1 Outline of the Relations between England and Scotland (500-1707) ^25 8 An Outline of the Relations between England and Scotland (500-1707) BY ROBERT S. RAIT FELLOW OF NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD LONDON BLACKIE & SON, Limited, 50 OLD BAILEY, E.G. GLASGOW AND DUBLIN I9OI 3SZ31 PREFATORY NOTE I desire to take this opportunity of acknowledging valuable aid derived from the recent works on Scottish History by Mr. Hume Brown and Mr. Andrew Lang, from Mr. E. W. Robertson's Scotland under her Early Kings, and from Mr. Oman's Ai'l of War. Persona! acknowledgments are due to Professor Davidson of Aberdeen, to Mr. H. Fisher, Fellow of New College, and to Mr. J. T. T. Brown, of Glasgow, who was good enough to aid me in the search for references to the Highlanders in Scottish mediaeval literature, and to give me the benefit of his great knowledge of this subject. R. S. R. New College, Oxford, April, igoi. CONTENTS Page Introduction -- ix Chap. I. Racial Distribution and Feudal Rela- tions, c. 500-1066 a.d. - - - _ I II. Scotland and the Normans, 1066-1286- 11 III. The Scottish Policy of Edward I, 1286- 1296 31 IV. The War of Independence, 1297-1328 - 41 V. Edward III and Scotland, 1328-1399 - 64 VI. Scotland, Lancaster, and York, 1400- 1500 80 VII. The Beginnings of the English Alli- \J ance, 1 500-1 542 - - - _ _ loi VIII. The Parting of the Ways, 1542-1568 - 116 IX. The Union of the Crowns, i 568-1625 - 141 V X. "The Troubles in Scotland", 1625- * 1688 - - - - - - - icy 'J XI. The Union of the Parliaments, i68g- / 1707 180 ^ Appendix A. References to the Highlanders in Mediaeval Literature - - - - 195 ,, B. The Feudalization of Scotland - - 204 ,, C. Table of the Competitors of 1290 - 214 Index - - - - - - - . - -215 INTRODUCTION The present volume has been published with two main objects. The writer has attempted to exhibit, in outline, the leading" features of the international history of the two countries which, in 1707, became the United Kingdom. Relations with England form a larg^e part, and the heroic part, of Scottish history, relations with Scotland a very much smaller part of English history. The result has been that in histories of England references to Anglo- Scottish relations are occa- sional and spasmodic, while students of Scottish history have occasionally forgotten that, in re- gard to her southern neighbour, the attitude of Scotland was not always on the heroic scale. Scotland appears on the horizon of English his- tory only during well-defined epochs, leaving no trace of its existence in the intervals between these. It may be that the space given to Scotland in the ordinary histories of England is proportional to the importance of Scottish affairs, on the whole; but the importance assigned to Anglo-Scottish relations in the fourteenth century is quite disproportionate to the treatment of the same subject in the fifteenth century. Readers X England mid Scotland even of Mr. Green's famous book, may learn with surprise from Mr. Lang or Mr. Hume Brown the part played by the Scots in the loss of the English dominions in France, or may fail to understand the references to Scotland in the diplomatic correspondence of the sixteenth cen- tury.^ There seems to be, therefore, room for a connected narrative of the attitude of the two countries towards each other, for only thus is it possible to provide the data requisite for a fair appreciation of the policy of Edward I and Henry VHI, or of Elizabeth and James I. Such a narrative is here presented, in outline, and the writer has tried, as far as might be, to eliminate from his work the element of national prejudice. The book has also another aim. The relations between England and Scotland have not been a purely political connexion. The peoples have, from an early date, been, to some extent, inter- mingled, and this mixture of blood renders necessary some account of the racial relationship. It has been a favourite theme of the English historians of the nineteenth century that the por- tions of Scotland where the Gaelic tongue has ceased to be spoken are not really Scottish, but English. '*The Scots who resisted Edward", wrote Mr. Freeman, ''were the English of ' Spanish and Venetian Calendars of State Papers. Cf. especially the reference to the succour aflForded by Scotland to France in Spanish. Calendar, i. 210. Introduction xt Lothian. The true Scots, out of hatred to the 'Saxons' nearest to them, leagued with the 'Saxons' farther ofP."^ Mr. Green, writing of the time of Edward I, says: "The farmer of Fife or the Lowlands, and the artisan of the towns, remained stout-hearted Northumbrian Englishmen", and he adds that "The coast districts north of the Tay were inhabited by a population of the same blood as that of the Low- lands".^ The theory has been, at all events verbally, accepted by Mr. Lang, who describes the history of Scotland as "the record of the long resistance of the English of Scotland to England, of the long resistance of the Celts of Scotland to the English of Scotland".^ Above all, the conception has been firmly planted in the imagination by the poet of the Lady of the Lake. "These fertile plains, that soften'd vale, Were once the birthright of the Gael; The stranger came with iron hand, And from our fathers reft the land." While holding in profound respect these illus- trious names, the writer ventures to ask for a modification of this verdict. That the Scottish Lowlanders (among whom we include the in- ^ Historical Essays, First Series, p. 71. -History of the English People, Book III, c. 5v. "^ History of Scotland, vol. i, p. 2. But, as Mr. Lang expressly repudiates any theory of displacement north of the Forth, and does not regard Harlaw in the light of a great racial contest, his position is not really incompatible with that of the present work. xii England and Scotland habitants of the coast districts from the Tay to the Moray Firth) were, in the end of the thirteenth century, " English in speech and manners" (as Mr. Oman^ guardedly describes them) is beyond doubt. Were they also English in blood? The evidence upon which the ac- cepted theory is founded is twofold. In the course of the sixth century the Angles made a descent between the Humber and the Forth, and that district became part of the English kingdom of Northumbria. Even here we have, in the evidence of the place-names, some reasons for believing that a proportion of the original Bry- thonic population may have survived. This northern portion of the kingdom of Northumbria was affected by the Danish invasions, but it re- mained an Anglian kingdom till its conquest, in the beginning of the eleventh century, by the Celtic king, Malcolm II. There is, thus, suffi- cient justification for Mr. Freeman's phrase, "the English of Lothian ", if we interpret the term "Lothian" in the strict sense; but it remains to be explained how the inhabitants of the Scot- tish Lowlands, outside Lothian, can be included among the English of Lothian who resisted Edward I. That explanation is afforded by the events which followed the Norman Conquest of ^History of England, p. 158. Mr. Ofhan is almost alone in not calling- them Eng-lish in blood. Introduction x i i i England. It is argued that the Englishmen who fled from the Normans united with the original English of Lothian to produce the result indicated in the passage quoted from Mr. Green. The farmers of Fife and the Lowlands, the artisans of the towns, the dwellers in the coast districts north of Tay, became, by the end of the thir- teenth century, stout Northumbrian Englishmen. Mr. Green admits that the south-west of Scot- land was still inhabited, in 1290, by the Picts of Galloway, and neither he nor any other exponent of the theory offers any explanation of their sub- sequent disappearance. The history of Scotland, from the fourteenth century to the Rising of 1745, contains, according to this view, a struggle be- tween the Celts and "the English of Scotland", the most important incident of which is the battle of Harlaw, in 141 1, which resulted in a great victory for "the English of Scotland". Mr. Hill Burton writes thus of Harlaw: "On the face of ordinary history it looks like an affair of civil war. But this expression is properly used towards those who have common interests and sympathies, who should naturally be friends and may be friends again, but for a time are, from incidental causes of dispute and quarrel, made enemies. The contest . . . was none of this; it was a contest between foes, of whom their contemporaries would have said that their ever xiv England and Scotland being in harmony with each other, or having a feehng of common interests and common nation- ahty, was not within the range of rational expec- tations. ... It will be difficult to make those not familiar with the tone of feeling in Lowland Scotland at that time believe that the defeat of Donald of the Isles was felt as a more memorable deliverance even than that of Bannockburn." ^ We venture to plead for a modification of this theory, which may fairly be called the orthodox account of the circumstances. It will at once occur to the reader that some definite proof should be forthcoming that the Celtic inhabi- tants of Scotland, outside the Lothians, were actually subjected to this process of racial dis- placement. Such a displacement had certainly not been effected before the Norman Conquest, for it was only in 1018 that the English of Lothian were subjected to the rule of a Celtic king, and the large amount of Scottish literature, in the Gaelic tongue, is sufficient indication that Celtic Scotland was not confined to the Highlands in the eleventh century. Nor have we any hint of a racial displacement after the Norman conquest, even though it is unquestionable that a con- siderable number of exiles followed Queen Mar- garet to Scotland, and that William's harrying of the north of England drove others over the ^ History of Scotland, vol. ii, pp. 393-394. Introduction xv border. It is easy to lay too much stress upon the effect of the latter event. The northern cou-nties cannot have been very thickly populated, and if Mr. Freeman is right in his description of "that fearful deed, half of policy, half of ven- g'eance, which has stamped the name of William with infamy ", not very many of the victims of his cruelty can have made good their flight, for we are told that the bodies of the inhabitants of Yorkshire "were rotting in the streets, in the highways, or on their own hearthstones ". Stone dead left no fellow to colonize Scotland. We find, therefore, only the results and not the process of this racial displacement. These re- sults were the adoption of English manners and the English tongue, and the growth of English names, and we wish to suggest that they may find an historical explanation which does not involve the total disappearance of the Scottish farmer from Fife, or of the Scottish artisan from Aberdeen. Before proceeding to a statement of the ex- planation to which we desire to direct the reader's attention, it may be useful to deal briefly with the questions relating to the spoken language of Lowland Scotland and to its place- names. The fact that the lano-uag-e of the Angles and Saxons completely superseded, in England, the tongue of the conquered Britons, xvi England and Scotland is admitted to be a powerful argument for the view that the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England resulted in a racial displacement. But the argu- ment cannot be transferred to the case of the Scottish Lowlands, where, also, the English language has completely superseded a Celtic tongue. For, in the first case, the victory is that of the language of a savage people, known to be in a state of actual warfare, and it is a victory which follows as an immediate result of conquest. In Scotland, the victory of the Eng- lish tongue (outside the Lothians) dates from a relatively advanced period of civilization, and it is a victory won, not by conquest or bloodshed, but by peaceful means. Even in a case of conquest, change of speech is not conclusive evidence of change of race {e.g. the adoption of a Romance tongue by the Gauls); much less is it decisive in such an instance as the adoption of English by the Lowlanders of Scotland. In striking contrast to the case of England, the victory of the Anglo-Saxon speech in Scotland did not include the adoption of English place- names. The reader will find the subject fully dis- cussed in the valuable work by the Reverend J. B. Johnston, entitled Place-Names of Scotla^id. '* It is impossible", says Mr. Johnston, "to speak with strict accuracy on the point, but Celtic names in Scotland must outnumber all Introduction xvii the rest by nearly ten to one." Even in coun- ties where the GaeHc tongue is now quite obsolete {e.g. in Fife, in Forfar, in the Mearns, and in parts of Aberdeenshire), the place-names are almost entirely Celtic. The region where Eng- lish place-names abound is, of course, the Lothians; but scarcely an English place-name is definitely known to have existed, even in the Lothians, before the Norman Conquest, and, even in the Lothians, the English tongue never affected the names of rivers and mountains. In many instances, the existence of a place-name which has now assumed an English form is no proof of English race. As the Gaelic tongue died out, Gaelic place-names were either trans- lated or corrupted into English forms; English- men, receiving grants of land from Malcolm Canmore and his successors, called these lands after their own names, with the addition of the suffix -ham or -tun; the influence of English ecclesiastics introduced many new names; and as English commerce opened up new seaports, some of these became known by the names which Englishmen had given them.^ On the ^ Instances of the first tendency are Edderton, near Tain, i.e. eadar dtiin ("between the hillocks"), and Falkirk, i.e. Eaglais ("speckled church "), while examples of the second tendency are too numerous to require mention. Examples of ecclesiastical names are Laurence- kirk and Kirkcudbright, and the growth of commerce receives the witness of such names as Turnberry, on the coast of Ayr, dating from the thirteenth century, and Burghead on the Moray Firth. xviii England and Scotland whole, the evidence of the place-names corro- borates our view that the changes were changes in civilization, and not in racial distribution. We now proceed to indicate the method by which these changes were effected, apart from any displacement of race. Our explanation finds a parallel in the process which has changed the face of the Scottish Highlands within the last hundred and fifty years, and which produced very important results within the ''sixty years" to which Sir Walter Scott referred in the second title of Waver ley. ^ There has been no racial displacement; but the English language and English civilization have gradually been super- seding the ancient tongue and the ancient customs of the Scottish Highlands. The differ- ence between Skye and Fife is that the influences which have been at work in the former for a century and a half have been in operation in the latter for more than eight hundred years. What then were the influences which, between 1066 and 1300, produced in the Scottish Low- lands some of the results that, between 1746 and 1800, were achieved in the Scottish Highlands? That they included an infusion of English blood we have no wish to deny. Anglo-Saxons, in considerable numbers, penetrated northwards, ' Cf. Waverley, c. xliii, and the concluding chapter of Tales of a Grand- father. Introduction xix and by the end of the thirteenth century the Lowlanders were a much less pure race than, except in the Lothians, they had been in the days of Malcolm Canmore. Our contention is, that we have no evidence for the assertion that this Saxon admixture amounted to a racial change, and that, ethnically, the men of Fife and of Forfar were still Scots, not English. Such an infusion of English blood as our argument allows will not explain the adoption of the English tongue, or of English habits of life; we must look elsewhere for the full explanation. The English victory was, as we shall try to show, a victory not of blood but of civilization, and three main causes helped to bring it about. The marriage of Malcolm Canmore introduced two new influences into Scotland — an English Court and an English Church, and contemporaneously with the changes consequent upon these new institutions came the spread of English com- merce, carrying with it the English tongue along the coast, and bringing an infusion of English blood into the towns.^ In the reign of David I, the son of Malcolm Canmore and St. Margaret, these purely Saxon influences w^ere succeeded by the Anglo-Norman tendencies of the king's ^ William of Newburgh states this in a probably exag^gferated form when he says : — " Regni Scottici oppida et burgi ab Anglis habitari noscuntur" (LJb. II, c. 34). The population of the towns in the Lothians was, of course, English. XX England and Scotland favourites. Grants of land ^ to English and Norman courtiers account for the occurrence of English and Norman family and place - names. The men who lived in immediate dependence upon a lord, giving him their services and re- ceiving his protection, owing him their homage and living under his sole jurisdiction, took the name of the lord whose men they were. A more important question arises with regard to the system of land tenure, and the change from clan ownership to feudal possession. How was the tribal system suppressed? An outline of the process by which Scotland became a feudalized country will be found in the Appendix, where we shall also have an opportunity of referring, for purposes of comparison, to the methods by which clan-feeling was destroyed after the last Jacobite insurrection. Here, it must suffice to give a brief summary of the case there presented. It is im- portant to bear in mind that the tribes of 1066 were not the clans of 1746. The clan system in the Highlands underwent considerable develop- ment between the days of Malcolm Canmore and those of the Stuarts. Too much stress must not be laid upon the unwillingness of the people to give up tribal ownership, for it is clear from our early records that the rights of joint-occupancy * For the real significance of such grants of land, cf. Maitland, Domes- day Book and Beyond, Essay II. Introduction xxi were confined to the immediate kin of the head of the clan. "The limit of the immediate kin- dred", says Mr. E. W. Robertson,^ "extended to the third g-eneration, all who were fourth in descent from a Senior passing from amongst the joint- proprietary, and receiving, apparently, a final allotment; which seems to have been sepa- rated permanently from the remainder of the joint -property by certain ceremonies usual on such occasions." To such holders of individual property the charter offered by David I gave additional security of tenure. We know from the documents entitled " Quoniam attachia- menta ", printed in the first volume of the Acts of the Parliarnent of Scotland^ that the tribal system included large numbers of bondmen, to whom the change to feudalism meant little or nothing. But even when all due allowance has been made for this, the difficulty is not com- pletely solved. There must have been some owners of clan property whom the changes affected in an adverse way, and we should ex- pect to hear of them. We do hear of them, for the reigns of the successors of Malcolm Canmore are largely occupied with revolts in Galloway and lU Morayshire. The most notable of these was the rebellion of MacHeth, Mormaor of Moray, about 1134. On its suppression, David I ^ Scotland under her Early Kings, vol. i, p. 239. xxii England and Scotland confiscated the earldom of Moray, and granted it, by charters, to his own favourites, and es- pecially to the Anglo-Normans, from Yorkshire and Northumberland, whom he had invited to aid him in dealing with the reactionary forces of Moray; but such grants of land in no way dispossessed the lesser tenants, who simply held of new lords and by new titles. Fordun, who wrote two centuries later, ascribes to David's successor, Malcolm IV, an invasion of Moray, and says that the king scattered the inhabitants throughout the rest of Scotland, and replaced them by "his own peaceful people '.^ There is no further evidence in support of this statement, and almost the whole of Malcolm's short reign was occupied with the settlement of Galloway. We know that he followed his grandfather's policy of making grants of land in Moray, and this is probably the germ of truth in Fordun's statement. Moray, however, occupied rather an exceptional position. "As the power of the sovereign ex- tended over the west," says Mr. E. W. Robertson, "it was his policy, not to eradicate the old ruling families, but to retain them in their native pro- vinces, rendering them more or less responsible for all that portion of their respective districts which was not placed under the immediate au- thority of the royal sheriffs or baillies." As this ^ Annalia, iv. Introduction xxiii policy was carried out even in Galloway, Arg^yll, and Ross, where there were occasional rebellions, and was successful in its results, we have no reason for believing that it was abandoned in dealing* with the rest of the Lowlands. As, from time to time, instances occurred in which this plan was unsuccessful, and as other causes for forfeiture arose, the lands were granted to strangers, and by the end of the thirteenth century the Scottish nobility was largely Anglo- Norman. The vestiges of the clan system which remained may be part of the explanation of the place of the great Houses in Scottish History. The unique importance of such families as the Douglasses or the Gordons may thus be a por- tion of the Celtic heritage of the Lowlands. If, then, it was not by a displacement of race, but through the subtle influences of religion, feudalism, and commerce that the Scottish Low- lands came to be English in speech and in civili- zation, if the farmers of Fife and some, at least, of the burghers of Dundee or of Aberdeen were really Scots who had been subjected to English influences, we should expect to find no strong racial feeling in mediaeval Scotland. Such racial antagonism as existed would, in this case, be owing to the large admixture of Scandinavian blood in Caithness and in the Isles, rather than to any difference between the true Scots and *'the J xxiv Eitgland and Scotland Eng-Hsh of the Lowlands". Do we, then, find any- racial antagonism between the Highlands and the Lowlands? If Mr. Freeman is right in lay- ing down the general rule that "the true Scots, out of hatred to the ' Saxons ' nearest to them, leagued with the 'Saxons' farther off", if Mr. Hill Burton is correct in describing the red Har- law as a battle between foes who could have no feeling of common nationality, there is nothing to be said in support of the theory we have ven- tured to suggest. We may fairly expect some signs of ill - will between those who maintained the Celtic civilization and their brethren who had abandoned the ancient customs and the ancient tongue; we may naturally look for attempts to produce a conservative or Celtic reaction, but anything more than this will be fatal to our case. The facts do not seem to us to bear out Mr. Freeman's generalization. When the indepen- dence of Scotland is really at stake, we shall find the ''true Scots" on the patriotic side. Highlanders and Islesmen fought under the banner of David I at Northallerton; they took their place along with the men of Carrick in the Bruce's own division at Bannockburn, and they bore their part in the stubborn ring that encircled James IV at Flodden. At other times, indeed, we do find the Lords of the Isles involved in treacherous intrigues with the kings of Eng- Introduction xxv land, but just in the same way as we see the Earls of Doug-las engaged in traitorous schemes against the Scottish kings. In both cases alike we are dealing with the revolt of a powerful vassal against a weak king. Such an incident is sufficiently frequent in the annals of Scotland to render it unnecessary to call in racial consider- ations to afford an explanation. One of the most notable of these intrigues occurred in the year 1408, when Donald of the Isles, who chanced to be engaged in a personal quarrel about the heri- tage which he claimed in right of his Lowland relatives, made a treacherous agreement with Henry IV; and the quarrel ended in the battle of Harlaw in 141 1. The real importance of Harlaw is that it ended in the defeat of a Scotsman who, like some other Scotsmen in the South, was acting in the English interest; any further significance that it may possess arises from the consideration that it is the last of a series of efforts directed against the predominance, not of the English race, but of Saxon speech and civilization. It was just because Highlanders and Lowlanders did represent a common nation- ality that the battle was fought, and the blood spilt on the field of Harlaw was not shed in any racial struggle, but in the cause of the real English conquest of Scotland, the conquest of civilization and of speech. / xxvi England and Scotland Our argument derives considerable support from the references to the Highlands of Scotland which we find in mediaeval literature. Racial distinctions were not always understood in the Middle Ages; but readers of Giraldus Cambrensis are familiar with the strong racial feeling that existed between the English and the Welsh, and between the English and the Irish. If the Low- landers of Scotland felt towards the Highlanders as Mr. Hill Burton asserts that they did feel, we should expect to find references to the difference between Celts and Saxons. But, on the contrary, we meet with statement after statement to the effect that the Highlanders are only Scotsmen who have maintained the ancient Scottish lan- guage and literature, while the Lowlanders have adopted English customs and a foreign tongue. The words "Scots" and "Scotland" are never used to designate the Highlanders as distinct from other inhabitants of Scotland, yet the phrase " Lingua Scotica" means, up to the end of the fifteenth century, the Gaelic tongue.^ In the be- ginning of the sixteenth century John Major speaks of "the wild Scots and Islanders" as using 'There is a possible exception in Barbour's Bruce (Bk. XVIII, 1. 443) — " Then gat he all the Erischry that war intill his company, of Argyle and the His alswa". It has been generally understood that the "Erischry " here are the Scottish Highlanders; but it is certain that Barbour fre- quently uses the word to mean Irishmen, and it is perhaps more probable that he does so here also than that he should use the word in this sense only once, and with no parallel instance for more than a century. Introduction xxvii Irish, while the civilized Scots speak English; and Gavin Doug-las professed to write in Scots {i.e. the Lowland tongrue). In the course of the century this became the regular usage. Acts of the Scottish Parliament, directed against High- land marauders, class them with the border thieves. There is no hint in the Register of the Privy Council or in the Exchequer Rolls, of any racial feeling, and the independence of the Celtic chiefs has been considerably exaggerated. James IV and James V both visited the Isles, and the chief town of Skye takes its name from the visit of the latter. In the beginning of the sixteenth century, it was safe for Hector Boece, the Principal of the newly founded university of Aberdeen, to go in company of the Rector to make a voyage to the Hebrides, and, in the account they have left us of their experiences, we can discover no hint that there existed between Highlanders and Low- landers much the same difference as separated the English from the Welsh. Neither in Barbour's Bruce nor in Blind Harry's Wallace is there any such consciousness of difference, although Bar- bour lived in Aberdeen in the days before Harlaw. John of Fordun, a fellow-townsman and a con- temporary of Barbour, was an ardent admirer of St. Margaret and of David I, and of the Anglo- Norman institutions they introduced, while he possessed an invincible objection to the kilt. We xxviii England and Scotland should therefore expect to find in him some con- sciousness of the racial difference. He writes of the Highlanders with some ill-will, describing them as a "savage and untamed people, rude and independent, given to rapine, . . . hostile to the English language and people, and, owing to diversity of speech, even to their own nation".- But it is his custom to write thus of the opponents of the Anglo-Norman civil and ecclesiastical m- stitutions, and he brings all Scotland under the same condemnation when he tells us how David "did his utmost to draw on that rough and boor- ish people towards quiet and chastened manners".^ The reference to "their own nation" shows, too, that Fordun did not understand that the High- landers were a different people; and when he called them hostile to the English, he was evi- dently unaware that their custom was "out of hatred to the Saxons nearest them" to league with the English. John Major, writing in the reign of James IV (1489-15 13), mentions the differ- ences between Highlander and Lowlander. The wild Scots speak Irish; the civilized Scots use English. "But", he adds, "most of us spoke Irish a short time ago."^ His contemporary, Hector Boece, who made the Tour to the ^ Chronicle, Book II, c. ix. Cf. App. A. 2 Ibid, Book V, c. X. Cf. App. A. ^ History of Greater Britain, Bk. I, cc. vii, viii, ix. Cf. App. A. Introduction xxix Hebrides, says: ''Those of us who live on the borders of England have forsaken our own tongue and learned English, being driven thereto by wars and commerce. But the Highlanders remain just as they were in the time of Malcolm Canmore, in whose days we began to adopt English manners."^ When Bishop Elphinstone applied, in 1493, for Papal permission to found a university in Old Aberdeen, in proximity to the barbarian Highlanders, he made no sug- gestion of any racial difference between the English-speaking population of Aberdeen and their Gaelic-speaking neighbours.^ Late in the sixteenth century, John Lesley, the defender of Queen Mary, who had been bishop of Ross, and came of a northern family, wrote in a strain similar to that of Major and Boece. '' Foreign nations look on the Gaelic-speaking Scots as wild barbarians because they maintain the cus- toms and the language of their ancestors; but we call them Highlanders."^ Even in connexion with the battle of Harlaw, we find that Scottish historians do not use such ^ Scotorum Regiii Descriptio, prefixed to his " History". Cf. App. A. - Fasti Aberdonenses, p. 3. ^De Gestis Scotorum, Lib. I. Cf. App. A. It is interesting to note, as showing how the breach between Highlander and Lowlander widened towards the close of the sixteenth century, that Father James Dalrymple, who translated Lesley's History, at Ratisbon, about the beginning of the seventeenth century, wrote : " Bot the rest of the Scottis, quhome -we halde as outlawis and wylde peple". Dalrymple was probably a native of Ayrshire. / XXX England and Scotland terms in speaking- of the Highland forces as Mr. Hill Burton would lead us to expect. Of the two contemporary authorities, one, the Book of Pluscarden, was probably written by a High- lander, while the continuation of Fordun's Scoti- chronicon^ in which we have a more detailed account of the battle, was the work of Bower, a Lowlander who shared Fordun's antipathy to Highland customs. The Liber Plus car decisis mentions the battle in a very casual mannero It was fought between Donald of the Isles and the Earl of Mar; there was great slaughter: and it so happened that the town of Cupar chanced to be burned in the same year. ^ Bower assig-ns a g-reater importance to the affair;^ he tells us that Donald wished to spoil Aberdeen and then to add to his own possessions all Scotland up to the Tay. It is as if he were writing of the ambition of the House of Douglas. But there is no hint of racial antipathy; the abuse applied to Donald and his followers would suit equally well for the Borderers who shouted the Douglas battle-cry. John Major tells us that it was a civil war fought for the spoil of the famous city of Aberdeen, and he cannot say who won — only the Islanders lost more men than the civilized Scots. For him, its chief interest lay in the ferocity of the contest; ^ Liber Pliiscardensis, X, c. xxii. Cf. App. A. ^ Scoti-chronicon, XV, c. xxi. Cf. App. A. Intro due tion xxxi rarely, even in struggles with a foreign foe, had the fighting been so keen.^ The fierceness with which Harlaw was fought impressed the country so much that, some sixty years later, when Major was a boy, he and his playmates at the Grammar School of Haddington used to amuse themselves by mock fights in which they re-enacted the red Harlaw. From Major we turn with interest to the Prin- cipal of the University and King's College, Hec- tor Boece, who wrote his History of Scotland^ at Aberdeen, about a century after the battle of Harlaw, and who shows no trace of the strong feeling described by Mr. Hill Burton. He nar- rates the origin of the quarrel with much sympathy for the Lord of the Isles, and regrets that he was not satisfied with recovering his own heritage of Ross, but was tempted by the pillage of Aberdeen, and he speaks of the Lowland army as "the Scots on the other side".^ His narrative in the History is devoid of any racial feeling w hatsoever, and in his Lives of the Bishops of Aberdeen he omits any mention of Harlaw at all. We have laid stress upon the evidence of Boece because in Aberdeen, if anywhere, the memory of the "Celtic peril" at Harlaw should have survived. 1 Greater Britahiy VI, c. x. Cf. App. A. The keenness of the fight- ing is no proof of racial bitterness. Cf. the clan fight on the Inches at Perth, a few years before Harlaw. -Scotorum HistoricB, Lib. XVI. Cf. App, A. xxxii England and Scotland Similarly, George Buchanan speaks of Harlaw as a raid for purposes of plunder, made by the islanders upon the mainland.^ These illustra- tions may serve to show how Scottish historians really did look upon the battle of Harlaw, and how little do they share Mr. Burton's horror of the Celts. When we turn to descriptions of Scotland we find no further proof of the correctness of the orthodox theory. When Giraldus Cambrensis wrote, in the twelfth century, he remarked that the Scots of his time have an affinity of race with the Irish, ^ and the English historians of the War of Independence speak of the Scots as they do of the Welsh or the Irish, and they know only one type of Scotsman. We have already seen the opinion of John Major, the sixteenth-century Scottish historian and theologian, who had lived much in France, and could write of his native country from an ab extra stand-point, that the Highlanders speak Irish and are less respectable than the other Scots; and his opinion was shared by two foreign observers, Pedro de Ayala and Polydore Vergil. The former remarks on the difference of speech, and the latter says that the more civilized Scots have adopted the English tongue. In like manner English writers about ^ Rerum Scoforum Historia, Lib. X. Cf. App. A. -Top. Hib., Dis. Ill, cap. xi. Introduction xxxiii the time of the Union of the Crowns write of the Hig^hlanders as Scotsmen who retain their ancient language. Camden, indeed, speaks of the Lowlands as being Anglo-Saxon in origin, but he restricts his remark to the district which had formed part of the kingdom of Northumbria.-^ We should, of course, expect to find that the gradually widening breach in manners and language between Highlanders and Lowlanders produced some dislike for the Highland robbers and their Irish tongue, and we do occasionally, though rarely, meet some indication of this. There are not many references to the Highlanders in Scottish literature earlier than the sixteenth century. "Blind Harry" (Book VI, 11. 132-140) represents an English soldier as using, in addressing Wallace, first a mixture of French and Lowland Scots, and then a mixture of Lowland Scots and Gaelic: " Dewg-ar, gud day, bone Senzhour, and gud morn! Sen ye ar Scottis, zeit salust sail ye be; Gud deyn, dawch Lard, bach lowch, banzoch a de". In "The Book of the Howlat", written in the latter half of the fifteenth century, by a certain Richard Holland, who was an adherent of the House of Douglas, there is a similar imitation of Scottish Gaelic, with the same phrase " Bana- ^ Britannia, section Scoti. xxxiv England and Scotland chadee" (the blessing of God). This seeming-ly innocent phrase seems to have some ironical sig- nification, for we find in the Auchinleck Chronicle (anno 1452) that it was used by some Highlanders as a term of abuse towards the Bishop of Argyll. Another example occurs in a coarse "Answer to ane Helandmanis Invective", by Alexander Mont- gomerie, the court poet of James VI. The Low- land literature of the sixteenth century contains a considerable amount of abuse of the Highland tongue. William Dunbar (1460-1520), in his " Flyting" (an exercise in Invective), reproaches his antagonist, Walter Kennedy, with his High- land origin. Kennedy was a native of Galloway, while Dunbar belonged to the Lothians, where we should expect the strongest appreciation of the differences between Lowlander and High- lander. Dunbar, moreover, had studied (or, at least, resided) at Oxford, and was one of the first Scotsmen to succumb to the attractions of "town". The most suggestive point in the "Flyting" is that a native of the Lothians could still regard a Galwegian as a "beggar Irish bard". For Walter Kennedy spoke and wrote in Lowland Scots; he was, possibly, a graduate of the University of Glasgow, and he could boast of Stuart blood. Ayrshire was as really English as was Aberdeenshire; and, if Dunbar is in earnest, it is a strong confirmation of our theory that IntrodMctioii xxxv he, being ''of the Lothians himself", spoke of Kennedy in this way. It would, however, be unwise to lay too much stress on what was really a conventional exercise of a particular style of poetry, now obsolete. Kennedy, in his reply, retorts that he alone is true Scots, and that Dunbar, as a native of Lothian, is but an English thief: "In Ing-land, owle, suld be thyne habitacione, Homage to Edward Langschankis maid thy kyn". In an Epitaph on Donald Owre, a son of the Lord of the Isles, who raised a rebellion against James IV in 1503, Dunbar had a great oppor- tunity for an outburst against the Highlanders, of which, however, he did not take advantage, but confined himself to a denunciation of treachery in general. In the " Dance of the Seven Deadly Sins", there is a well-known allusion to the bag- pipes: "Than cryd Mahoun ^ for a Healand padyane; Syne ran a feynd to feche Makfadyane ^ Far northwart in a nuke.^ ^ Mahoun = Mahomet, i.e. the Devil. - The Editor of the Scottish Text Society's edition of Dunbar points out that " Macfadyane" is a reference to the traitor of the War of Indepen- dence : " This Makfadzane till Ingflismen was suorn ; Eduard gaifFhim bath Argill and Lorn". Blind Harry, VII, 11. 627-8. ^ " Far northward in a nuke" is a reference to the cave in which Mac- fadyane was killed by Duncan of Lome (Bk. VIII, 11. 866-8). xxxvi England and Scotland Be he the correnoch had done schout Erschemen so gadderit him about In Hell grit rowme they tuke. Thae tarmegantis with tag- and tatter Full lowde in Ersche begowth to clatter, And rowp lyk revin and ruke. The Devill sa devit was with thair yell That in the depest pot of Hell He smorit thame with smoke," Similar allusions will be found in the writings of Montgomerie; but such caricatures of Gaelic and the bagpipes afford but a slender basis for a theory of racial antagonism. After the Union of the Crowns, the Lowlands of Scotland came to be more and more closely bound to England, while the Highlands remained unaffected by these changes. The Scottish no- bility began to find its true place at the English Court; the Scottish adventurer was irresistibly drawn to London; the Scottish Presbyterian found the English Puritan his brother in the Lord; and the Scottish Episcopalian joined forces with the English Cavalier. The history of the seventeenth century prepared the way for the acceptance of the Celtic theory in the beginning of the eighteenth, and when philologists asserted that the Scottish Highlanders were a different race from the Scottish Lowlanders, the sugges- tion was eagerly adopted. The views of the philologists were confirmed by the experiences Introduction xxxvii of the 'Forty-five, and they received a literary form in the Lady of the Lake and in Waverley. In the nineteenth century the theory received further development owing to the fact that it was generally in line with the arguments of the defenders of the Edwardian policy in Scotland; and it cannot be denied that it holds the field to-day, in spite of Mr. Robertson's attack on it in Appendix R of his Scotland under her Early Kings. The writer of the present volume ventures to hope that he has, at all events, done something to make out a case for re-consideration of the subject. The political facts on which rests the argument just stated will be found in the text, and an Appendix contains the more important references to the Highlanders in mediaeval Scot- tish literature, and offers a brief account of the feudalization of Scotland. Our argument amounts only to a modification, and not to a complete reversal of the current theory. No historical problems are more difficult than those which refer to racial distribution, and it is impossible to speak dogmatically on such a subject. That the English blood of the Lothians, and the English exiles after the Norman Conquest, did modify the race over whom Malcolm Canmore ruled, we do not seek to deny. But that it was a modification and not a displacement, a victory J xxxviii England and Scotland of civilization and not of race, we beg" to sug'gest. The English influences were none the less strong for this, and, in the end, they have everywhere prevailed. But the Scotsman may like to think that mediaeval Scotland was not divided by an abrupt racial line, and that the political unity and independence which it obtained at so great a cost did correspond to a natural and a national unity which no people can, of itself, create. CHAPTER I RACIAL DISTRIBUTION AND FEUDAL RELATIONS C. 500-1066 A.D. Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, it has been customary to speak of the Scottish Highlanders as ''Celts". The name is singu- larly inappropriate. The word "Celt" was used by Caesar to describe the peoples of Middle Gaul, and it thence became almost synonymous with "Gallic". The ancient inhabitants of Gaul were far from being closely akin to the ancient in- habitants of Scotland, although they belong to the same general family. The latter were Picts and Goidels; the former, Brythons or Britons, of the same race as those who settled in England and were driven by the Saxon conquerors into Wales, as their kinsmen were driven into Brittany by successive conquests of Gaul. In the south of Scotland, Goidels and Brythons must at one period have met; but the result of the meeting was to drive the Goidels into the Highlands, where the Goidelic or Gaelic form of speech still remains different from the Welsh of the descend- ants of the Britons. Thus the only reason for calling the Scottish Highlanders "Celts" is that Caesar used that name to describe a race cognate with another race from which the Highlanders ought to be carefully distinguished. In none 2 England and Scotland of our ancient records is the term ''Celt" ever employed to describe the Highlanders of Scot- land. They never called themselves Celtic; their neighbours never gave them such a name; nor would the term have possessed any significance, as applied to them, before the eighteenth century. In 1703, a French historian and Biblical anti- quary, Paul Yves Pezron, wrote a book about the people of Brittany, entitled Antiquite de la Nation et de la Langue des Celtes autrement appellez Gaulois. It was translated into English almost immediately, and philologists soon dis- covered that the language of Csesar's Celts was related to the Gaelic of the Scottish Highlanders. On this ground progressed the extension of the name, and the Highlanders became identified with, instead of being distinguished from, the Celts of Gaul. The word Celt was used to describe both the whole family (including Bry- thons and Goidels), and also the special branch of the family to which Caesar applied the term. It is as if the word "Teutonic" had been used to describe the whole Aryan Family, and had been specially employed in speaking of the Ro- mance peoples. The word "Celtic" has, how- ever, become a technical term as opposed to "Saxon" or "English", and it is impossible to avoid its use. Besides the Goidels, or so-called Celts, and the Brythonic Celts or Britons, we find traces in Scotland of an earlier race who are known as Racial Distribution 3 *' Picts", a few fragments of whose language survive. About the identity of these Picts an- other controversy has been waged. Some look upon the Pictish tongue as closely allied to Scottish Gaelic; others regard it as Brythonic rather than Goidelic; and Dr. Rhys surmises that it is really an older form of speech, neither Goidelic nor Brythonic, and probably not allied to either, although, in the form in which its fragments have come down to us, it has been deeply affected by Brythonic forms. Be all this as it may, it is important for us to remember that, at the dawn of history, modern Scotland was populated entirely by people now known as "Celts", of whom the Brythonic portion were the later to appear, driving the Goidels into the more mountainous districts. The Picts, what- ever their origin, had become practically amal- gamated with the "Celts", and the Roman historians do not distinguish between different kinds of northern barbarians. In the end of the fifth century and the be- ginning of the sixth, a new settlement of Goidels was made. These were the Scots, who founded the kingdom of Dalriada, corresponding roughly to the Modern Argyllshire. Some fifty years later {c. 547) came the Angles under Ida, and established a dominion along the coast from Tweed to Forth, covering the modern counties of Roxburgh, Berwick, Haddington, and Mid- lothian. Its outlying fort was the castle of 4 England and Scotland Edinburgh, the name of which, in the form in which we have it, has certainly been influenced by association with the Northumbrian king, Edwin. ^ This district remained a portion of the kingdom of Northumbria till the tenth century, and it is of this district alone that the word ''English" can fairly be used. Even here, however, there must have been a considerable infusion of Celtic blood, and such Celtic place- names as "Dunbar" still remain even in the counties where English place-names predominate. A distinguished Celtic scholar tells us: "In all our ancient literature, the inhabitants of ancient Lothian are known as Saix-Brit, i.e. Saxo- Britons, because they were a Cymric people, governed by the Saxons of Northumbria".^ A further non-Celtic influence was that of the Norse invaders, who attacked the country from the ninth to the eighteenth century, and profoundly modified the racial character of the population on the south and west coasts, in the islands, and along the east coast as far south as the Moray Firth. Such, then, was the racial distribution of Scot- land. Picts, Goidclic Celts, Brythonic Celts, Scots, and Anglo-Saxons were in possession of the country. In the year 844, Kenneth Mac- Alpine, .King of the Scots of Dalriada, united ^ Johnston: Place-Names of Scotland, p. 102. 2 Rev. Duncan MacGregor in Scottish Church Society Conferences. Second Series, Vol. II, p. 23. Racial Distribution 5 under his rule the ancient kingdoms of the Picts and Scots, including- the whole of Scotland from the Pentland Firth to the Forth. In 908, a brother of the King of Scots became King of the Britons of Strathclyde, while Lothian, with the rest of Northumbria, passed under the over- lordship of the House of Wessex. We have now arrived at the commencement of the long dispute about the '' overlordship ". We shall attempt to state the main outlines as clearly as possible. The foundation of the whole controversy lies in a statement, "in the honest English of the Winchester Chronicle", that, in 924, "was Ead- ward king chosen to father and to lord of the Scots king and of the Scots, and of Regnold king, and of all the Northumbrians ", and also of the Strathclyde de Brythons or Welsh. Mr. E. W. Robertson has argued that no real weight can be given to this statement, for (i) "Regnold king" had died in 921; (2) in 924, Edward the Elder was striving to suppress the Danes south of the Humber, and had no claims to overlordship of any kind over the Northumbrian Danes and English; and (3) the place assigned, Bakewell, in Derbyshire, is improbable, and the recorded building of a fort there is irrelevant. The reassertion of this homage, under Aethel- stan, in 926, which occurs in one MS. of the Chronicle, is open to the objection that it de- scribes the King of Scots as giving up idolatry, more than three hundred and fifty years after 6 England mid Scotland the conversion of the country; but as the entry under the year 924 is probably in a contemporary hand, considerable weight must be attached to the double statement. In the reign of Edmund the Magnificent, an event occurred which has given fresh occasion for dispute. A famous passage in the "Chronicle" (945 a.d.) tells how Edmund and Malcolm I of Scotland conquered Cumbria, which the English king gave to Mal- colm on condition that Malcolm should be his " midwyrtha " or fellow-worker by sea and land. Mr. Freeman interpreted this as a feudal grant, reading the sense of "fealty" into " midwyrtha ", and regarded the district described as "Cum- bria" as including the whole of Strathclyde. It is somewhat difficult to justify this position, especially as we have no reason for supposing that Edmund did invade Strathclyde, and since, in point of fact, Strathclyde remained hostile to the kingdom of Scotland long after this date. In 946 the statement of the Chronicle is re- asserted in connection with the accession of Eadred, and in somewhat stronger words: — "the Scots gave him oaths, that they would all that he would ". Such are the main facts relating to the first two divisions of the threefold claim to overlordship, and their value will probably continue to be estimated in accordance with the personal feelings of the reader. It is scarcely possible to claim that they are in any way de- cisive. Nor can any further light be gained from Feudal Relations flips 7 the story of what Mr. Lang has happily termed the apocryphal eight which the King of Scots stroked on the Dee in the reign of Edgar. In connection with this "Great Commendation" of 973, the Chronicle mentions only six kings as rowing Edgar at Chester, and it wisely names no names. The number eight, and the mention of Kenneth, King of Scots, as one of the oarsmen, have been transferred to Mr. Freeman's pages from those of the twelfth - century chronicler, Florence of Worcester. We pass now to the third section of the supre- macy argument. The district to which we have referred as Lothian was, unquestionably, largely inhabited by men of English race, and it formed part of the Northumbrian kingdom. Within the first quarter of the eleventh century it had passed under the dominion of the Celtic kings of Scot- land. When and how this happened is a mystery. The tract De Northynb^^orum Comitibus which used to be attributed to Simeon of Durham, asserts that it was ceded by Edgar to Kenneth and that Kenneth did homage, and this story, elaborated by John of Wallingford, has been frequently given as the historical explanation. But Simeon of Durham in his "History"^ as- serts that Malcolm II, about 1016, wrested Lo- thian from the Earl of Northumbria, and there is internal evidence that the story of Edgar and Kenneth has been constructed out of the known ^ Hist. Dun, Rolls Series, i. 218. 8 England and Scotland facts of Malcolm's reign. It is, at all events, certain that the Scottish kings in no sense governed Lothian till after the battle of Carham in 1018, when Malcolm and the Strathclyde monarch Owen, defeated the Earl of Northum- bria and added Lothian to his dominions. This conquest was confirmed by Canute in 103 1, and, in connection with the confirmation, the Chronicle again speaks of a doubtful homage which the Scots king '*not long held", and, again, the Chronicle, or one version of it, adds an impos- sible statement — this time about Macbeth, who had not yet appeared on the stage of history. The year 1018 is also marked by the succession of Malcolm's grandson, Duncan, to the throne of his kinsman, Owen of Strathclyde, and on Malcolm's death in 1034 ^^ whole of Scotland was nominally united under Duncan L^ The consolidation of the kingdom was as yet in the future, but from the end of the reign of Malcolm II there was but one Kingdom of Scotland. From this united kingdom we must exclude the islands, which were largely inhabited by Norse- men. Both the Hebrides and the islands of Orkney and Shetland were outside the realm of Scotland. ' Duncan was the grandson of Malcolm, and, by Pictish custom, should not have succeeded. The "rig'htful" heir, an un-named cousin of Mal- colm, was murdered, and his sister, Gruoch, who married the Mormaor of Moray, left a son, Lulach, who thus represented a rival line, whose claims may be connected with some of the Highland rising's ag-ainst the descendants of Duncan, Feudal Relationships 9 The names of Macbeth and '*the gentle Dun- can " suggest the great drama which the genius of Shakespeare constructed from the magic tale of Hector Boece; but our path does not lie by the moor near Forres, nor past Birnam Wood or Dunsinane. Nor does the historian of the relations between England and Scotland have anything to tell about the English expedition to restore Malcolm. All such tales emanate from Florence of Worcester, and we know only that Siward of Northumbria made a fruitless invasion of Scotland, and that Macbeth reigned for three years afterwards. We have now traced, in outline, the connec- tions between the northern and the southern portions of this island up to the date of the Norman Conquest of England. We have found in Scotland a population composed of Pict, Scot, Goidel, Brython, Dane, and Angle, and we have seen how the country came to be, in some sense, united under a single monarch. It is not possible to speak dogmatically of either of the two great problems of the period — the racial distribution of the country, and the Edwardian claims to over- lordship. But it is clear that no portion of Scotland was, in 1066, in any sense English, except the Lothians, of which Angles and Danes had taken possession. From the Lothians, the English influences must have spread slightly into Strathclyde; but the fact that the Celtic Kings of Scotland were strong enough to annex and rule lo England and Scotland the Lothians as part of a Celtic kingdom implies a limit to Eno-Hsh colonization. As to the feudal supremacy, it may be fairly said that there is no portion of the English claim that cannot be reasonably doubted, and whatever force it retains must be of the nature of a cumulative argument. It must, of course, be recollected that Anglo- Norman chroniclers of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, like English historians of a later date, regarded themselves as holding a brief for the English claim, while, on the other hand, Scottish writers would be the last to assert, in their own case, a complete absence of bias. Scotland and the Normans li CHAPTER II SCOTLAND AND THE NORMANS X066-1286 The Norman Conquest of England could not fail to modify the position of Scotland. Just as the Roman and the Saxon conquests had, in turn, driven the Brythons northwards, so the dispossessed Saxons fled to Scotland from their Norman victors. The result was considerably to alter the ecclesiastical arrangements of the country, and to help its advance towards civili- zation. The proportion of Anglo-Saxons to the races who are known as Celts must also have been increased; but a complete de-Celticization of Southern Scotland could not, and did not, follow. The failure of William's conquest to include the Northern counties of England left Northumbria an easy prey to the Scottish king, and the marriage of Malcolm III, known as Canmore, to Margaret, the sister of Edgar the v^theling, gave her husband an excuse for inter- ference in England. We, accordingly, find a long series of raids over the border, of which only five possess any importance. In 1069-70, Malcolm (who had, even in the Confessor's time, been in Northumberland with hostile intent) con- ducted an invasion in the interests of his brother- D 12 E^igland and Scotland in-law. It is probable that this movement was intended to coincide with the arrival of the Danish fleet a few months earlier. But Malcolm was too late; the Danes had gone home, and, in the interval, William had himself superintended the great harrying of the North which made Malcolm's subsequent efforts somewhat unneces- sary. The invasion is important only as having provoked the counter-attack of the Conqueror, which led to the renewal of the supremacy con- troversy. William marched into Scotland and crossed the Forth (the first English king to do so since the unfortunate Egfrith, who fell at Nectansmere in 685). At Abernethy, on the banks of the Tay, Malcolm and William met, and the English Chronicle, as usual, informs us that the King of Scots became the ''man" of the English king. But as Malcolm received from William twelve villae in England, it is, at least, doubtful whether Malcolm paid homage for these alone or also for Lothian and Cumbria, or for either of them. There is, at all events, no question about the villae. Scottish historians have not failed to point out that the value of the homage, for whatever it was given, is suffi- ciently indicated by Malcolm's dealings with Gospatric of Northumberland, whom William dismissed as a traitor and rebel. Within about six months of the Abernethy meeting, Malcolm gave Gospatric the earldom of Dunbar, and he became the founder of the great house of March. Scotland and the Nor^nans 13 No further invasion took place till 1079, when Malcolm took advantage of William's Norman difficulties to make another harrying expedition, which afforded the occasion for the building of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The accession of Rufus and his difficulties with Robert of Normandy led, in 1091, to a somewhat belated attempt by Malcolm to support the claims of the ^theling by a third invasion, and, in the following year, peace was made. Rufus confirmed to Malcolm the grant of twelve villae^ and Malcolm in turn gave the English king such homage as he had given to his father. What this vague statement meant, it was reserved for the Bruce to determine, and the Bruces had, as yet, not one foot of Scottish soil. The agreement made in 1092 did not prevent Rufus from completing his father's work by the conquest of Cumberland, to which the Scots had claims. Malcolm's indignation and William's illness led to a famous meeting at Gloucester, whence Malcolm withdrew in great wrath, declining to be treated as a vassal of England. The customary invasion followed, with the result that Malcolm was slain at Alnwick in November, 1093. But the great effects of the Norman Conquest, ^ as regards Scotland, are not connected with strictly international affairs. They are partially racial, and, in other respects, may be described as personal. It is unquestionable that there was an immigration of the Northumbrian popu- 14 England and Scotland lation into Scotland; but the Northumbrian population were Anglo- Danish, and the north of England was not thickly populated. When William the Conqueror ravaged the northern counties with fire and sword, a considerable pro- portion of the population must have perished. The actual infusion of English blood may thus be exaggerated; but the introduction of English influences cannot be questioned. These in- fluences were mainly due to the personality of Malcolm's second wife, the Saxon princess, Mar- garet. The queen was a woman of considerable mental power, and possessed a great influence over her strong - headed and hot - tempered husband. She was a devout churchwoman, and she immediately directed her energies to the task of bringing the Scottish church into closer communion with the Roman. The changes were slight in themselves; all that we know of them is an alteration in the beginning of Lent, the proper observance of Easter and of Sunday, and a question, still disputed, about the tonsure. But, slight as they were, they stood for much. They involved the abandonment of the separate position held by the Scottish Church, and its acceptance of a place as an integral portion of Roman Christianity. The result was to make the Papacy, for the first time, an important factor in Scottish affairs, and to bridge the gulf that divided Scotland from Continental Europe. We soon find Scottish churchmen seeking learn- Scotland and the Normans 15 ing in France, and bringing into Scotland those French influences which were destined seriously to affect the civilization of the country. But, above all, these Roman changes were important just because they were Anglican — introduced by an English queen, carried out by English clerics, emanating from a court which was rapidly becoming English. Malcolm's subjects thenceforth began to adopt English customs and the English tongue, which spread from the court of Queen Margaret. The colony of English refugees represented a higher civilization and a more advanced state of commerce than the Scottish Celts, and the English language, from this cause also, made rapid progress. For about twenty-five years Margaret exercised the most potent influence in her husband's kingdom, and, when she died, her reputation as a saint and her subsequent canonization maintained and sup- ported the traditions she had created. Not only did she have on her side the power of a court and the prestige of courtly etiquette, but, as we have said, she represented a higher civilizing force than that which was opposed to her, and hence the greatness of her victory. It must, however, be remembered that the spread of the English language in Scotland does not necessarily imply the predominance of English blood. It means rather the growth of English commerce. We can trace the adoption or English along the seaboard, and in the towns, 1 6 England and Scotland while Gaelic still remained the language of the countryman. There is no evidence of any English immigration of sufficient proportions to overwhelm the Gaelic population. Like the victory of the conquered English over the con- quering Normans, which was even then making fast progress in England, it is a triumph of a kind that subsequent events have revealed as characteristically Anglo-Saxon, and it called into force the powers of adaptation and of colonization which have brought into being so great an English-speaking world. Malcolm's reign ended in defeat and failure; his wife died of grief, and the opportunity pre- sented itself of a Celtic reaction against the Anglicization of the reign of Malcolm III. The throne was seized by Malcolm's brother, Donald Bane. Malcolm's eldest son, Duncan, whose mother, Ingibjorg, had been a Dane, received assistance from Rufus, and drove Donald Bane, after a reign of six months, into the distant North. But after about six months he himself was slain in a small fight with the Mormaer or Earl of the Mearns, and Donald Bane continued to reign for about three years, in conjunction with Edmund, a son of Malcolm and Margaret. But in 1097, Edgar, a younger brother of Ed- mund, again obtained the help of Rufus and secured the throne. The reign of Edgar is important in two respects. It put an end to the Celtic revival, and reproduced the conditions ^ Scotland and the Norfnans 17 of the time of Malcolm and Margaret. Hence- forward Celtic efforts were impossible except in the Highlands, and the Celts of the Low- lands resigned themselves to the process of Anglicization imposed upon them alike by eccle- siastical, political, and commercial circumstances. ^ It saw also the beginning of an influence which was to prove scarcely less fruitful in results than the Anglo-Saxon triumph of which we have spoken. In November, iioo, Edgar's sister, Matilda, was married to the Norman King of England, Henry I, and two years later, another sister, Mary, was married to Eustace, Count of Boulogne, the son of the future King Stephen. These unions, with a son and a grandson re- spectively of William the Conqueror, prepared the way for the Norman Conquest of Scotland. Edgar died in January, 1 106-7, and his brother and successor, Alexander I, espoused an Anglo- Norman, Sybilla, who is generally supposed to have been a natural daughter of Henry I. On the death of Alexander, in 11 24, these Norman influences acquired a new importance under his brother David, the youngest son of Malcolm and Margaret. During the troubles which followed his father's death, David had been educated in England, and after the marriage of Henry I and Matilda, had resided at the court of his brother- in-law, till the death of Edgar, when he became ruler of Cumbria and the southern portion of Lothian. He had married, in 11 13-14, the 1 8 England and Scotland daughter and heiress of Waltheof, Earl of Hun- tingdon, who was also the widow of a Norman baron. In this way the earldom of Huntingdon became attached to the Scottish throne, and afforded an occasion for reviving the old question of homage. Moreover, Waltheof of Huntingdon was the son of Siward of Northumbria, and David regarded himself as, on this account, possessing claims over Northumbria. David, as we have seen, had been brought up under Norman influences, and it is under the son of the Saxon Margaret that the bloodless Norman conquest of Scotland took place. Ed- gar had recognized the new English nobility and settlers by addressing charters to all in his kingdom, "both Scots and English"; his brother, David, speaks of "French and English, Scots and Galwegians". The charters are, of course, addressed to barons and land-owners, and their evidence refers to the English and Anglo-Norman nobility. The Norman fascina- tion, which had been turned to such good account in England, in Italy, and in the Holy Land, had completely vanquished such English prepossessions as David might have inherited from his mother. Normans, like the Bruces and the Fitzalans (afterwards the Stewarts), came to David's court and received from him grants of land. The number of Norman signatures that attest his charters show that his entourage was mainly Norman. He was a very devout Church- Scotland and the Normans 19 man (a " sair sanct for the Crown" as James VI called him), and Norman prelate and Norman abbot helped to increase the total of Norman influence. He transformed Scotland into a feudal country, gave grants of land by feudal tenure, summoned a great council on the feudal xy principle, and attempted to create such a mon- archy as that of which Henry I was laying the foundations. There can be little doubt that this strong Norman influence helped to prepare the Scottish people for the French alliance; but its more immediate effect was to bring about the existence of an anti-national nobility. These great Norman names were to become great in Scottish story; but it required a long process to make their bearers, in any sense, Scotsmen. Most of them had come from England, many of them held lands in England, and none of them could be expected to feel any real diff'erence between themselves and their English fellows. During the reign of Henry I, Anglo-Norman influences thus worked a great change in Scot- land. On Henry's death, David, as the uncle of the Empress Matilda, immediately took up arms on her behalf. Stephen, with the wisdom which characterized the beginning of his reign, came to terms with him at Durham. David did not personally acknowledge the usurper, but his son, Henry, did him homage for Huntingdon and some possessions in the north (1136). In the following year, David claimed Northumber- 20 England and Scotland land for Henry as the representative of Siward, and, on Stephen's refusal, again adopted the cause of the empress. The usual invasion of England followed, and after some months of ravaging, a short truce, and a slight Scottish victory gained at Clitheroe on the Ribble, in June, 1 138, the final result was David's great defeat in the battle of the Standard, fought near Northallerton on the 22nd August, 1138. The battle of the Standard possesses no special interest for students of the art of war. The English army, under William of Albemarle and Walter I'Espec, was drawn up in one line of battle, consisting of knights in coats of mail, archers, and spearmen. The Scots were in four divisions; the van was composed of the Picts of Galloway, the right wing was led by Prince Henry, and the men of Lothian were on the left. Behind fought King David, with the men of Moray. The Galwegians made several unsuc- cessful attempts upon the English centre. Prince Henry led his horse through the English left wing, but the infantry failed to follow, and the prince lost his advantage by a premature attempt to plunder. The Scottish right made a pusillani- mous attempt on the English left, and the reserve began to desert King David, who collected the remnants of his army and retired in safety to a height above Cowton Moor, the scene of the fight. Prince Henry was left surrounded by the enemy, but saved the position by a clever Scotland and the Normans 21 stratagem, and rejoined his father. Mr. Oman remarks that the battle was " of a very abnormal type for the twelfth century, since the side which had the advantage in cavalry made no attempt to use it, while that which was weak in the all-important arm made a creditable at- tempt to turn it to account by breaking into the hostile flank. . . . Wild rushes of unmailed clans- men against a steady front of spears and bows never succeeded; in this respect Northallerton is the forerunner of Dupplin, Halidon Hill, Flodden, and Pinkie."^ The chief interest, for our purpose, attaching to the battle of the Stan- dard, is connected with the light it throws upon the racial complexion of the country seventy years after the Norman Conquest. Our chief authorities are the Hexham chroniclers and Ailred of Rivaulx^, English writers of the twelfth century. They speak of David's host as com- posed of Angli, Picti, and Scoti. The Angli alone contained mailed knights in their ranks, and David's first intention was to send these mail-clad warriors against the English, while the Picts and Scots were to follow with sword and targe. The Galwegians and the Scots from beyond Forth strongly opposed this arrangement, and assured the king that his unarmed High- landers would fio-ht better than "these French- men ". The king gave the place of honour to "^ Art of War in the Middle Ages, p. 391. 2 Cf. App. A. 2 2 England and Scotla7id the Galwegians, and altered his whole plan of battle. The whole context, and the Earl of Strathern's sneer at ''these Frenchmen", would seem to show that the " Angfli " are, at all events, clearly distinguished from the Picts of Galloway and the Scots who, like Malise of Strathern, came from beyond the Forth. It is probable that the " Angli " were the men of Lothian; but it must also be recollected both that the term included the Anglo-Norman nobility (" these Frenchman ") and the English settlers who had followed Queen Margaret, and that David was fighting in an English quarrel and in the interests of an English queen. The knights who wore coats of mail were entirely Anglo-Norman, and it is against them that the claim of the High- landers is particularly directed. When Richard of Hexham tells us that Angles, Scots, and Picts fell out by the way, as they returned home, he means to contrast the men of Lothian and the new Anglo-Norman nobility with the Picts of Galloway and the Highlanders from north of the Forth, and this unusual application of the term Angli^ to a portion of the Scottish army, is an indication, not that the Lowlanders were entirely English, but that there was a strong jealousy between the Scots and the new English nobility. The " Angli " are, above all others, the knights in mail.^ ' In the final order of battle, David seems to have attempted to briag- all classes of his subjects tog-ether, and the divisions have a political Scotland mid the Normans 23 It is not possible to credit David with any real affection for the cause of the empress or with any higher motive than selfish greed, and it can scarcely be claimed that he kept faith with Stephen. Such, however, were the difficulties of the English king, that, in spite of his crushing defeat, David reaped the advantages of victory. Peace was made in April, 11 39, by the Treaty of Durham, which secured to Prince Henry the earldom of Northumberland, as an English fief. The Scottish border line, which had successively enclosed Strathclyde and part of Cumberland, and the Lothians, now extended to the Tees. David gave Stephen some assistance in 11 39, but on the victory of the Empress Maud ^ at Lincoln, in 1141, David deserted the captive king, and was present, on the empress's side, at her defeat at Winchester, in 1141. Eight years later he entered into an agreement with the claimant, Henry Fitz- Empress, afterwards Henry H, by which the eldest son of the Scottish king was to retain his English fiefs, and David was to aid Henry against Stephen. An un- successful attempt on England followed — the last of David's numerous invasions. When he as well as a military purpose. The rig-ht wing- contained Angflo-^^orman knights and men from Strathclyde and Teviotdale, the left wing- men from Lothian and Highlanders from Argyll and the islands, and King David's reserve was composed of more knights along with men from Moray and the region north of the Forth. ^ The Empress Maud, daughter of Henry I, and niece of David, must be carefully distinguished from Queen Maud, wife of Stephen, and cousin of David, who negotiated the Treaty of Durham. 24 England and Scotland died, in 1153, he left Scotland in a position ot power with regard to England such as she was never again to occupy. The religious devotion which secured for him a popular canonization (he was never actually canonized) can scarcely justify his conduct to Stephen. But it must be recollected that, throughout his reign, there is comparatively little racial antagonism between the two countries. David interfered in an English civil war, and took part, now on one side, and now on the other. But the whole effect of his life was to bring the nations more closely together through the Norman in- fluences which he encouraged in Scotland. His son and heir held great fiefs in England,^ and he granted tracts of land to Anglo-Norman nobles. A Bruce and a Balliol, who each held possessions both in Scotland and in England, tried to prevent the battle of the Standard. Their well-meant efforts proved fruitless; but the fact is notable and significant. David's eldest son, the gallant Prince Henry, who had led the wild charge at Northallerton, predeceased his father in 1152. He left three sons, of whom the two elder, Malcolm and William, became successively kings of Scotland, while from the youngest, David, Earl of Hunt- ingdon, were descended the claimants at the ' Ailred credits Bruce with a longf speech, in which he tries to convince David that his real friends are not his Scottish subjects, but his Ang-lo- Norman favourites, and that, accordingly, he should keep on good terms with the English. Scotland and the Normans 25 first Inter-regnum. It was the fate of Scotland, as so often again, to be governed by a child; and a strong king, Henry II, was now on the throne of England. As David I had taken advantage of the weakness of Stephen, so now did Henry II benefit by the youth of Malcolm IV. In spite of the agreement into which Henry had entered with David in 1149, he, in 11 57, obtained from Malcolm, then fourteen years of age, the resignation of his claims upon Northum- berland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland. In return for this, Malcolm received a confirmation of the earldom of Huntingdon (cf. p. 18). The abandonment of the northern claims seems to have led to a quarrel, for Henry refused to knight the Scots king; but, in the following year, Mal- colm accompanied Henry in his expedition to Toulouse, and received his knighthood at Henry's hands. Malcolm's subsequent troubles were connected with rebellions in Moray and in Galloway against the new regime^ and with the ambition of Somerled, the ruler of Argyll, and of the still independent western islands. The only occasion on w^hich he again entered into relations with England was in 1163, when he met Henry at Woodstock and did homage to his eldest son, who became known as Henry III, although he never actually reigned. As usual, there is no statement precisely defining the homage; it must not be forgotten that the King of Scots was also Earl of Huntingdon. 26 England and Scotland Malcolm died in 1165, and was succeeded by his brother, William the Lion, who reigned for nearly fifty years. Henry was now in the midst of his great struggle with the Church, but William made no attempt to use the oppor- tunity. He accepted the earldom of Huntingdon from Henry, and in 11 70, when the younger Henry was crowned in Becket's despite, William took the oath of fealty to him as Earl of Hunt- ingdon. But in 1173-74, when the English king's ungrateful son organized a baronial revolt, William decided that his chance had come. His grandfather, David, had made him Earl of Northumberland, and the resignation which Henry had extorted from the weakness of Mal- colm IV could scarcely be held as binding upon William. So William marched into Eng- land to aid the rebel prince, and, after some skirmishes and the usual ravaging, was surprised while tilting near Alnwick, and made a captive. He was conveyed to the castle of Falaise in Normandy, and there, on December 8th, 11 74, as a condition of his release, he signed the Treaty of Falaise, which rendered the kingdom of Scotland, for fifteen years, unquestionably the vassal of England.^ The treaty acknowledged Henry H as overlord of Scotland, and expressly stated the dependence of the Scottish Church ' William's Eng-lish earldom ox Huntingdon, which had been torfeited, was restored, in 1185, and was conferred by William upon his brother, David, the ancestor of the claimants of 1290. Scotland and the Normans 27 upon that of England. The relations of the churches had been an additional cause of diffi- culty since the time of St. Margaret, and the present arrangement was in no sense final. A papal legate held a council in Edinburgh in 1 1 77, and ten years afterwards Pope Clement III took the Scottish Church directly under his own protection. About the political relationship there could be no such doubt. William stood, theoretically, if not actually, in much the same position to Henry II, as John Baliol afterwards occupied to Edward I. It was not till the accession of Richard I that William recovered his freedom. The castles in the south of Scotland which had been delivered to the English were restored, and the independence of Scotland was admitted, on William's paying Richard the sum of 10,000 marks. This agreement, dated December, 1189, annulled the terms of the Treaty of Falaise, and left the position of William the Lion exactly what it had been at the death of Malcolm IV. He remained liegeman for such lands as the Scottish kings had, in times past, done homage to England. The agreement with Richard I is certainly not incompatible with the Scottish position that the homage, before the Treaty of Falaise, applied only to the earldom of Huntingdon; but the usual vagueness was maintained, and the arrangement in no way determines the question of the homage paid by E 28 England and Scotland the earlier Scottish kings. For a hundred years after this date, the two countries were never at war. William had difficulties with John; in 1209, an outbreak of hostilities seemed almost certain, but the two kings came to terms. The long reign of William came to an end in 12 14. His son and successor, Alexander II, joined the French party in England which was defeated at Lincoln in 12 16. Alexander made peace with the regent, resigned all claims to North- umberland, and did homage for his English possessions — the most important of which was the earldom of Huntingdon, which had, since 1190, been held by his uncle, David, known as David of Huntingdon. In 1221, he married Joanna, sister of Henry III. Another marriage, nego- tiated at the same time, was probably of more real importance. Margaret, the eldest daughter of William the Lion, became the w^ife of the Justiciar of England, Hubert de Burgh. Mr. Hume Brown has pointed out that immediately on the fall of Hubert de Burgh, a dispute arose between Henry and Alexander. The English king desired Alexander to acknowledge the Treaty of Falaise, and this Alexander refused to do. The agreement, which averted an appeal to the sword, was, on the whole, favourable to Scotland. Nothing was said about homage for this kingdom. David of Huntingdon had died in 1 1 19, and Alexander gave up the southern earldom, but received a fief in the northern Scotland and the Nornnans 29 counties, always coveted of the kings of Scotland. This arrangement is known as the Treaty of York (1236). Some trifling incidents and the second marriage of Alexander, which brought Scotland into closer touch with France (he married Marie, daughter of Enguerand de Coucy), nearly pro- voked a rupture in 1242, but the domestic troubles of Henry and Alexander alike prevented any breach of the long peace which had subsisted since the capture of William the Lion. In 1249, the Scottish king died, and his son and suc- cessor,^ Alexander III, was knighted by Henry of England, and, in 1251, married Margaret, Henry's eldest daughter. The relations of Alexander to Henry III and to Edward I will be narrated in the following chapter. Not once throughout his reign was any blood spilt in an English quarrel, and the story of his reign forms no part of our subject. Its most inter- esting event is the battle of Largs. The Scottish kings had, for. some time, been attempting to annex the islands, and, in 1263, Hakon of Norway invaded Scotland as a retributive mea- ^As Alexander III was the last kingf of Scotland who ruled before the War of Independence, it is interesting to note that he was crowned at Scone with the ancient ceremonies, and as the representative of the Celtic kings of Scotland. Fordun tells us that the coronation took place on the sacred stone at Scone, on which all Scottish kings had sat, and that a Highlander appeared and read Alexander's Celtic genealogy (Annals XLVIII. Cf. App. A). There is no indication that Alexander's subjects, from the Forth to the Moray Firth, were "stout Northumbrian EngUshmen", who had, for no good reason, drifted away from their English countrymen, to unite them with whom Edward I waged his Scottish wars. 30 Euglatid and Scotland sure. He was defeated at the battle of Largs, and, in 1266, the Isles were annexed to the Scottish crown. The fact that this forcible annexation took place, after a struggle, only- twenty years before the death of Alexander III, must be borne in mind in connection with the part played by the Islanders in the War of Independence. The Scottish Policy of Edward I 31 CHAPTER III THE SCOTTISH POLICY OF EDWARD I I 286-1 296 When Alexander III was killed, on the 19th March, 1285-86, the relations between England and Scotland were such that Edward I was amply justified in looking forward to a permanent union. Since the ill-fated invasion of William the Lion in 11 74, there had been no serious war- fare between the two countries, and in recent years they had become more and more friendly in their dealings with each other. The late king had married Edward's sister, Margaret, and the child-queen was her grand-daughter; Alexander and Margaret had been present at the English King's coronation in 1274; and, in addition to these personal connections, Scotland had found England a friend in its great final struggle with the Danes. The misfortunes which had over- taken Scotland in the premature deaths^ of Alexander and his three children might yet prove a very real blessing, if they prepared the way for the creation of a great island kingdom, which * David, the young-est child of Alexander and Marg-aret of England, died in June, 1281 ; Alexander, his older brother, in January, 1283-84; and their sister, Margaret, Queen of Norway, in April, 1283. Neither Alexander nor David left any issue, and the little daughter of the Queen of Norway was only about three years old when her grandfather, Alexander III, was killed. 32 England and Scotland should be at once free and united. The Httle Margaret, the Maid of Norway, Edward's grand- niece, had been acknowledged heir to the throne of her grandfather, in February, 1283-84, and on his death her succession was admitted. The Great Council met at Scone in April, 1286, and appointed six Guardians of the Kingdom. It was no easy task which was entrusted to them, for the claim of a child and a foreigner could not but be disputed by the barons who stood nearest to the throne. The only rival who attempted to rebel was Robert Bruce of Annandale, who had been promised the succession by Alexander II, and had been disappointed of the fulfilment of his hopes by the birth of the late king in 1241. The deaths of two of the guardians added to the difficulties of the situation, and it was with some- thing like relief that the Scots heard that Eric of Norway, the father of their queen, wished to come to an arrangement with Edward of Eng- land, in whose power he lay. The result of Eric's negotiations with Edward was that a con- ference met at Salisbury in 1289, and was attended, on Edward's invitation, by four Scot- tish representatives, who included Robert Bruce and three of the guardians. Such were the troubles of the country that the Scots willingly acceded to Edward's proposals, which gave him an interest in the government of Scotland, and they heard with delight that he contemplated the marriage of their little queen to his son Edward, The Scottish Policy of Edward I t^t^ then two years of age. The English king was assured of the satisfaction which such a marriage would give to Scotland, and the result was that, by the Treaty of Brigham, in 1290, the marriage was duly arranged. Edward had previously obtained the necessary dispensation from the pope. The eagerness with which the Scots welcomed the proposal of marriage was sufficient evidence that the time had come for carrying out Edward's statesmanlike scheme, but the conditions which were annexed to it should have warned him that there were limits to the Scottish com- pliance with his wishes. Scotland was not in any way to be absorbed by England, although the crowns would be united in the persons of Edward and Margaret. Edward wisely made no attempt to force Scotland into any more com- plete union, although he could not but expect that the union of the crowns would prepare the way for a union of the kingdoms. He certainly interpreted in the widest sense the rights given him by the treaty of Brigham, but when the Scots objected to his demand that all Scottish castles should be placed in his power, he gave way without rousing further suspicion or indignation. Hitherto, his policy had been characterized by the great sagacity which he had shown in his conduct of English affairs; it is impossible to refuse either to sympathize with his ideals or to admire the tact he displayed in his negotiations 34 England and Scotland with Scotland. His considerateness extended even to the little Maid of Norway, for whose benefit he victualled, with raisins and other fruit, the 'Marge ship" which he sent to conduct her to England. But the large ship returned to Eng- land with a message from King Eric that he would not entrust his daughter to an English vessel. The patient Edward sent it back again, and it was probably in it that the child set sail in September, 1290. Some weeks latei', Bishop Eraser of St. Andrews, one of the guardians, and a supporter of the English interest, wrote to Edward that he had heard a "sorrowful rumour" regarding the queen. ^ The rumour proved to be well-founded; in circumstances which are unknown to us, the poor girl-queen died on her voyage, and her death proved a fatal blow to the work on which Edward had been engaged for the last four years. Of the thirteen ^ competitors who put forward claims to the crown, only three need be here mentioned. They were each descended from David, Earl of Huntingdon, brother of William the Lion and grandson of David I. The claim- ant who, according to the strict rules of primo- geniture, had the best right was John Balliol, the grandson of Margaret, the eldest daughter of Earl David. His most formidable opponent was Robert Bruce of Annandale, the son of Earl 1 Nat. MSS. i. 36, No. LXX. 2 Cf. Table, App. C. The Scottish Policy of Edward I 35 David's second daug-hter, Isabella, who based his candidature on the fact that he was the grandson, whereas Balliol was the great-grandson, of the Earl of Huntingdon, through whom both the rivals claimed. The third, John Hastings, was the grandson of David's youngest daughter, Ada. Bishop Fraser, in the letter to which we have already referred, urged Edward I to interfere in favour of John Balliol, who might be em- ployed to further English interests in Scotland. The English king thereupon decided to put forward a definite claim to be lord paramount, and, in virtue of that right, to decide the dis- puted succession. Since Richard I had restored his independence to William the Lion, in 1189, the question of the overlordship had lain almost entirely dormant. On John's succession, William had done homage "saving his own right", but whether the homage was for Scotland or solely for his English fiefs was not clear. His successor, Alexander H, aided Louis of France against the infant Henry HI, and, after the battle of Lincoln, came to an agreement with the regent, by which he did homage to Henry HI, but only for the earldom of Huntingdon and his other possessions in Henry's kingdom. After the fall of Hubert de Burgh, Henry used his influence with Pope Gregory IX, who looked upon the English king as a valuable ally in the great struggle with Frederick II, to persuade the pope to order the o 6 England and Scotland Kingr of Scots to acknowledge Henry as his over- lord (1234). Alexander refused to comply with the papal injunction, and the matter was not definitely settled. Henry made no attempt to enforce his claim, and merely came to an agree- ment with Alexander regarding the English possessions of the Scottish king (1236). During the minority of Alexander HI, when Henry was, for two years, the real ruler of Scotland (1255- 1257), he described himself not as lord para- mount, but as chief adviser of the Scottish king. Lastly, when, in 1278, Alexander HI took a solemn oath of homage to Edward at West- minster, he, according to the Scottish account of the affair, made an equally solemn avowal that to God alone was his homage due for the kingdom of Scotland, and Edward had accepted the homage thus rendered. It is thus clear that Edward regarded the claim of the overlordship as a "trump card" to be played only in special circumstances, and these appeared now to have arisen. The death of the Maid of Norway had deprived him of his right to interfere in the affairs of Scotland, and had de- stroyed his hopes of a marriage alliance. It seemed to him that all hope of carrying out his Scottish policy had vanished, unless he could take advantage of the helpless condition of the country to obtain a full and final recognition of a claim which had been denied for exactly a hundred years. At first it seemed as if the The Scottish Policy of Edward I 37 scheme were to prove satisfactory. The Norman nobles who claimed the throne declared, after some hesitation, their willingness to acknowledge Edward's claim to be lord paramount, and the English king was therefore arbiter of the situa- tion. He now obtained what he had asked in vain in the preceding year — the delivery into English hands of all Scottish strongholds (June, 1 291). Edward delayed his decision till the 17th November, 1292, when, after much disputation regarding legal precedents, and many consul- tations with Scottish commissioners and the English Parliament, he finally adjudged the crown to John Balliol. It cannot be argued that the decision was unfair; but Edward was fortunate in finding that the candidate whose hereditary claim was strongest was also the man most fitted to occupy the position of a vassal king. The new monarch made a full and in- disputable acknowledgment of his position as Edward's liege, and the great seal of the king- dom of Scotland was publicly destroyed in token of the position of vassalage in which the country now stood. Of what followed it is difficult to speak with any certainty. Balliol occupied the throne for three and a half years, and was en- gaged, during the whole of that period, in dis- putes with his superior. The details need not detain us. Edward claimed to be final judge in all Scottish cases; he summoned Balliol to his court to plead against one of the Scottish ^S Englmid and Scotland king's own vassals, and to receive instructions with regard to the raising of money for Edward's needs. It may fairly be said that Edward's treat- ment of Balliol does give grounds for the view of Scottish historians that the English king was determined, from the first, to goad his wretched vassal into rebellion in order to give him an opportunity of absorbing the country in his English kingdom. On the other hand, it may be argued that, if this was Edward's aim, he was singularly unfortunate in the time he chose for forcing a crisis. He was at war with Philip IV of France; Madoc was raising his Welsh rebellion ; and Edward's seizure of wool had created much indignation among his own sub- jects. However this may be, it is certain that Balliol, rankling with a sense of injustice caused by the ignominy which Edward had heaped upon him, and rendered desperate by the complaints of his own subjects, decided, by the advice of the Great Council, to disown his allegiance to the King of England, and to enter upon an alliance with France. It is noteworthy that the policy of the French alliance, as an anti-English move- ment, which became the watchword of the patriotic party in Scotland, was inaugurated by John Balliol. The Scots commenced hos- tilities by some predatory incursions into the northern counties of England in 1295-96. Whether or not Edward was waiting for the opportunity thus given him, he certainly took The Scottish Policy of Edzvard J 39 full advantage of it. Undisturbed by his num- erous difficulties, he marched northwards to the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed. Tradition tells that he was exasperated by insults showered upon him by the inhabitants, but the story can- not g"o far to excuse the massacre which followed the capture of the town. After more than a century of peace, the first important act of war was marked by a brutality which was a fitting prelude to more than two centuries of fierce and bloody fighting. On Edward's policy of "Tho- rough ", as exemplified at Berwick, must rest, to some extent, the responsibility for the unne- cessary ferocity which distinguished the Scottish War of Independence. It was, from a military stand-point, a complete and immediate success; politically, it was unquestionably a failure. From Berwick-on-Tweed Edward marched to Dunbar, cheered by the formal announcement of Balliol's renunciation of his allegiance. He easily defeated the Scots at Dunbar, in April, 1296, and continued an undisturbed progress through Scotland, the castles of Dunbar, Rox- burgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling falling into his hands. Balliol determined to submit, and, on the 7th July, 1296, he met Edward in the churchyard of Stracathro, near Brechin, and formally resigned his office into the hands of his overlord. Balliol was imprisoned in Eng- land for three years, but, in July, 1299, he was permitted to go to his estate of Bailleul, _j.o England and Scotland in Normandy, where he survived till April, Edward now treated Scotland as a conquered country under his own immediate rule. He con- tinued his progress, by Aberdeen, BanflF, and Cullen, to Elgin, whence, in July, 1296, he marched southwards by Scone, whence he carried off the Stone of Fate, which is now part of the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey. He also despoiled Scotland of many of its early records, which might serve to remind his new subjects of their forfeited independence. He did not at once determine the new constitution of the country, but left it under a military occu- pation, with John de Warrenne, Earl of Surrey, as Governor, Hugh de Cressingham as Treasurer, and William Ormsby as Justiciar. All castles and other strong places were in English hands, and Edward regarded his conquest as assured. The War of Independence 41 CHAPTER IV THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 1297-1328 Edward I had failed to recog-nize the difference between the Scottish barons and the Scottish people, to which we have referred in a former chapter. To the Norman baron, who possessed lands in England and Scotland alike, it mattered little that he had now but one liege lord instead of two suzerains. To the people of Scotland, proud and high-spirited, tenacious of their long traditions of independence, resentful of the pre- sence of foreigners, it could not but be hateful to find their country governed by a foreign soldiery. The conduct of Edward's officials, and especially of Cressingham and Ormsby, and the cruelty of the English garrisons, served to strengthen this national feeling, and it only remained for it to find a leader round whom it might rally. ^ A leader arose in the person of Sir William Wallace, a heroic and somewhat mysterious figure, who first attracted notice in ^ There is no indication of any racial division in the attitude of the Scots. Some Highlanders, from various personal causes, are found on the English side at the beginning of the War of Independence; but Mr. Lang has shown that of the descendants of Somerled of Argyll, the ancestor of the Lords of the Isles, only one fought against Wallace, while the Celts of Moray and Badenach and the Highland districts of Aberdeenshire, joined his standard. The behaviour of the Highland _j.2 E^igland and Scotland the autumn of 1296, and, by the spring of the following year, had gathered round him a band of guerilla warriors, by whose help he was able to make serious attacks upon the English gar- risons of Lanark and Scone (May, 1297). These exploits, of little importance in themselves, sufficed to attract the popular feeling towards Wallace. The domestic difficulties of Edward I rendered the time opportune for a rising, and, despite the failure of an ill-conceived and badly- managed attempt on the part of some of the more patriotic barons, which led to the submission of Irvine, in 1297, the little army which Wallace had collected rapidly grew in courage and in numbers, and its leader laid siege to the castle of Dundee. He had now attained a position of such importance that Surrey and Cressingham found it necessary to take strong measures against him, and they assembled at Stirling, whither Wallace marched to meet them. The battle of Stirling Bridge (or, more strictly, Cambuskenneth Bridge) was fought on September nth, 1297. Wallace, with his army of knights and spearmen, took up his position on the Abbey Craig, with the Forth between him and the English. Less than a mile from the Scottish camp was a small bridge over the river, giving access to the Abbey chiefs is similar to that of the Lowland barons. If there is any racial feeling at all, it is not Celtic v. Saxon, but Scandinavian v. Scottish, and it is connected with the recent conquest of the Isles. But even of this there is little trace, and the behaviour of the Islesmen is, on the whole, marvellously loyal. The War of Independence 43 of Cambuskenneth. Surrey rashly attempted to cross this bridge, in the face of the Scots, and Wallace, after a considerable number of the enemy had been allowed to reach the northern bank, ordered an attack. The English failed to keep the bridge, and their force became divided. Surrey was unable to offer any assist- ance to his vanguard, and they fell an easy prey to the Scots, while the English general, with the remnants of his army, retreated to Berwick. Stirling was the great military key of the country, commanding all the passes from south to north, and the great defeat which the English had sustained placed the country in the power of Wallace. Along with an Andrew de Moray, of whose identity we know nothing, he undertook the government of the country, corresponded in the name of Scotland with Liibeck and Hamburg, and took the offensive against England in an expedition which ravaged as far south as Hex- ham. To the great monastery of Hexham he granted protection in the name of "the leaders of the army of Scotland 'V although he was not successful in restraining the ferocity of his fol- lowers. The document in question is granted in the name of John, King of Scotland, and in a charter dated March 1298,^ Wallace describes himself as Guardian of the Kingdom of Scotland, acting for the exiled Balliol. In the following ^ Hemingburg-h, ii, 141-147. ^ Diplomata Scotice, xliii, xliv. 44 England and Scotland summer, Edward marched into Scotland, and although his forces were in serious difficulties from want of food, he went forward to meet Wallace, who held a strong position at Falkirk. Wallace prepared to meet Edward by drawing up his spearmen in four great " schiltrons " or divisions, with a reserve of cavalry. His flanks were protected by archers, and he had also placed archers between the divisions of spearmen. On the English side, Edward himself commanded the centre, the Earls of Norfolk and Hereford the right, and the Bishop of Durham the left. The Scottish defeat was the result of a com- bination of archers and cavalry. The first attack of the English horse was completely repulsed by the spearmen. "The front ranks", says Mr. Oman, "knelt with their spear-butts fixed in the earth ; the rear ranks levelled their lances over their comrades' heads; the thick-set grove of twelve-foot spears was far too dense for the cavalry to penetrate." But Edward withdrew the cavalry and ordered the archers to send a shower of arrows on the Scots. Wallace's cavalry made no attempt to interfere with the archers; the Scottish bowmen were too few to retaliate; and, when the English horse next charged, they found many weak points in the schiltrons, and broke up the Scottish host. As the battle of Stirling had created the power of Wallace, so that of Falkirk completely de- stroyed it. He almost immediately resigned his The War of Independence 45 office of guardian (mainly, according to tradition, because of the jealousy with which the great barons regarded him), and took refuge in France. Edward was still in the midst of difficulties, both foreign and domestic, and he was unable to reduce the country. The Scots elected new guardians, who regarded themselves as regents, not for Edward but for Balliol. They included John Comyn and Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick, the future king. The guardians were successful in persuading both Philip IV of France and Pope Boniface VIII to intervene in their favour, but Edward disregarded the papal interference, and though he was too busy to complete his conquest, he sent an army into Scotland in each of the years 1300, 1301, and 1302. Military operations were almost entirely confined to ravaging; but, in February 1302-3, Comyn completely defeated at Rosslyn, near Edinburgh, an English army under Sir John Segrave and Ralph de Manton, whom Edward had ordered to make a foray in Scotland about the beginning of Lent. In the summer of 1303, the English king, roused per- haps by this small success, and able to give his undivided attention to Scotland, conducted an invasion on a larger scale. In September, he traversed the country as far north as Elgin, and, remaining in Scotland during the winter of 1303-4, he set to work in the spring to reduce the castle of Stirling, which still held out against him. When the garrison surren- 46 England and Scotland dered, in July, 1304, Scotland lay at Edward's feet. Comyn had already submitted to the English king, and Edward's personal vindictive- ness was satisfied by the capture of Wallace by Sir John Menteith, a Scotsman who had been acting in the English interest. Wallace was taken to London, subjected to a mock trial, tortured, and put to death with ignominy. On the 23rd August, 1305, his head was placed on London Bridge, and portions of his body were sent to Scotland. His memory served as an inspiration for the cause of freedom, and it is held in just reverence to the present hour. If it is true that he did not scruple to go beyond what we should regard as the limits of honourable warfare, it must be remembered that he was fighting an enemy who had also disregarded these limits, and much may be forgiven to brave men who are resisting a gratuitous war of conquest. When he died, his work seemed to have failed. But he had shown his countrymen how to resist Edward, and he had given sufficient evidence of the strength of national feeling, if only it could find a suitable leader. The English had to learn the lesson which, five centuries later. Napoleon had to learn in Spain, and Scotland cannot forget that Wallace was the first to teach it. It is not less pathetic to turn to Edward's scheme for the government of Scotland. It bears the impress of a mind which was that of The War of Independence 47 a statesman and a lawyer as we)I as a soldier. It is impossible to deny a tribute of admiration to its wisdom, or to question the probability of its success in other circumstances. Had the course of events been more propitious for Edward's great plan, Scotland and England might have been spared much suffering. But Edward failed to realize that the Scots could no longer regard him as the friend and ally to whose son they had willingly agreed to marry their queen. He was now but a military con- queror in temporary possession of their country, an enemy to be resisted by any means. The new constitution was foredoomed to failure. Carry- ing out his scheme of 1296, Edward created no vassal-king, but placed Scotland under his own nephew, John of Brittany; he interfered as little as might be with the customs and laws of the country; he placed over it eight justiciars with sheriffs under them. In 1305, Edward's Parliament, which met at London, was attended by Scottish representatives. The incorporation of the country with its larger neighbour was complete, but it involved as little change as was possible in the circumstances. The Parliament of 1305 was attended by Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick, who attended not as a representative of Scotland, but as an English lord. Bruce was the grandson of the Robert Bruce of Annandale who had been promised the crown by Alexander II, and who had been 48 England and Scotland one of the claimants of 1290. His grandfather had done homage to Edward, and Bruce himself had been generally on the English side, and had fought against Wallace at Falkirk. When John Balliol had decided to rebel, he had trans- ferred the lands of Annandale from the Bruces to the Comyns, and they had been restored by Edward I after Balliol's submission. From 1299 to 1303, Bruce had been associated with Comyn in the guardianship of the kingdom, but, like Comyn, had submitted to Edward. Nobody in Scotland could now think of a restoration of Balliol, and if there was to be a Scottish king at all, it must obviously be either Comyn or Bruce. The claim of John Comyn the younger was much stronger than that of his father had been. The elder Comyn had claimed on account of his descent from Donald Bane, the brother and successor of Malcolm Canmore; but the younger Comyn had an additional claim in right of his mother, who was a sister of John Balliol. Be- tween Bruce and Comyn there was a long- standing feud. In 1299, at a meeting of the Great Council of Scotland at Peebles, Comyn had attacked Bruce, and they could only be separated by the use of violence. On the loth February, 1305-6, Bruce and the Comyn met in the church of the convent of the Minorite Friars at Dumfries. Tradition tells that they met to adjust their conflicting claims, with a view to establishing the independence of the country in The War of Independence 49 the person of one or other of the rivals; that a dispute arose in which they came to blows; and that Bruce, after inflicting' a severe wound upon his enemy, left the church. "I doubt I have slain the Red Comyn," he said to his followers. '* Doubt?" was the reply of Sir Roger Fitz- patrick, 'M'll mak siccar. " The actual circum- stances of the affair are unknown to us; but Bruce may fairly be relieved of the suspicion of any premeditation, because it is most unlikely that he would have needlessly chosen to offend the Church by committing a murder within sanc- tuary. The real interest attaching" to the circum- stances lies in the tradition that the object of the meeting was to organize a resistance against Edward I. Whether this was so or not, there can be no doubt that the result of the conference compelled the Bruce to place himself at the head of the national cause. A Norman baron, born in England, he was by no means the natural leader for whose appearance men looked, and there was a grave chance of his failing to arouse the national sentiment. But the murder of one claimant to the Scottish throne at the hands of the only other . possible candidate, who thus placed himself in the position of undoubted heir, could scarcely have been forgiven by Edward I, even if the Comyn had not, for the past two years, proved a faithful servant of the English king. There was no alternative, and, on the 27th March, 1306, Robert, Earl of Carrick and Lord ^o England and Scotland of Annandale, was crowned King of the Scots at Scone. The ancient royal crown of the Scottish king's had been removed by Balliol in 1296, and had fallen into the hands of Edward, but the Countess of Buchan placed on the Bruce's head a hastily made coronet of gold. It was far from an auspicious beginning. It is difficult to give Bruce credit for much patriotic feeling, although, as we have seen, he had been one of the guardians who had maintained a semblance of independence. The death of the Comyn had thrown against him the whole in- fluence of the Church; he was excommunicate, and it was no sin to slay him. The powerful family, whose head had been cut off by his hand, had vowed revenge, and its great influence was on the side of the English. It is no small tribute to the force of the sentiment of nationality that the Scots rallied round such a leader, and it must be remembered that, from whatever reason the Bruce adopted the national cause, he proved in every respect worthy of a great occasion, and as time passed, he came to deserve the place he occupies as the hero of the epic of a nation's freedom. The first blow in the renewed struggle was struck at Methven, near Perth, where, on the 19th June, 1306, the Earl of Pembroke inflicted a defeat upon King Robert. The Lowlands were now almost entirely lost to him; he sent his wife^ ' Bruce had married, ist, Isabella, daughter of the loth Earl of Mar, The War of Independence 51 and child to Kildrummie Castle in Aberdeenshire, whence they fled to the sanctuary of St. Duthac, near Tain. In August, Bruce was defeated at Dairy, by Alexander of Lorn, a relative of the Comyn. In September, Kildrummie Castle fell, and Nigel Bruce, King Robert's brother, fell into the hands of the English and was put to death at Berwick. To complete the tale of catastrophes, the Bruce's wife and daughter, two of his sisters, and other two of his brothers, along with the Countess of Buchan, came into the power of the English king. Edward placed some of the ladies in cages, and put to death Sir Thomas Bruce and Alexander Bruce, Dean of Glasgow (February, 1306-7). Meanwhile, King Robert had found it impossible to maintain him- self even in his own lands of Carrick, and he withdrew to the island of Rathlin, where he wintered. Undeterred by this long series of calamities, he took the field in the spring of 1307, and now, for the first time, fortune favoured him. On the loth May, he defeated the English, under Pembroke, at Loudon Hill, in Ayrshire. He had been joined by his brother Edward and by the Lord James of Douglas (the "Black Douglas "), and the news of his success, slight as it was, helped to increase at once the spirit and the numbers of his followers. His position, however, was one of extreme difficulty; he was by whom he had a daug-hter, Marjorie, and 2nd, in 1302, Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter of the Earl of Ulster. ^2 England and Scotland still only a king in name, and, in reality, the leader of a guerilla warfare. Edward was march- ing northwards at the head of a large army, determined to crush his audacious subject. But Fate had decreed that the Hammer of the Scots was never again to set foot in Scotland. At Burgh-on-Sand, near Carlisle, within sight of his unconquered conquest, the great Edward breathed his last. His death was the turning- point in the struggle. The reign of Edward H in England is a most important factor in the explanation of Bruce's success. With the death of Edward I the whole aspect of the contest changes. The English were no longer conducting a great struggle for a states- manlike ideal, as they had been under Edward I — however impossible he himself had made its attainment. There is no longer any sign of con- scious purpose either in their method or in their aims. The nature of the warfare at once changed; Edward H, despite his father's wish that his bones should be carried at the head of the army till Scotland was subdued, contented himself with a fruitless march into Ayrshire, and then returned to give his father a magnificent burial in Westminster Abbey. King Robert was left to fight his Scottish enemies without their English allies. These Scottish enemies may be divided into two classes — the Anglo-Norman nobles who had supported the English cause more or less consistently, and the personal The War of hidependcnce 53 enemies of the Bruce, who increased in numbers after the murder of Comyn. Among the great famihes thus alienated from the cause of Scot- land were the Highlanders of Argyll and the Isles, some of the men of Badenach, and certain Galloway clans. But that this opposition was personal, and not racial, is shown by the fact that, from the first, some of these Highlanders were loyal to Bruce, e.g. Sir Nigel Campbell and Angus Og. We shall see, further, that after the first jealousies caused by Comyn's death and Bruce's success had passed away, the men of Argyll and the Isles took a more prominent part on the Scottish side. In December, 1307, Bruce routed John Comyn, the successor of his old rival, at Slains, on the Aberdeenshire coast, and in the following May, when Comyn had obtained some slight English assistance, he inflicted a final defeat upon him at Inverurie. The power of the Comyns in their hereditary earldom of Buchan had now been suppressed, and King Robert turned his attention to their allies in the south. In the autumn of 1308, he himself defeated Alexander of Lorn and subdued the district of Argyll, his brother Edward reduced Galloway to subjection, and Douglas, along with Randolph, Earl of Moray, was successful in Tweeddale. Thus, within three years from the death of Comyn, Bruce had broken the power of the great families, whose enmity against him had been aroused by that event. One year later the 54 England and Scotland other great misfortune, which had been brought upon him by the same cause, was removed by an act which is important evidence at once of the strength of the anti-EngHsh feeHng in the country, and of the confidence which Bruce had inspired. On the 24th February, 1309-10, the clergy of Scotland met at Dundee and made a solemn declaration^ of fealty to King Robert as their lawful king. Scotland was thus united in its struggle for independence under King Robert I. It now remained to attack the English garri- sons who held the castles of Scotland. An invasion conducted by Edward II in 1310 proved fruitless, and the English king returned home to enter on a long quarrel with the Lords Ordainers, and to see his favourite, Gaveston, first exiled and then put to death. While the attention of the rulers of England was thus occu- pied, Bruce, for the first time since Wallace's inroad of 1297, carried the war into the enemy's country, invading the north of England both in 131 1 and in 131 2. Meanwhile the strongholds of the country were passing out of the English power. Linlithgow was recovered in 131 1; Perth in January, 131 2-13; and Roxburgh a month later. The romantic capture of the castle of Edinburgh, by Randolph, Earl of Moray, in March, 13 13, is one of the classical stories of • Nat. MSS. ii. 12, No. XVII. The original is preserved in the Register House. The War of Independence 55 Scottish history, and in the summer of the same year, King Robert restored the Scottish rule in the Isle of Man. In November, 1313, only Stirling- Castle remained in English hands, and Edward Bruce rashly agreed to raise the siege on condition that the garrison should surrender if they were not relieved by June 24th, 13 14. Edward II determined to make a heroic effort to maintain this last vestige of English conquest, and his attempt to do so has become irrevocably associated with the Field of Bannockburn. In his preparations for the great struggle, which was to determine the fate of Scotland, the Bruce carefully avoided the errors which had led to Wallace's defeat at Falkirk. He selected a position which was covered, on one side by the Bannock Burn and a morass, and, on the other side, by the New Park or Forest. His front was protected by the stream and by the famous series of " pottes ", or holes, covered over so as to deceive the English cavalry. The choice of this narrow position not only pre- vented the possibility of a flank attack, but also forced the great army of Edward II into a small space, where its numbers became a positive dis- advantage. King Robert arranged his infantry in four divisions; in front were three schiltrons of pikemen, under Randolph, Edward Bruce, and Sir James Douglas, and Bruce himself com- manded the reserve, which was composed of Highlanders from Argyll and the Islands and 56 England and Scotland of the men of Carrick.^ Sir Robert Keith, the Marischal, was in charge of a small body of cavalry, which did good service by driving" back, at a critical moment, such archers as made their way through the forest. The English army was in ten divisions, but the limited area in which they had to fight interfered with their arrange- ment. As at Falkirk, the English cavalry made a gallant but useless charge against the schil- trons, but it was not possible again to save the day by means of archers, for the archers had no room to deploy, and could only make vain efforts to shoot over the heads of the horse- men. Bruce strengthened the Scots with his reserve, and then ensued a general action along the whole line. The van of the English army was now thoroughly demoralized, and their comrades in the rear could not, in these narrow limits, press forward to render any assistance. King Robert's camp-followers, at this juncture, rushed down a hill behind the Scottish army, and they appeared to the English as a fresh force come to assist the enemy. The result was the loss of all sense of discipline: King Edward's magnificent host fled in complete rout and with great slaughter, and the cause of Scottish freedom was won. The victory of Bannockburn did not end the ' Pinkerton sugfg-ests that King Robert adopted this arrangement be- cause he was unable to trust the Highlanders, but this is unlikely, as their leader, Angus Og, had been consistently faithful to him throughout. The War of Independence 57 war, for the Eng-lish refused to acknowledge the hard-won independence of Scotland, and fighting- continued till the year 1327. The Scots not only invaded England, but adopted the policy of fight- ing England in Ireland, and English reprisals in Scotland were uniformly unsuccessful. Bruce invaded England in 1315; in the same year, his brother Edward landed with a Scottish army at Carrickfergus, in the hope of obtaining a throne for himself. He was crowned King of Ireland in May, 13 16, and during that and the following year, King Robert was personally in Ireland, giving assistance to his brother. But, in 1318, Edward Bruce was defeated and slain near Dundalk, and, with his death, this phase of the Bruce's English policy disappears. A few months before the death of Edward Bruce, King Robert had captured the border town of Berwick- on-Tweed, which had been held by the English since 1298. In 1319, Edward II sent an Eng- lish army to besiege Berwick, and the Scots replied by an invasion of England in the course of which Douglas and Randolph defeated the English at Mitton-on-Swale in Yorkshire. The English were led by the Archbishop of York, and so many clerks were killed that the battle acquired the name of the Chapter of Mitton. The war lingered on for three years more. The year 1322 saw an invasion of England by King Robert and a counter-invasion of Scotland by Edward II, who destroyed the Abbey of Dry- ^8 England and Scotland burgfh on his return march. This expedition was, as usual, fruitless, for the Scots adopted their usual tactics of leaving the country waste and desolate, and the English army could obtain no food. In October of the same year King Robert made a further inroad into Yorkshire, and won a small victory at Biland Abbey. At last, in March, 1323, a truce was made for thirteen years, but as Edward II persisted in declining to acknowledge the independence of Scotland, it was obvious that peace could not be long maintained. During the fourteen years which followed his victory of Bannockburn, King Robert was con- solidating his kingdom. He had obtained re- cognition even in the Western Highlands and Islands, and the sentiment of the whole nation had gathered around him. The force of this sentiment is apparent in connection with eccles- iastical difficulties. When Pope John XXII attempted to make peace in 131 7 and refused to acknowledge the Bruce as king, the papal envoys were driven from the kingdom. For this the country was placed under the papal ban, and when, in 1324, the pope offered both to acknowledge King Robert and to remove the excommunication, on condition that Berwick should be restored to the English, the Scots refused to comply with his condition. A small rebellion in 1320 had been firmly repressed by king and Parliament. The birth of a son to The War of Independence 59 King Robert, on the 5th March, 1323-24, had given security to the dynasty, and, at the great ParHament which met at Cambuskenneth in 1326, at which Scottish burghs were, for the first time, represented, the clergy, the barons, and the people took an oath of allegiance to the little Prince David, and, should his heirs fail, to Robert, the son of Bruce's daughter, Marjorie, and her husband, Robert, the High Steward of Scotland. The same Parliament put the financial position of the monarch on a satisfac- tory footing by granting him a tenth penny of all rents. The deposition and murder of Edward II created a situation of which the King of Scots could not fail to take advantage. The truce was broken in the summer of 1327 by an ex- pedition into England, conducted by Douglas and Randolph, and the hardiness of the Scottish soldiery surprised the English and warned them that it was impossible to prolong the contest in the present condition of the two countries. The regents for the young Edward III resolved to come to terms with Bruce. The treaty of North- ampton, dated 17th March, 1327-28, is still preserved in Edinburgh. It acknowledged the complete independence of Scotland and the royal dignity of King Robert. It promised the re- storation of all the symbols of Scottish inde- pendence which Edward I had removed, and it arranged a marriage between Prince David, the 6o England and Scotland heir to the Scottish throne, and Joanna, the sister of the young king of England. A marriage ceremony between the two children was solem- nized in the following May, but the Stone of Fate was never removed from Westminster, owing, it is said, to the opposition of the abbot. The succession of James VI to the throne of Eng- land, nearly three centuries later, was accepted as the fulfilment of the prophecy attached to the Coronation Stone, " Lapis ille grandis": " Ni fallat fatam, Scoti, quocunque locatum, Invenient lapidem, regnare tenentur ibidem". Thus closed the portion of Scottish history which is known as the War of Independence. The condemnation of the policy of Edward I lies simply in its results. He found the two nations at peace and living together in amity; he left them at war and each inspired with a bitter hatred of the other. A policy which aimed at the unification of the island and at preventing Scotland from proving a source of danger to England, and which resulted in a warfare cov- ering, almost continuously, more than two hun- dred and fifty years, and which, after the lapse of four centuries, left the policy of Scotland a serious difficulty to English ministers, can scarcely re- ceive credit for practical sagacity, however wise its aim. It created for England a relentless and irritating (if not always a dangerous) enemy, invariably ready to take advantage of English The War of hidependence 6i difficulties. England had to fight Scotland in France and in Ireland, and Edward IV and Henry VII found the King of Scots the ally of the House of Lancaster, and the protector of Perkin Warbeck. Only the accident of the Reformation rendered it possible to disengage Scotland from its alliance with France, and to bring about a union with England. Till the emergence of the religious question the English party in Scotland consisted of traitors and mer- cenaries, and their efforts to strengthen English influence form the most discreditable pages of Scottish history. We are not here dealing with the domestic history of Scotland; but it is impossible to avoid a reference to the subject of the influence of the Scottish victory upon the Scots themselves. It has been argued that Bannockburn was, for Scot- land, a national misfortune, and that Bruce's defeat would have been for the real welfare of the country. There are, of course, two stand- points from which we may approach the question. The apologist of Bannockburn might lay stress on the different effects of conquest and a hard- won independence upon the national character, and might fairly point to various national char- acteristics which have been, perhaps, of some value to civilization, and which could hardly have been fostered in a condition of servitude. On the other hand, there arises a question as to material prosperity. It must be remembered 62 England and Scotland that we are not here discussing the effect of a peaceful and amicable union, such as Edward first proposed, but of a successful war of con- quest; and in this connection it is only with thankfulness and gratitude to Wallace and to Bruce that the Scotsman can regard the parallel case of Ireland, which, from a century before the time of Edward I, had been' annexed by conquest. The story we have just related goes to create a reasonable probability that the fate of Scotland could not have been different; but, further, leaving all such problems of the ''might have been", we may submit that the misery of Scotland in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and six- teenth centuries has been much exaggerated. It is true that the borders were in a condi- tion of perpetual feud, and that minorities and intrigues gravely hampered the progress of the country. But, more especially in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, there are not wanting indications of prosperity. The chapter of Scot- tish history which tells of the growth of burghs has yet to be written. The construction of magnificent cathedrals and religious houses, and the rise of three universities, must not be left out of account. Gifts to the infant universities, the records of which we possess, prove that for humble folk the tenure of property was com- paratively secure, and that there was a large amount of comfort among the people. Under James IV, trade and commerce prospered, and The War of Independence 6 o the Scottish navy rivalled that of the Tudors. The century in which Scottish prosperity received its most severe blows immediately succeeded the Union of the Crowns. If for three hundred years the civilizing^ influence of England can scarcely be traced in the history of Scottish pro- gress, that of France was predominant, and Scotland cannot entirely regret the fact. Scot- land, from the date of Bannockburn to that of Pinkie, will not suffer from a comparison with the England which underwent the strain of the long French wars, the civil broils of Lancaster and York, and the oppression of the Tudors. Moreover, there is one further consideration which should not be overlooked. The postpone- ment of an English union till the seventeenth century enabled Scotland to work out its own reformation of religion in the way best adapted to the national needs, and it is difficult to estimate, from the material stand-point alone, the impor- tance of this factor in the national progress. The inspiration and the education which the Scottish Church has given to the Scottish people has found one result in the impulse it has afforded to the growth of material prosperity, and it is not easy to regret that Scotland, at the date of the Reformation, was free to work out its own ecclesiastical destiny. 64 Englatid and Scotland CHAPTER V EDWARD III AND SCOTLAND I 328- I 399 Almost immediately after the conclusion of the Treaty of Northampton, the conditions of govern- ment in England and Scotland were reversed. Since the death of Edward I, Scotland, under a strong king, had gained by the weakness of the English sovereign; now England, under the energetic rule of Edward III, was to profit by the death of King Robert and by the succession of a minor. On the 7th June, 1329, King Robert died (probably a leper) at his castle of Cardross, on the Clyde, and left the Scottish throne to his five-year-old son, David II. In October of the following year the young Edward III of Eng- land threw off the yoke of the Mortimers and established his personal rule, and came almost immediately into conflict with Scotland. The Scottish regent was Randolph or Ranulph, Earl of Moray, the companion of Bruce and the Black Douglas^ in the exploits of the great war. Possibly because Edward III had afforded protection to the Pretender, Edward Balliol, the ' Douglas disappeared from the scene immediately after King- Robert's death, taking the Bruce's heart with him on a pilgrimage to Palestine. He was killed in August, 1330, while fighting the Moors in Spain, on his way to the Holy Land. Edward III and Scotland 65 eldest son of John Balliol, and had received him at the EngHsh court, Randolph refused to carry out the provisions of the Treaty of Northampton, by which their lands were to be restored to the ** Disinherited ", i.e. to barons whose property in Scotland had been forfeited because they had adopted the English side in the war. A some- what serious situation was thus created, and Edward, not unnaturally, took advantage of it to disown the Treaty of Northampton, which had been negotiated by the Mortimers during his minority, and which was extremely unpopular in England. He at once recognized Edward Balliol as King of Scotland. The only defence of Randolph's action is the probability that he suspected Edward to be in search of a pretext for refusing to be bound by a treaty made in such circumstances, and if a struggle were to ensue, it was certainly desirable not to increase the power of the English party. Edward pro- ceeded to assist Balliol in an expedition to Scotland, which Mr. Lang describes as "prac- tically an Anglo-Norman filibustering expedition, winked at by the home government, the filibusters being neither more nor less Scottish than most of our noblesse''. But before Balliol reached Scotland, the last of the paladins whose names have been immortalized by the Bruce's wars, had disappeared from the scene. Randolph died at Musselburgh in July, 1332, and Scotland was left leaderless. The new regent, the Earl 66 E^igland and Scotland of Mar, was quite incapable of dealing with the situation. When Balliol landed at Kinghorn in August, he made his way unmolested till he reached the river Earn, on his way to Perth. The regent had taken up a position near Dupplin, and was at the head of a force which considerably outnumbered the English. But the Scots had failed to learn the lesson taught by Edward I at Falkirk and by Bruce at Bannock- burn. The English succeeded in crossing the Earn by night, and took up a position opposite the hill on which the Scots were encamped. Their archers were so arranged as practically to surround the Scots, who attacked in three divisions, armed with pikes, making no attempt even to harass the thin lines of archers who were extended on each side of the English main body. But the unerring aim of the archers could not fail to render the Scottish attack innocuous. The English stood their oround while line after line of the Scots hurled themselves against them, only to be struck down by the gray-goose shafts. At last the attack degenerated into a complete rout, and the English made good their victory by an indiscriminate massacre. The immediate result of the battle of Dupplin Moor was that "Edward I of Scotland" entered upon a reign which lasted almost exactly twelve weeks. He was crowned at Scone on September 24th, 1332, and unreservedly acknowledged him- self the vassal of the King of England. On the Edward III and Scotland 67 1 6th December the new king" was at Annan, when an unexpected attack was made upon him by a small force, led, very appropriately, by a son of Randolph, Earl of Moray, and by the young- brother of the Lord James of Douglas. Balliol fled to Carlisle, *'one leg booted and the other naked ", and there awaited the help of his liege lord, who prepared to invade Scot- land in May. Meanwhile the patriotic party had failed to take advantage of their opportunity. Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell, the regent chosen to succeed Mar (who had fallen at Dupplin), had been captured in a skirmish near Roxburgh, either in November, 1332, or in April, 1333, and was succeeded in turn by Sir Archibald Douglas, the hero of the Annan episode, but destined to be better known as '^Tyneman the Unlucky". The young king had been sent for safety to France. In April, Balliol was again in Scotland, and, in May, Edward III began to besiege Berwick, which had been promised him by Balliol. To defend Berwick, the Scots were forced to fight a pitched battle, which proved a repetition of Dupplin Moor. Berwick had promised to sur- render if it were not relieved by a fixed date. When the day arrived, a small body of Scots had succeeded in breaking through the English lines, and Sir Archibald Douglas had led a larger force to ravage Northumberland. On these grounds Berwick held that it had been in fact relieved; 68 England and Scotland but Edward III, who lacked his grandfather's nice appreciation of situations where law and fact are at variance, replied by hang-ing a hostage. The regent was now forced to risk a battle in the hope of saving Berwick, and he marched southwards, towards Berwick, with a large army. Edward, following the precedent of Dupplin, occupied a favourable position at Halidon Hill, with his front protected by a marsh. He drew up his line in the order that had been so success- ful at Dupplin, and the same result followed. Each successive body of Scottish pikemen was cut down by a shower of English arrows, before being able even to strike a blow. The regent was slain, and Moray, his companion in arms, fled to France, soon to return to strike another blow for Scotland. The victory of Halidon added greatly to the popularity of Edward HI, for the English looked upon the shame of Bannockburn as avenged, and they sang: " Scots out of Berwick and out of Aberdeen, At the Burn of Bannock, ye were far too keen. Many g'uiltless men ye slew, as was clearly seen. King Edward has avenged it now, and fully too, I ween, He has avenged it well, I ween. Well worth the while ! I bid you all beware of Scots, for they are full of guile. "'Tis now, thou rough-foot, brogue-shod Scot, that begins thy care, Then boastful barley-bag-man, thy dwelling is all bare. False wretch and forsworn, whither wilt thou fare? Hie thee unto Bruges, seek a better biding there! Edward III and Scotland 69 There, wretch, shalt thou stay and wait a weary while; Thy dwelling in Dundee is lost for ever by thy guile. "^ In Scotland, the party of independence was, for the time, helpless. Edward and Balliol divided the country between them. The eight counties of Dumfries, Roxburgh, Berwick, Sel- kirk, Peebles, Haddington, Edinburgh, and Lin- lithgow formed the English king's share of the spoil, along with a reassertion of his supremacy over the rest of Scotland. English officers began to rule between the Tweed and the Forth. But the cause of independence was never really hope- less. Balliol and the English party were soon weakened by internal dissensions, and the leaders on the patriotic side were not slow to take advan- tage of the opportunities thus given them. It was, indeed, necessary to send King David and his wife to France, and they landed at Boulogne in May, 1334. But from France, in return, came the young Earl of Moray, who, along with Robert the High Steward, son of Marjory Bruce, and next heir to the throne, took up the duties of guardians. The arrival of Moray gave fresh life to the cause, but there is little interest in the records of the struggle. The Scots won two small successes at the Borough-Muir of Edinburgh and at Kilblain. But the victory in the skirmish at the Borough-Muir (August, 1335) was more unfortu- nate than defeat, for it deprived Scotland for some > Minot. Tr. F. York Powell 70 England and Scotland time of the services of the Earl of Moray. He had captured Guy de Namur and conducted him to the borders, and was himself taken prisoner while on his journey northwards. Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell, who had been made g-uardian after the battle of Dupplin, and was captured in April, 1333, had now been ransomed, and he was again recognized as regent for David II. So strong was the Scottish party that Balliol had to flee to England for assistance, and, in 1336, Edward III again appeared in Scotland. It was not a very heroic effort for the future victor of Crecy; he marched northwards to Elgin, and, on his way home, burned the town of Aberdeen. As in the first war the turning-point had proved to be the death of Edward I in the summer of 1307, so now, exactly thirty years later, came another decisive event. In the autumn of 1337, Edward III first styled himself King of France, and the diversion of his energies from the Scots to their French allies rendered possible the final overthrow of Balliol and the Scottish traitors. The circumstances are, however, parallel only to the extent that an intervention of fortune rendered possible the victory of Scottish freedom. In 1337 there was no great leader: the hour had come, but not the man. For the next four years, castle after castle fell into Scottish hands; many of the tales are romantic enough, but they do not lead to a Bannockburn. The only incident of any significance is the defence of the castle of Dun- Ed/ward III and Scotland 71 bar. The lord of Dunbar was the Earl of March, whose record throug^hout the troubles had been far from consistent, but who was now a supporter of King- David, largely throug^h the influence of his wife, famous as "Black Ag^nes ", a daug^hter of the great Randolph, Earl of Moray. From January to June, 1338, Black Agnes held Dunbar against English assaults by sea and land. Many romantic incidents have been related of these long months of siege : the stories of the Countess's use of a dust-cloth to repair the damage done by the English siege-machines to the battlements, and of her prophecy, made when the Earl of Salisbury brought a "sow" or shed fitted to protect soldiers in the manner of the Roman testudo^ " Beware, Montagow, For farrow shall thy sow", and fulfilled by dropping a huge stone on the machine and thus scattering its occupants, "the litter of English pigs" — these, and her "love- shafts", which, as Salisbury said, "pierce to the heart", are among the most wonderful of histor- ical fairy tales. In the end the English had to raise the siege : "Came I early, came I late, I found Ag-nes at the g'ate", they sang as the explanation of their failure. The defence of Dunbar was followed by the surrender of Perth and the capture of the castles of Stirling and Edinburgh, and in June, 1341, England and Scotland '& David II returned to Scotland, from which Balliol had fled. David was now seventeen years of ag^e, and he had a great opportunity. Scotland was again free, and was prepared to rally round its national sovereign and the son of the Bruce. The English foe was engaged in a great struggle with France, and difficulties had arisen between the English king and his Parliament. But the unworthy son of the great Robert proved only a source of weakness to his supporters. The only redeeming feature of his policy is that it was, at first, inspired by loyalty to his French protectors. In their interest he made, in the year of the Crecy campaign, an incursion into England, thus ending a truce made in 1343. After the usual preliminary ravaging, he reached Neville's Cross, near Durham, in the month of October. There he found a force pre- pared to meet him, led, as at Northallerton and at Mitton, by the clergy of the northern pro- vince. The battle was a repetition of Dupplin and Halidon Hill, and a rehearsal of Homildon and Flodden. Scots and English alike were drawn up in the usual three divisions; the left, centre, and right being led respectively, on the one side, by Robert the Steward, King David, and Randolph, and, on the other, by Rokeby, Archbishop Neville, and Henry Percy. The English archers were, as usual, spread out so as to command both the Scottish wings. They were met by no cavalry charge, and they soon Edward III and Scotland 73 threw the Scottish left into confusion, and pre- pared the way for an assault upon the centre. Randolph was killed; the king' was captured, and for eleven years he remained a prisoner in Eng- land. Meanwhile Robert the Steward (still the heir to the throne, for David had no children) ruled in Scotland. There is reason for believ- ing' that, in 1352, David was allowed to go to Scotland to raise a ransom, and, two years later, an arrangement was actually made for his release. But Robert the Steward and David had always been on bad terms, and, after everything^ had been formally settled, the Scots decided to remain loyal to their French allies. Hostilities recommenced; in August, 1355, the Scots won a small victory at Nesbit in Berwickshire, and captured the town of Berwick. Early in the following' year it was retaken by Edward III, who proclaimed himself the successor of Balliol, and mercilessly ravagfed the Lowlands. So great was his destruction of churches and relio-ious houses that the invasion is remembered as the "Burned Candlemas". Peace was made in 1357, and David's ransom was fixed at 100,000 marks. It was a huge sum; but in connection with the efforts made to raise it the burgesses acquired some influence in the government of the country. David's residence in France and in England had entirely deprived him of sympathy with the national aspirations of his subjects. He loved 74 England and Scotland the gay court of Edward III, and the Anglo- Norman chivalry had deeply affected him. He hated his destined successor, and he had been charmed by Edward's personality. Accordingly we find him, seven years after his return to Scot- land, again making a journey to England. It is a striking fact that the son of the victor of Bannockburn should have gone to London to propose to sell the independence of Scotland to the grandson of Edward I. The difficulty of paying the yearly instalment of his ransom made a limit to his own extravagant expenditure, and he now offered, instead of money, an acknow- leds'ment of either Edward himself or one of his sons as the heir to the Scottish throne. The result of this proposal was to change the policy of Edward. He abandoned the Balliol claim and the traditional Edwardian policy in Scotland, and accepted David's offer. David returned to Scotland and laid before his Parliament the less violent of the two schemes, the proposal that, in the event of his dying childless. Prince Lionel of England should succeed (1364). "To that said all his lieges, Nay; Na their consent wald be na way, That ony Ynglis mannys sone In[to] that honour suld be done. Or succede to bere the Crown, Off Scotland in successione, Sine of age and off vertew there The lauchfull airis appearand ware.' Echvard III and Scotland 75 So the proposal to substitute an ''English-man's son " for the lawful heirs proved utterly futile. Equally vain were any attempts of the Scots to mitigate Edward's rigour in the exaction of the ransom, and Edward reverted to his earlier policy, disowned King David, and prepared for another Scottish campaign to vindicate his right as the successor of Balliol, who had died in 1363. But English energies were once more diverted at a critical moment. The Black Prince had involved himself in serious troubles in Gascony, and England was called upon to defend its con- quests in France. In 1369 a truce was made between Scotland and England, to last for four- teen years. David II died, unregretted, in February, 1370- 137 1. It was fortunate for Scotland that the miserable seven years which remained to Edward III, and the reign of his unfortunate grandson, were so full of trouble for England. Robert the Steward succeeded his uncle without much diffi- culty. He was fifty-six years of age, already an old man for those days, eight years the senior of the nephew whom he succeeded. The main lines of the foreign policy of his reign may be briefly indicated; but its chief interest lies in a series of border raids, the story of which is too intricate and of too slight importance to concern us. The new king began by entering into an agreement with France, of a more definite description than any previous arrangement, and H 76 England and Scotland the year 1372 may be taken as marking" the formal inauguration of the Franco - Scottish League. The truce with England was continued and was renewed in 1380, three years before the date originally fixed for its expiry. The renewal was necessitated by various acts of hostility which had rendered it, in effect, a dead letter. The English were still in possession of such Scottish strongholds as Roxburgh, Berwick, and Loch- maben, and round these there was continual war- fare. The Scots sacked the town of Roxburgh in 1377, but without regaining the castle, and, in 1378, they again obtained possession of Berwick. John of Gaunt, who had forced the government of his nephew to acknowledge his importance as a factor in English politics, was entrusted with the command of an army directed against Scot- land. He met the Scottish representatives at Berwick, which was again in English hands, and agreed to confirm the existing truce, which was maintained till 1384, when Scotland was included in the English truce with France. The truce, which was to last for eight months, was ne- gotiated in France in January, 1383-84. In February and March, John of Gaunt conducted a ravaging expedition into Scotland as far as Edinburgh. During the Peasants' Revolt he had taken refuge in Scotland, and the chroniclers tell us that the expedition of 1384 was singularly merciful. Still, it was an act of war, and the Scots may reasonably have expressed surprise. Edward III and Scotland 77 when, in April, the French ambassadors (who had been detained in England since February) arrived in Edinburg-h, and announced that Scotland and England had been at peace since January. About the same time there occurred two border forays. Some French knights, with their Scottish hosts, made an incursion into England, and the Percies, along with the Earl of Nottingham, conducted a devastating raid in Scotland, laying waste the Lothians. About the date of both events there is some doubt; probably the Percy invasion was in re- taliation for the French affair. But all the time the two countries were nominally at peace, and it was not till May, 1385, that they were techni- cally in a state of war. In that month a French army was sent to aid the Scots, and, under the command of John de Vienne, it took part in an incursion on a somewhat larger scale than the usual raids. The English replied, in the month of August, by an invasion conducted by Richard II in person, at the head of a large army, while the Scots, declining a battle, wasted Cumber- land. Richard sacked Edinburgh and burned the great religious houses of Dryburgh, Melrose, and Newbattle, but was forced to retire without hav- ing made any real conquest. The Scots adopted their invariable custom of retreating after laying waste the country, so as to deprive the English of provender; even the impatience of their French allies failed to persuade them to give 78 England and Scotland battle to King- Richard's greatly superior forces. From Scotland the English king marched to London, to commence the great struggle which led to the impeachment of Suffolk and the rise of the Lords Appellant. While England was thus occupied, the Scots, under the Earl of Fife, second son of Robert II (better known as the Duke of Albany), and the Earl of Douglas, made great preparations for an invasion. Fife took his men into the western counties and ravaged Cum- berland and Westmoreland, but without any im- portant incident. Douglas attacked the country of his old enemies, the Percies, and won the victory of Otterburn or Chevy Chase (August, 1388), the most romantic of all the fights between Scots and English. The Scots lost their leader, but the English were completely defeated, and Harry Hotspur, the son of Northumberland, was made a prisoner. Chevy Chase is the subject of many ballads and legends, and it is indis- solubly connected with the story of the House of Douglas : " Hosts have been known at that dread sound to yield, And, Doug-las dead, his name hath won the field". From the date of Otterburn to the accession of Henry IV there was peace between Scotland and England, except for the never-ending border skirmishes. Robert II died in 1390, and was succeeded by his eldest son, John, Earl of Car- rick, who took the title of Robert III, to avoid Edward 11/ and Scotland 79 the unlucky associations of the name of John, which had acquired an unpleasant notoriety from John Balliol as well as John of England and the unfortunate John of France. Under the new king- the treaty with France was confirmed, but continuous truces were made with England till the deposition of Richard II. 8o England and Scotland CHAPTER VI SCOTLAND, LANCASTER, AND YORK I 400- I 500 When Henry of Lancaster placed himself on his cousin's throne, Scotland was divided between the supporters of the Duke of Rothesay, the eldest son of Robert HI and heir to the crown, and the adherents of the Duke of Albany, the brother of the old king. In 1399, Rothesay had just succeeded his uncle as regent, and to him, as to Henry IV, there was a strong temptation to acquire popularity by a spirited foreign policy. The Scots hesitated to acknowledge Henry as King of England, and he, in turn, seems to have resolved upon an invasion of Scotland as the first military event of his reign. He, accordingly, raised the old claim of homage, and marched into Scotland to demand the fealty of Robert HI and his barons. As usual, we find in Scotland some malcontents, who form an English party. The leader of the English intrigue on this occasion was the Scots Earl of March, ^ the son of Black Agnes. The Duke of Rothesay had been be- trothed to the daughter of March, but had 1 Georgre Dunbar, Earl of March, must be carefully distlng-uished from the child, Edmund Mortimer, the English Earl of March, g-randson of Lionel of Clarence, and direct heir to the English throne after Richard IL Scotland^ Lancaster^ and York 8i married in February, 1399 -1400, a daughter of the Earl of Douglas, the hereditary foe of March. The Dunbar allegiance had always been doubtful, and it was only the influence of the great coun- tess that had brought it to the patriotic side. In August, 1400, Henry marched into Scotland, and besieged for three days the castle of Edinburgh, which was successfully defended by the regent, while Albany was at the head of an army which made no attempt to interfere with Henry's move- ments. Difficulties in Wales now attracted Henry's attention, and he left Scotland without having accomplished anything, and leaving the record of the mildest and most merciful English invasion of Scotland. The necessities of his position in England may explain his abstaining from spoiling religious houses as his predeces- sors had done, but the chroniclers tell us that he gave protection to every town that asked it. While Henry was suppressing the Welsh revolt and negotiating with his Parliament, Albany and Rothesay were struggling for the government of Scotland. Rothesay fell from power in 1401, and in March, 1402, he died at Falkland. Contemporary rumour and subsequent legend attributed his death to Albany, and, as in the case of Richard H, the method of death was supposed to be starvation. Sir Walter has told the story in The Fair Maid of Perth. Albany, who had succeeded him as regent or guardian, made no effort to end the meaningless war with >A b2 Engla7id and Scotland England, which went fitfully on. An idiot mendicant, who was represented to be Richard II, gave the Scots their first opportunity of supporting a pretender to the English throne; but the pretence was too ridiculous to be seriously maintained. The French refused to take any part in such a scheme, and the pseudo-Richard served only to annoy Henry IV, and scarcely gave even a semblance of significance to the war, which really degenerated into a series of border raids, one of which was of unusual importance. Henry had no intention of seriously prosecuting the claim of homage, and the continuance of hostilities is really explained by the ill-will between March and Douglas and the old feud between the Douglases and the Percies. In June, 1402, the Scots w^ere defeated in a skirmish at Nesbit in Berwickshire (the scene of a small Scottish victory in 1355), and, in the following September, occurred the disaster of Homildon Hill. Douglas and Murdoch Stewart, the eldest son of Albany, had collected a large army, and the incursion was raised to the level of something like national importance. They marched into England and took up a strong position on Homildon Hill or Heugh. The Percies, under Northumberland and Hotspur, sent against them a body of English archers, who easily outranged the Scottish bow- men, and threw the army into confusion. Then ensued, as at Dupplin and Halidon Hill, a simple massacre. Murdoch Stewart and Douglas were Scotland^ Lancaster^ and York ^^i taken captive with several other Scots lords. Close on Homildon Hill followed the rebellion of the Percies, and the result of the English victory at Homildon was merely to create a new difficulty for Henry IV. The sudden nature of the Percy revolt is indicated by the fact that, when Albany marched to relieve a Scottish stronghold which they were besieging, he found that the enemy had entered into an alliance with the House of Douglas, their ancient foes, and were turning their arms against the English king. Percy and Douglas fought together at Shrews- bury, while the Earl of March was in the ranks of King Henry. The battle of Shrewsbury was fought in July, 1403. In 1405, Northumberland, a traitor for a second time, took refuge in Scotland, and re- ceived a dubious protection from Albany, who was ready to sell him should any opportunity arise. A truce which had been arranged between Scotland and England expired in April, 1405, and the two countries were technically in a state of war, although there were no great military operations in progress.^ In the spring of 1406, Albany sent the heir to the Scottish throne. Prince James, to be educated in France. The vessel in which he sailed was captured by the English off Flamborough Head, and the prince was taken to * In the summer of 1405 the English ravaged Arran, and the Scots sacked Berwick. There were also some naval skirmishes later in the year 84 England and Scotland Henry IV. It has been a tradition in Scotland that James was captured in time of truce, and Wyntoun uses the incident to point a moral with regard to the natural deceitfulness of the English heart : " It is of Eng-lish nationn The common kent conditionn Of Truth the virtue to forget, When they do them on winning- set, And of good faith reckless to be When they do their advantage see ". But it would seem clear that the truce had ex- pired, and that the English king was bound to no treaty of peace. His son's capture was im- mediately followed by the death of King Robert III, who sank, broken-hearted, into the grave. Albany continued to rule, and maintained a series of truces with England till his death in 1420. The peace was occasionally broken in intervals of truce, and the advantage was usually on the side of the Scots. In 1409 the Earl of March returned to his allegiance and received back his estates. In the same year his son recovered Fast Castle (on St. Abb's Head), and the Scots also recovered Jedburgh. Albany's attention was now diverted by a danger threatened by the Highland portion of the kingdom. Scotland, south of Forth and Clyde, along with the east coast up to the Moray Firth, had been rapidly affected by the English, French, and Norman influences, of which we Scotland^ Lancaster^ and York 85 have spoken. The inhabitants of the more re- mote Higfhland districts and of the western isles had remained uncorrupted by civiHzation of any- kind, and ever since the reign of Malcolm Can- more there had been a militant reaction against the changes of St. Margaret and David I ; from the eleventh century to the thirteenth, the Scot- tish kings were scarcely ever free from Celtic pretenders and Celtic revolts.^ The inhabitants of the west coast and of the isles were very largely of Scandinavian blood, and it was not till 1266 that the western isles definitely passed from Norway to the Scottish crown. The Eng- lish had employed several opportunities of ally- ing themselves with these discontented Scots- men; but Mr. Freeman's general statement, already quoted, that "the true Scots, out of hatred to the Saxons nearest them, leagued with the Saxons farther off", is very far from a fair representation of the facts. We have seen that Highlander and Islesman fought under David I at the battle of the Standard, against the '* Saxons farther off", and that although the death of Comyn ranged against Bruce the High- landers of Argyll, numbers of Highlanders were led to victory at Bannockburn by Earl Randolph; and Angus Og and the Islesmen formed part of the Scottish reserves and stood side by side with the men of Carrick, under the leadership of King Robert. During the troubles which followed ' Cf. App. B. 86 England and Scotland King Robert's death, the Lords of the Isles had resumed their general attitude of opposition. It was an opposition very natural in the circum- stances, the rebellion of a powerful vassal against a weak central government, a reaction against the forces of civilization. But it has never been shown that it was an opposition in any way racial; the complaint that the Lowlands of Scotland have been "rent by the Saxon from the Gael", in the manner of a racial disposses- sion, belongs to "The Lady of the Lake", not to sober history. All Scotland, indeed, has now, in one sense, been "rent by the Saxon" from the Celt. " Let no one doubt the civilization of these islands," wrote Dr. Johnson, in Skye, "for Portree possesses a jail." The Highlands and islands have been the last portions of Scotland to succumb to Anglo-Saxon influences; that the Lowlands formed an earlier victim does not prove that their racial complexion is different. The incident of which we have now to speak has frequently been quoted as a crowning proof of the difference between the Lowlanders and the "true Scots". Donald of the Isles had a quarrel with the Regent Albany, and, in 1408, entered into an agreement with Henry IV, to whom he owned allegiance. But this very quarrel arose about the earldom of Ross, which was claimed by Donald (himself a grandson of Robert II) in right of his wife, a member of the Leslie family. The " assertor of Celtic nationality" was thus the Scotland^ La7icaster^ and Y^ork 87 son of one Lowland woman and the husband of another. When he entered the Scottish main- land his progfress was first opposed, not by the Lowlanders, but by the Mackays of Caithness, who were defeated near Dingwall, and the Frasers immediately afterwards received what the historians of the Clan Donald term a "well-merited chastisement".^ Donald pursued his victorious march to Aberdeenshire, tempted by the prospect of plundering- Aberdeen. It is interesting to note that, while the battle which has given significance to the record of the dispute was fought for the Lowland town of Aberdeen in a Lowland part of Aberdeenshire, the very name of the town is Celtic, and the dis- trict in which the battlefield of Harlaw is situated abounds to this day in Celtic place-names, and, not many miles away, the Gaelic tongue may still be heard at Braemar or at Tomintoul. It was not to a racial battle between Celt and Saxon that the Earl of Mar and the Provost of Aberdeen, aided by the Frasers, marched out to Harlaw, in July, 141 1, to meet Donald of the Isles. Had the clansmen been victorious there would certainly have been a Celtic revival; but this was not the danger most dreaded by the victorious Lowlanders. The battle of Harlaw was part of the struggle with England. Donald of the Isles was the enemy of Scottish inde- ' The Clan Donald, vol. i, p. 154. The Mackenzies were also against the Celtic hero. ■88 England and Scotland pendence, and his success would mean English supremacy. He had taken up the role of "the Disinherited " of the preceding- century, just as the Earl of March had done some years before. As time passed, and civilization progressed in the Lowlands while the Highlands maintained their integrity, the feeling of separation grew more strongly marked; and as the inhabitants of the Lowlands intermarried with French and English, the differences of blood became more evident and hostility became unavoidable. But any such abrupt racial division as Mr. Freeman drew between the true Scots and the Scottish Lowlanders stands much in need of proof. Harlaw was an incident in the never-ending struggle with England. It was succeeded, in 1416 or 141 7, by an unfortunate expedition into England, known as the "Foul Raid", and after the Foul Raid came the battle of Bauge. They are all part of one and the same story; although Harlaw might seem an internal complication and Bauge an act of unprovoked aggression, both are really as much part of the Eng- lish war as is the Foul Raid or the battle of Bannockburn itself. The invasion of France by Henry V reminded the Scots that the Eng- lish could be attacked on French soil as well as in Northumberland. So the Earl of Buchan, a son of Albany, was sent to France at the head of an army, in answer to the dauphin's request for help. In March, 1421, the Scots Scotland^ Lancaster^ and York 89 defeated the English at Baug-c and captured the Earl of Somerset. The death of Henry V, in the following year, and the difficulties of the English government led to the return of the young King of Scots. The Regent Albany had been succeeded in 1420 by his son, who was weak and incompetent, and Scotland longed for its rightful king. James had been carefully educated in England, and the dreary years of his captivity have enriched Scottish literature by the Kings Quair: ** More sweet than ever a poet's heart Gave yet to the English tong-ue". Albany seems to have made all due efforts to obtain his nephew's release, and James was in constant communication with Scotland. He had been forced to accompany Henry V to France, and was present at the siege of Melun, where Henry refused quarter to the Scottish allies of France, although England and Scotland were at war. Although constantly complaining of his imprisonment, and of the treatment accorded to him in England, James brought home with him, when his release was negotiated in 1423-24, an English bride, Joan Beaufort, the heroine of the Quair. She was the daughter of Somerset, who had been captured at Bauge, and grand- daughter of John of Gaunt. The troublous reign of James I gave him but little time for conducting a foreign war, and the go Englafid and Scotland truce which was made when the king was ran- somed continued till 1433. It had been sug- gested that the peace between England and Scotland should extend to the Scottish troops serving in France, but no such clause was in- serted in the actual arrangement made, and it is almost certain that James could not have en- forced it, even had he wished to do so. He gave, however, no indication of holding lightly the ties that bound Scotland to France, and, in 1428, agreed to the marriage of his infant daugh- ter, Margaret, to the dauphin. Meanwhile, the Scottish levies had been taking their full share in the struggle for freedom in which France was engaged. At Crevant, near Auxerre, in July, 1423, the Earl of Buchan, now Constable of France, was defeated by Salisbury, and, thirteen months later, Buchan and the Earl of Douglas (Duke of Touraine) fell on the disastrous field of Verneuil. At the Battle of the Herrings (an attack upon a French convoy carrying Lenten food to the besiegers of Orleans, made near Janville, in February, 1429), the Scots, under the new constable. Sir John Stewart of Darnley, committed the old error of Halidon and Homil- don, and their impetuous valour could not avail against the English archers. They shared in the victory of Pathay, gained by the Maid of Orleans in June 1429, almost on the anniversary of Bannockburn, and they continued to follow the Maid through the last fateful months of her Scotland^ Lajicaster^ and York gi warfare. So g'reat a part had Scotsmen taken in the French wars that, on the expiry of the truce in 1433, the English offered to restore not only- Roxburgh but also Berwick to Scotland. But the French alliance was destined to endure for more than another century, and James declined, thus bringing about a slight resuscitation of war- like operations. The Scots won a victory at Piperden, near Berwick, in 1435 or 1436, and in the summer of 1436, when the Princess Margaret was on her way to France to enter into her ill- starred union with the dauphin, the English made an attempt to take her captive. James replied by an attempt upon Roxburgh, but gave it up without having accomplished anything, and returned to spend his last Christmas at Perth. His twelve years in Scotland had been mainly occupied in attempts to reduce his rebellious subjects, especially in the Highlands, to obe- dience and loyalty, and he had roused much implacable resentment. So the poet-king was murdered at Perth in February, 1436-37, and his English widow was left to guard her son, the child sovereign, now in his seventh year. It was probably under her influence that a truce of nine years was made. When the truce came to an end, Scotland was in the interval between the two contests with the House of Douglas which mark the reign of James H. William the sixth earl and his brother David had been entrapped and beheaded I 92 England and Scotland by the governors of the boy king in November, 1440, and the new earl, James the Gross, died in 1443, and was succeeded by his son, WilHam, the eighth earl, who remained for some years on good terms with the king. Accordingly, we find that, when the English burned the town of Dunbar in May, 1448, Douglas replied, in the following month, by sacking Alnwick. Retalia- tion came in the shape of an assault upon Dum- fries in the end of June, and the Scots, with Douglas at their head, burned Warkworth in July. The successive attacks on Alnwick and Warkworth roused the Percies to a greater effort, and, in October, they invaded Scotland, and were defeated at the battle of Sark or Lochmaben Stone. ^ In 1449 the Franco-Scottish League was strengthened by the marriage of King James to Marie of Gueldres. Now began the second struggle with the Dou- glases. Their great possessions, their rights as Wardens of the Marches, their prestige in Scottish history made them dangerous subjects for a weak royal house. Since the death of the good Lord James their loyalty to the kings of Scotland had not been unbroken, and it is pnJbable that their suppression was inevitable in the interests of a strong central government. But the perfidy with which James, with his own ' There is great doubt as to whether these events belong- to the year 1448 or 1449. Mr. Lang, with considerable probability, assigns them to 1449. Scotland^ Lancaster^ and York 93 hand, murdered the Earl, in February, 1451-52, can scarcely be condoned, and it has created a sympathy for the Doug-lases which their history scarcely merits. James had now entered upon a decisive struggle with the great House, which a temporary reconciliation with the new earl, in 1453, only served to prolong. The quarrel is interesting for our purpose because it largely decided the relations between Scotland and the rival lines of Lancaster and York. In 1455, when the Douglases were finally suppressed and their estates were forfeited, the Yorkists first took up arms against Henry VI. Douglas had at- tempted intrigues with the Lord of the Isles, with the Lancastrians, and with the Yorkists in turn, and, about 1454, he came to an understanding with the Duke of York. We find, therefore, during the years which followed the first battle of St. Albans, a revival of active hostilities with England. In 1456, James invaded England and harried Northumberland in the interests of the Lancastrians. During the temporary loss of power by the Duke of York, in 1457, a truce was concluded, but it was broken after the reconcilia- tion of York to Henry VI in 1458, and when the battle of Northampton, in July, 1460, left the Yorkists again triumphant, James marched to attempt the recovery of Roxburgh.^ James I, 'James's army contained a considerable proportion of Islesmen, who, as at Northallerton and at Bannockburn, fought against "the Saxons farther oft". 94 England and Scotland as we have seen, had abandoned the siege of Roxburgh Castle only to go to his death; his son found his death while attempting the same task. On Sunday, the 3rd of August, 1460, he was killed by the bursting of a cannon, the mechanism of which had attracted his atten- tion and made him, according to Pitscottie, "more curious than became him or the majesty of a king". The year 1461 saw Edward IV placed on his uneasy throne, and a boy of ten years reigning over the turbulent kingdom of Scotland. The Scots had regained Roxburgh a few days after the death of King James, and they followed up their success by the capture of Wark. But a greater triumph was in store. When Margaret of Anjou, after rescuing her husband, Henry VI, at the second battle of St. Albans, in February, 146 1, met, in March, the great disaster of Tow- ton, she fled with Henry to Scotland, where she had been received when preparing for the expedi- tion which had proved so unfortunate. On her second visit she brought with her the surrender of Berwick, which, in April, 1461, became once more a Scots town, and was represented in the Parliament which met in 1469. In gratitude for the gift, the Scots made an invasion of Eng- land in June, 1461, and besieged Carlisle, but were forced to retire without having afforded any real assistance to the Lancastrian cause. There was now a division of opinion in Scotland with Scotland^ Lmtcastery and York 95 regfard to supporting- the Lancastrian cause. The policy of the late king was maintained by the great Bishop Kennedy, who himself enter- tained Henry VI in the Castle of St. Andrews. But the queen-mother, Mary of Gueldres, was a niece of the Duke of Burgundy, and was, through his influence, persuaded to go over to the side of the White Rose. While Edward IV remained on unfriendly terms with Louis XI of France, Kennedy had not much difficulty in resisting the Yorkist proclivities of the queen- mother, and in keeping Scotland loyal to the Red Rose. They were able to render their allies but little assistance, and their opposition gave the astute Edward IV an opportunity of intrigue. John of the Isles took advantage of the minority of James III to break the peace into which he had been brought by James II, and the exiled Earl of Douglas concluded an agreement be- tween the Lord of the Isles and the King ot England. But when, in October, 1463, Edward IV came to terms with Louis XI, Bishop Kennedy was willing to join Mary of Gueldres in deserting the doomed House of Lancaster. Mary did not live to see the success of her policy; but peace was made for a period of fifteen years, and Scotland had no share in the brief Lancastrian restoration of 1470. The threat- ening relations between England and France nearly led to a rupture in 1473, but the result was only to strengthen the agreement, and it 9^ England and Scotland was arranged that the infant heir of James III should marry the Princess CeciHa, Edward's daughter. In 1479-80, when the French were again alarmed by the diplomacy of Edward IV, we find an outbreak of hostilities, the precise cause of which is somewhat obscure. It is certain that Edward made no effort to preserve the peace, and he sent, in 1481, a fleet to attack the towns on the Firth of Forth, in revenge for a border raid for which James had attempted to apolcgize. Edward was unable to secure the services of his old ally, the Lord of the Isles, who had been again brought into subjection in the interval of peace, and who now joined in the national pre- parations for war with England. But there was still a rebel Earl of Douglas with whom to plot, and Edward was fortunate in obtaining the co- operation of the Duke of Albany, brother of James III, who had been exiled in 1479. Albany and Edward made a treaty in 1482, in which the former styled himself "Alexander, King of Scotland ", and promised to do homage to Ed- ward when he should obtain his throne. The only important events of the war are the re- capture of Berwick, in August, 1482, and an invasion of Scotland by the Duke of Gloucester. Berwick was never again in Scottish hands. Albany was unable to carry out the revolution contemplated in his treaty with Edward IV; but he was reinstated, and became for three months Lieutenant-General of the Realm of Scotland. Scotland^ Lancaster^ and York 97 In March, 1482-83, he resigned this office, and, after a brief interval, in which he was reconciled to King James, was again forfeited in July, 1483. Edward IV had died on the gth of April, and Albany was unable to obtain any English aid. Along with the Earl of Douglas he made an attempt upon Scotland, but was defeated at Loch- maben in July, 1484. Thereafter, both he and his ally pass out of the story: Douglas died a prisoner in 1488; Albany escaped to France, where he was killed at a tournament in 1485; he left a son who was to take a great part in Scottish politics during the minority of James V. Richard III found sufficient difficulty in govern- ing England to prevent his desiring to continue unfriendly relations with Scotland, and he made, on his accession, something like a cordial peace with James III. It was arranged that James, now a widower,^ should marry Elizabeth Woodville, widow of Edward IV, and that his heir. Prince James, should marry a daughter of the Duke of Suffolk. James did not afford Richard any assistance in 1485, and after the battle of Bosworth he remained on friendly terms with Henry VII. A controversy about Berwick prevented the completion of negotiations for marriage alliances, but friendly relations were maintained till the revolution of 1488, in which ' He had married, in 1469, Margaret, daug-hter of Christian I of Den- mark. The islands of Orkney and Shetland were assigned as payment for her dowry, and so passed, a few years later, under the Scottish Crown. g8 England and Scotland James III lost his life. Both James and his rebellious /nobles, who had proclaimed his son as king, attempted to obtain English assistance, but it was given to neither side. The new king, James IV, was young, brave, and ambitious. He was specially interested in the navy, and in the commercial prosperity of Scotland. It was scarcely possible that, in this way, difficulties with England could be avoided, for Henry VII was engaged in developing English trade, and encouraged English shipping. Accordingly, we find that, while the two countries were still nominally at peace, they were engaged in a naval warfare. Scotland was fortunate in the possession of some great sea-captains, notable among- whom were Sir Andrew Wood and Sir Andrew Barton.^ In 1489, Sir Andrew Wood, with two ships, the Yellow Carvel and the Flower, inflicted a severe defeat upon five English vessels which were engaged in a piratical expedition in the Firth of Forth. Henry VII, in great wrath, sent Stephen Bull, with "three great ships, well- manned, well-victualled, and well-artilleried ", to revenge the honour of the English navy, and after a severe fight Bull and his vessels were captured by the Scots. There was thus con- siderable irritation on both sides, and while the veteran intriguer, the Duchess of Burgundy, attempted to obtain James's assistance for the 1 Cf. The Days of James IV, by Mr. G. Gregfory Smith, in the series of " Scottish History from Contemporary Writers ". Scotland^ Lancaster^ and York 99 pretender, Perkin Warbeck, the pseudo-Duke of York, Henry entered into a compact with Archibald, Earl of Angus, well-known to readers of Marmio7i. The treachery of Angus led, how- ever, to no immediate result, and peace was maintained till 1495, although the French alliance w^as confirmed in 1491. The rupture of 1495 was due solely to the desire of James to aid Maximilian in the attempt to dethrone Henry Vn in the interests of Warbeck. Henry, on his part, made every effort to retain the friend- ship of the Scottish king, and offered a marriage alliance with his eldest daughter, Margaret. James, however, was determined to strike a blow for his protege, and in November, 1495, Warbeck landed in Scotland, was received with great honour, assigned a pension, and wedded to the Lady Katharine Gordon, daughter of the greatest northern lord, the Earl of Huntly. In the following April, Ferdinand and Isabella, who were desirous of separating Scotland from France, tried to dissuade James from supporting Warbeck, and offered him a daughter in marriage, although the only available Spanish prmcesf was already promised to Prince Arthur oi England. But all efforts to avoid war were of no avail, and in September, 1496, James marched into England, ravaged the English borders, and returned to Scotland. The English replied by small border forays, but James's enthusiasrrt for his guest rapidly cooled; in July, 1497, Warbeck left loo England a7id Scotland Scotland. James did not immediately make peace, holding himself possibly in readiness in the event of Warbeck's attaining any success. In August he again invaded England, and attacked Norham Castle, provoking a counter- invasion of Scotland by the Earl of Surrey. In September, Warbeck was captured, and, in the same month, a truce was arranged between Scotland and England, by the Peace of Aytoun. There was, in the following year, an unimportant border skirmish; but with the Peace of Aytoun ended this attempt of the Scots to support a pretender to the English crown. The first Scottish interference in the troubles of Lancaster and York had been on behalf of the House of Lancaster; the story is ended with this Yorkist intrigue. When next there arose circumstances in any way similar, the sympathies of the Scots were enlisted on the side of their own Royal House of Stuart. Beginnings of the English Alliance loi CHAPTER VII THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ENGLISH ALLIANCE 1500-1542 When, in 1501, neg'otiations were in progress for the marriag-e of James IV to Margaret Tudor, Polydore Virgil tells us that the English Council raised the objection that Margaret or her descen- dants might succeed to the throne of England. "If it should fall out so," said Henry, "the realm of England will suffer no evil, since it will not be the addition of England to Scotland, but of Scotland to England." It is obvious that the English had every reason for desiring* to stop the irritating opposition of the Scots, which, while it never seriously endangered the realm, was frequently a cause of annoyance, and which hampered the efforts of English diplomacy. The Scots, on the other hand, were separated from the English by the memories of two centuries of constant war- fare, and they were bound by many ties to the enemies of England. The only King of Scots, since Alexander III, who had been on friendly terms with England, was James III, and his enemies had used the fact as a weapon against him. His successor had already twice refused the proffered English alliance, and when 102 England and Scotland he at length accepted Henry's persistent proposal and the thrice-offered English princess, it was only after much hesitation and upon certain strict conditions. No Englishmen were to enter Scot- land "without letters commendatory of their own sovereign lord or safe conduct of his Warden of the Marches ". The marriage, though not especially flattering to the dignity of a monarch who had been encouraged to hope for the hand of a daughter of Spain, was notable as involving a recognition (the first since the Treaty of North- ampton) of the King of Scots as an independent sovereign. On the 8th of August, 1503, Margaret was married to James in the chapel of Holyrood. She was received with great rejoicing; the poet Dunbar, whom a recent visit to London had convinced that the English capital, with its "beryl streamis pleasant . . . where many a swan doth swim with wingis fair", was "the flower of cities all ", wrote the well-known poem on the Union of the Thistle and the Rose to welcome this second English Margaret to Scotland. But the time was not yet ripe for any real union of the Thistle and the Rose. Peace continued till the death of Henry VH; but during these years England was never at war with France. James threatened war with England in April, 1505, in the interests of the Duke of Gueldres; in 1508, he declined to give an understanding that he would not renew the old league with France, and he refused to be Beginnings of the English Alliance 103 drawn, by Pope Julius II, into an attitude of opposition to that country. Even before the death of Henry VII, in 1509, there were troubles with regard to the borders, and it was evident that the "perpetual peace" arranged by the treaty of marriage was a sheer impossibility. Henry VIII succeeded to the throne of Eng- land in April, 1509; three years and five months later, in September, 15 13, was fought the battle of Flodden. The causes may soon be told. They fall under three heads. James and Henry were alike headstrong and impetuous, and they were alike ambitious of playing a considerable part in European affairs. They were, moreover, brothers-in-law, and, in the division of the inherit- ance of Henry VII, the King of England had, with characteristic Tudor avarice, retained jewels and other property which had been left to his sister, the Queen of Scots. In the second place, the ancient jealousies were again roused by disputes on the borders, and by naval warfare. James had long been engaged in '*the building of a fleet for the protection of our shores"; in 151 1, he had built the Great Michael^ for which, it was said, the woods of Fife had been wasted. The Scottish fleet was frequently involved in quarrels with Henry's ships, and in August, 151 1, the English took two Scottish vessels, which they alleged to be pirates, and Andrew Barton was slain in the fighting. James demanded redress, but, says Hall, "the King I04 England and Scotland of England wrote with brotherly salutations to the King- of Scots of the robberies and evil doings of Andrew Barton ; and that it became not one prince to lay a breach of a league to another prince, in doing justice upon a pirate or thief ".^ These personal irritations and petty troubles might have proved harmless, and, had no European complications intervened, it is possible that there might have "from Fate's dark book a leaf been torn ", the leaf which tells of Flodden Field. But, in 151 1, Julius II formed the Holy League against France, and by the end of the year it included Spain, Austria, and England. The formation of a united Europe against the ancient ally of Scotland thoroughly alarmed James. It was true that, at the moment, England was willing to be friendly; but, should France be subdued, whither might Scotland look for help in the future? James used every effort to prevent the League from carrying out their project; he attempted to form a coalition of Denmark, France, and Scotland, and wrote to his uncle, the King of Denmark, urging him to declare for the Most Christian King. He wrote Henry offering to ''pardon all the damage done to us and our kingdom, the capture of our merchant ships, the slaughter and imprisonment of our subjects", if only Henry would ''maintain the universal concord of the Church ". He made a vigorous appeal to the pope himself, beseech- ' Gregory Smith, p. 123. Beginnings of the Efiglish Alliance 105 ing- him to keep the peace. His efforts were, of course, futile, nor was France in such extreme danger as he supposed. But the chance of proving himself the saviour of France appealed strongly to him, and, when there came to him, in the spring of 15 13, a message from the Queen of France, couched in the bygone language of chivalry, and urging him, as her knight, to break a lance for her on English soil, James could no longer hesitate. Henry persevered in his warlike measures against France, and James, after one more despairing effort to act as mediator, began his preparations for an invasion of England. His wisest counsellors were strongly opposed to war: most prominent among them was his father's faithful servant, Bishop Elphinstone, the founder of the University of Aberdeen. Elphin- stone was a saint, a scholar, and a statesman, and he was probably the only man in Scotland who could influence the kino-. During the dis- cussion of the French alliance he urged delay, but was overborne by the impetuous patriotism of the younger nobles, whose voice was, as ever, for war. So, war it was. Bitter letters of defiance passed between the two kings, and, in August, 1 5^3) James led his army over the border. Lowlanders, Highlanders, and Islesmen had alike rallied round his banner; once again we find the "true Scots leagued", not "with", but against "the Saxons farther off". The Scots took Norham Castle and some neighbour- io6 England and Scotland ing strong-holds to prevent their affording protection to the EngHsh, and then occupied a strong position on Flodden Edge. The Earl of Surrey, who was in command of the English army, challenged James to a pitched battle, and James accepted the challenge. Meanwhile, Surrey completely outmanoeuvred the King of Scots, crossing the Till and marching northwards so rs to get between James and Scotland. James seems to have been quite unsuspicious of this movement, which was protected by some rising ground. The Scots had failed to learn the necessity of scouting. Surrey, when he had gained his end, recrossed the Till, and made a march directly southwards upon Flodden. James cannot have been afraid of losing his communications, for his force was well-provi- sioned, and Surrey was bound by the terms of his own challenge to fight immediately; but he decided to abandon Flodden Edge for the lower ridge of Brankston, and in a cloud of smoke, which not only rendered the Scots invisible to the enemy but likewise concealed the enemy from the Scots, King James and his army rushed upon the English. The battle began with artil- lery, the superiority of the English in which forced the Scots to come to close quarters. Then ** Far on the left, unseen the while, Stanley broke Lennox and Argyle"; on the English right. Sir Edmund Howard fell Beginnings of the English Alliance \Qi^ back before the charge of the Scottish borderers, who, forthwith, devoted themselves to plunder. The centre was fiercely contested; the Lord High Admiral of England, a son of Surrey, defeated Crawford and Montrose, and attacked the division with which James himself was encountering Surrey, while the archers on the left of the English centre rendered unavailing the brave charge of the Highlanders. With artillery and with archery the English had drawn the Scottish attack, and the battle of Flodden was but a variation on every fight since Dupplin Moor. Finally the Scots formed themselves into a ring of spearmen, and the English, with their arrows and their long bills, kept up a continuous attack. The story has been told once for all : " But yet, though thick the shafts as snow, Though charging knights as whirlwinds go. Though bill-men ply the ghastly blow, Unbroken was the ring; The stubborn spearmen still made good Their dark impenetrable wood. Each stepping where their comrade stood The instant that he fell. No thought was there of dastard flight ; Link'd in the serried phalanx tight Groom fought like noble, squire like knight, As fearlessly and well; Till utter darkness closed her wing O'er their thin host and wounded king." No defeat had ever less in it of disgrace. The victory of the English was hard won, and the io8 England and Scotland valour displayed on the stricken field saved Scotland from any further results of Surrey's triumph. The results were severe enoug-h. Al- though the Scots could boast of their dead king that ** No one failed him ; he is keeping" Royal state and semblance still ", they had lost the best and bravest of the land. Scarcely a family record but tells of an ancestor slain at Flodden, and many laments have come down to us for "The Flowers of the Forest". But, although the disaster was overwhelming, and the loss seemed irreparable at the time, though the defeat at Flodden was not less decisive than the victory of Bannockburn, the name of Flodden, notwithstanding all this, re- calls but an incident in our annals. Bannock- burn is an incident in English history, but it is the great turning-point in the story of Scotland; the historian cannot regard Flodden as more than incidental to both. When James V succeeded his father he was but one year old, and his guardian, in accordance with the desire of James IV, was the queen- mother, Margaret Tudor. Her subsequent career is one long tale of intrigue, too elaborate and intricate to require a full recapitulation here. The war lingered on, in a desultory fashion, till May, 15 15. Lord Dacre ravaged the borders, and the Scots replied by a raid into England; but there is nothing of any interest to relate. Beginnings of the English Alliance 109 From the accession of Francis I, in 151 5, the condition of politics in Scotland, as of all Europe, was influenced and at times dominated by his rivalry with the Emperor. The unwonted desire of France for peace and alliance with England placed the Scots in a position of considerable difficulty, and the difficulty was accentuated by the more than usually distracted state of the country during the minority of the king. In August, 1 5 14, Margaret (who had in the pre- ceding April given birth to a posthumous child to James IV) was married to the Earl of Angus, the grandson of Archibald Bell-the-Cat. It was felt that the sister of Henry VIII and the wife of a Douglas could scarcely prove a suitable guar- dian of a Stewart throne, and the Scots invited the Duke of Albany, son of the traitor duke, and cousin of the late king, to come over to Scotland and undertake the government. De- spite some efforts of Henry to prevent him, Albany came to Scotland in May, 15 15. He was a French nobleman, possessed large estates in France, and, although he was, ere long, heir- presumptive to the Scottish throne, could speak no lanofuao-e but French. When he arrived in Scotland he found against him the party of Margaret and Angus, while the Earls of Lennox and Arran were his ardent supporters. The latter nobleman was the grandson of James II, being the son of the Princess Mary and James, Lord Hamilton, and he was, therefore, the no England and Scotland next heir to the throne after Albany. The interests of both might be endangered should Margaret and Angus become all-powerful, and so we find them acting together for some time. Albany was immediately made regent of Scotland, and the care of the young king and his brother, the baby Duke of Ross, was entrusted to him. It required force to obtain possession of the children, but the regent succeeded in doing so in August, in time to defeat a scheme of Henry VIII for kidnapping the princes. The queen- mother fled to England, where, in October, she bore to Angus a daughter, Margaret, afterwards Countess of Lennox and mother of the unfor- tunate Darnley. She then proceeded to pay a visit to Henry VIII. Meanwhile, in Scotland, Albany was finding many difficulties. Arran was now in rebellion against him, and now in alliance with him. In May, 1516, Angus himself, leaving his imperious wife in England, made terms with the regent. The infant Duke of Ross had died in the end of 15 15, and only the boy king stood between Albany and the throne. In 1517 Albany returned to France to cement more closely the old alliance, and remained in France till 152 1. Margaret immediately returned to Scotland, and, had she behaved with any degree of wisdom, might have greatly strengthened her brother's tortuous Scottish policy. But a Tudor and a Douglas could not be other than an ill-matched pair, and Margaret was already tired of her Begifuiings of the English Alliance iii husband. In 1518, she informed her brother that she desired to divorce Angus. Henry, whose own matrimonial adventures were still in the future, and to whom Angus was useful, scolded his sister in true Tudor fashion, and told her that, alike by the laws of God and man, she must stick to her husband. A formal recon- ciliation took place, but, henceforth, Margaret's one desire was to be free, and to this she subor- dinated all other considerations. In 15 19, she came to an understanding with Arran, her hus- band's bitterest foe, and in the summer of the same year we find Henry marvelling much at the ''tender letters" she sent to France, in which she urged the return of Albany, whose absence from Scotland had been the main aim of English policy since Flodden. While Francis I and Henry VIII were on good terms, Albany was detained in France; but when, in 152 1, their relations became strained, he returned to Scotland to find Angus in power. Scotland rallied round him, and in February, 1522, Angus, in turn, retired to France, while Henry VIII devoted his energies to the prevention of a marriage between his amorous sister and the handsome Albany. The regent led an army to the borders and beoan to organize an in- vasion, for which the north of England was ill- prepared, but was outwitted by Henry's agent. Lord Dacre, who arranged an armistice which he had no authority to conclude. Albany then re- 112 England and Scotland turned to France, and the Scots, refusing Henry's offer of peace, had to suffer an invasion by Surrey, which was encouraged by Margaret, who was again on the English side. When Albany came back in September, 1523, he easily won over the fickle queen; but, after an unsuccessful attack on Wark, he left Scotland for ever in May, 1524. No sooner had Albany disappeared from the scene than Margaret entered into a new intrigue with the Earl of Arran; it had one important result, the ''erection" of the young king, who now, at the age of twelve years, became the nominal ruler of the country. This manoeuvre was executed with the connivance of the English, to whose side Margaret had again deserted. For some time Arran and Margaret remained at the head of affairs, but the return of the Earl of Angus at once drove the queen-mother into the opposite camp, and she became reconciled to the leader of the French party. Archbishop Beaton, whom she had imprisoned shortly before. Angus, who had been the paid servant of England throughout all changes since 15 17, assumed the government. The alliance between England and France, which followed the disaster to Francis I at Pavia, seriously weakened the supporters of French influence in Scotland, and Angus made a three years' truce in 1525. In the next year, Arran transferred his support to Angus, who held the reins of power till the summer of 1528. Beginnings of the English A lliance 113 The chief event of this period is the divorce of Queen Margaret, who immediately married a youth, Henry Stewart, son of Lord Evandale, and afterwards known as Lord Methven. The fall of Angus was brought about by the conduct of the young king himself, who, tired of the tyranny in which he was held, and escaping from Edinburgh to Stirling, regained his free- dom. Angus had to flee to England, and James passed under the influence of his mother and her youthful husband. In 1528 he made a truce with England for five years. During these years James showed leanings towards the French alli- ance, while Henry was engaged in ticasonable intrigues with Scottish nobles, and in fomenting border troubles. But the truce was renewed in 1533, and a more definite peace was made in 1534. Henry now attempted to enlist James as an ally against Rome, and, by the irony of fate, offered him, as a temptation to become a Protestant, the hand of the Princess Mary. James refused to break with the pope, and negotiations for a meeting between the two kings fell through — fortunately, for Henry was prepared to kidnap James. The King of Scots arranged in 1536 to marry a daughter of the Due de Vendome, but, on seeing her, behaved much as Henry VHI was to do in the case of Anne of Cleves, except that he definitely declined to wed her at all. Being in France, he made a proposal for the Princess Madeleine, daughter of Francis 114 Efigland and Scotland I, and was married to her in January, 1536-37. This step naturally annoyed Henry, who refused James a passport through England, on the ground that "no Scottish king had ever entered England peacefully except as a vassal ". So James returned by sea with his dying bride, and reached Scotland to find numerous troubles in store for him — among them, intrigues brought about by his mother's wish to obtain a divorce from her third husband. Madeleine died in July, 1537, and the relations between James and Henry VHI (now a widower by the death of Jane Seymour) were further strained by the fact that nephew and uncle alike desired the hand of Mary of Guise, widow of the Duke de Longueville, who preferred her younger suitor and married him in the following summer. These two French marriages are important as marking James's final rejection of the path marked out for him by Henry VHI. The husband of a Guise could scarcely remain on good terms with the heretic King of England; but Henry, with true Tudor persistency, did not give up hope of bending his nephew to his will, and spent the next few years in negotiating with James, in trying to alienate him from Cardinal Beaton — the great supporter of the French alli- ance, — and in urging the King of Scots to enrich himself at the expense of the Church. As late as 1 54 1, a meeting was arranged at York, whither Henry went, to find that his nephew did Beginnings of the English Alliance 115 not appear. James was probably wise, for we know that Henry would not have scrupled to seize his person. Border troubles arose; Henry reasserted the old claim of homage and devised a scheme to kidnap James. Finally he sent the Earl of Ang-us, who had been living in England, with a force to invade Scotland, and this without the formality of declaring war. Henry, in fact, was acting as a suzerain punishing a vassal who had refused to appear when he was summoned. The English ravaged the county of Roxburgh in 1542; the Scottish nobles declined to cross the border in what they asserted to be a French quarrel; and in November a small Scottish force was enclosed between Solway Moss and the river Esk, and completely routed. The ignominy of this fresh disaster broke the king's heart. On December 8th was born the hapless princess who is known as the Queen of Scots. The news brought small comfort to the dying king, who was still mourning the sons he had lost in the preceding year. '''Adieu,' he said, 'farewell; it came with a lass and it will pass with a lass.' And so", adds Pitscottie, "he recommended himself to the mercy of Almighty God, and spake little from that time forth, but turned his back unto his lords, and his face unto the wall." Six days later the end came. With "a little smile of laughter", and kissing his hand to the nobles who stood round, he breathed his last. ii6 England and Scotla^td CHAPTER VIII THE PARTING OF THE WAYS I 542- I 568 Mary of Guise, thus for the second time a widow, was left the sole protector of the infant queen, against the intrig-ues of Henry VIII and the treachery of the House of Douglas. For- tunately, Margaret Tudor had predeceased her son in October, 1541, and her death left one disturbing element the less. But the situation which the dowager had to face was much more perplexed than that which confronted any other of the long line of Scottish queen-mothers. Dur- ing the reign of James V the Reformed doctrines had been rapidly spreading in Scotland. It was at one time possible that James V might follow the example of Henry VIII, and a considerable section of his subjects would have welcomed the change. His death added recruits to the Pro- testant cause; the greater nobles now strongly desired an alienation of Church property, be- cause they could take advantage of the royal minority to seize it for their private advan- tage. The English party no longer consisted only of outlawed traitors; there were many honest Scots who felt that alliance with a Pro- testant kingdom must replace the old French The Parting of the Ways 117 leagfue. The main interest had come to be not nationality but religion, and Scotland must decide between France and England. The six- teenth century had already, in spite of all that had passed, made it evident that Scots and English could live on terms of peace, and the reign of James IV, which had witnessed the first attempt at a perpetual alliance, was remembered as the golden age of Scottish prosperity. The queen-mother was, by birth and by education, committed to the maintenance of the old religion and of the French alliance. The task was indeed difficult. Ultimate success was rendered im- possible by causes over which she possessed no kind of control; a temporary victory was ren- dered practicable only by the folly of Henry VIII. The history of Henry's intrigues becomes at this point very intricate, and we must be content with a mere outline. On James's death he con- ceived the plan of seizing the Scottish throne, and for this purpose he entered into an agree- ment with the Scottish prisoners taken at Sol- way Moss. They professed themselves willing to seize Mary and Cardinal Beaton, and so to deprive the national party of their leaders. Then came the news that the Earl of Arran had been appointed regent in December, 1542. He was heir-presumptive to the throne, and so was un- likely to acquiesce in Henry's scheme, and the traitors were instructed to deal with him as they ii8 Engla7id and Scotland thought necessary. But the traitors, who had, of course, been joined by the Earl of Angus, proved false to Henry and were falsely true to Scotland. They imprisoned Beaton, but did not deliver him up to the English, and they came to terms with Arran; nor did they carry out Henry's projects further than to permit the cir- culation of " haly write, baith the new testament and the auld, in the vulgar toung", and to enter into negotiations for the marriage of the young queen to the Prince of Wales, afterwards Edward VI. The conditions they made were widely different from those suggested by Henry. Full precautions were taken to secure the indepen- dence of the country both during Mary's minority and for the future. Strongholds were to be re- tained in Scottish hands; should there be no child of the marriage, the union would determine, and the proper heir would succeed to the Scottish throne. In any case, no union of the kingdoms was contemplated, although the crowns might be united. These terms were slightly modified in the following May. Beaton, who had escaped to St. Andrews, did not oppose the treaty, but made preparations for war. The treaty was agreed to, and the war of intrigues went on, Henry offering almost any terms for the possession of the little queen. Finally, in September, Arran joined the cardinal, became reconciled to the Church, and left Henry to intrigue with the Earl of Lennox, the next heir after Arran. The Parting of the Ways 119 Hostilities broke out in the end of 1543, when the Scots, enraged by Henry's having attacked some Scottish shipping, declared the treaty an- nulled. In the spring of 1544, the Earl of Hert- ford conducted his expedition into Scotland. The "English Wooing", as it was called, took the form of a massacre without regard to age or sex. The instructions given to Hertford by Henry and his council read like quotations from the book of Joshua. He was to leave none re- maining, where he encountered any resistance. Hertford, abandoning the usual methods of Eng- lish invaders, came by sea, took Leith, burned Edinburgh, and ravaged the Lothians. Lennox attempted to give up Dumbarton to the English, but his treachery was discovered and he fled to England, where he married Margaret, the daughter of Angus and niece of Henry VHI, by whom he became, in 1545, the father of Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, who thus stood within the possibility of succession, in his own right, to both kingdoms. Angus and his brother. Sir George Douglas, seized the opportunity given them by the misery caused by the English atrocities to make a move against Arran and Beaton, and seized the person of the queen- mother. But their success was brought to an end by the meeting of a Parliament, summoned by Arran, in December, 1544, and the Douglases were reconciled and restored to their estates, deeming this the most profitable step for them- I20 England and Scotland selves. Their breach with Henry was widened by the events of the next two months. A body of Eng-Hshmen, under Sir Ralph Eure, defeated Arran at Melrose, and desecrated the abbey, the sepulchre of the Douglas family. In revenge, Angus, along with Arran, fell upon the English at Ancrum Moor in Roxburghshire, and inflicted on them a total defeat. This was followed by a second invasion of Hertford (this time by land). He ravaged the borders in merciless fashion. A counter-invasion by an army of Scots and French auxiliaries had proved futile owing to the in- competence or the treachery of Angus, who almost immediately returned to the English side. About the same time a descendant of the Lord of the Isles whom James IV had crushed made an agreement with Henry, but was of little use to his cause. Beaton, after some successful fighting on the borders, in the end of 1545, went to St. Andrews in the beginning of 1546. On the ist March, George Wishart, who had been condemned on a charge of heresy, was hanged, and his body was burned at the stake. On May 29th the more fierce section of the Protestant party took their revenge by murdering the great cardinal in cold blood. We are not here con- cerned with Beaton's private character or with his treatment of heretics. His public actions, as far as foreign relations are concerned, are marked by a consistent patriotic aim. He represented the long line of Scottish churchmen who had The Parting of the Ways 121 striven to maintain the integrity of the kingdom and the alliance with France. He had shown great ability and tact, and in politics he had been much more honest than his opponents. But for his support of the queen-dowager in 1542-43, and but for his maintaining the party to which Arran afterwards attached himself, it is possible that Scotland might have passed under the yoke of Henry VHI in 1543, instead of being peace- fully united to England sixty years later. With him disappeared any remaining hope of the French party. "We may say of old Catholic Scotland", writes Mr. Lang, *'as said the dying Cardinal: 'Fie, all is gone'." Though Beaton was dead, the effects of his work remained. He had saved the situation at the crisis of December, 1542, and the insensate cruelty of Henry VHI had made it impossible that the Cardinal's work should fall to pieces at once. It seemed at first as if the only difference was that the castle of St. Andrews was held by the English party. Ten months after Beaton's death, the small Protestant garrison was joined by John Knox, who was present when the regent succeeded, with help from France, in reducing the castle in July, 1547. Its defenders, including Knox, were sent as galley-slaves to France. Henry VIII had died in the preceding January, but Hertford (now Protector Somerset) continued the Scottish policy of the preceding reign. In the summer of 1547 he made his third invasion 122 England and Scotland of Scotland, marked by the usual barbarity. In the course of it, on loth September, was fought the last battle between Scots and Eng- lish. Somerset met the Scots, under Arran, at Pinkiecleuch, near Edinburgh, and by the combined effect of artillery and a cavalry charge, completely defeated them with great slaughter. The English, after some further devastation, returned home, and the Scots at once entered into a treaty with France, which had been at war with England since 1544. It was agreed that the young queen should marry the dauphin, the eldest son of Henry II. While negotiations were in progress, she was placed for safety, first in the priory of Inchmahome, an island in the lake of Menteith, and afterwards in Dumbarton Castle. In June, 1548, a large number of French auxiliaries were sent to Scotland, and, in the beginning of August, Mary was sent to France. The English failed to capture her, and she landed about 13th August. The war lingered on till 1550. The Scots gradually won back the strong- holds which had been seized by the English, and, although their French allies did good service, serious jealousies arose, which greatly weakened the position of the French party. Finally, Scotland was included in the peace made between England and France in 1550. All the time, the Reformed faith was rapidly gaining adherents, and when, in April, 1554, the queen-dowager succeeded Arran (now Duke The Parting of the Ways 123 of Chatelherault) as regent, she found the problem of governing Scotland still more difficult. The relations with England had, indeed, been simpli- fied by the accession of a Roman Catholic queen in England, but the Spanish marriage of Mary Tudor made it difficult for a Guise to obtain any help from her. She continued the policy of obtaining French levies, and the irritation they caused was a considerable help to her opponents. Knox had returned to Scotland in ^555) ^fi H ^ fe "b 5 M '< i-J m < C-H INDEX Abbey Craig, 42. Aberdeen, xv, xxiii, xxvii, xxix, XXX, xxxi, 40, 68, 70, 87, 162, 163, 164, 169, 170, 202. — Assembly at, 154, 155. — Bishop of, 206. — University of, xxxi, 105. Aberdeenshire, xvii, xxxiv, 51, 87, 163, 169. Abernethy, 12. Abirdene, Robert of, 198. Aboyne, Earl of, 163. Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, xxi. Ada, daughter of Earl David, 35. Aelred of Rivaulx, 21, 195. Aethelstan, 5. Aird's Moss, rising at, 178. Airlie, Earl of, 169. Albany, 201. — Alexander, Duke of, 96, 97. — Duke of, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89. — 3rd Duke of, 109, no, in, 112. Alcester, 168. Alexander I, 17, 205, 207. — II, 28, 29, 32, 35, 36, 47, 209, 210. — Ill, 29, 30, 31, 36, loi, 197. — Earl of Mar, 198, 199. — son of Alexander III, 31. — of Lorn, 51, 53. — of Ross, 201. Alford, victory at, 170. Alnwick, 13, 26. — sacking of, 92. Alyth, 174. Ancrum Moor, battle of, 120. Angus, 198, 209. Angus, Earl Archibald, 99. — grandson of Earl Archibald, 109, no, ni, n2, \\2>, n5, n8, n9,. 120, 133. Angus Og, 53, 56, 85. Annan, 67. Annandale, 32, 47, 48, 50. Anne, Queen, 188, 189, 192. — of Cleves, 113. "Answer to ane Helandmanis In- vective ", xxxiv. Antiquiti de la Nation et de Id. Langue des Celtes autrement ap- pellez Gaulois, 2. Antony, Bishop of Durham, 44. Argyll, Bishop of, xxxiv. — Earl of, 178. — Highlanders of, 52, 55, 85, 106. — Marquis and Earl of, 161, 164, 166, 169, 172, 176. Argyllshire, xxiii, 3, 23, 25, 185. Armada, 145. Arran, 83. — Earl of (Chatelherault), 109, no, III, 112, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123. — Earl of, son of Chatelherault, 127, 128, 130. Arthur, Prince, 99. Auchinleck Chronicle, xxxiv. Auldearn, victory at, 170. Auxerre, 90. Ayr, xvii. Ayrshire, xxix, xxxiv, 51, 52, 178. Aytoun, Peace of, 100. Badenach, Celts of, 41, 53. Bailleul, estate of, 39. 2l6 Index Bakewell, 5. Balliol, Edward, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70. 72, 73. 75- — John, 27, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 43, 45. 48. 50. 65, 79. Banff, 40. Bannockburn, battle of, xiv, xxiv, 55, 58, 61, 63, 66, 68, 74, 85, 88, 90, 93, 108. Barbadoes, 187. Barbour's Bruce, xxvi, xxvii. Barton, Sir Andrew, 98, 103. Baug^, battle of, 88, 89. Beaton, Cardinal, 112, 114, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121. Beaufort, Joan, 89. Becket, Thomas, 26. Berwick, 3, 39, 43, 51, 57, 58, 73, 76, 83, 91, 94, 96, 163, 173. — county of, 69, 73, 82. — pacification of, 163. — siege of, 67, 68. — Treaty of, 164. Big-od, Earl of Norfolk, 44. Biland Abbey, 58. Birnam Wood, 9. Bishops' War, 164. *' Black Agnes ", 71. Blair Athole, 169. Castle, 182. Blind Harry's M^«//ac<', xxvii, xxxiii. Boece, Hector, xxvii, xxviii, xxix, xxxi, 9, 200. Boniface VHI, 45. "Book of the Howlat", the, xxxiii. " Book of Pluscarden ", the, xxx, 198. Borough-Muir of Edinburgh, 69. Bosworth, battle of, 97. Bothwell, 67, 70. — Earl of, 136, 137, 138. — Bridge, battle of, 178. Boulogne, 69. Bower, Walter, xxx, 198. Braemar, 87. Brankston ridge, 106. Breadalbane, Marquis of, 185, 186. Brechin, 39. — Bishop of, 206. Breda, Conference at, 173. Bridge of Dee, battle of, 163. Brigham, Treaty of, 33. Brittany, i. Brockburn, 173. Brown, Mr, Hume, x. Bruce, Alexander, 51. — Edward, 51, 55, 57. — Marjory, 51, 59, 69. — Nigel, 51. — Robert I, xxiv, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51. 52, 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58, 59. 61, 62, 64, 65, rb, 72, 85, 86. — Robert of Annandale, 32, 34, 35, 47- — Sir Thomas, 51. Bruces, the, 13, 18, 24, 48. Bruges, 68. Buchan, Countess of, 50, 51. — earldom of, 53. — Earl of, 88, 90. — men of, 198. Buchanan, George, xxxii, 203. Bull, Stephen, 98. Burgh, Elizabeth de, 51. — Hubert de, 28, 35. Burghead, xvii. Burgh-on-Sands, 52. Burgundy, Duchess of, 98. • — Duke of, 95. " Burned Candlemas ", 73. Burton, Mr. Hill, xiii, xxiv, xxvi, xxx, xxxi, xxxii. Bute, 193. Csesar, Julius, i, 2. Caithness, xxiii, 87, 193. — Bishop of, 206. Calderwood's History of the Kirk, 147. Cambuskenneth, Abbey of, 43. — Bridge, battle of, 42. — Parliament at, 59. Camden's Britannia, xxxiii. Campbell, Sir Nigel, 53. Index 217 Campbell of Glenlyon, 185. Canute, 8. Carberry Hill, 137. Carbisdale, defeat at, 172. Cardross, castle of, 64. Carham, battle of, 8. Carlisle, 52, 67, 94, 16S. Carrick, xxiv, 47, 51. — earldom of, 45. — men of, 56, 85. Carrickfergfus, 57. Carstares, William, 183. Casket Letters, 138, 141. Cateau-Cambresis, Treaty of, 124. Cecil, Lord Burleigh, 125, 127, 133. Cecilia, d. of Edward IV, 96. Charles I, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 176. — II, 172, 173, 174, 17s, 176, 177, 181, 182, 183, 187. Chatelherault, Duke of, 123. Chester, 7. Chevy Chase, battle of, 78. Clackmannan, 193. Clarence, Lionel of, 74, 80. Clement III, 27. Clitheroe, victory at, 20. Clyde, river, 64, 84, 209. Colvin of Culross, 152. Comyn, John, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 53. 85. Comyns, the, 48. Conventicle Act, 177, 179. Cowton Moor, 200. Crawford, defeat of, 107. Cre^y, battle of, 70, 72. Cressingham, Hugh of, 40, 41. Crevant, battle of, 90. Cromarty, 193. Cromwell, Oliver, 172, 173, 174, 187, 192, 193. Cullen, 40. Cumberland, 13, 23, 25, 151. — ravaged, 78. Cumbria, 6, 12, 17, 195. Cupar, XXX, 198. Dacre, Lord, 108, m. Dalkeith, 163. Dalriada, kingdom of, 3, 4. Dairy, defeat at, 51. Dalrymple, Father James, xxix. — Sir John, of Stair, 185, 186. ' ' Dance of the Seven Deadly Sins ", xxxv. Dare, Joan, 90. Darien Scheme, 184, 186, 187. Darnley, 90. — Lord, no, 119, 129, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137. 138, 141. 142, 143- David I, xix, xxi, xxii, xxiv, xxvii, xxviii, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 85, 196, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213. — II, 59, 64, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75- — Earl of Huntingdon, 24, 28, 34, 35. 206. — son of Alexander III, 31. Davidstone, Robert, 202. Davison, Secretary, 145. Declaration of Indulgence, 179. De Coucy, Enguerand, 29. — Marie, 29. Dee, river, 7. De Northynbrortun Comitibus, 7. Derbyshire, 5. Dingwall, defeat near, 87. Don Carlos, 132. Donald, Clan of, 87. Donald Bane, 16, 48, 209. — of the Isles, xiv, xxv, xxx, 86, 87, 148, 199, 201, 202, 203. Doon Hill, 173. Douglas, David, 91. — Earl of, 78, 81, 82, 92. — 6th Earl William, 91. — 8th Earl W^illiam, 92, 95, 96, 97. ^ Gavin, xxvii. — House of, xxx, xxxiii, 83, 116. — Lord James, 51, 53, 57, 59, 67. — Lord James the Good, 92. — Lord James the Gross, 92. — Sir Archibald, 67. 2l8 Index Douglas, Sir George, 119. — Sir James, 55. Douglases, the, xxiii, xxv, 82, 92, 93- Drumclog, battle of, 178. Dryburgh, Abbey of, 57, 58, 77. Dumbarton, 119, 162. Dumfries, 92, 168. — convent of, 48. — county of, 69. Dunbar, 4, 136. — battle of (1296), 39. — battle of (1650), 173, 174. — burning of, 92. — castle of, 70, 71. — earldom of, 12. — William, xxxiv, xxxv, 102, Dunbarton Castle, 139. Dunblane, Bishop of, 206. Duncan I, 8, 9. Duncan, son of Malcolm III, 16. — of Lome, xxxv. Dundalk, defeat at, 57. Dundee, xxiii, 170, 198. — castle of, 42. — meeting at, 54. Dunkeld, Bishop of, 206. Dunottar, castle of, 179. Dunsinane, 9. Dupplin Moor, battle of, 21, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 82, 108. Durham, city of, 19, 72, 165. — Treaty of, 23. Eadred, 6. Earn, river, 66. Edderton, xvii. Edgar, 7, 205. Edgar, son of Malcolm III, 16, 17, 18. Edgar the Atheling, 11, 13. Edinburgh, 4, 27, 45, 59, 76, 77, 113, 119, 125, 137, 151, 157, 161, 162, 165, 166, 172, 173, 175, 181. — Bishop of, 158. — castle of, 39, 54, 71, 81, 126, 136, 143. 182. Edinburgh, Convention at, 167. — county of, 69. — Presbytery of, 147. — riots in, 160. — Treaty of, 126, 127, 129. — University of, 183. Edmund the Magnificent, 6, 16. Edward I, x, xi, xii, 27, 29, 31, 32,. 33. 34. 35. 36, 37. 38, 39. 40, 41. 42, 43. 44. 45. 46, 47> 48, 49. 5°. 51. 52. 59. 60, 62, 64, 66, 70, 74, 179. — II, 32, Z7>^ 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59- — III, 59, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73,, 74. 75- — IV, 61, 94, 95, 96, 97. — VI, 118, 131. — the Black Prince, 75. — the Elder, 5. Edwin, 4. Egfrith, 12. Elgin, 40, 45, 70, 182. Elizabeth, Queen, x, 124, 125, 127,. 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 138. 139. 141. 142. 143. 144.- 145, 146. Elphinstone, Bishop, xxix, 105. "English Wooing", the, 119. Eric of Norway, 32, 34. Esk, river, 115. Eugenia, 201. Eure, Sir Ralph, 120. Eustace of Boulogne, 17. Eustacius, 195. Evandale, Lord, 113. Fair Maid of Perth, 81. Fairfax, Lord, 168. Falaise, castle of, 26. — Treaty of, 27, 28. Falkirk, battle of, xvii, 44, 55, 56^ 66. Falkland, 81. Falls of Foyers, 213. Fast Castle, 84. F^n^lon, La Mothe, 141. Index 219 Ferdinand of Spain, 99. Feredach, 197. Fergus, 197. Fife, xi, xiii, xv, xvii, xviii, xix, xxiii, xxxiv, 103. — Celts of, 213. — Earl of, 78. Fifeshire, 160. Firth, Mr. C, 173. FitzAlan, or Steward, 210. Fitzalans, the, 18. Fitzpatrick, Sir Roger, 49. Five Mile Act, 177. Flamboroug-h Head, 83. Fletcher of Saltoun, 184, 191. Flodden, battle of, xxiv, 21, 72, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, III. Florence of Worcester, 7, 9. Flower, the, 98. " Flyting", xxxiv. Fordun, John of, xxii, xxvii, xxx, 1 96, 208. Forfar, xvii, xix. Fort-William, 185. Forth, Firth of, xii, 3, 5, 12, 21, 22, 42, 69, 84, 96, 98, 213. Fotheringay Castle, 144. "Foul Raid", the, 88. Francis I, 109, iii, 112, 113, 114. — II, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128. Fraser, Bishop, 34, 35. Frasers, the, 87. Frederick II, the Emperor, 35. Freeman, Edward, x, xii, xv, xxiv, 6, 7, 85, 88. Froude, Mr., 138. Fyvie Castle, 169. Galloway, xiii, xxi, xxii, xxiii, 22, 25, 208, 209, 210. — Bishop of, 206. Gascony, 75. Gaul, I. Gaveston, Piers, 54. Geddes, Jennie, 159. Geneva, 123, 150. George II, 212. Gilbert of Galloway, 209. Giraldus Cambrensis, xxvi, xxxii. Glasgow, 51, 170. — Assembly at, 154, i6i — Bishop of, 206. — University of, xxxiv Glencoe, Massacre of, 184, 185. Gloucester, Duke of, 96. — meeting at, 13. Godwin, Earl, 205. Gordon, Duke of, 182. — Lady Katharine, 99. Gordons, the, xxiii, 16S, 170. Gospatric of Northumberland, 12. Graham, John, of Claverhouse, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182. Great Michael, the, 103 Green, J. R., x, xi, xiii. Gregory IX, 35. Greyfriars, church of, 161, 178. Gruoch, wife of Mormaor, 8. Gueldres, Duke of, 102. Guise, Mary of, 114, 116, 117, 124, 125, 126. Gunpowder Plot, 150. Gustavus Adolphus, 162, Guthrie, James, 176. Haddington, xxxi, 3. — county of, 69. Hakon of Norway, 29. Halidon Hill, battle of, 21, 68, 72, 90, 201. Hall, the chronicler, 104. Hamburg, 43. Hamilton, Duke and Marquis of, 161, 163, 166, 171, 172. Hamiltons, the, 133. Hapsburgs, the, 129. Harlaw, battle of, xiii, xxiv, xxv, xxix, xxxi, xxxii, 87, 88, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203. Hastings, John, 35. Hebrides, xxix, 8. Henderson, Alexander, 160, 161, 170. Henry I, 17, 19. 220 Index Henry II, 23, 25, 26, 27, 208, 209. — Ill, 28, 29, 35, 36. — IV, XXV, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86. — V, 88, 89. — VI, 93, 94, 95. — VII, 61, 97, 98, 99, loi, 102, 103. — VIII, X, 103, 104, 105, 109, no, III, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 131. — II of France, 122, 124, 125. — Prince of Scotland, 20, 23, 24. Hereford, Earl of, 44. — siege of, 168, 170. Herrings, battle of, 90. Hertford, Earl of, 119, 120, 121. Hexham Chronicle, 21. — monastery of, 43. Holland, Richard, xxxiii. Holyrood, 102, 133, 138, 155, 157. Homildon Hill, battle of, 72, 82, 83, 90. Hotspur, Sir Harry, 78, 82. Howard, Sir Edmund, 106. Hugo of Ross, 201 Humber, river, xii. Hume, the historian, 138. Huntingdon, earldom of, 18, ig, 25, 26, 27, 28, 35. Huntly, Earl of, 99, 131. — Marquis of, 162, 163, 164, 169, 172. Ida, 3. Inchmahome priory, 122. Ingibjorg, 16. "Instrument" of Government, 175. Inverary, 185. — Castle, 169. Inverlochy, 169. Inverness, 182. Inverurie, defeat at, 53. Irevin, Alexander, 198, Irvine, submission of, 42. Isabella, daughter of Earl David, 35- — of Spain, 99. Italy, 18. Jamaica, 187. James I, 83, 84, 89, 90, 91, 93. — n, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 109, — Ill, 95, 96, 97, 98, loi. — IV, xxiv, xxvii, xxviii, xxxv, 62, 97. 98, 99. 100, loi, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 117, 120. — V, xxvii, 97, 108, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 127. — VI, X, xxxiv, 19, 60, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153. 154. 15s. 157. 158, 177. 181, 192, 193, 211. — VII, 178, 179, 180, 182. — Lord Hamilton, 109. Janville, 90. Jedburgh, 84. Joanna, daughter of Edward II, 60. — daughter of John, 28. John, 28, 35, 79, 195. — XXII, the Pope, 58. — of Brittany, 47. — of Carrick, 78. — of France, 79. — of Gaunt, 76, 89. — of the Isles, 95, 96. — of Wallingford, 7. Johnson, Dr., 86. Johnston, J. B., xvi, 4. Johnston of Warriston, 170. Julius II, 103, 104. Keith, Sir Robert, 56. Kennedy, Bishop, 95. — Walter, xxxiv, xxxv. Kenneth Macalpine, 4. Kenneth of Scotland, 7. Ker of Faudonside, 135. Kilblain, victory at, 69. Kildrummie Castle, 51. Killiecrankie, battle of, 182. Kilsyth, victory at, 170. Kinghorn, 66. King's Quair, 89. Kinloss, Abbey of, 207. Kinross, 193. Kirkaldy of Grange, 142. Index 221 Kirkcudbright, xvii. Knox, John, 121, 123, 124, 125, 128, 130. 133. 146- Lady of the Lake, the, xi, xxxvii, 86. Lanark, 42. Lanarkshire, 179. Lang-, Mr. Andrew, x, xi, 7, 41, 65, 92, 121, 204. Langside, battle of, 139. Largs, battle of, 29, 30. Laud, Archbishop, 158, 159, 162. Laurencekirk, xvii. Leicester, Earl of, 132. Leith, 119. — besieged, 126. Lennox, Earl of, 106, 108, 109, 119, 133, 142, 143. Lesley, John, xxix, 203. Leslie, Alexander, 201. — Alexander, Earl of Leven, 162, 163, 166, 168, 170, 173, 174. — David, 170, 173. — family of, 86. — Walter, 201. Leuchars, church of, 160. Lincoln, battle of (1216), 28. — victory at, 23. Linlithgow, 54, 137, 142. — Convention at, 154. — county of, 69. Lochleven Castle, 137, 138, 139. Lochmaben, 76. — battle of, 97. — Stone, battle of, 92. Loch Ness, 169. London, xxxvi, 46, 73, 78, 102, 166, 174, 176. Longueville, Due de, 114. Lords of the Articles, 153, 181. Lords Ordainers, 54. Lothians, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvii, xix, xxxiv, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 17, 22, 23, 77, 119, 170, 206. Loudon Hill, battle of, 51. Louis IX, 35. Louis XI, 95. Lubeck, 43. Mac Alexander, 197. Macbeth, 8, 9. MacDavid, 197. MacDonald of Glencoe, 185. MacDuff, Clan of, 209. Macfadyane, xxxv. MacGregor, Red Duncan, 4. MacHenry, 197. MacHeth, xxi, 206, 207, 208. Mackay, General, 182. Mackays, the, 87. Mackenzies, the, 87. Mac Lane, 198. Madeline, daughter of Francis I, 113, 114. Madoc of Wales, 38. Mahomet, xxxv. Maitland of Lethington, 130, 1 33, 142. Major, John, xxvi, xxviii, xxix, XXX, xxxi, xxxii, 199. Malcolm I, 6. — II, xii, 7, 8, 9. — Ill (Canmore), xvii, xix, xx, xxi, xxix, xxxvii, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 48, 85, 196, 200, 204, 205, 206, 209, 211, 212. — IV, xxii, 24, 25, 26, 27, 208. Malvile, Robert de, 198. Man, Isle of, 55. Mansfield, town of, 168. Manton, Ralph de, 45. Mar, Alexander, 203. — loth Earl of, 50. — nth Earl of, 65, 66, 67. — 12th Earl of, 87. — Earls of, xxx, 143, 202. — Isabella of, 50. March, Edmund, Earl of, 80. — George, Earl of, 71, 80, 81, 82, 831 84, 88. Margaret, daughter of Alexander 111,31. — daughter of Angus, 1 10, 119, 129, 133- 222 Index Margaret, daughter of Christian I, 97- — daughter of David, 34. — daughter of Henry III, 31. — daughter of Henry VH, 99, loi, 102, 103, 108, 109, no, HI, 112, 113, 114, 116, 124, 133. — daughter of James I, 90, 91. — daughter of WiUiam the Lion, 28. — grand -daughter of Alexander ni, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36. — Saint, xix, xxvii, 27, 85. — wife of Canmore, xiv, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 205. — of Anjou, 94. Marston Moor, battle of, 168. Mary, Queen of Scots, xxix, 118, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137. 138, 139. 141. '42, 143. 144) 145, 149, 165. — II, 180, 181. — daughter of Henry VIII, 113, 123, 124. — daughter of James II, 109. — wife of Eustace, 17. — of Gueldres, 95. Matilda, the Empress, 19, 20, 23. — wife of Henry I, 17. Maximilian the Emperor, 99. Mearns, Earl of, 16. — the, xvii, 198. Medici, Catherine de, 128. Melrose Abbey, 77, 120. Melun, siege of, 89. Melville, Andrew, 147, 148. Menteith, Lake of, 122. — Sir John, 46. Methven, 50. — Lord, 113. Midlothian, 3. Millenary Petition, the, 148. Mitton-on-Swale, battle of, 57, 72. Monk, General, 174, 176. Monmouth, Duke of, 179. Montgomerie, Alexander, xxxtv, xxxvi. Montrose, Marquis of, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 176, 181. Moors, the, 64. Mor Tuath, 204. Moray, Andrew of, 43. — Bishop of, 206. — Celts, 206, 208, 213. — earldom of, xxi, xxii, 8. — Firth, xii, xvii, 4, 84, 213. — Sir Andrew, 67, 70. — Thomas, 198, 202. Morayshire, xxi, 25. Mormaers, the, 204, 206. Mortimers, the, 64, 65. Morton, Earl of, 137, 138, 143. Musselburgh, 65. Namur, Gu}' de, 70. Napoleon, 46. National Covenant, 160, 162, 166, 178. Navigation Act, 176. Nectansmere, battle of, 12. Nesbit, skirmish at, 82. — victory at, 73. Neville, Archbishop, 72. Neville's Cross, battle of, 72. Newark, 168. Newbattle Abbey, 77. Newburn, battle of, 165. Newcastle, 13, 165. — Propositions of, 170. Newport, 171. New York, 187. Norfolk, Duke of, 143. Norham Castle, 100, 105. Normandy, 26, 40. Northallerton, xxiv, 20, 21, 24, 72, 93- Northampton, battle of, 93. — Treaty of, 59, 64, 65, loi. Northumberland, xxii, 11, 12, 18, 19. 25, 67, 88, 93, 151, 206. — earldom of, 23, 26, 28. — Earl of, 78, 82, 83. 142. Northumbria, xii, xxxiii, 4, 5. Index 223 Northumbria, Earl of, 7, 8, 9. Nottingham, Earl of, 77. Nova Scotia, 156. Ogilby, Alexander, 198, 199, 202. Og-ilvie, John, 150. Oman, Mr., xii, 21, 44. Orkneys, 8, 97. Orleans, siegfe of, 90. Ormsby, William, 40, 41. Otterburn, battle of, 78. Owen of Strathclyde, 8. Owre, Donald, xxxv. Oxford, xxxiv. Palestine, 18, 64. Panama, Isthmus of, 187. Paterson, William, 186, 187. Pathay, victory of, 90. Pavia, battle of, 112. Peasants' Revolt, 76. Pedro de Ayala, xxxii. Peebles, 48. — county of, 69. Pembroke, Earl of, 50, 51. Pentland, battle of, 177. — Firth of, 5. Percies, the, 77, 78, 82, 83, 92. Percy, Henry, 72. Perron, Cardinal, 150. Perth, xxxi, 50, 54, 66, 91, 168, 169, 174, 208. — Five Articles of, 155, 162. — riots in, 124, 125. — surrender of, 71. Pezron, Paul Ives, 2. Philip IV, 38, 45. Philiphaugfh, defeat at, 170. Pinkerton's suggestion, 56. Pinkie, battle of, 21, 63, 122. Piperden, victory of, 91. Pitscottie, 94, 115. Post-nati case, 152. Preston, battle of, 172. Randolph, Earl of Moray, 53, 54, 55. 57. 59. 64, 65, 67, 71, 85. Randolph, Earl of Moray, the younger, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73. — the ambassador, 134. Rathlin, island of, 51. Ratisbon, xxix. Regnold, King, 5. Renfrew, lo. Rhys, Dr., 3. Richard I, 27, 35. — II, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82. — Ill, 97- Richard of Hexham, 22. Richelieu, Cardinal, 164. Rizzio, David, 134, 135, 136, 13S. Robert II, the Steward, 59, 69, 72, 73. 75, 78. 86. — Ill, 78, 80, 8i, 84, 210. — the High Steward, 59. — of Normandy, 13. Robertson, E. W., xxi, xxii, xxxvii, 5. 209. Rokeby, 72. Ross, Bishop of, xxix, 206. — county of, xxiii, xxxi. — Duke of, no. — earldom of, 86. — Earl of, 201, 202, 203, 210. Rosslyn, defeat at, 45. Rothesay, Duke of, 80, 81. Rothiemurchus, 169. Roxburgh, 39, 54, 91, 93. — castle of, 94. — county of, 69, 76, 115, 120. — skirmish at, 67. Rudolfi, 143. Rullion Green, battle of, 177. Ruthven, Earl of, 135. St. Abb's Head, 84. St. Albans, ist battle of, 93. — 2nd battle of, 94. St. Andrews, 34, 118, 120, 121, 125, 177. — Archbishop of, 176, 206. — castle of, 95. St. Duthac, 51. St. Germains, 191. 2 24 Index St. Giles' Collegiate Church, 158, 159- St. James's, 191. Salisbury, Earl of, 70. — meetingf at, 32. Sark, battle of, 92. Scone, 32, 40, 42, 66, 174. Scoti-chro?ticon, xxx. Scott, Sir Walter, xviii, 81, 212. Scrymgeour, James, 198. Seaforth, Earl of, 169. Segrave, Sir John, 45. Selkirk, county of, 69. Seymour, Jane, 114. Shakespeare, 9. Sharpe, James, 176, 177. Shetlands, 8, 97. Shrewsbury, battle of, 83. Siward of Northumbria, 9, 18, 20. Skene's Celtic Scotlatid, 204, 210. Skye, xviii, xxvii, 86. Slains, rout at, 53. Smith, Mr. G. Gregory, 98, 104. Solemn League and Covenant, 167, 172, 173. 178- Solway, the, 139. — Moss, battle of, 115, 117. Somerled of Argyll, 25, 41, 208. Somerset, Earl of, 88. Sophia of Hanover, 190. Spain, 46, 64, 104, 128, 131, 132, 146. Spey, river, 173. Standard, battle of, 20, 21, 24, 85, I PS- Stanley, 106. Stephen, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25. Stewart, Henry, 113. — Lord James, 127, 130, 133, 134, 135. 138, 139. 141. J42. — Murdoch, 82. — Sir John, 90. Stirling, 113, 173, 174. — battle of, 42, 44. — castle of, 34, 45, 55. 71* Stracathro, 39. Stradarniae comes, 195. Strathclyde, 5, 6, 8, 9, 23. Strathern, Earl of, 22. Strathon, Alexander, 202. Strickland, Miss, 145. Stuart, Alexander, 202. Stuarts, the, xx, 18, 100. Suffolk, Earl of, 78. Surrey, Earl of, 100, 106, 107, 108,. 112. Sybilla, daughter of Henry I, 17. Symeon of Durham, 7, 205. Tables, the, 160. Tain, xvii, 51. Tales of a Grandfather, xviii. Tay, xi, xii, xiii, xxx. Tees, 23, 165. Test Act, 178, 179. Teviotdale, 23. " The Incident ", 166. Thirty Years' War, 162. Throckmorton, 126. Till, river, 106. Tippermuir, victory at, 168. Tomintoul, 87. Toulouse, 25, 208. Touraine, Duke of, 90. Towton, battle of, 94. Tudors, the, 63. Turnberry, xvii. Turriff, battle of, 163. Tweed, 13, 69, 158, 165, 168, 173. Tweeddale, 53. " Tyneman the Unlucky ", 67. Ulster, Plantation of, 150, 156. Uxbridge, Proposals of, 168. Vendome, Due de, 113. Verneuil, battle of, 90. Vienne, John de, 77. Virgil, Polydore, xxxii, loi. Wales, I, 81. Wallace, William, xxxiii, 41, 42, 43, 44. 45. 48, 54. 55. 62. Walter I'Espec, 20. — of Coventry, 209. Index 225 Waltheof, 18. Warbeck, Perkin, 61, 99, 100. Warenne, John of, 40, 43. Wark, attack on, 112. — capture of, 94. Warkworth, castle of, 92. Waverley, xviii, xxxvii. Wentworth, Lord Strafford, 161. Wessex, 5. Westminster, 36. — Abbey, 36, 40, 52, 60. — Assembly, 167. Westmoreland, 25, 78. — Earl of, 142. Wigftown, martyrs of, 178. Winchester, Bishop of, 148. — Chronicle, 5. — defeat at, 23. Wishart, George, 120. William I, xiv, xv, 11, I2, 13, 14, 17. — Ill, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 188, 191. William the Lion, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31. 34. 35. 205, 209, 210, 213. — Earl of Ross, 201. — of Albemarle, 20. — of Newburgh, xix. — Rufus, 13, 16. Wood, Sir Andrew, 98. Woodstock, homagfe at, 25. Woodville, Elizabeth, 97. Worcester, battle of, 174, 175. Wyntoun, 84. Yellow Carvel, 98. York, 168. York, Archbishop of, 57. — Duke of, 98. — meeting at, 114. — reconciliation of, 93. — siege of, 168. — Treaty of, 29. Yorkshire, xv, xxii, 57, 58, 206. «2 5 8 A UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. J.^f^ ^ ^07' RFC'D LD-URL i^LB 81978 c" JAM 9 1980 Form L9-Series 444 u I, 6 lli'filV ^>' • & 3 1158 00140 6478 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY AA 000 393 119 3 •-• v,,N Htfirf i's«;n;?a3c::^ itScdS "-.•., -;;rrtl •.•:::;l;s.«?4iti-j; Xr.:7 »«r,n i::'i^:cn;--r iMHjc^fea trt.*' iJl^tS j^ilSM XUl- ..;^.^::;i^ rt,. iTC.svr ft-- >.■■»..» wi^^Vi^ ^.-».^. /.-.w*« .-.-fir*- - -■...i.x''-'H»-.,*/. ^ ■■ ■^.^^Mti^iSW.^^i^iiW " -■— " -^ - .. - ,, ,vi»,i,J«t*tM.»««-- — ■- sifej^ SI iwif^'- "1 '■'^\*^» '••^-■T***^-'*-*'***^'**-'*****'***-^'****^**'*^ ii^^^S^ CSZSSK-Ta: >^f«»*»V*