King James at this time attempted what Dr Robertson, with somewhat
too much complaisance, calls a work worthy of a king. Many of his
nobility were at feud with each other on account of past grievances.
For example, Glammis bore deadly hatred against the Earl of Crawford,
in consequence of the killing of his father by some of Crawford’s
people at Stirling in 1578. With the Earl of Angus, whose piety and
love of the clergy induced James to call him _the Ministers’ King_,
it was sufficient ground of hostility against the Earl of Montrose
that he had sat as chancellor on the jury which adjudged Morton to the
Maiden. The Earls of Huntly and Marischal had some mutual grudge of
their own, perhaps little intelligible to southern men. So it was with
others. The nobility being now assembled at a convention, James, who
never could check outrages amongst them by the sword of justice, did
what a good-natured weak man could to induce them to be reconciled to
each other, and call it peace when there was no peace. Assembling them
all at a banquet in Holyrood on a Sunday, he drank to them thrice, and
solemnly called on them to maintain concord, threatening to be an enemy
to him who should first disobey the injunction. Next day, after supper,
then an early meal, and after ‘many scolls’ had been drunk to each
other, he made them all march in procession ‘in their doublets’ up the
Canongate, two and two, holding by each other’s hands, and each pair
being a couple of reconciled enemies. He himself went in front, with
Lord Hamilton on his right hand, and the Lord Chancellor Maitland on
the left; next after, the Duke of Lennox and Lord Claud Hamilton; then
Angus and Montrose, Huntly and Marischal, Crawford and the Master of
Glammis. Coming to the Tolbooth, his majesty ordered all the prisoners
for debt to be released. Thence he advanced to the picturesque old
market-cross, covered with tapestry for the occasion, and where the
magistrates had set out a long table well furnished with bread, wine,
and sweetmeats. Amidst the blare of trumpets and the boom of cannon,
the young monarch publicly drank to his nobles, wishing them peace and
happiness, and made them all drink to each other. The people, long
accustomed to sights of bloody contention, looked on with unspeakable
joy, danced, broke into songs of mirth, and brought out all imaginable
musical instruments to give additional, albeit discordant expression,
to their happiness. All acknowledged that no such sight had ever
been seen in Edinburgh. In the general transport, the gloomy gibbet,
usually kept standing there in readiness, was cast down, as if it could
never again be needed. Sweetmeats, and glasses from which toasts had
been drunk, flew about both from the table of the feast and from the
responsive parties on the _fore-stairs_. When all was done, the king
and nobles returned in the same form as they had come.--_Moy._ _Bir._
_Cal._ _H. K. J._
Healing measures like these were not nearly so good as they seemed. In
less than two months, we find six or seven of the nobles quarrelling
about priority of voting, and Lord Home passing a challenge to Lord
Fleming--‘wha were not sufferit to fecht, albeit they were baith weel
willing.’
King James had a sincere antipathy to deadly feuds and quarrels,
because he loved peace and good-humour; but timidity, want of
strong will, and partly, perhaps, his very _bonhomie_, prevented
him from taking those severe measures with offenders which alone
could effectually repress such practices. He desired to correct men
by proclamations, or at the most ‘hornings;’ and when one gentleman
had literally killed his neighbour in a casual rencontre, the king
was satisfied if he could induce the son or other relations of the
deceased to meet the guilty person, make up matters for a sum of money,
shake hands, and agree there should be no more of it. He liked to be
personally busy in effecting reconciliations, and at length came to use
what he considered as compulsory measures for bringing the parties to
his presence, that he might see to their renewing friendship. Thus, on
the 22d November 1599, an edict of council was sent to James Hoppringle
of Galashiels, and George Hoppringle of Blindlee, commanding them to
come and submit the quarrel standing between them to the arbitrament
of friends, on pain of being charged with rebellion. On the 12th of
January ensuing, James Tweedie of Drumelzier and William Veitch of
Dawick were charged, under like pains, to come and subscribe letters
of assurance, for ‘the feid and inimitie standing betwixt them.’--_P.
C. R._
* * * * *
In consequence of a bad crop in 1586, there was ‘great scant and
dearth’ this year, ‘and great death of people for hunger.’--_H. K. J._
Elizabeth issued a proclamation regarding scarcity, 2d January
1586-7. She speaks of ‘foreseeing the general dearth of corn and
other victuals, partly through the unseasonableness of the year past,
whereby want hath grown more in some countries than in others, but
most of all, generally, through the uncharitable greediness of great
corn-masters, &c.’ This was the invariable cry on all occasions of
dearth. All would be well if only those possessing grain would not
reserve it in hope of higher prices. No one ever dreamed of that
benefit which the modern political economist sees in the reservings of
the corn-merchant--namely, an equalising of consumption over the whole
period of the scarcity, as contrasted with the over-free use of the
victual at first, and increased scarcity afterwards. Perhaps there was,
after all, some grounds for the wrath at forestallers, for in former
days, as we well know, there was less means of obtaining information
regarding the extent of the failure of a crop than there is now, and
those gentlemen, accordingly, were rather speculators on a possible,
than on an ascertained case. They would hence appear as men aiming at
the making of a scarcity where there was perhaps no great occasion for
it. What offence greater, the poor public would naturally say, than
that of deliberately trying to starve us!
[Sidenote: 1587.]
King James had lately sent Vans of Barnbarroch, and his own
ex-preceptor, Peter Young, as ambassadors to Denmark, to negotiate a
match with the daughter of Frederick II. He now (June 14, 1587) wrote
to those gentlemen, ordering them to see to certain Scotch ships which
had gone to Dantzic for grain, designing to carry it to other foreign
ports for a profit: he demands that they shall not be passed by the
_tollender_ at Elsinore, till the skippers enter into an obligation to
bring the grain to Scotland, ‘for the relief of the puir and supply of
the dearth and scarcity.’[150] How would a modern corn-merchant feel if
his vessels were now stopped at the Sound with such a demand as this!
Patrick Hamilton, brother of the Laird of Preston, and captain of
Brodick Castle in Arran, was denounced rebel for not appearing before
the king and Council, to answer a complaint of Abacuck Bisset, writer
to the Signet in Edinburgh. It appears that Patrick, accompanied by two
nephews, had attacked Mr Bisset in St Giles’s Kirk in Edinburgh, during
the sitting of parliament, with a sword, and cut off ‘the haill fingers
of his left hand.’
This Abacuck Bisset was clerk to Sir John Skene, Lord Clerk Register.
He compiled a treatise entitled _The Rolment of Courtis, contenand the
Auldest Lawis, Actis, Statutis, Constitutionis, and Antiquities of His
Majesties Native and maist Ancient Realme of Scotland, as ane Frie
Kingdome, &c._
We have hitherto heard the name of Queen Mary chiefly in connection
with tragic matters: verily a name of tears. For once we find her
connected with a piece of pleasantry, and it was in association with
the author of the _Rolment of Courtis_. The father of this worthy
writer was caterer to the queen. One day, as she was passing to mass,
he acquainted her with his having a child to be baptised, and desired
her to assign the infant its name. She said she would open the Bible in
the chapel, and whatever name she cast up, that should be given to the
child. The name cast up was that of the prophet Habakkuk, which, in the
form of Abacuck, was accordingly conferred on the future writer.
[Sidenote: 1587.