CONDITION OF SCOTLAND IN THE FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES.
Early in the fifteenth century, the alliance between the Crown and the
Church, and the determination of that alliance to overthrow the nobles,
became manifest. Indications of this may be traced in the policy of
Albany, who was Regent from 1406 to 1419, and who made it his principal
object to encourage and strengthen the clergy.[88] He also dealt the
first great blow upon which any government had ventured against the
aristocracy. Donald, who was one of the most powerful of the Scottish
chieftains, and who, indeed, by the possession of the Western Isles, was
almost an independent prince, had seized the earldom of Ross, which, if
he could have retained, would have enabled him to set the Crown at
defiance. Albany, backed by the Church, marched into his territories, in
1411, forced him to renounce the earldom, to make personal submission,
and to give hostages for his future conduct.[89] So vigorous a proceeding
on the part of the executive, was extremely unusual in Scotland;[90] and
it was the first of a series of aggressions, which ended in the Crown
obtaining for itself, not only Ross, but also the Western Isles.[91] The
policy inaugurated by Albany, was followed up with still greater energy
by James I. In 1424, this bold and active prince procured an enactment,
obliging many of the nobles to show their charters, in order that it
might be ascertained what lands they held, which had formerly belonged to
the Crown.[92] And, to conciliate the affections of the clergy, he, in
1425, issued a commission, authorizing the Bishop of Saint Andrews to
restore to the Church whatever had been alienated from it; while he at
the same time directed that the justiciaries should assist in enforcing
execution of the decree.[93] This occurred in June; and what shows that
it was part of a general scheme is, that in the preceding spring, the
king suddenly arrested, in the parliament assembled at Perth, upwards of
twenty of the principal nobles, put four of them to death, and
confiscated several of their estates.[94] Two years afterwards, he, with
equal perfidy, summoned the Highland chiefs to meet him at Inverness,
laid hands on them also, executed three, and imprisoned more than forty,
in different parts of the kingdom.[95]
[88] 'The Church was eminently favoured by Albany.' _Pinkerton's History
of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 86. But Pinkerton misunderstands his
policy in regard to the nobles.
[89] _Skene's Highlanders_, vol. ii. pp. 72-74; _Browne's History of the
Highlands_, vol. i. p. 162, vol. iv. pp. 435, 436.
[90] Chalmers (_Caledonia_, vol. i. pp. 826, 827), referring to the state
of things before Albany, says, 'There is not a trace of any attempt
by Robert II. to limit the power of the nobles, whatever he may
have added, by his improvident grants, to their independence. He
appears not to have attempted to raise the royal prerogative from
the debasement in which the imprudence and misfortunes of David II.
had left it.' And, of his successor, Robert III., 'So mild a
prince, and so weak a man, was not very likely to make any attempt
upon the power of others, when he could scarcely support his own.'
[91] In 1476, 'the Earldom of Ross was inalienably annexed to the Crown;
and a great blow was thus struck at the power and grandeur of a
family which had so repeatedly disturbed the tranquillity of
Scotland.' _Gregory's History of the Western Highlands_, Edinburgh,
1836, p. 50. In 1493, 'John, fourth and last Lord of the Isles, was
forfeited, and deprived of his title and estates.' _Ibid._ p. 58.
[92] As those who held crown lands were legally, though not in reality,
the king's tenants, the act declared, that 'gif it like the king,
he may ger s[=u]monde all and sindry his tenand at lauchfull day
and place to schawe thar chartis.' _The Acts of the Parliament of
Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 4, § 9, edit. folio, 1814.
[93] 'On the 8th June, 1425, James issued a commission to Henry, bishop
of St. Andrews, authorising him to resume all alienations from the
Church, with power of anathema, and orders to all justiciaries to
assist.' This curious paper is preserved in Harl. Ms. 4637, vol.
iii. f. 189. _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 116.
Archbishop Spottiswoode, delighted with his policy, calls him a
'good king,' and says that he built for the Carthusians 'a
beautiful monastery at Perth, bestowing large revenues upon the
same.' _Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i.
p. 113. And Keith assures us that, on one occasion, James I. went
so far as to give to one of the bishops 'a silver cross, in which
was contained a bit of the wooden cross on which the apostle St.
Andrew had been crucified.' _Keith's Catalogue of Scotch Bishops_,
Edinburgh, 1755, 4to, p. 67.
[94] Compare _Balfour's Annales_, vol. i. pp. 153-156, with _Pinkerton's
History_, vol. i. pp. 113-115. Between these two authorities there
is a slight, but unimportant, discrepancy.
[95] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. pp. 95-98; _Skene's
Highlanders_, vol. ii. p. 75; and an imperfect narrative in
_Gregory's History of the Western Highlands_, p. 35.
By these measures, and by supporting the Church with the same zeal that
he attacked the nobles, the king thought to reverse the order of affairs
hitherto established, and to secure the supremacy of the throne over the
aristocracy.[96] But herein, he overrated his own power. Like nearly all
politicians, he exaggerated the value of political remedies. The
legislator and the magistrate may, for a moment, palliate an evil; they
can never work a cure. General mischiefs depend upon general causes, and
these are beyond their art. The symptoms of the disease they can touch,
while the disease itself baffles their efforts, and is too often
exasperated by their treatment. In Scotland, the power of the nobles was
a cruel malady, which preyed on the vitals of the nation; but it had long
been preparing; it was a chronic disorder; and, having worked into the
general habit, it might be removed by time, it could never be diminished
by violence. On the contrary, in this, as in all matters, whenever
politicians attempt great good, they invariably inflict great harm.
Over-action on one side produces reaction on the other, and the balance
of the fabric is disturbed. By the shock of conflicting interests, the
scheme of life is made insecure. New animosities are kindled, old ones
are embittered, and the natural jar and discordance are aggravated,
simply because the rulers of mankind cannot be brought to understand,
that, in dealing with a great country, they have to do with an
organization so subtle, so extremely complex, and withal so obscure, as
to make it highly probable, that whatever they alter in it, they will
alter wrongly, and that while their efforts to protect or to strengthen
its particular parts are extremely hazardous, it does undoubtedly possess
within itself a capacity of repairing its injuries, and that to bring
such capacity into play, there is merely required that time and freedom
which the interference of powerful men too often prevents it from
enjoying.
[96] Tytler (_History of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 126), under the year
1433, says: 'In the midst of his labours for the pacification of
his northern dominions, and his anxiety for the suppression of
heresy, the king never forgot his great plan for the diminution of
the exorbitant power of the nobles.' See also p. 84. 'It was a
principle of this enterprising monarch, in his schemes for the
recovery and consolidation of his own power, to cultivate the
friendship of the clergy, whom he regarded as a counterpoise to the
nobles.' Lord Somerville (_Memorie of the Somervilles_, vol. i. p.
173) says, that the superior nobility were 'never or seldome called
to counsell dureing this king's reign.'
Thus it was in Scotland, in the fifteenth century. The attempts of James
I. failed, because they were particular measures directed against general
evils. Ideas and associations, generated by a long course of events, and
deeply seated in the public mind, had given to the aristocracy immense
power; and if every noble in Scotland had been put to death, if all their
castles had been razed to the ground, and all their estates confiscated,
the time would unquestionably have come, when their successors would have
been more influential than ever, because the affection of their retainers
and dependents would be increased by the injustice that had been
perpetrated. For, every passion excites its opposite. Cruelty to-day,
produces sympathy to-morrow. A hatred of injustice contributes more than
any other principle to correct the inequalities of life, and to maintain
the balance of affairs. It is this loathing at tyranny, which, by
stirring to their inmost depth the warmest feelings of the heart, makes
it impossible that tyranny should ever finally succeed. This, in sooth,
is the noble side of our nature. This is that part of us, which, stamped
with a godlike beauty, reveals its divine origin, and, providing for the
most distant contingencies, is our surest guarantee that violence shall
never ultimately triumph; that, sooner or later, despotism shall always
be overthrown; and that the great and permanent interests of the human
race shall never be injured by the wicked counsels of unjust men.
In the case of James I., the reaction came sooner than might have been
expected; and, as it happened in his lifetime, it was a retribution, as
well as a reaction. For some years, he continued to oppress the nobles
with impunity;[97] but, in 1436, they turned upon him, and put him to
death, in revenge for the treatment to which he had subjected many of
them.[98] Their power now rose as suddenly as it had fallen. In the south
of Scotland, the Douglases were supreme,[99] and the earl of that family
possessed revenues about equal to those of the Crown.[100] And, to show
that his authority was equal to his wealth, he, on the marriage of James
II., in 1449, appeared at the nuptials with a train composed of five
thousand followers.[101] These were his own retainers, armed and resolute
men, bound to obey any command he might issue to them. Not, indeed, that
compulsion was needed on the part of a Scotch noble to secure the
obedience of his own people. The servitude was a willing one, and was
essential to the national manners. Then, and long afterwards, it was
discreditable, as well as unsafe, not to belong to a great clan; and
those who were so unfortunate as to be unconnected with any leading
family, were accustomed to take the name of some chief, and to secure his
protection by devoting themselves to his service.[102]
[97] Compare _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. ii. p. 263, with _Buchanan's
Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. x. p. 286.
[98] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. pp. 157, 158.
[99] Lindsay of Pitscottie (_Chronicles_, vol. i. p. 2) says, that
directly after the death of James I., 'Alexander, Earle of Douglas,
being uerie potent in kine and friendis, contemned all the kingis
officeris, in respect of his great puissance.' The best account I
have seen of the rise of the Douglases is in Chalmers' learned, but
ill-digested, work, _Caledonia_, vol. i. pp. 579-583.
[100] In 1440, 'the chief of that family had revenues perhaps equivalent
to those of the Scottish monarch.' _Pinkerton's History of
Scotland_, vol. i. p. 192.
[101] 'It may give us some idea of the immense power possessed at this
period by the Earl of Douglas, when we mention, that on this
chivalrous occasion, the military suite by which he was
surrounded, and at the head of which he conducted the Scottish
champions to the lists, consisted of a force amounting to five
thousand men.' _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 215.
The old historian of his family says: 'He is not easy to be dealt
with; they must have mufles that would catch such a cat. Indeed,
he behaved himself as one that thought he would not be in danger
of them; he entertained a great family; he rode ever well
accompanied when he came in publick; 1000 or 2000 horse were his
ordinary train.' _Hume's History of the House of Douglas_, vol. i.
pp. 273, 274, reprinted Edinburgh, 1743.
[102] In the seventeenth century, 'To be without a chief, involved a kind
of disrepute; and those who had no distinct personal position of
their own, would find it necessary to become a Gordon or a
Crichton, as prudence or inclination might point out.' _Burton's
Criminal Trials in Scotland_, vol. i. p. 207. Compare _Pitcairn's
Criminal Trials in Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 250, on 'the protective
surname of Douglas;' and _Skene's Highlanders_, vol. ii. p. 252,
on the extreme importance attached to the name of Macgregor.
What the Earl of Douglas was in the south of Scotland, that were the
Earls of Crawford and of Ross in the north.[103] Singly they were
formidable; united they seemed irresistible. When, therefore, in the
middle of the fifteenth century, they actually leagued together, and
formed a strict compact against all their common enemies, it was hard to
say what limit could be set to their power, or what resource remained to
the government, except that of sowing disunion among them.[104]
[103] 'Men of the greatest puissance and force next the Douglases that
were in Scotland in their times.' _Hume's History of the House of
Douglas_, vol. i. p. 344. The great power of the Earls of Ross in
the north, dates from the thirteenth century. See _Skene's
Highlanders_, vol. i. pp. 133, 134, vol. ii. p. 52.
[104] In 1445, the Earl of Douglas concluded 'ane offensiue and defensiue
league and combinatione aganist all, none excepted, (not the king
himselue), with the Earle of Crawfurd, and Donald, Lord of the
Isles; wich was mutually sealled and subscriued by them three, the
7 day of Marche.' _Balfour's Annales_, vol. i. p. 173. This
comprised the alliance of other noble families. 'He maid bandis
with the Erle of Craufurd, and with Donald lorde of the Ylis, and
Erle of Ross, to take part every ane with other, and with dyvers
uther noble men also.' _Lesley's History of Scotland_, from 1436
to 1561, p. 18.
But, in the mean time, the disposition of the nobles to use force against
the Crown, had been increased by fresh violence. Government, instead of
being warned by the fate of James I., imitated his unscrupulous acts, and
pursued the very policy which had caused his destruction. Because the
Douglases were the most powerful of all the great families, it was
determined that their chiefs should be put to death; and because they
could not be slain by force, they were to be murdered by treachery. In
1440, the Earl of Douglas, a boy of fifteen, and his brother, who was
still younger than he, were invited to Edinburgh on a friendly visit to
the king. Scarcely had they arrived, when they were seized by order of
the chancellor, subjected to a mock trial, declared guilty, dragged to
the castle-yard, and the heads of the poor children cut off.[105]
[105] An interesting account of this dastardly crime is given in _Hume's
History of the House of Douglas_, vol. i. pp. 274-288, where
great, but natural, indignation is expressed. On the other hand,
Lesley, bishop of Ross, narrates it with a cold-blooded
indifference, characteristic of the ill-will which existed between
the nobles and the clergy, and which prevented him from regarding
the murder of two children as an offence. 'And eftir he was set
doun to the burd with the governour, chancellour, and otheris
noble men present, the meit was sudantlie removed, and ane bullis
heid presented, quhilk in thay daies was ane signe of executione;
and incontinent the said erle, David his broder, and Malcolme
Fleming of Cummernald, wer heidit before the castell yett of
Edenburgh.' _Lesley's History_, p. 16.
Considering the warm feelings of attachment which the Scotch entertained
for their chiefs, it is difficult to overrate the consequences of this
barbarous murder, in strengthening a class it was hoped to intimidate.
But this horrible crime was committed by the government only, and it
occurred during the king's minority: the next assassination was the work
of the king himself. In 1452, the Earl of Douglas[106] was, with great
show of civility, requested by James II. to repair to the court then
assembled at Stirling. The Earl hesitated, but James overcame his
reluctance by sending to him a safeconduct with the royal signature, and
issued under the great seal.[107] The honour of the king being pledged,
the fears of Douglas were removed. He hastened to Stirling, where he was
received with every distinction. The evening of his arrival, the king,
after supper was over, broke out into reproaches against him, and,
suddenly drawing his dagger, stabbed him. Gray then struck him with a
battle-axe, and he fell dead on the floor, in presence of his sovereign,
who had lured him to court, that he might murder him with impunity.[108]
[106] The cousin of the boys who were murdered in 1440. See _Hume's
History of the House of Douglas_, vol. i. pp. 297, 816.
[107] 'With assurance under the broad seal.' _Hume's House of Douglas_,
vol. i. p. 351. See also _Nimmo's History of Stirlingshire_,
Edinb. 1777, pp. 246, 322, 323.
[108] _Hume's House of Douglas_, vol. i. pp. 351-353. The king 'stabbed
him in the breast with a dagger. At the same instant Patrick Gray
struck him on the head with a pole-ax. The rest that were
attending at the door, hearing the noise, entred, and fell also
upon him; and, to show their affection to the king, gave him every
man his blow after he was dead.' _Compare Lindsay of Pitscottie's
Chronicles of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 103. 'He strak him throw the
bodie thairwith; and thairefter the guard, hearing the tumult
within the chamber, rusched in and slew the earle out of hand.'
The ferocity of the Scotch character, which was the natural result of the
ignorance and poverty of the nation, was, no doubt, one cause, and a very
important one, of the commission of such crimes as these, not secretly,
but in the open light of day, and by the highest men in the State. It
cannot, however, be denied, that another cause was, the influence of the
clergy, whose interest it was to humble the nobles, and who were by no
means scrupulous as to the means that they employed.[109] As the Crown
became more alienated from the aristocracy, it united itself still closer
with the Church. In 1443, a statute was enacted, the object of which was,
to secure ecclesiastical property from the attacks made upon it by the
nobles.[110] And although, in that state of society, it was easier to
pass laws than to execute them, such a measure indicated the general
policy of the government, and the union between it and the Church.
Indeed, as to this, no one could be mistaken.[111] For nearly twenty
years, the avowed and confidential adviser of the Crown was Kennedy,
bishop of Saint Andrews, who retained power until his death, in 1466,
during the minority of James III.[112] He was the bitter enemy of the
nobles, against whom he displayed an unrelenting spirit, which was
sharpened by personal injuries; for the Earl of Crawford had plundered
his lands, and the Earl of Douglas had attempted to seize him, and had
threatened to put him into irons.[113] The mildest spirit might well have
been roused by this; and as James II., when he assassinated Douglas, was
more influenced by Kennedy than by any one else, it is probable that the
bishop was privy to that foul transaction. At all events, he expressed no
disapprobation of it; and when, in consequence of the murder, the
Douglases and their friends rose in open rebellion, Kennedy gave to the
king a crafty and insidious counsel, highly characteristic of the cunning
of his profession. Taking up a bundle of arrows, he showed James, that
when they were together, they were not to be broken; but that, if
separated, they were easily destroyed. Hence he inferred, that the
aristocracy should be overthrown by disuniting the nobles, and ruining
them one by one.[114]
[109] In _Nimmo's History of Stirlingshire_, pp. 99, 100, the alienation
of the nobles from the Church is dated 'from the middle of the
fifteenth century;' and this is perhaps correct in regard to
general dislike, though the movement may be clearly traced fifty
years earlier.
[110] See _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 33, edit.
folio, 1814; respecting the 'statute of haly kirk quhilk is
oppressit and hurt.'
[111] In 1449, James II., 'with that affectionate respect for the clergy,
which could not fail to be experienced by a prince who had
successfully employed their support and advice to escape from the
tyranny of his nobles, granted to them some important privileges.'
_Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 226. See also p. 309.
Among many similar measures, he conceded to the monks of Paisley
some important powers of jurisdiction that belonged to the Crown.
Charter, 13th January, 1451-2, in _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. iii.
p. 823.
[112] _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 188, 209, 247, 254.
_Keith's Catalogue of Scotch Bishops_, p. 19. _Ridpath's Border
History_, p. 298. _Hollinshead's Scottish Chronicle_, vol. ii. p.
101. In _Somerville's Memorie of the Somervilles_, vol. i. p. 213,
it is stated, under the year 1452, that fear of the great nobles
'had once possest his majestie with some thoughts of going out of
the countrey; but that he was perswaded to the contrary by Bishop
Kennedie, then Archbishop of Saint Andrewes, whose counsell at
that tyme and eftirward, in most things he followed, which at
length proved to his majesties great advantage.' See also
_Lesley's History_, p. 23. 'The king wes put to sic a sharp point,
that he wes determinit to haif left the realme, and to haif passit
in Fraunce by sey, were not that bischop James Kennedy of St.
Androis causit him to tarrye.'
[113] 'His lands were plundered by the Earl of Crawford and Alexander
Ogilvie of Inveraritie, at the instigation of the Earl of Douglas,
who had farther instructed them to seize, if possible, the person
of the bishop, and to put him in irons.' Memoir of Kennedy, in
_Chambers' Lives of Scotchmen_, vol. iii. p. 307, Glasgow, 1834.
'Sed Kennedus et ætate, et consilio, ac proinde auctoritate
cæteros anteibat. In eum potissimum ira est versa. Crafordiæ comes
et Alexander Ogilvius conflato satis magno exercitu, agros ejus in
Fifa latè populati, dum prædam magis, quam causam sequuntur, omni
genere cladis in vicina etiam prædia grassati, nemine congredi
auso pleni prædarum in Angusiam revertuntar. Kennedus ad sua arma
conversus comitem Crafordiæ disceptationem juris fugientem diris
ecclesiasticis est prosecutus.' _Buchanan_, _Rerum Scoticarum
Historia_, lib. xi. p. 306.
[114] 'This holie bischop schew ane similitud to the king, quhilk might
bring him to experience how he might invaid againes the Douglass,
and the rest of the conspiratouris. This bischop tuik furth ane
great scheife of arrowes knitt togidder werrie fast, and desired
him to put thame to his knie, and break thame. The king said it
was not possible, becaus they war so many, and so weill fastened
togidder. The bischop answeired, it was werrie true, bot yitt he
wold latt the king sea how to break thame: and pulled out on be
on, and tua be tua, quhill he had brokin thame all; then said to
the king, "Yea most doe with the conspiratouris in this manner,
and thair complices that are risen againes yow, quho are so many
in number, and so hard knit togidder in conspiracie againes yow,
that yea cannot gett thame brokin togidder. Butt be sick pratick
as I have schowin yow be the similitud of thir arrowes, that is to
say, yea must conqueis and break lord by lord be thamselffis, for
yea may not deall with thame all at once."' _Lindsay of
Pitscottie's Chronicles of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 172, 173.
In this he was right, so far as the interests of his own order were
concerned; but, looking at the interest of the nation, it is evident that
the power of the nobles, notwithstanding their gross abuse of it, was, on
the whole, beneficial, since it was the only barrier against despotism.
The evil they actually engendered, was indeed immense. But they kept off
other evils, which would have been worse. By causing present anarchy,
they secured future liberty. For, as there was no middle class, there
were only three orders in the commonwealth; namely, government, clergy,
and nobles. The two first being united against the last, it is certain
that if they had won the day, Scotland would have been oppressed by the
worst of all yokes, to which a country can be subjected. It would have
been ruled by an absolute king and an absolute Church, who, playing into
each other's hands, would have tyrannized over a people, who, though
coarse and ignorant, still loved a certain rude and barbarous liberty,
which it was good for them to possess, but which, in the face of such a
combination, they would most assuredly have forfeited.
Happily, however, the power of the nobles was too deeply rooted in the
popular mind to allow of this catastrophe. In vain did James III. exert
himself to discourage them,[115] and to elevate their rivals, the
clergy.[116] Nothing could shake their authority; and, in 1482, they,
seeing the determination of the king, assembled together, and such was
their influence over their followers, that they had no difficulty in
seizing his person, and imprisoning him in the Castle of Edinburgh.[117]
After his liberation, fresh quarrels arose;[118] and in 1488, the
principal nobles collected troops, met him in the field, defeated him,
and put him to death.[119] He was succeeded by James IV., under whom the
course of affairs was exactly the same; that is to say, on one side the
nobles, and on the other side the Crown and the Church. Every thing that
the king could do to uphold the clergy, he did cheerfully. In 1493, he
obtained an act to secure the immunities of the sees of Saint Andrews and
of Glasgow, the two most important in Scotland.[120] In 1503, he procured
a general revocation of all grants and gifts prejudicial to the Church,
whether they had been made by the Parliament or by the Council.[121] And,
in 1508, he, by the advice of Elphinston, bishop of Aberdeen, ventured on
a measure of still greater boldness. That able and ambitious prelate
induced James to revive against the nobility several obsolete claims, by
virtue of which the king could, under certain circumstances, take
possession of their estates, and could, in every instance in which the
owner held of the Crown, receive nearly the whole of the proceeds during
the minority of the proprietor.[122]
[115] 'He wald nocht suffer the noblemen to come to his presence, and to
governe the realme be thair counsell.' _Lesley's History of
Scotland_, p. 48. 'Wald nocht use the counsall of his nobilis.' p.
55. 'Excluding the nobility.' _Hume's History of the House of
Douglas_, vol. ii. p. 33. 'The nobility seeing his resolution to
ruin them.' p. 46. 'Hes conteming his nobility.' _Balfour's
Annales_, vol. i. p. 206.
[116] Also to aggrandize them. See, for instance, what 'has obtained the
name of the golden charter, from the ample privileges it contains,
confirmed to Archbishop Shevez by James III. on 9th July 1480.'
_Grierson's History of Saint Andrews_, p. 58, Cupar, 1838.
[117] 'Such was the influence of the aristocracy over their warlike
followers, that the king was conveyed to the castle of Edinburgh,
without commotion or murmur.' _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_,
vol. i. p. 308.
[118] 'The king and his ministers multiplied the insults which they
offered to the nobility.' ... 'A proclamation was issued,
forbidding any person to appear in arms within the precincts of
the court; which, at a time when no man of rank left his own house
without a numerous retinue of armed followers, was, in effect,
debarring the nobles from all access to the king.' ... 'His
neglect of the nobles irritated, but did not weaken them.'
_History of Scotland_, book i. p. 68, in _Robertson's Works_,
edit. London, 1831.
[119] _Balfour's Annales_, vol. i. pp. 213, 214; Buchanan, _Rerum
Scoticarum Historia_, lib. xii. p. 358. Lindsay of Pitscottie
(_Chronicles_, vol. i. p. 222) says: 'This may be ane example to
all kingis that cumes heirefter, not to fall from God.' ... 'For,
if he had vsed the counsall of his wyse lordis and barrones, he
had not cum to sick disparatioun.'
[120] _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, folio, 1814, vol. ii.
p. 232. 'That the said abbaceis confirmit be thame sall neid na
prouisioun of the court of Rome.'
[121] _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 240; and the
summary of the statute (p. 21), 'Revocation of donations,
statutis, and all uthir thingis hurtand the croune or hali kirk.'
In the next year (1504), the king 'greatly augmented' the revenues
of the bishoprick of Galloway. _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. iii. p.
417.
[122] _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 63; _Calderwood's
History of the Kirk of Scotland_, vol. viii. p. 135, edit. Wodrow
Society, Edinburgh, 1849. The latter authority states, that 'The
bishop devysed wayes to King James the Fourth, how he might
attaine to great gaine and profit. He advised him to call his
barons and all those that held any lands within the realme, to
show their evidents by way of recognition; and, if they had not
sufficient writings for their warrant, to dispone upon their lands
at his pleasure; for the which advice he was greatlie hated. But
the king, perceaving the countrie to grudge, agreed easilie with
the possessors.'
To make such claims was easy; to enforce them was impossible. Indeed, the
nobles were at this time rather gaining ground than losing it; and,
after the death of James IV., in 1513, they, during the minority of James
V., became so powerful, that the regent, Albany, twice threw up the
government in despair, and at length abandoned it altogether.[123] He
finally quitted Scotland in 1524, and with him the authority of the
executive seemed to have vanished. The Douglases soon obtained possession
of the person of the king, and compelled Beaton, archbishop of Saint
Andrews, the most influential man in the Church, to resign the office of
chancellor.[124] The whole command now fell into their hands; they or
their adherents filled every office; secular interests predominated, and
the clergy were thrown completely into the shade.[125] In 1528, however,
an event occurred by which the spiritual classes not only recovered
their former position, but gained a preëminence, which, as it turned out,
was eventually fatal to themselves. Archbishop Beaton, impatient at
proceedings so unfavourable to the Church, organized a conspiracy, by
means of which James effected his escape from the Douglases, and took
refuge in the castle of Stirling.[126] This sudden reaction was not the
real and controlling cause, but it was undoubtedly the proximate cause,
of the establishment of Protestantism in Scotland. For, the reins of
government now passed into the hands of the Church; and the most
influential of the nobles were consequently persecuted, and some of them
driven from the country. But, though their political power was gone,
their social power remained. They were stripped of their honours and
their wealth. They became outcasts, traitors, and beggars. Still, the
real foundation of their authority was unshaken, because that authority
was the result of a long train of circumstances, and was based on the
affections of the people. Therefore it was, that the nobles, even those
who were exiled and attainted, were able to conduct an arduous, but
eventually a successful, struggle against their enemies. The desire of
revenge whetted their exertions, and gave rise to a deadly contest
between the Scotch aristocracy and the Scotch Church. This most
remarkable conflict was, in some degree, a continuation of that which
began early in the fifteenth century. But it was far more bitter; it
lasted, without interruption, for thirty-two years; and it was only
concluded by the triumph of the nobles, who, in 1560, completely
overthrew the Church, and destroyed, almost at a blow, the whole of the
Scotch hierarchy.
[123] The Regency of Albany, little understood by the earlier
historians, has been carefully examined by Mr. Tytler, in whose
valuable, though too prolix, work, the best account of it will be
found. _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 98-160,
Edinburgh, 1845. On the hostility between Albany and the nobles,
see _Irving's History of Dumbartonshire_, p. 99; and, on the
revival of their power in the north, after the death of James IV.,
see _Gregory's History of the Western Highlands_, pp. 114, 115.
[124] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 180-182: 'Within a
few months, there was not an office of trust or emolument in the
kingdom, which was not filled by a Douglas, or by a creature of
that house.' See also pp. 187, 194; and _Keith's Catalogue of
Scotch Bishops_, pp. 22, 23. Beaton, who was so rudely
dispossessed of the chancellorship, that, according to Keith, he
was, in 1525, obliged 'to lurk among his friends for fear of his
life,' is mentioned, in the preceding year, as having been the
main supporter of Albany's government; 'that most hath favoured
the Duke of Albany.' _State Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII._,
vol. iv. p. 97, 4to, 1836.
[125] The complete power of the Douglases lasted from the cessation of
Albany's regency to the escape of the king, in 1528. _Keith's
History of the Affairs of Church and State in Scotland_, edit.
Edinburgh, 1835, vol. i. pp. 33-35. Compare _Balfour's Annales_,
vol. i. p. 257. 'The Earle of Angus violentley takes one him the
gouerniment, and retanes the king in effecte a prisoner with him;
during wich tyme he, the Earle of Lennox, and George Douglas, his
auen brother, frely disposses vpone all affaires both of churche
and staite.'
[126] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 195, 196. The curious
work, entitled _A Diurnal of Occurrents_, p. 10, says, 'In the
zeir of God 1500, tuantie aucht zeiris, the kingis grace by slicht
wan away fra the Douglassis.' From Stirling, he repaired to
Edinburgh, on 6th July 1528, and went to 'the busshop of Sainct
Andros loegeing.' See a letter written on the 18th of July 1528,
by Lord Dacre to Wolsey, in _State Papers of Henry VIII._, vol.
iv. p. 501, 4to, 1836. Compare a proclamation on 10th September
1528, in _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in Scotland_, vol. i. part i.
pp. 138*, 139*, Edinburgh, 4to, 1833. I particularly indicate
these documents, because Lindsay of Pitscottie (in his _Chronicles
of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 335) erroneously places the flight of
James in 1527; and he is generally one of the most accurate of the
old writers, if indeed he be the author of the work which bears
his name.
The events of this struggle, and the vicissitudes to which, during its
continuance, both parties were exposed, are related, though somewhat
confusedly, in our common histories: it will be sufficient if I indicate
the salient points, and, avoiding needless detail, endeavour to throw
light on the general movement. The unity of the entire scheme will thus
be brought before our minds, and we shall see, that the destruction of
the Catholic Church was its natural consummation, and that the last act
of that gorgeous drama, so far from being a strained and irregular
sequence, was in fit keeping with the whole train of the preceding plot.
When James effected his escape in 1528, he was a boy of sixteen, and his
policy, so far as he can be said to have had any mind of his own, was of
course determined by the clergy, to whom he owed his liberty, and who
were his natural protectors. His principal adviser was the Archbishop of
Saint Andrews; and the important post of chancellor, which, under the
Douglases, had been held by a layman, was now conferred on the Archbishop
of Glasgow.[127] These two prelates were supreme; while, at the same
time, the Abbot of Holyrood was made treasurer, and the Bishop of Dunkeld
was made privy seal.[128] All nobles, and even all followers, of the
house of Douglas, were forbidden to approach within twelve miles of the
court, under pain of treason.[129] An expedition was fitted out, and sent
against the Earl of Caithness, who was defeated and slain.[130] Just
before this occurred, the Earl of Angus was driven out of Scotland, and
his estates confiscated.[131] An act of attainder was passed against the
Douglases.[132] The government, moreover, seized, and threw into prison,
the Earl of Bothwell, Home, Maxwell, and two Kerrs, and the barons of
Buccleuch, Johnston, and Polwarth.[133]
[127] _State Papers of Henry VIII._, vol. iv. p. 501.
[128] 'Archibald was depryvit of the thesaurarie, and placit thairin
Robert Cairncorse, abbot of Halyrudhous. And als was tane fra the
said Archibald the privie seill, and was givin to the bischope of
Dunkell.' _A Diurnal of Occurrents_, p. 11.
[129] Tytler (_History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 196) says: 'His first
act was to summon a council, and issue a proclamation, that no
lord or follower of the house of Douglas should dare to approach
within _six_ miles of the court, under pain of treason.' For this,
no authority is cited; and the historian of the Douglas family
distinctly states, 'within _twelve_ miles of the king, under pain
of death.' _Hume's House of Douglas_, vol. ii. p. 99. See also
_Diurnal of Occurrents_, p. 10: 'that nane of thame nor thair
familiaris cum neir the king be tuelf myllis.' The reason was,
that 'the said kingis grace haid greit suspicioun of the temporall
lordis, becaus thaj favourit sum pairt the Douglassis.' _Diurnal_,
p. 12.
[130] 'The Erle of Caithnes and fyve hundreth of his men wes slayne and
drownit in the see.' _Lesley's History of Scotland_, p. 141.
[131] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 203, 204.
[132] _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 324, edit.
folio, 1814.
[133] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 207.
All this was vigorous enough, and was the consequence of the Church
recovering her power. Other measures, equally decisive, were preparing.
In 1531, the king deprived the Earl of Crawford of most of his estates,
and threw the Earl of Argyle into prison.[134] Even those nobles who had
been inclined to follow him, he now discouraged. He took every
opportunity of treating them with coldness, while he filled the highest
offices with their rivals, the clergy.[135] Finally, he, in 1532, aimed
a deadly blow at their order, by depriving them of a large part of the
jurisdiction which they were wont to exercise in their own country, and
to the possession of which they owed much of their power. At the
instigation of the Archbishop of Glasgow, he established what was called
the College of Justice, in which suits were to be decided, instead of
being tried, as heretofore, by the barons, at home, in their castles. It
was ordered that this new tribunal should consist of fifteen judges,
eight of whom must be ecclesiastics; and to make the intention still more
clear, it was provided that the president should invariably be a
clergyman.[136]
[134] _Tytler_, vol. iv. p. 212.
[135] 'His preference of the clergy to the temporal lords disgusted these
proud chiefs.' _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 230.
See also p. 236. His reasons are stated by himself, in a curious
letter, which he wrote so late as 1541, to Henry VIII. 'We
persaif,' writes James, 'be zoure saidis writingis yat Ze ar
informyt yat yair suld be sum thingis laitlie attemptat be oure
kirkmen to oure hurte and skaith, and contrar oure mynde and
plesure. We can nocht understand, quhat suld move Zou to beleif
the samyn, assuring Zou _We have nevir fund bot faithfull and trew
obedience of yame at all tymes_, nor yai seik nor attemptis
nouthir jurisdictioun nor previlegijs, forthir nor yai have usit
sen the first institutioun of the Kirk of Scotland, quhilk We may
nocht apoun oure conscience alter nor change in the respect We
have to the honour and faith of God and Halikirk, and douttis na
inconvenient be yame to come to Ws and oure realme yerthrou; for
sen the Kirk wes first institute in our realme, the stait yairof
hes nevir failzeit, bot _hes remanyt evir obedient to oure
progenitouris, and in our tyme mair thankefull to Ws, nor evir yai
wer of before_.' This letter, which, in several points of view, is
worth reading, will be found in _State Papers of Henry VIII._,
vol. v. pp. 188-190, 4to, 1836.
[136] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 212, 213, and _Arnot's
History of Edinburgh_, 4to, 1788, p. 468: 'fifteen ordinary
judges, seven churchmen, seven laymen, and a president, whom it
behoved to be a churchman.' The statute, as printed in the folio
edition of 1814 (_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii.
p. 335) says 'xiiij psouñs half sp[=u]ale half temporall wt ane
president.' Mr. Lawson (_Roman Catholic Church in Scotland_,
Edinburgh, 1836, p. 81) supposes that it was the Archbishop of St.
Andrews who advised the erection of this tribunal.
This gave the finishing touch to the whole, and it, taken in connexion
with previous measures, exasperated the nobles almost to madness. Their
hatred of the clergy became uncontrollable; and, in their eagerness for
revenge, they not only threw themselves into the arms of England, and
maintained a secret understanding with Henry VIII., but many of them went
even further, and showed a decided leaning towards the principles of the
Reformation. As the enmity between the aristocracy and the Church grew
more bitter, just in the same proportion did the desire to reform the
Church become more marked. The love of innovation was encouraged by
interested motives, until, in the course of a few years, an immense
majority of the nobles adopted extreme Protestant opinions; hardly caring
what heresy they embraced, so long as they were able, by its aid, to
damage a Church from which they had recently received the greatest
injuries, and with which they and their progenitors had been engaged in a
contest of nearly a hundred and fifty years.[137]
[137] Keith, who evidently does not admire this part of the history of
his country, says, under the year 1546, 'Several of our nobility
found it their temporal interest, as much as their spiritual, to
sway with the new opinions as to religious matters.' _Keith's
Affairs of Church and State_, vol. i. pp. 112, 113. Later, and
with still more bluntness: 'The noblemen wanted to finger the
patrimony of the kirkmen.' vol. iii. p. 11.
In the mean time, James V. united himself closer than ever with the
hierarchy. In 1534, he gratified the Church, by personally assisting at
the trial of some heretics, who were brought before the bishops and
burned.[138] The next year, he was offered, and he willingly accepted,
the title of Defender of the Faith, which was transferred to him from
Henry VIII.; that king being supposed to have forfeited it by his
impiety.[139] At all events, James well deserved it. He was a stanch
supporter of the Church, and his privy-council was chiefly composed of
ecclesiastics, as he deemed it dangerous to admit laymen to too large a
share in the government.[140] And, in 1538, he still further signalized
his policy, by taking for his second wife Mary of Guise; thus
establishing an intimate relation with the most powerful Catholic family
in Europe, whose ambition, too, was equal to their power, and who made it
their avowed object to uphold the Catholic faith, and to protect it from
those rude and unmannerly invasions which were now directed against it in
most parts of Europe.[141]
[138] 'In the month of August (1534), the bishops having gotten fitt
opportunitie, renewed their battell aganest Jesus Christ. David
Stratilon, a gentelman of the House of Lawrestoune, and Mr. Norman
Gowrlay, was brought to judgement in the Abby of Halyrudhouse. The
king himself, all cloathed with reid, being present, grait pains
war taken upon David Stratoun to move him to recant and burn his
bill; bot he, ever standing to his defence, was in end adjudged to
the fire. He asked grace at the king. The bishops answred
proudlie, that "the king's hands war bound, and that he had no
grace to give to such as were by law condemned." So was he, with
Mr. Norman, after dinner, upon the 27th day of Agust, led to a
place beside the Rude of Greenside, between Leth and Edinbrug, to
the intent that the inhabitants of Fife, seeing the fire, might be
striken with terrour and feare.' _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in
Scotland_, vol. i. part i. p. 210*. Also _Calderwood's History of
the Kirk of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 106, 107.
[139] 'It appears, by a letter in the State-paper Office, that Henry
remonstrated against this title being given to James.' _Tytler's
History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 223. See also p. 258.
[140] In 1535, 'his privy council were mostly ecclesiastics.' _Ibid._
vol. iv. p. 222. And Sir Ralph Sadler, during his embassy to
Scotland in 1539-40, writes: 'So that the king, as far as I can
perceive, is of force driven to use the bishops and his clergy as
his only ministers for the direction of his realm. They be the men
of wit and policy that I see here; they be never out of the king's
ear. And if they smell any thing that in the least point may touch
them, or that the king seem to be content with any such thing,
straight they inculk to him, how catholic a prince his father was,
and feed him both with fair words and many, in such wise as by
those policies they lead him (having also the whole governance of
his affairs) as they will.' _State Papers and Letters of Sir Ralph
Sadler_, Edinb., 1809, 4to, vol. i. p. 47.
[141] _State Papers of Henry VIII._, vol. v. p. 128. _A Diurnal of
Occurrents_, p. 22. The Reverend Mr. Kirkton pronounces that the
new queen was 'ane egge of the bloody nest of Guise.' _Kirkton's
History of the Church of Scotland_, edited by Sharpe, Edinburgh,
1817, 4to, p. 7.
This was hailed by the Church as a guarantee for the intentions of the
king. And so indeed it proved to be. David Beaton, who negotiated the
marriage, became the chief adviser of James during the rest of his reign.
He was made Archbishop of Saint Andrews in 1539,[142] and, by his
influence, a persecution hotter than any yet known, was directed against
the Protestants. Many of them escaped into England,[143] where they
swelled the number of the exiles, who were waiting till the time was ripe
to take a deadly revenge. They, and their adherents at home, coalesced
with the disaffected nobles, particularly with the Douglases,[144] who
were by far the most powerful of the Scotch aristocracy, and who were
connected with most of the great families, either by old associations, or
by the still closer bond of the interest which they all had in reducing
the power of the Church.[145]
[142] 'At his return home, he was made coadjutor, and declared future
successor to his uncle in the primacy of St. Andrews, in which see
he came to be fully invested upon the death of his uncle the next
year, 1539.' _Keith's Catalogue of Scotch Bishops_, pp. 23, 24.
[143] _M'Crie's Life of Knox_, p. 20. _Spottiswoode's History of the
Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 139. _Lawson's Roman Catholic
Church in Scotland_, p. 178. _Wodrow's Collections upon the Lives
of the Reformers_, vol. i. p. 100.
[144] Tytler (_History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 241) says, that the
cruelties of 1539 forced 'many of the persecuted families to
embrace the interests of the Douglases.'
[145] It is asserted of the Douglases, that, early in the sixteenth
century, their 'alliances and power were equal to one-half of the
nobility of Scotland.' _Brown's History of Glasgow_, vol. i. p. 8.
See also, on their connexions, _Hume's House of Douglas_, vol. i.
pp. xix. 252, 298, vol. ii. p. 293.
At this juncture, the eyes of men were turned towards the Douglases, whom
Henry VIII. harboured at his court, and who were now maturing their
plans.[146] Though they did not yet dare to return to Scotland, their
spies and agents reported to them all that was done, and preserved their
connexions at home. Feudal covenants, bonds of manrent, and other
arrangements, which, even if illegal, it would have been held disgraceful
to renounce, were in full force; and enabled the Douglases to rely with
confidence on many of the most powerful nobles, who were, moreover,
disgusted at the predominance of the clergy, and who welcomed the
prospect of any change which was likely to lessen the authority of the
Church.[147]
[146] Henry VIII., 'in the year 1532, sought it directly, among the
conditions of peace, that the Douglas, according to his promise,
should be restored. For King Henry's own part, he entertained them
with all kind of beneficence and honour, and made both the Earl
and Sir George of his Privy Council.' _Hume's History of the House
of Douglas_, vol. ii. pp. 105, 106. James was very jealous of any
communication taking place between the Douglases and his other
subjects; but it was impossible for him to prevent it. See a
letter which he wrote to Sir Thomas Erskine (in _Miscellany of the
Spalding Club_, vol. ii. p. 193, Aberdeen, 1842, 4to), beginning,
'I commend me rycht hartly to yow, and weit ye that it is murmuryt
hyr that ye sould a spolkyn with Gorge and Archebald Dougles in
Ingland, quhylk wase again my command and your promys quhan we
departyt.' See also the cases of Lady Trakware, John Mathesone,
John Hume, and others, in _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in
Scotland_, vol. i. part i. pp. 161*, 177*, 202*, 243*, 247*.
[147] 'The Douglases were still maintained with high favour and generous
allowances in England; their power, although nominally extinct,
was still far from being destroyed; their spies penetrated into
every quarter, followed the king to France, and gave information
of his most private motions; their feudal covenants and bands of
manrent still existed, and bound many of the most potent nobility
to their interest; whilst the vigour of the king's government, and
his preference of the clergy to the temporal lords, disgusted
these proud chiefs, and disposed them to hope for a recovery of
their influence from any change which might take place.' _Tytler's
History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 229, 230. These bonds of
manrent, noticed by Tytler, were among the most effective means by
which the Scotch nobles secured their power. Without them, it
would have been difficult for the aristocracy to have resisted the
united force of the Crown and the Church. On this account, they
deserve special attention. Chalmers (_Caledonia_, vol. i. p. 824)
could find no bond of manrent earlier than 1354; but in Lord
Somerville's _Memorie of the Somervilles_, edit. Edinburgh, 1815,
vol. i. p. 74, one is mentioned in 1281. This is the earliest
instance I have met with; and they did not become very common till
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Compare _Hume's History of
the House of Douglas_, vol. ii. p. 19. _Somerville's Memorie of
the Somervilles_, vol. i. p. 234. _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in
Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 83. _Irving's History of Dumbartonshire_,
pp. 142, 143. _Skene's Highlanders_, vol. ii. p. 186. _Gregory's
History of the Western Highlands_, p. 126. _Kennedy's Annals of
Aberdeen_, vol. i. p. 55. _Miscellany of the Spalding Club_, vol.
ii. pp. cvi. 93, 251, vol. iv. pp. xlviii. 179. As these covenants
were extremely useful in maintaining the balance of power, and
preventing the Scotch monarchy from becoming despotic, acts of
parliament were of course passed against them. See one in 1457,
and another in 1555, respecting 'lige' and 'bandis of manrent and
mantenance,' in _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, folio,
1814, vol. ii. pp. 50, 495. Such enactments being opposed to the
spirit of the age, and adverse to the exigencies of society,
produced no effect upon the general practice, though they caused
the punishment of several individuals. Manrent was still frequent
until about 1620 or 1630, when the great social revolution was
completed, by which the power of the aristocracy was subordinated
to that of the Church. Then, the change of affairs effected,
without difficulty, and indeed spontaneously, what the legislature
had vainly attempted to achieve. The nobles, gradually sinking
into insignificance, lost their spirit, and ceased to resort to
those contrivances by which they had long upheld their order.
Bonds of manrent became every year less common, and it is doubtful
if there is any instance of them after 1661. See _Chalmers'
Caledonia_, vol. iii. pp. 32, 33. It is, however, so dangerous to
assert a negative, that I do not wish to rely on this date, and
some few cases may exist later; but if so, they are very few, and
it is certain that, speaking generally, the middle of the
seventeenth century is the epoch of their extinction.
With such a combination of parties, in a country where, there being no
middle class, the people counted for nothing, but followed wherever they
were led, it is evident that the success or failure of the Reformation in
Scotland was simply a question of the success or failure of the nobles.
They were bent on revenge. The only doubt was, as to their being strong
enough to gratify it. Against them, they had the Crown and the Church. On
their side they had the feudal traditions, the spirit of clanship, the
devoted obedience of their innumerable retainers, and, what was equally
important, that love of names, and of family associations, for which
Scotland is still remarkable, but which, in the sixteenth century,
possessed an influence difficult to exaggerate.
The moment for action was now at hand. In 1540, the government,
completely under the control of the clergy, caused fresh laws to be
enacted against the Protestants, whose interests were by this time
identical with those of the nobles. By these statutes, no one, even
suspected of heresy, could for the future hold any office; and all
Catholics were forbidden to harbour, or to show favour to, persons who
professed the new opinions.[148] The clergy, now flushed with conquest,
and greedy for the destruction of their ancient rivals, proceeded to
still farther extremities. So unrelenting was their malice, that, in that
same year, they presented to James a list containing the names of upwards
of three hundred members of the Scotch aristocracy, whom they formally
accused as heretics, who ought to be put to death, and whose estates they
recommended the king to confiscate.[149]
[148] _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. pp. 370, 371. 'That
na mañ quhats[=u]euir stait or conditiouñ he be luge
ressauve cherish nor favor ony heretike.' ... 'And alswa that na
persouñ that hes bene suspectit of heresie howbeit thai be
ressauit to p[=e]nance and grace sall in this realme exers haif
nor brouk ony honest estait degre office nor judicato^r sp[=u]all
nor t[=e]porale in burgh nor w^tout nor na salbe admittit to be
of ou[/r] counsale.'
[149] Lindsay of Pitscottie (_Chronicles_, vol. ii. p. 383) says, that
they 'devysed to put ane discord and variance betwixt the lordis
and gentlmen with thair prince; for they delaited, and gave vp to
the king in writt, to the number of thrittie scoir of earles,
lordis, and barrones, gentlmen and craftismen, that is, as thei
alledgit, wer all heretickis, and leived not after the Pope's
lawis, and ordinance of the hollie kirk; quhilk his grace sould
esteme as ane capitall cryme, to ony man that did the same' ...
'all thair landis, rentes, guidis, and geir apperteanis propperlie
to your grace, for thair contempt of our hollie father the Pope,
and his lawis, and high contempt of your grace's authoritie.' This
document was found among the king's papers after his death, when
it appeared that, of the six hundred names on the list, more than
three hundred belonged to the principal nobility: 'Eum timorem
auxerunt codicilli post regis interitum reperti, e quibus supra
trecentorum è prima nobilitate nomina continebantur.' _Buchanan_,
_Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. xv. p. 424. Compare _Sadler's
State Papers_, 1809, vol. i. p. 94; and _Watson's Historicall
Collections of Ecclesiastick Affairs in Scotland_, 1657, p. 22.
According to Watson, it 'was called the bloudy scroll.'
These hot and vindictive men little knew of the storm which they were
evoking, and which was about to burst on their heads, and cover them and
their Church with confusion. Not that we have reason to believe that a
wiser conduct would have ultimately saved the Scotch hierarchy. On the
contrary, the probability is, that their fate was sealed; for the general
causes which governed the entire movement had been so long at work, that,
at this period, it would have been hardly possible to have baffled them.
But, even if we admit as certain, that the Scotch clergy were doomed, it
is also certain that their violence made their fall more grievous, by
exasperating the passions of their adversaries. The train, indeed, was
laid; their enemies had supplied the materials, and all was ready to
explode; but it was themselves who at last applied the match, and sprung
the mine to their own destruction.
In 1542, the nobles, seeing that the Church and the Crown were bent on
their ruin, took the most decisive step on which they had yet ventured,
and peremptorily refused to obey James in making war upon the English.
They knew that the war in which they were desired to participate had been
fomented by the clergy, with the twofold object of stopping all
communication with the exiles, and of checking the introduction of
heretical opinions.[150] Both these intentions they resolved to
frustrate, and, being assembled on the field, they declared with one
voice that they would not invade England. Threats and persuasions were
equally useless. James, stung with vexation, returned home, and ordered
the army to be disbanded. Scarcely had he retired, when the clergy
attempted to rally the troops, and to induce them to act against the
enemy. A few of the peers, ashamed at what seemed a cowardly desertion of
the king, appeared willing to march. The rest, however, refused; and,
while they were in this state of doubt and confusion, the English, taking
them unawares, suddenly fell upon their disorderly ranks, utterly routed
them, and made a large number prisoners. In this disgraceful action, ten
thousand Scotch troops fled before three hundred English cavalry.[151]
The news being brought to James, while he was still smarting from the
disobedience of the nobles, was too much for his proud and sensitive
mind. He reeled under the double shock; a slow fever wasted his strength;
he sunk into a long stupor; and, refusing all comfort, he died in
December 1542, leaving the Crown to his infant daughter, Mary, during
whose reign the great contest between the aristocracy and the Church was
to be finally decided.[152]
[150] In the autumn of 1542, James 'was encouraged by the clergy to
engage in a war against King Henry, who both assured him of
victory, since he fought against an heretical prince, and advanced
an annuity of 50,000 crowns for prosecuting the war.' _Crawfurd's
History of the Shire of Renfrew_, 1782, 4to, part i. p. 48.
Compare, in _State Papers of Henry VIII._, vol. v. p. 154, a
letter written, in 1539, by Norfolk to Cromwell: 'By diverse other
waies I am advertised that the clergie of Scotlande be in such
feare that their king shold do theire, as the kinges highnes hath
done in this realme, that they do their best to bring their master
to the warr; and by many waies I am advertised that a great parte
of the temporaltie there wold their king shold followe our
insample, wich I pray God yeve hym grace to come unto.' Even after
the battle of Solway, the policy of the clergy was notoriously the
same. 'And undoubtedlie, the kyrkemen labor, by all the meanes
they can, to empeche the unitie and establishment of thiese two
realmes; uppon what groundes ye can easelie conjecture.' Letter
from Sadler to Parr, dated Edinburgh, 27th March 1543, in _State
Papers of Henry VIII._, vol. v. p. 271, 4to, 1836.
[151] 'Ten thousand Scottish troops fled at the sight of three hundred
English cavalry, with scarce a momentary resistance.' _Tytler's
History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 264.
[152] The best account of these events will be found in _Tytler's
History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 260-267. I have also consulted
_Ridpath's Border History_, pp. 372, 373. _Hollinshead's Scottish
Chronicle_, vol. ii. pp. 207-209. _Lesley's History_, pp. 163-166.
_Lindsay of Pitscottie's Chronicles_, vol. ii. pp. 399-406.
_Calderwood's History of the Kirk of Scotland_, vol. i. pp.
145-152. _Buchanan_, _Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. xiv. pp.
420, 421.
The influence of the nobles was increased by the death of James V., and
yet more by the bad repute into which the clergy fell for having
instigated a war, of which the result was so disgraceful.[153] Their
party was still further strengthened by the exiles, who, as soon as they
heard the glad tidings, prepared to leave England.[154] Early in 1543,
Angus and Douglas returned to Scotland,[155] and were soon followed by
other nobles, most of whom professed to be Protestants, though, as the
result clearly proved, their Protestantism was inspired by a love of
plunder and of revenge. The late king had, in his will, appointed
Cardinal Beaton to be guardian of the queen, and governor of the
realm.[156] Beaton, though an unprincipled man, was very able, and was
respected as the head of the national church; he being Archbishop of St.
Andrews, and primate of Scotland. The nobles, however, at once arrested
him,[157] deprived him of his regency, and put in his place the Earl of
Arran, who, at this time, affected to be a zealous Protestant, though, on
a fitting occasion, he afterwards changed his opinions.[158] Among the
supporters of the new creed, the most powerful were the Earl of Angus
and the Douglases. They were now freed from a prescription of fifteen
years; their attainder was reversed, and their estates and honours were
restored to them.[159] It was evident that not only the executive
authority, but also the legislative, had passed from the Church to the
aristocracy. And they, who had the power, were not sparing in the use of
it. Lord Maxwell, one of the most active of their party, had, like most
of them, in their zeal against the hierarchy, embraced the principles of
the Reformation.[160] In the spring of 1543, he obtained the sanction of
the Earl of Arran, the governor of Scotland, for a proposal which he made
to the Lords of the Articles, whose business it was to digest the
measures to be brought before Parliament. The proposal was, that the
people should be allowed to read the Bible in a Scotch or English
translation. The clergy arrayed all their force against what they
rightly deemed a step full of danger to themselves, as conceding a
fundamental principle of Protestantism. But all was in vain. The tide had
set in, and was not to be turned. The proposition was adopted by the
Lords of the Articles. On their authority, it was introduced into
Parliament. It was passed. It received the assent of the government; and,
amid the lamentations of the Church, it was proclaimed, with every
formality, at the market-cross of Edinburgh.[161]
[153] 'This defeat being so very dishonourable, especially to the
clergy, who stirred up the king to that attempt, and promised him
great success from it; and there being such a visible evidence of
the anger of God, fighting by his providence against them, all men
were struck with fear and astonishment; the bishops were ashamed
to show their faces for a time.' _Stevenson's History of the
Church of Scotland_, reprinted, Edinburgh, 1840, p. 30.
[154] We may readily believe the assertion of an old chronicler, that
'the nobilitie did not greatlie take his death grievouslie,
because he had fined manie, imprisoned more, and caused no small
few (for avoiding his displeasure) to flie into England, and
rather to commit themselves to the enemie than to his anger.'
_Hollinshead's Scottish Chronicle_, vol. ii. p. 210.
[155] _Hume's History of the House of Douglas_, vol. ii. p. 111.
[156] It has been often said, that this will was forged; but for such an
assertion I cannot find the slightest evidence, except the
declaration of Arran (_Sadler's State Papers_, Edinburgh, 1809,
vol. i. p. 138), and the testimony, if testimony it can be called,
of Scotch historians, who do not profess to have examined the
handwriting, and who, being themselves Protestants, seem to
suppose that the fact of a man being a cardinal, qualifies him for
every crime. There is no doubt that Beaton was thoroughly
unprincipled, and therefore was capable of the forgery. Still, we
have no proof; and the will is such as we might have expected from
the king. In regard to Arran, his affirmation is not worth the
paper it is written on: for he hated Beaton; he was himself very
unscrupulous; and he succeeded to the post which Beaton had to
vacate on the ground that the will was forged. If such
circumstances do not disqualify a witness, some of the
best-established principles of evidence are false. The reader who
cares to look further into this subject, may compare, in favour of
the will being forged, _Buchanan_, _Rerum Scoticarum Historia_,
lib. xv. p. 422, Abredoniæ, 1762; _Knox's History of the
Reformation_, edit. Laing, Edinburgh, 1846, vol. i. pp. 91, 92;
_Irving's History of Dumbartonshire_, second edition, 4to, 1860,
p. 102; and, in favour of its being genuine, _Lyon's History of
St. Andrews_, Edinburgh, 1843, vol. i. pp. 304, 305. Some other
writers on the subject leave it doubtful: _Tytler's History of
Scotland_, 1845, vol. iv. p. 274; _Lawson's Roman Church in
Scotland_, 1836, p. 99; and a note in _Keith's Church and State in
Scotland_, 1844, vol. i. p. 63.
[157] On the 26th of January 1542-3, 'the said cardinall was put in
pressoune in Dalkeith.' _A Diurnal of Occurrents_, p. 26. See
also, respecting his imprisonment, a letter written, on the 16th
of March, by Angus and Douglas, in _State Papers of Henry VIII._,
vol. v. p. 263. He was then in 'firmance.'
[158] His appointment was confirmed by Parliament on the 12th of March.
_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 411: 'tuto^r
lau^tfull to the quenis grace and gounour of this realme.' He
excluded the clergy from power. On 20th March, in the same year,
Sir Ralph Sadler writes to Henry VIII., that Sir George Douglas
'brought me into the council-chamber, where I found a great number
of noblemen and others at a long board, and divers standing, but
_not one bishop nor priest among them_. At the upper end of the
board sat the governour.' _Sadler's State Papers_, vol. i. p. 78.
[159] _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. pp. 415, 419, 424,
423*; and _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 285.
[160] 'Had become a convert to its doctrines.' _Tytler's Hist. of
Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 286. But he, as well as the other nobles,
neither knew nor cared much about doctrines; and he was, moreover,
very venal. In April 1543, Sir Ralph Sadler writes to Henry VIII.:
'And the lord Maxwell told me apart, "That, indeed, he lacked
silver, and had no way of relief but to your majesty;" which he
prayed me to signify unto the same. I asked him what would relieve
him? and he said, 300_l._; "for the which," he said, "as your
majesty seemed, when he was with your grace, to have him in more
trust and credit than the rest of your majesty's prisoners, so he
trusted to do you as good service as any of them; and amongst them
they will do you such service, as, if the war succeed, ye shall
make an easy conquest of this realm; as _for his part he shall
deliver into your hands, at the entry of your army, the keys of
the same on the west marches, being all the strongholds there in
his custody_." I offered him presently to write to my lord of
Suffolk for 100_l._ for him if he would; but he said, "he would
stay till he heard again from your majesty in that behalf."'
_Sadler's State Papers_, vol. i. p. 165.
[161] _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. pp. 415, 425.
_Sadler's State Papers_, vol. i. p. 83. Knox, in his _History of
the Reformation_ (edit. Laing, vol. i p. 100), archly says, 'The
cleargy hearto long repugned; butt in the end, convicted by
reassonis, _and by multitud of votes in thare contrare_, thei also
condiscended; and so, by Act of Parliament, it was maid free to
all man and woman to reid the Scriptures in thair awin toung, or
in the Engliss toung; and so war all Actes maid in the contrair
abolished.'
Scarcely had the nobles thus attained the upper hand, when they began to
quarrel among themselves. They were resolved to plunder the Church; but
they could not agree as to how the spoil should be shared. Neither could
they determine as to the best mode of proceeding; some being in favour of
an open and immediate schism, while others wished to advance cautiously,
and to temporize with their opponents, that they might weaken the
hierarchy by degrees. The more active and zealous section of the nobles
were known as the English party,[162] owing to their intimate connexion
with Henry VIII., from whom many of them received supplies of money. But,
in 1544, war broke out between the two countries, and the clergy, headed
by Archbishop Beaton, roused, with such success, the old feelings of
national hatred against the English, that the nobles were compelled for a
moment to bend before the storm, and to advocate an alliance with France.
Indeed, it seemed for a few months as if the Church and aristocracy had
forgotten their old and inveterate hostility, and were about to unite
their strength in one common cause.[163]
[162] Or, as Keith calls them, 'English Lords.' _History of the Affairs
of Church and State in Scotland_, vol. i. p. 80.
[163] In May 1544 the English attacked Scotland, _Tytler's History_,
vol. iv. p. 316; and in that same month, the 'Anglo-Scottish
party' consisted only of the Earls of Lennox and of Glencairn,
since even 'Angus, George Douglas, and their numerous and powerful
adherents, joined the cardinal.' p. 319. As to the part taken by
the Scotch clergy, see, in _Sadler's State Papers_, vol. i. p.
173, a letter to Henry VIII., written on the 1st of May 1543: 'And
as to the kirk-men, I assure your majesty they seek the war by all
the means they can, and do daily entertain the noblemen with money
and rewards to sustain the wars, rather than there should be any
agreement with your majesty; thinking, verily, that if peace and
unity succeed, that they shall be reformed, and lose their glory,
which they had rather die, and put all this realm in hazard, than
they would forego.' See also p. 184, note.
This, however, was but a passing delusion. The antagonism between the two
classes was irreconcilable.[164] In the spring of 1545, the leading
Protestant nobles formed a conspiracy to assassinate Archbishop
Beaton,[165] whom they hated more than any one else, partly because he
was the head of the Church, and partly because he was the ablest and most
unscrupulous of their opponents. A year, however, elapsed before their
purpose could be effected; and it was not till May 1546, that Lesley, a
young baron, accompanied by the Laird of Grange, and a few others, burst
into Saint Andrews, and murdered the primate in his own castle.[166]
[164] Buchanan records a very curious conversation between the regent and
Douglas, which, as I do not remember to have met with elsewhere, I
shall transcribe. The exact date of it is not mentioned, but, from
the context, it evidently took place in 1544 or 1545. 'Ibi cum
Prorex suam deploraret solitudinem, et se a nobilitate derelictum
quereretur, Duglassius ostendit "id ipsius culpa fieri, non
nobilium, qui et fortunas omnes et vitam ad publicam salutem
tuendam conferrent, quorum consilio contempto ad sacrificulorum
nutum circumageretur, qui foris imbelles, domi seditiosi,
omniumque periculorum expertes alieni laboris fructu ad suas
voluptates abuterentur. Ex hoc fonte inter te et proceres facta
est suspitio, quæ (quòd neutri alteris fidatis) rebus gerendis
maxime est impedimento."' _Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. xv. p.
435. Buchanan was, at this time, about thirty-eight years old; and
that some such conversation as that which he narrates actually
took place, is, I think, highly probable, though the historian may
have thrown in some touches of his own. At all events, he was too
great a rhetorician to invent what his contemporaries would deem
unlikely to happen; so that, from either point of view, the
passage is valuable as an evidence of the deep-rooted hostility
which the nobles bore towards the Church.
[165] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 337. 'The plot is
entirely unknown either to our Scottish or English historians; and
now, after the lapse of nearly three centuries, has been
discovered in the secret correspondence of the State-paper
Office.' The first suggestion of the murder was in April 1544. See
_State Papers of Henry VIII._, vol. v. p. 377, and the end of the
Preface to vol. iv. But Mr. Tytler and the editor of the _State
Papers_ appear to have overlooked a still earlier indication of
the coming crime, in _Sadler's Papers_. See, in that collection,
vol. i. p. 77, a conversation, held in March 1543, between Sir
Ralph Sadler and the Earl of Arran; Sadler being conducted by the
Earl of Glencairn. On that occasion, the Earl of Arran used an
expression concerning Beaton, the meaning of which Sir Ralph
evidently understood. '"By God," quoth he, "he shall never come
out of prison whilst I may have mine own will, _except it be to
his farther mischief_." I allowed the same well' (replied Sadler),
'and said, "It were pity, but he should receive such reward as his
merits did require."'
[166] _State Papers of Henry VIII._, vol. v. p. 560. _A Diurnal of
Occurrents_, p. 42. _Calderwood's History of the Kirk of
Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 221-223. Lindsay of Pitscottie
(_Chronicles_, vol. ii. p. 484) relates a circumstance respecting
the murder, which is too horrible to mention, and of which it is
enough to say, that it consisted of an obscene outrage committed
on the corpse of the victim. Though such facts cannot now be
published, they are so characteristic of the age, that they ought
not to be passed over in complete silence.
The horror with which the Church heard of this foul and barbarous
deed,[167] maybe easily imagined. But the conspirators, nothing daunted,
and relying on the support of a powerful party, justified their act,
seized the castle of Saint Andrews, and prepared to defend it to the
last. And in this resolution they were upheld by a most remarkable man,
who now first appeared to public view, and who, being admirably suited to
the age in which he lived, was destined to become the most conspicuous
character of those troublous times.
[167] Respecting which, two Scotch Protestant historians have expressed
themselves in the following terms: 'God admonished men, by this
judgement, that he will in end be avenged upon tyranns for their
crueltie, howsoever they strenthen themselves.' _Calderwood's
History of the Kirk of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 224. And, whoever
considers all the circumstances, 'must acknowledge it was a
stupendous act of the judgment of the Lord, and that the whole was
overruled and guided by Divine Providence.' _Stevenson's History
of the Church and State of Scotland_, p. 38.
That man was John Knox. To say that he was fearless and incorruptible,
that he advocated with unflinching zeal what he believed to be the truth,
and that he devoted himself with untiring energy to what he deemed the
highest of all objects, is only to render common justice to the many
noble attributes which he undoubtedly possessed. But, on the other hand,
he was stern, unrelenting, and frequently brutal; he was not only callous
to human suffering, but he could turn it into a jest, and employ on it
the resources of his coarse, though exuberant, humour;[168] and he loved
power so inordinately, that, unable to brook the slightest opposition, he
trampled on all who crossed his path, or stood even for a moment in the
way of his ulterior designs.
[168] Even the editor of _M'Crie's Life of Knox_, Edinburgh, 1841,
p. xxxv., notices 'the ill-timed merriment he displays in relating
the foul deed' of Beaton's murder.
The influence of Knox in promoting the Reformation, has indeed been
grossly exaggerated by historians, who are too apt to ascribe vast
results to individual exertions; overlooking those large and general
causes, in the absence of which the individual exertion would be
fruitless. Still, he effected more than any single man;[169] although the
really important period of his life, in regard to Scotland, was in and
after 1559, when the triumph of Protestantism was already secure, and
when he reaped the benefit of what had been effected during his long
absence from his own country. His first effort was a complete failure,
and, more than any one of his actions, has injured his reputation. This
was the sanction which he gave to the cruel murder of Archbishop Beaton,
in 1546. He repaired to the Castle of Saint Andrews; he shut himself up
with the assassins; he prepared to share their fate; and, in a work which
he afterwards wrote, openly justified what they had done.[170] For this,
nothing can excuse him; and it is with a certain sense of satisfied
justice that we learn, that, in 1547, the castle being taken by the
French, Knox was treated with great severity, and was made to work at the
galleys, from which he was not liberated till 1549.[171]
[169] Shortly before his death, he said, with honest and justifiable
pride, 'What I have bene to my countrie, albeit, this vnthankfull
aige will not knowe, yet the aiges to come wilbe compelled to bear
witnes to the treuth.' _Bannatyne's Journal_, Edinburgh, 1806. p.
119. Bannatyne was Knox's secretary. It is to be regretted that no
good life of Knox should have yet been published. That by M'Crie
is an undistinguishing and injudicious panegyric, which, by
provoking a reaction of opinion, has damaged the reputation of the
great reformer. On the other hand, the sect of Episcopalians in
Scotland are utterly blind to the real grandeur of the man, and
unable to discern his intense love of truth, and the noble
fearlessness of his nature.
[170] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 374, 375. _M'Crie's
Life of Knox_, pp. 27, 28. _Lawson's Roman Catholic Church in
Scotland_, p. 154. _Presbytery Displayed_, 1663, 4to, p. 28.
_Shields' Hind let loose_, 1687, pp. 14, 39, 638. In his _History
of the Reformation_, edit. Laing, vol. i. pp. 177, 180, he calls
it a 'godly fact,' and says, 'These ar the workis of our God;'
which, in plain language, is terming the Deity an assassin. But,
bad as this is, I agree with M'Crie, that there is no trustworthy
evidence for deeming him privy to the murder. Compare, however, _A
Diurnal of Occurrents_ p. 42, with _Lyon's History of St.
Andrews_, vol. ii. p. 364.
[171] _M'Crie's Life of Knox_, pp. 38, 43, 350. _Argyll's Presbytery
Examined_, 1848, p. 19.
During the next five years, Knox remained in England, which he quitted in
1554, and arrived at Dieppe.[172] He then travelled abroad; and did not
revisit Scotland till the autumn of 1555, when he was eagerly welcomed by
the principal nobles and their adherents.[173] From some cause, however,
which has not been sufficiently explained, but probably from an
unwillingness to play a subordinate part among those proud chiefs, he, in
July 1556, again left Scotland, and repaired to Geneva, where he had been
invited to take charge of a congregation.[174] He stayed abroad till
1559, by which time the real struggle was almost over; so completely had
the nobles succeeded in sapping the foundations of the Church.
[172] _M'Crie's Life of Knox_, pp. 44, 71.
[173] _Ibid._ p. 99. As to the nobles, who received him, and heard him
preach, see p. 102.
[174] 'Influenced by motives which have never been fully comprehended, he
departed to Geneva, where, for a time, he became pastor of a
Protestant congregation.' _Russell's History of the Church in
Scotland_, 1834, vol. i. p. 193. M'Crie, who sees no difficulty,
simply says, 'In the month of July 1556, he left Scotland, and,
having arrived at Dieppe, he proceeded with his family to Geneva.'
_Life of Knox_, p. 107.
For, the course of events having been long prepared, was now rapid
indeed. In 1554, the queen dowager had succeeded Arran as regent.[175]
She was that Mary of Guise whose marriage with James V. we have noticed
as one of the indications of the policy then prevailing. If left alone,
she would probably have done little harm;[176] but her powerful and
intolerant family exhorted her to suppress the heretics, and, as a
natural part of the same scheme, to put down the nobles. By the advice of
her brothers, the Duke of Guise and the Cardinal of Lorraine, she, in
1555, proposed to establish a standing army, to supply the place of the
troops, which consisted of the feudal barons and their retainers. Such a
force, being paid by the Crown, would have been entirely under its
control; but the nobles saw the ulterior design, and compelled Mary to
abandon it, on the ground that they and their vassals were able to defend
Scotland, without further aid.[177] Her next attempt was to consolidate
the interests of the Catholic party, which she effected, in 1558, by
marrying her daughter to the dauphin. This increased the influence of the
Guises,[178] whose niece, already queen of Scotland, would now, in the
ordinary course of affairs, become queen of France. They urged their
sister to extreme measures, and promised to assist her with French
troops. On the other hand, the nobles remained firm, and prepared for the
struggle. In December 1557, several of them had drawn up a covenant,
agreeing to stand by each other, and to resist the tyranny with which
they were threatened.[179] They now took the name of Lords of the
Congregation, and sent forth their agents to secure the subscriptions of
those who wished for a reformation of the Church.[180] They, moreover,
wrote to Knox, whose style of preaching, being very popular, would, they
thought, be useful in stirring up the people to rebellion.[181] He was
then in Geneva, and did not arrive in Scotland till May 1559,[182] by
which time the result of the impending contest was hardly doubtful, so
successful had the nobles been in strengthening their party, and so much
reason had they to expect the support of Elizabeth.
[175] Knox, in his savoury diction, likens her appointment to putting a
saddle on the back of a cow. 'She maid Regent in the year of God
1554; and a croune putt upone hir head, als seimlye a sight (yf
men had eis), as to putt a sadill upone the back of ane unrewly
kow.' I copy this passage from Mr. Laing's excellent edition of
_Knox's History of the Reformation_, vol. i. p. 242; but in
_Watson's Historicall Collections of Ecclesiastick Affairs in
Scotland_, 1657, p. 73, there is a slightly different version.
'"As seemly a sight," saith John Knox, in the new gospel language,
"as to put the saddle upon the back of an unruly _sow_."'
[176] The Duke of Argyll, in his _Presbytery Examined_, p. 9, calls her
'ambitious and intriguing.' Not only, however, is she praised by
Lesley (_History_, pp. 289, 290), which might have been expected,
but even Buchanan does justice to her, in a passage unusually
gracious for so Protestant and democratic a writer. 'Mors ejus
varie mentes hominum affecit. Nam et apud quosdam eorum, quibuscum
armis contendit, non mediocre sui desiderium reliquit. Erat enim
singulari ingenio prædita, et animo ad æquitatem admodum
propenso.' _Buchanan_, _Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. xvi. p.
487.
[177] _History of Scotland_, book ii. p. 91, in Robertson's Works, 1831.
_Tytler's History_, vol. v. pp. 22, 23. It appears, from Lesley
(_History_, pp. 254, 255), that some of the nobles were in favour
of this scheme, hoping thereby to gain favour. 'Albeit sum of the
lordis of the nobilitie for pleasour of the quene seamed to aggre
thairto for the tyme, yit the barronis and gentill men was nathing
content thairwith' ... 'affirming that thair foirfatheris and
predicessouris had defendit the samyn' (_i.e._ the realm) 'mony
hundreth yeris, vailyeantlie with thair awin handis.'
[178] 'It completed the almost despotic power of the house of Guise.'
_Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. v. p. 27.
[179] This covenant, which marks an important epoch in the history of
Scotland, is dated 3rd of December 1557. It is printed in
_Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland_, p. 47; in
_Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. i. pp. 326, 327; and in
_Knox's History of the Reformation_, vol. i. pp. 273, 274.
[180] In 1558, 'the lords of the congregation had sent agents through
the kingdom to solicit the subscriptions of those who were
friendly to a reformation.' _Stephen's History of the Church of
Scotland_, London, 1848, vol. i. p. 58.
[181] Keith (_Affairs of Church and State in Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 82)
calls him 'a trumpeter of rebellion,' which he undoubtedly was,
and very much to his credit too, though the courtly bishop imputes
it to him as a fault. The Scotch, if it had not been for their
rebellious spirit, would long since have lost their liberties.
[182] 'He sailed from Dieppe on the 22nd of April 1559, and landed
safely at Leith in the beginning of May.' _M'Crie's Life of Knox_,
p. 139. Knox himself says, 'the secound of Maij.' _History of the
Reformation_, edit. Laing, vol. i. p. 318. 'He was called home by
the noblemen that enterprised the Reformation.' _Spottiswoode's
History of the Church of Scotland_, edit. Russell, vol. ii.
p. 180.
Nine days after Knox entered Scotland, the first blow was struck. On the
11th of May 1559, he preached in Perth. After the sermon, a tumult arose,
and the people plundered the churches and pulled down the
monasteries.[183] The queen-regent, hastily assembling troops, marched
towards the town. But the nobles were on the alert. The Earl of Glencairn
joined the congregation with two thousand five hundred men; and a treaty
was concluded, by which both sides agreed to disarm, on condition that no
one should be punished for what had already happened.[184] Such, however,
was the state of the public mind, that peace was impossible. In a few
days, war again broke out; and this time the result was more decisive.
The Lords of the Congregation mustered in great force. Perth, Stirling,
and Linlithgow, fell into their hands. The queen-regent retreated before
them. She evacuated Edinburgh; and, on the 29th of June, the Protestants
entered the capital in triumph.[185]
[183] _Penny's Traditions of Perth_, p. 310. _Knox's History of the
Reformation_, vol. i. pp. 321-323. _Lyon's History of St.
Andrews_, vol. i. p. 329; and a spirited narrative in _Buchanan's
Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. xvi. pp. 471, 472. Some
interesting circumstances are also preserved in _Lesley's
History_, pp. 271, 272; but, though Lesley was a contemporary, he
erroneously places the riot in 1558. He, moreover, ascribes to
Knox language more inflammatory than that which he really used.
[184] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. v. pp. 59, 62, 63. Of the
Earl of Glencairn, Chalmers (_Caledonia_, vol. iii. p. 485) says,
that he was a 'religious ruffian, who enjoyed pensions from Henry
VIII., for injuring the country of his birth, and benefits.' This,
besides being ungrammatical, is foolish. Glencairn, like the other
aristocratic leaders of the Reformation, was, no doubt, influenced
by sordid motives; but, so far from injuring his country, he
rendered it great service.
[185] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. v. pp. 64-73.