres, the mother of the Queen, died, and Bishop Kennedy encouraged

a policy of peace. The Earl of Angus had died also, leaving a son, who

was too young to succeed him in his public position. Unhappily, Bishop

Kennedy died in 1465, and his death was lamented by all the peaceful

people of the kingdom as a public calamity.¹ He had rendered great

service to the State and his country, and was a wise, moderate, and

upright man.

¹ Mair’s _History of Scotland_, page 326; Buchanan’s _History

of Scotland_, Book XII., Chapters 20‒23; _Accounts of the

Lord High Treasurer of Scotland_, Volume I., Preface, pages

37‒40.

After the death of Kennedy, the plotting and the characteristic

practice of the restless nobles recommenced. The King, then in his

fourteenth year, was made the tool of a faction of the nobles, whose

sole object was their own aggrandisement. Lord Boyd and his sons

entered into a bond with a number of other nobles in a conspiracy

to seize the young King, and rule the kingdom in their own interest.

This bond contained the names of Robert, Lord Boyd, Sir Alexander Boyd,

the Earl of Crawford, Lord Hamilton, Lord Livingston, Lord Maxwell,

Lord Montgomery, Lord Fleming, Lord Kennedy, the Bishop of St. Andrews,

and others, and was signed on the 10th day of February, 1466. On the

9th of July, 1466, while Lord Livingston, the Chamberlain, was holding

his court at Linlithgow with the King, Lord Boyd and a number of his

associates entered the court and requested the King to accompany them

to Edinburgh, with which request he at once complied. The party held

a Parliament, and passed an Act in which the King was made to say that

he willingly accompanied Lord Boyd and the knights from Linlithgow to

Edinburgh, and that anything connected with this matter which could

possibly be construed into an offence, His Majesty King James III.

freely pardoned. Lord Boyd was appointed guardian of the King’s person,

governor of the royal castles, and High Justiciary of the kingdom.

Thus he at once became supreme, and his family and relations speedily

acquired large tracts of territory, titles, and honours. In 1467 his

eldest son, Sir Thomas Boyd, was created Earl of Arran, and was married

to the King’s sister.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., page 185;

Crawford’s _Officers of State_, page 473; _Douglas Peerage_,

Volume II., page 32.

The relations between the Crowns of Denmark and Scotland demanded the

attention of the government. It was stated in a preceding chapter that

the Western Islands were ceded to Scotland in 1266, and the payment of

an annual rent of 100 marks was one of the terms of the treaty. This

had not been regularly paid, and the arrears amounted to a considerable

sum. A marriage was proposed between James III. and the Princess

Margaret of Denmark; and Boyd, the Earl of Arran, the bishops of

Glasgow and Orkney, and other commissioners, proceeded to Denmark to

negotiate with King Christian I. The Scotch commissioners concluded a

treaty with the Danish King, in which he agreed to abandon his claim

for the arrears of rent on the Western Islands, to endow his daughter

with 60,000 florins, of which he proposed to pay 10,000 before she

departed to Scotland, and to secure the remaining 50,000 on the Orkney

Islands. But, on further reflection, he proposed to give the bride 2000

florins for her immediate use, and secure the balance on the Shetland

Islands. The treaty thus adjusted was accepted; and, as the money

was never paid, the Orkney and Shetland Islands ultimately became

incorporated with Scotland.

In July 1469, the Princess Margaret of Denmark landed at Leith, and was

heartily welcomed by a great assemblage of the people. Shortly after,

the royal marriage was celebrated amid rejoicing throughout the nation.

During the Earl of Arran’s absence from the country, his enemies had

undermined his power and influence. When he returned with the King’s

bride, he found himself utterly deserted; and he immediately fled with

his wife to Denmark. But he was soon deprived of his royal wife by a

divorce. She afterwards married Lord Hamilton, and by this alliance his

descendants became in the succeeding century the nearest heirs to the

Crown of Scotland.

As the Boyds had risen rapidly to power and wealth, so their fall

was equally swift and complete. Parliament assembled at Edinburgh

on the 22nd of November, 1469, and the Boyds were summoned to appear

and answer to a charge of high treason. The charge of treason was

the seizure of the King’s person at Linlithgow. Old Robert Boyd,

the Justiciary and the head of the family, fled to England, where he

shortly afterwards died; but his brother, Sir Alexander, was tried,

condemned, and executed on the Castle Hill of Edinburgh. Thomas, the

Earl of Arran, wandered as an exile in Germany, France, and England,

and died at Antwerp about the year 1473. The extent of the lands which

they had unjustly seized in the short day of their power, is well shown

by the local names in the act of their forfeiture. The lordship and the

castle of Kilmarnock were the hereditary possessions of the family; but

the list in the Act contained the earldom of Carrick, the lordship of

Bute, the castle of Rothesay, the lordship of Arran, the lordship of

Cowal, the lordship of Stewarton, the barony of Renfrew, the land and

castle of Dundonald, and several others.¹ The case of the Boyds is not

an isolated phenomenon in the history of Scotland, as a similar policy

was pursued by the nobles whenever they had an opportunity; and this

was one of the chief sources of their endless feuds, and the social

disorder of the kingdom.

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages

90, 186; _Officers of State_, page 316.

The legislation of the parliament of 1469, touching the social order

of the kingdom, shows that the administration of justice was in a

deplorable state. It was stated that the sheriffs and other judges had

failed to perform their executive duties, or to protect the poor people

from oppression. “Therefore, it was enacted that in every quarter of

the kingdom, any person who had a case, should first make his complaint

to the local sheriff, steward, justice, or the magistrates in burghs,

and ask redress and justice: and if he obtains justice duly ministered

and executed, then he must rest content. But when the judge declines

to act, and will not administer justice, then the complainant should

proceed to the King and his council, take letters and summon the

offender, and also the judge; and if the judge be found guilty, he will

be punished and dismissed from his office for a long or short period

at the discretion of the King and his council; and he shall have to pay

the expenses of the complainant, and the King shall cause justice to

be administered to the complainant.” Murder and crimes of violence had

been extremely numerous during the King’s minority, while it was stated

that many persons committed crimes, and trusted to secure immunity

by taking refuge in the sanctuaries and remaining there, safe from

pursuit. To remedy this state of matters, it was enacted that officers

of justice should have power to seize such criminals, that they might

be tried before a jury, and punished according to their guilt.

The King had reached his twentieth year; but his education had been

sadly neglected, and he showed little capacity in the government of

the kingdom. In 1470 he made a progress through the northern part of

the country with his Queen; and on the 17th of March, 1473, an heir

to the throne was born. James III. was peacefully inclined, but lacked

the energy of character necessary to control the nobles. A truce with

England was concluded in October 1474, to continue for seventeen years;

but Edward IV. was not really friendly to Scotland. He harboured the

Earl of Douglas, and entered into negotiations with John, Earl of Ross

and Lord of the Isles, with whom he also concluded a treaty.

When the terms of this treaty became known to the Government, the

Earl of Ross was summoned to appear before a parliament in Edinburgh

to answer several charges of treason; but he failed to appear, and a

sentence of forfeiture was passed against him in 1475. Preparations

were then made to invade his territories and reduce him to subjection;

but he tendered his submission and surrendered himself to the King. The

earldom of Ross was annexed to the Crown; but the rest of his lands,

excepting Cantyre and Knapdale, were restored to him by royal charter;

he was also created a peer of parliament under the title of Lord of the

Isles.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., page 108,

_et seq._

James III. was not a vigorous ruler, while he seems to have incurred

the enmity of the nobles. He entertained a man called Doctor Andres,

an astrologer, gave him sums of money, and in 1474 a French gown for

his services. It was said that this astrologer told the King that his

life was in imminent danger from his own kindred. The King employed

and associated with persons of humble position; one Robert Cochrane,

a mason, became a special favourite; Robert Rogers, a musician; and

James Homil, a tailor, were the King’s favourites. Homil received an

annual pension of £20. The King’s brothers, the Duke of Albany, and

the Earl of Mar, were robust and active men, and more in harmony with

the characteristics of the nobles than the King. From whatever cause,

the King imagined that his brothers were his enemies, and the Earl of

Mar was imprisoned in the castle of Craigmillar, where he died; and it

was rumoured that the King had caused him to be murdered. Albany was

imprisoned in the castle of Edinburgh; but in April 1479, he escaped

and fled to France. Returning to England, in 1482 he entered into a

treaty with Edward IV. By this treaty he agreed to recognise the feudal

superiority of the King of England, who was then to give the Crown of

Scotland to him under the title of Alexander IV. Albany promised to

render homage to his feudal lord whenever he was put in possession of

the kingdom, also to support England, to abandon the old alliance with

France, to surrender to the English the town and castle of Berwick, the

castle of Lochmaben, and the districts of Liddesdale, Annandale, and

Eskdale.¹ To enter into a compact of this nature with the enemy of the

kingdom was a crime which the nation could not permit; although Albany

simply presented another illustration of a characteristic weakness

of the Stuart dynasty, namely, enmity amongst the members of the royal

family.

¹ _Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland_, Volume

I., pages 7, 13, 15, 18, 23‒6, 55; Pitscottie; _Acts of

the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 125‒132;

_Fœdera_, Volume XII., page 156.