History of Civilization in England, Vol. 3 of 3
by Henry Thomas Buckle · English · Gutenberg #44495 · 1,520,809 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of History of Civilization in England, Vol. 3 of 3
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: History of Civilization in England, Vol. 3 of 3
Author: Henry Thomas Buckle
Release date: December 28, 2013 [eBook #44495]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44495
Credits: Produced by David Clarke, Jens Nordmann and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION IN ENGLAND, VOL. 3 OF 3 ***
HISTORY
OF
CIVILIZATION IN ENGLAND.
BY
HENRY THOMAS BUCKLE.
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. III.
_NEW EDITION._
TORONTO:
ROSE-BELFORD PUBLISHING COMPANY,
60 YORK STREET.
1878.
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
CONDITION OF SCOTLAND TO THE END OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.
PAGE
Scotland and Spain are very dissimilar in regard to loyalty 1
But are very similar in regard to superstition 4
The Scotch unite liberality in politics with illiberality in
religion. This is the largest and most important fact in their
history; and the rest of the Volume will be occupied in
investigating its causes 5
Influence of physical geography 5-7
Roman invasion of Scotland 7-9
Irish invasion of Scotland 9
Norwegian invasion of Scotland 11-12
English invasion of Scotland 12-17
The injury which these invasions inflicted upon Scotland
stopped the growth of towns, and thereby favoured the power of
the nobles 18
The power of the nobles was still further favoured by the
physical structure of the country 19-20
And by the weakness of the Crown 20-21
Hence their authority had, before the close of the fourteenth
century, become enormous. The Crown, completely overshadowed
by them, could derive no aid from the citizens, because, owing
to the circumstances just mentioned, there were no cities 21-23
For, industry was impossible, and the commonest arts were
unknown 23-26
Evidence of the scanty population of the Scotch towns 26-30
They were too feeble and insignificant to elect their own
magistrates 32-33
The municipal element being thus imperfect, the only ally,
which the Crown could possibly find, was the Church 34-35
Hence, a coalition between the kings and the clergy against
the nobles 34
The clergy were the only body who could withstand the nobles.
Causes of the great influence of the clergy 35-44
CHAPTER II.
CONDITION OF SCOTLAND IN THE FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES.
Early in the fifteenth century, the alliance between the Crown
and the Church against the nobles, became obvious 45
James I. attacked the nobles, and favoured the Church; hoping
thereby to establish the supremacy of the throne 46-47
But his policy failed, because it was opposed by the operation
of general causes 47-48
Besides failing, it produced his own destruction 49
Power of the Douglases, who were at the head of the southern
nobility 49-50
James II. murdered the chiefs of that family 51-52
The Crown, in its efforts against the nobles, was encouraged
by the clergy; and before the middle of the fifteenth century,
the Church and the aristocracy were completely estranged from
each other 52-54
James III., like James II. and James I., allied himself with
the clergy against the nobles 55-56
Their power, however, was too deeply rooted to be shaken; and
in 1488, they put the king to death 55
Still, and notwithstanding these successive failures,
James IV. followed the same policy as his predecessors 56
So did James V. Consequently the nobles imprisoned him, and
ejected the clergy from all offices in the state 57
In 1528, James V. escaped; the Crown and the Church regained
the ascendant, and the principal nobles were banished 58
From this moment, the nobles hated the Church more than ever.
Their hatred brought about the Reformation 58-59
Active measures of the government against the nobles 60-61
The nobles revenged themselves by becoming Reformers 62
James V., on the other hand, threw himself entirely into the
arms of the Church 62-63
As the nobles took the opposite side, and as the people had no
influence, the success or failure of the Reformation in
Scotland was simply a question of the success or failure of
the aristocratic power 65-68
In 1542, the nobles openly refused obedience to James V.; and
their treatment of him at this critical period of his life,
broke his heart 68-69
Directly he died, they regained authority. The clergy were
displaced, and measures favourable to Protestantism were
adopted 69-72
In 1546, Cardinal Beaton was assassinated, and Knox began
his career 74-75
Subsequent proceedings of Knox 76-77
While Knox was abroad, the nobles established the Reformation 78
He returned to Scotland in 1559, by which time the struggle
was nearly over 79
In 1559, the queen regent was deposed; the nobles became
supreme; and, in 1560, the Church was destroyed 80-84
Immediately this revolution was completed, the nobles and the
preachers began to quarrel about the wealth of the Church 84
The nobles, thinking that they ought to have it, took it into
their own hands 85-88
Thereupon, the Protestant preachers said that the nobles were
instigated by the devil 88-90
Morton, who was at the head of the nobility, became enraged at
the proceedings of the new clergy, and persecuted them 91-92
A complete rupture between the two classes 93
The clergy, finding themselves despised by the governing
class, united themselves heartily with the people, and
advocated democratic principles 93
In 1574, Melville became their leader. Under his auspices, that
great struggle began, which never stopped until, sixty years
later, it produced the rebellion against Charles I. 94
The first manifestations of this rebellious spirit was the
attack on the bishops 94
In 1575, the attack began. In 1580, episcopacy was abolished 96-97
But the nobles upheld that institution, because they loved
inequality for the same reasons which made the clergy love
equality 97-100
Struggle between the upper classes and the clergy respecting
episcopacy 100-103
In 1582, James VI. was imprisoned; and his captivity was
justified by the clergy, whose democratic principles were now
openly proclaimed 103-104
Violent language used by the clergy against the king and
against the nobles 104-109
Their leader, Melville, personally insulted the king, and they
were probably privy to the Gowrie conspiracy in 1600 110
Still, the clergy, notwithstanding the indecency of their
conduct, conferred the greatest of all boons upon Scotland, by
keeping alive and nurturing the spirit of liberty 111-114
CHAPTER III.
CONDITION OF SCOTLAND DURING THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES.
In 1603, the King of Scotland became also King of England, and
determined to use his new resources in curbing and chastising
the Scotch clergy 115-122
His cruel treatment of them 122-124
In 1610, James, backed by the power of England, forced
episcopacy upon Scotland. Courts of High Commission were also
set up 125-127
Tyrannical conduct of the bishops 127-129
Meanwhile, a reaction was preparing 129-132
In 1637, the reaction declared itself, and, in 1638, the
bishops were overthrown 132-133
The movement being essentially democratic, could not stop
there, but quickly spread from the Church to the State. In
1639, war was made upon Charles I. by the Scotch, who, having
defeated the king, sold him to the English, who executed him 134-136
The Scotch, before they would crown Charles II., compelled him
to humble himself, and to confess his own errors and the
errors of his family 136-137
But, after Charles II. mounted the throne of England, he
became powerful enough to triumph over the Scotch. He availed
himself of that power to oppress Scotland even more
grievously than his two predecessors had done 137-140
Happily, however, the spirit of liberty was strong enough to
baffle his attempts to establish a permanent despotism 140
Still, the crisis was terrible, and the people and their
clergy were exposed to every sort of outrage 141-146
Now, as before, the bishops aided the government in its
efforts to enslave Scotland. Being hated by the people, they
allied themselves with the Crown, and displayed the warmest
affection towards James II., during whose reign cruelties
were perpetrated worse than any previously known 147-150
In 1688, another reaction, in which the Scotch again freed
themselves from their oppressors 151
The only powerful friends of this bad government were the
Highlanders 151
Reasons which induced the Highlanders to rebel in favour of
the Stuarts 151-153
The Highland rebellions of 1715 and 1745 were not the result
of loyalty 153-159
After 1745, the Highlanders sank into complete insignificance,
and the progress of Scotland was uninterrupted 159
Beginning of the trading spirit 160-161
Connexion between the rising of the trading spirit and the
abolition, in 1748, of hereditary jurisdictions 161-162
The abolition of these jurisdictions was a symptom of the
declining power of the Scotch nobles, but not a cause of it 161
One cause of the decline of their power was the union with
England, in 1707 162-167
Another cause was the failure of the Rebellion of 1745 167
The nobles being thus weakened, were, in 1748, easily deprived
of their right of jurisdiction. In this way, they lost the
last emblem of their old authority 169-170
This great democratic and liberating movement was aided by the
growth of the mercantile and manufacturing classes 171-172
And their growth was itself assisted by the Union with England 172
Evidence of the rapid progress of the industrious classes in
the first half of the eighteenth century 173-183
During the same period, a new and splendid literature arose in
Scotland 183-184
But, unfortunately, this literature, notwithstanding its bold
and inquisitive spirit, was unable to diminish national
superstition 184-186
It is the business of the historian to ascertain the causes of
its failure. If he cannot do this, he cannot understand the
history of Scotland 186
The first and most essential quality of an historian, is a
clear perception of the great scientific doctrine of Law. But
whoever seeks to apply this doctrine to the whole course of
history, and to elucidate, by its aid, the march and theory of
affairs, is met by obstacles which no single mind can remove 186-190
CHAPTER IV.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE SCOTCH INTELLECT DURING THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.
The rest of the Volume will be occupied with a still closer
investigation of the double paradox presented by the history
of Scotland; namely, 1st, that the same people should be
liberal in politics, and illiberal in religion; and, 2nd, that
the free and sceptical literature which they produced in the
eighteenth century, should have been unable to lessen their
religious illiberality 191
Their religious illiberality was the result of the immense
power possessed by their clergy in the seventeenth century.
The causes of that power will be examined in the present
chapter 192
The failure of their literature in diminishing this
illiberality during the eighteenth century, was the result of
the peculiar method of the inquiry adopted by the Scotch
philosophers. The causes of the universal diffusion of that
method, the nature of the method, and the consequences of it,
will be examined in the next chapter, which will conclude the
Volume 192-193
Circumstances in the seventeenth century favourable to the
influence of the Scotch clergy 193-197
While the English war against Charles I. was essentially
political, the Scotch war against him was essentially
religious 197-200
Though this was the effect of Scotch superstition, it was also
a cause of its further progress 201-202
Hence, in the seventeenth century, secular interests were
neglected, and theological ones became supreme. Illustration
of this, from the zeal of the people to hear sermons of
inordinate frequency and of terrible length; so that they
passed the greater part of their lives in what were
erroneously termed religious exercises 203-206
The clergy availed themselves of these habits to extend and
consolidate their own authority 205-206
Their great engine of power was the Kirk-Session. Tyranny of
the Kirk-Sessions 206-210
Monstrous pretensions of the clergy 210-212
Cases in which it was believed that these pretensions were
upheld and vindicated by miracles 212-220
The clergy, becoming elated, indulge in language of
extraordinary arrogance 221-227
They asserted that miracles were wrought in their behalf, and
often on their persons 228-229
Effect of these proceedings upon the Scotch mind 230-232
The clergy, to intimidate the people, and bring them
completely under control, advocated horrible notions
concerning evil spirits and future punishments 232-243
With the same object they propounded notions more horrible
still, respecting the Deity, whom they represented as a cruel,
passionate, and sanguinary Being 245-252
They moreover declared that harmless and even praiseworthy
actions were sinful, and would provoke the Divine wrath 251-262
To prevent such imaginary sins, the clergy made arbitrary
regulations, and punished those who disobeyed them, sometimes
by flogging, and sometimes by branding with hot irons, and
sometimes in other ways 262-263
Specimens of the sins which the clergy invented 264-268
The result was, that all mirth, all innocent gaiety, all
demonstrations of happiness, and nearly all physical
enjoyments, were destroyed in Scotland 268-269
Hence, the national character was mutilated. For, the
pleasures of the body are, in our actual condition, as
essential a part of the great scheme of life, and are as
necessary to human affairs, as are the pleasures of the mind 269-271
But the clergy, by denouncing these pleasures of the senses,
do what they can, in every country, to diminish the total
amount of happiness of which humanity is susceptible, and
which it has a right to enjoy 271-275
In no Protestant country have the clergy pushed these narrow
and unsocial tenets so far as in Scotland 275-276
Indeed, in some respects, the Scotch clergy were more ascetic
than those of any branch of the Catholic Church, except the
Spanish; since they attempted to destroy the affections, and
to sever the holiest ties of domestic love 276-279
CHAPTER V.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE SCOTCH INTELLECT DURING THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
The Scotch philosophical literature of the eighteenth century,
was a reaction against the theological spirit of the
seventeenth 281
But the peculiarity of the philosophy which now arose, is
that, instead of being an inductive philosophy, it was a
deductive one 281-282
This is well worthy of notice; because the inductive method
being essentially anti-theological, it might have been
expected that the opponents of the theological spirit would
have followed that method 282-284
The truth, however, was, that the theological spirit had taken
such hold of the Scotch mind, that it was impossible for the
inductive method to gain a hearing 284-289
Hence, the secular philosophy of the eighteenth century,
though new in its results, was not new in the method by which
those results were obtained 289
In this respect, Scotland is similar to Germany, but
dissimilar to England 289-290
Summary of the most important distinctions between induction
and deduction 291
The whole of the Scotch philosophy, physical as well as
metaphysical, is deductive 291
Hutcheson's philosophy 292-304
Its results and tendency 292-299
Its method 299-304
Adam Smith's philosophy 304-330
His _Theory of Moral Sentiments_ and his _Wealth of
Nations_ are different parts of one subject. To understand
either, we must study both 304-305
His deductive method depended upon a suppression of premisses 304-309
Account of his _Theory of Moral Sentiments_ 309-314
Account of his _Wealth of Nations_ 314-330
Hume's philosophy 331-349
His want of imagination 331-332
Importance and novelty of his doctrines 333-337
His method was eminently deductive; and he, like Adam Smith,
cared little for experience 337-341
Hence, his injustice to Bacon, whose method was diametrically
opposed to his own 338-339
His _Natural History of Religion_ 342-348
Comparison between the method of this work, and the method
employed by Cudworth 348
Reid's philosophy 349-361
His timidity made him look at the practical tendency of
speculative doctrines, instead of confining himself to the
question of their truth or falsehood 349-354
But a philosopher should deem it his business to ascertain
new truths, without regard to their consequences 349-350
Reid attacked Hume's method, because he disliked the results
to which that method had led 354-355
And yet, in raising his own philosophy, he followed the very
same method himself 355-359
Estimate of the value of what Reid effected 359-360
Opposition between the method of Reid and that of Bacon 360-361
In physical philosophy, the deductive method was equally
prevalent in Scotland 361-seq.
The laws of heat 362
Indestructibility of force. Interchange of forces 362-365
Black's philosophy 367-377
His theory of latent heat prepared the way for subsequent
discoveries 367-371
His method was deductive, and does not come under any of the
rules of the Baconian philosophy 371-372
He reasoned from his principles speculatively, instead of
occupying himself with a long course of experiments 372-377
To do this was to indulge the imagination, which is deemed
dangerous by the inductive school of English physicists. But,
in the pursuit of truth, we need all our powers; and the
advance of physical science is retarded by our neglect of the
imaginative and emotional faculties 377-382
Black, therefore, did immense service by giving free scope, to
the imagination. The same plan was pursued by his successor,
Leslie 383
Leslie's philosophy of heat 383-388
He derived great aid from poetry 385
And was unjust to Bacon, whose inductive views he disliked 388
Hutton's geological philosophy 388-402
Fire and water are the two causes which have altered, and are
still altering, the crust of the earth. The supposition that
volcanic action was formerly more powerful than at present, is
quite consistent with the doctrines of an unbroken sequence of
events, and of the uniformity of natural laws 388-390
The action of fire and water on the crust of the earth, may be
studied deductively, by computing separately the probable
operation of each. Or they maybe studied inductively, by
observing their united effects, and rising from the effects to
the causes; while the deductive plan is to descend from the
causes to the effects 390-391
Of these two methods, the English followed the inductive; the
Scotch and Germans followed the deductive 391
English geology founded by William Smith 391-393
German geology founded by Werner 393-395
Scotch geology founded by Hutton 396
The English observed effects in order to ascertain causes. The
Germans, assuming water to be the cause, reasoned from it to
the effects. The Scotch, assuming heat to be the cause, made
its principles the first step in their argument 391-396
Reasons which made the Scotch geologists argue from the
principles of heat, instead of, like the German geologists,
arguing from the principles of water 396
Though Hutton founded the theory of metamorphic rocks, and
ascribed such immense importance to heat, he would not take
the trouble of examining a single region of active volcanos,
where he might have seen those very operations of nature,
respecting which he speculated 398
But, by a deductive application of the principles unfolded by
Black, he arrived at a conclusion concerning the consolidation
of strata by heat 399-400
That conclusion was entirely speculative, and unsupported by
experience 399
Though experiment might perhaps verify it, no one had yet made
the trial; and Hutton was too averse to the inductive method
to undertake the investigation himself 400-401
Sir James Hall afterwards took the matter up, and empirically
verified the great idea which Hutton had propounded 401-402
Watt's invention of the steam-engine, and discovery of the
composition of water 402-406
Contrast between the method by which he, as a Scotchman,
discovered the composition of water, and the opposite method
by which the Englishman, Cavendish, made the same discovery at
the same time 404-406
Nature of the evidence of the supposed difference between the
organic and inorganic world. Life is probably a property of
all matter 406-410
Assuming, however, for the purposes of classification, that
the organic world is fundamentally different from the
inorganic, we may divide organic science into physiology and
pathology 410-412
The two great Scotch pathologists are Cullen and John Hunter.
Hunter, having a larger mind than Cullen, was also a
physiologist 412
Account of Cullen's philosophy 413-427
His love of theory 413
Theory, though necessary in science, is dangerous in practice 414-416
Difference between the science of pathology and the art of
therapeutics 417-418
Comparison between the method of Cullen's pathology and the
method employed by Adam Smith 417-419
Cullen's theory of the solids 420-seq.
He refused to inquire into the truth of the principles from
which he argued 421-422
His conclusions, like his premisses, represent only a part of
the truth, and were extremely one-sided. Still, their value
is unquestionable, forming, as they did, a necessary part of
the general progress 423-424
His theory of fever 424-426
His nosology 426-427
The philosophy of John Hunter 428-458
His grandeur, and, unfortunately, his obscurity of language 428-430
In his mind, the inductive and deductive methods struggled for
mastery. Their conflict oppressed him. This is one of the
causes of the darkness of his thoughts and consequently of his
style 429-432
His natural disposition was towards deduction 432
But circumstances made him inductive, and he collected facts
with untiring industry 432-434
By this means he made a large number of curious physiological
discoveries 434-436
He traced the history of the red globules of the blood, and
arrived at the conclusion that their function is to strengthen
the system rather than to repair it 436-437
Long after his death, this inference was corroborated by the
progress of miscroscopical and chemical researches. It was
especially corroborated by Lecanu's comparison of the blood in
different sexes, and in different temperaments. 439
Hunter's inquiries concerning the movements of animals and
vegetables 439-441
He recognized the great truth that the sciences of the
inorganic world must be the foundation of those of the organic 443
His object was, to unite all the physical sciences, in order
to show that, the operations of nature being always uniform,
regularity prevails even amidst the greatest apparent
irregularity 443-444
Hence, aiming chiefly at a generalization of irregularities,
his favourite study was pathology 444
In his pathological inquiries, he took into account the
malformations of crystals 445
As a physiologist, he was equalled or excelled by Aristotle;
but as a pathologist, he is unrivalled for the grandeur of his
views 446-447
In pathology, his love of deduction was more obvious than in
physiology 447
His pathological speculations respecting the principles of
action and the principles of sympathy 448-452
But his English contemporaries, being eminently inductive, so
disliked his method, that he exercised scarcely any influence
over them 453
This is the more observable, because his discoveries
respecting disease have caused him to be recognized as the
founder of modern surgery, and the principal author of the
doctrines now taught in the medical profession 454-457
Such were the great results achieved by Scotchmen in the
eighteenth century. Difference between this splendid
literature and the wretched productions of the Scotch mind in
the seventeenth century. 458-460
Notwithstanding this difference, the deductive method was
supreme in both centuries 461
The deductive method strikes the senses less than the
inductive. Hence, induction being more accessible to average
understandings, is more popular than deduction. Hence, too,
the teachings of an inductive philosophy are more likely to
affect national character than the teaching of a deductive
philosophy 461-464
Theology forms the only exception to this rule 464-465
The Scotch literature of the eighteenth century, being
essentially deductive, was, on that account, unable to affect
the nation. It was, therefore, unable to weaken national
superstition 465-469
Superstition and religious illiberality still existing in
Scotland 469-471
The notions countenanced there respecting the origin of
epidemics. Correspondence which, in consequence of those
notions, took place, in 1853, between the Scotch Church and
the English Government 471-476
These superstitions are eminently irreligious, and are
everywhere becoming effaced, as physical science advances.
Nothing else can touch them. Hence the gradual liberation of
the human mind from the slavish and unmanly fears by which it
has long been oppressed 476-482
HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION IN ENGLAND.
CHAPTER I.
CONDITION OF SCOTLAND TO THE END OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.
In the preceding view of the rise and decay of Spain, I have sought to
exhibit the successive steps by which what was formerly one of the
greatest nations of the earth, was broken, and cast down from its high
estate. As we look back on that scene, the picture is, indeed, striking.
A country rich in all natural productions, inhabited by a brave, a loyal,
and a religious people, removed, too, by its geographical position from
the hazards of European revolutions, did, by the operation of those
general causes which I have indicated, suddenly rise to unparalleled
grandeur; and then, without the occurrence of any new combination, but by
a mere continuance of the same causes, fall with an equal velocity. Yet,
these vicissitudes, strange and startling as they appear, were perfectly
regular. They were the legitimate consequence of a state of society, in
which the spirit of protection had reached its highest point, and in
which, every thing being done for the people, nothing was done by the
people. Whenever this happens, there may be great political progress, but
there can be no really national progress. There may be accessions of
territory, and vast increase of fame and of power. There may be
improvements in the practice of administration, in the management of
finances, in the organization of armies, in the art and theory of war, in
the tricks of diplomacy, and in those various contrivances by which one
nation is able to outwit and insult another. So far, however, from this
benefiting the people, it will injure them in two different ways. In the
first place, by increasing the reputation of the ruling classes, it
encourages that blind and servile respect which men are too apt to feel
for those who are above them, and which, wherever it has been generally
practised, has been found fatal to the highest qualities of the citizen,
and therefore to the permanent grandeur of the nation. And, in the second
place, it multiplies the resources of the executive government, and thus
renders the country unable, as well as unwilling, to correct the errors
of those who are at the head of affairs. Hence, in Spain, as in all
countries similarly circumstanced, it was at the very moment when things
were most prosperous at the surface, that they were most rotten at the
foundation. In presence of the most splendid political success, the
nation hastened to its downfall, and the crisis was fast approaching, in
which, the whole edifice being overturned, nothing would be left, except
a memorable warning of the consequences which must ensue, when the
people, giving themselves up to the passions of superstition and loyalty,
abdicate their own proper functions, forego their own responsibility,
renounce their highest duties, and degrade themselves into passive
instruments to serve the will of the Church and the throne.
Such is the great lesson taught by the history of Spain. From the history
of Scotland, we may gather another lesson, of a different, and yet of a
similar, kind. In Scotland, the progress of the nation has been very
slow, but, on the whole, very sure. The country is extremely barren; the
executive government has, with rare exceptions, been always weak; and the
people have never been burdened with those feelings of loyalty which
circumstances had forced upon the Spaniards. Certainly, the last charge
that will be brought against the Scotch, is that of superstitious
attachment to their princes.[1] We, in England, have not always been very
tender of the persons of our sovereigns, and we have occasionally
punished them with what some consider excessive severity. With this, we
have been frequently taunted by the more loyal nations of the Continent;
and, in Spain in particular, our conduct has excited the greatest
abhorrence. But, if we compare our history with that of our northern
neighbours, we must pronounce ourselves a meek and submissive people.[2]
There have been more rebellions in Scotland than in any other country;
and the rebellions have been very sanguinary, as well as very numerous.
The Scotch have made war upon most of their kings, and put to death many.
To mention their treatment of a single dynasty, they murdered James I.
and James III. They rebelled against James II. and James VII. They laid
hold of James V., and placed him in confinement. Mary, they immured in a
castle, and afterwards deposed. Her successor, James VI., they
imprisoned; they led him captive about the country, and on one occasion
attempted his life. Towards Charles I., they showed the greatest
animosity, and they were the first to restrain his mad career. Three
years before the English ventured to rise against that despotic prince,
the Scotch boldly took up arms, and made war on him. The service which
they then rendered to the cause of liberty it would be hard to overrate;
but the singular part of the transaction was, that having afterwards got
possession of the person of Charles, they sold him to the English for a
large sum of money, of which they, being very poor, had pressing need.
Such a sale is unparalleled in history; and although the Scotch might
have plausibly alleged that this was the only gain they had derived, or
ever could derive, from the existence of their hereditary prince, still
the event is one which stands alone; it was unprecedented; it has never
been imitated; and its occurrence is a striking symptom of the state of
public opinion, and of the feelings of the country in which it was
permitted.
[1] One of their own historians complacently says, 'but the Scots were
seldom distinguished for loyalty.' _Laing's History of Scotland_,
vol. iii. p. 199, edit. 1819. See also p. 366. To the same effect,
Brodie (_History of the British Empire_, Edinburgh, 1822, vol. i. p.
388): 'The little respect paid to royalty is conspicuous in every
page of Scottish history.' Or, as Wilkes expressed himself in the
House of Commons, 'Scotland seems, indeed, the natural _foyer_ of
rebellion, as Egypt is of the plague.' _Parliamentary History_, vol.
xix. p. 810, London, 1814; and Nimmo (_History of Stirlingshire_,
Edinburgh, 1777, p. 219): 'Never was any race of monarchs more
unfortunate than the Scottish. Their reigns were generally turbulent
and disastrous, and their own end often tragical.'
[2] Indeed, a well-known Scotchman of the seventeenth century,
scornfully says of the English, 'such is the obsequiousness, and
almost superstitious devotion of that nation towards their prince.'
_Baillie's Letters_, vol. i. p. 204, edit. Laing, Edinburgh, 1841.
This, however, was written in 1639, since which we have effectually
wiped off that reproach. On the other hand, an English writer of
the seventeenth century, indignantly, though with evident
exaggeration, imputes to the Scotch that 'forty of their kings have
been barbarously murdered by them; and half as many more have
either made away with themselves, for fear of their torturing of
them, or have died miserably in strait imprisonment.' _Account of
Scotland in_ 1670, in _Harleian Miscellany_, vol. vi. p. 140, edit.
Park, 4to, 1810. Compare two curious passages in _Shields' Hind let
loose_, 1687, pp. 8, 9, 15.
While, however, in regard to loyalty, the opposition between Scotland and
Spain is complete, there is, strange to say, the most striking similarity
between those countries in regard to superstition. Both nations have
allowed their clergy to exercise immense sway, and both have submitted
their actions, as well as their consciences, to the authority of the
Church. As a natural consequence, in both countries, intolerance has
been, and still is, a crying evil; and in matters of religion, a bigotry
is habitually displayed, discreditable indeed to Spain, but far more
discreditable to Scotland, which has produced many philosophers of the
highest eminence, who would willingly have taught the people better
things, but who have vainly attempted to remove from the national mind
that serious blemish which mars its beauty, and tends to neutralize its
many other admirable qualities.
Herein lies the apparent paradox, and the real difficulty, of Scotch
history. That knowledge should not have produced the effects which have
elsewhere followed it; that a bold and inquisitive literature should be
found in a grossly superstitious country, without diminishing its
superstition; that the people should constantly withstand their kings,
and as constantly succumb to their clergy; that while they are liberal in
politics, they should be illiberal in religion; and that, as a natural
consequence of all this, men who, in the visible and external department
of facts and of practical life, display a shrewdness and a boldness
rarely equalled, should nevertheless, in speculative life, and in matters
of theory, tremble like sheep before their pastors, and yield assent to
every absurdity they hear, provided their Church has sanctioned it; that
these discrepancies should coexist, seems at first sight a strange
contradiction, and is surely a phenomenon worthy of our careful study. To
indicate the causes of this anomaly, and to trace the results to which
the anomaly has led, will be the business of the remaining part of this
volume; and although the investigation will be somewhat lengthy, it will
not, I hope, be considered prolix, by those who recognise the importance
of the inquiry, and are aware how completely it has been neglected, even
by those who have written most fully on the history of the Scottish
nation.
In Scotland, as elsewhere, the course of events has been influenced by
its physical geography; and by this I mean, not only its own immediate
peculiarities, but also its relation to adjoining countries. It is close
to Ireland; it touches England; and by the contiguity of the Orkney and
Shetland Isles, it was eminently exposed to the attacks of that great
nation of pirates, which for centuries inhabited the Scandinavian
peninsula. Considered merely by itself, it is mountainous and sterile;
nature has interposed such obstacles, that it was long impossible to open
regular communications between its different parts, which, indeed, in
regard to the Highlands, was not effected till after the middle of the
eighteenth century.[3] Finally, and this, as we shall presently see, was
a matter of great importance, the most fertile land in Scotland is in the
south, and was, therefore, constantly ravaged by the English borderers.
Hence, the accumulation of wealth was hindered; the growth of towns was
discouraged, by the serious hazards to which they were liable; and it was
impossible to develop that municipal spirit, which might have existed, if
the districts most favoured by nature had been situated in the north of
Scotland, instead of in the south. If the actual state of things had been
reversed, so that the Highlands were in the south,[4] and the Lowlands in
the north, it can hardly be doubted, that, after the cessation in the
thirteenth century of the great Scandinavian invasions, the most fertile
parts of Scotland, being comparatively secure, would have been the seat
of towns, which the active spirit of the people would have caused to
prosper, and the prosperity of which would have introduced a new element
into Scotch affairs, and changed the course of Scotch history. This,
however, was not to be; and, as we have to deal with events as they
actually are, I will now endeavour to trace the consequences of the
physical peculiarities which have just been noticed; and by coördinating
their results, I will, so far as I am able, show their general meaning,
and the way in which they have shaped the national character.
[3] In England, the travelling was bad enough; in Scotland, it was far
worse. Morer, stating what he saw in 1689, says 'Stage-coaches they
have none; yet there are a few Hackney's at Edinburgh, which they
may hire into the country upon urgent occasions. The truth is, the
roads will hardly allow 'em those conveniences, which is the reason
that their gentry, men and women, chuse rather to use their horses.'
_Morer's Account of Scotland_, London, 1702, p. 24.
As to the northern parts, we have the following account, written in
Inverness, between 1726 and 1730. 'The Highlands are but little
known even to the inhabitants of the low country of Scotland, for
they have ever dreaded the difficulties and dangers of travelling
among the mountains; and, when some extraordinary occasion has
obliged any one of them to such a progress, he has, generally
speaking, made his testament before he set out, as though he were
entering upon a long and dangerous sea-voyage, wherein it was very
doubtful if he should ever return.' _Letters from a Gentleman in the
North of Scotland_, edit. London, 1815, vol. i. p. 4. Between 1720
and 1730, military roads were cut through parts of the Highlands,
but they were 'laid down by a practical soldier, and destined for
warlike purposes, with scarcely any view towards the ends for which
free and peaceful citizens open up a system of internal transit,'
_Burton's History of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 255. See also _Chalmers'
Caledonia_, vol. ii. p. 36. This is confirmed by the fact, that even
between Inverness and Edinburgh, 'until 1755, the mail was conveyed
by men on foot.' Account of Inverness-shire, in _M^cCulloch's
British Empire_, London, 1847, vol. i. p. 299; to which I may add,
that in _Anderson's Essay on the Highlands_, Edinburgh, 1827, pp.
119, 120, it is stated, that 'A postchaise was first seen in
Inverness itself in 1760, and was, for a considerable time, the only
four-wheeled carriage in the district.' As to the communications in
the country about Perth, see _Penny's Traditions of Perth_, pp. 131,
132, Perth, 1836; and as to those from Aberdeen to Inverness, and
from Aberdeen to Edinburgh, see _Kennedy's Annals of Aberdeen_, vol.
ii. pp. 269, 270, London, 4to, 1818.
The history of the improvement of the roads during the latter half
of the eighteenth century, has never been written; but it is of the
greatest importance for its intellectual results, in causing
national fusion, as well as for its economical results, in helping
trade. Some idea may be formed of the extraordinary energy displayed
by Scotland in this matter, by comparing the following passages:
_Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. ii. pp. 494, 865, 939, vol. iii. pp.
599, 799; _Crawfurd's History of the Shire of Renfrew_, part ii. pp.
128, 160; _Irving's History of Dumbartonshire_, pp. 245, 246;
_Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 109, 210,
367, 430, 496; vol. ii. p. 498; vol. iii. pp. 331, 352, 353; vol.
iv. p. 313; vol. v. pp. 128, 234, 235, 315, 364, 365; vol. vi.
pp. 107, 154, 180, 458; vol. vii. pp. 135, 251, 275, 299, 417; vol.
viii. pp. 81, 243, 344, 345, 541; vol. ix. pp. 414, 530; vol. x.
pp. 221, 237, 238, 466, 618; vol. xi. pp. 127, 380, 418, 432, 522,
541; vol. xii. p. 59; vol. xiii. pp. 42, 141, 488, 542, 663; vol.
xiv. pp. 217, 227, 413, 443, 466, 506; vol. xv. pp. 54, 88, 276;
vol. xvi. p. 120; vol. xvii. pp. 5, 267, 297, 377, 533; vol. xviii.
p. 309; vol. xx. p. 156.
[4] I use the word Highlands, in the common, though improper, sense of
including all Scotland from the Pentland Firth to the beginning of
the mountains, a few miles north of Glasgow, Stirling, Perth, and
Dundee. All such distinctions are necessarily somewhat vague,
because the boundaries of nature are never clearly marked. Compare
_Macky's Scotland_, p. 124, London, 1732, with _Anderson's Guide to
the Highlands_, Edinburgh, 1847, pp. 17, 18.
The earliest fact with which we are acquainted respecting the history of
Scotland, is the Roman invasion under Agricola, late in the first
century. But neither his conquests, nor those of his successors, made
any permanent impression. The country was never really subjugated, and
nothing was effected except a military occupation, which, in spite of the
erection of numerous forts, walls, and ramparts, left the spirit of the
inhabitants unbroken. Even Severus, who, in the year 209, undertook the
last and most important expedition against Scotland, does not appear to
have penetrated beyond the Firth of Moray;[5] and directly he retired,
the natives were again in arms, and again independent. After this,
nothing was attempted upon a scale large enough to give a chance of
success. Indeed, the Romans, far from being equal to such an effort, were
themselves deteriorating. In their best days, their virtues were the
virtues of barbarians, and even those they were now about to lose. From
the beginning, their scheme of life was so one-sided and imperfect, that
the increase of wealth, which improves the civilization of really
civilized countries, was to the Romans an irreparable mischief; and they
were corrupted by luxury, instead of being refined by it. In our time, if
we compare the different nations of Europe, we find that the richest are
also the most powerful, the most humane, and the most happy. We live in
that advanced state of society, in which wealth is both the cause and the
effect of progress, while poverty is the fruitful parent of weakness, of
misery, and of crime. But the Romans, when they ceased to be poor, began
to be vicious. So unstable was the foundation of their greatness, that
the very results which their power produced, were fatal to the power
itself. Their empire gave them wealth, and their wealth overthrew their
empire. Their national character, notwithstanding its apparent strength,
was in truth of so frail a texture, that it was ruined by its own
development. As it grew, it dwarfed. Hence it was, that, in the third and
fourth centuries, their hold on mankind visibly slackened. Their
authority being undermined, other nations, of course, stepped in; so that
the inroads of those strange tribes which came pouring from the north,
and to whose appearance the final catastrophe is often ascribed, were at
best the occasion, but by no means the cause, of the fall of the Roman
Empire. Towards that great and salutary event, every thing had long been
pointing. The scourgers and oppressors of the world, whom a false and
ignorant sympathy has invested with noble qualities which they never
possessed, had now to look to themselves; and when, after receding on all
sides, they, in the middle of the fifth century, withdrew their forces
from the whole of Britain, they merely executed a movement, which a train
of circumstances, continued through several generations, had made
inevitable.
[5] Browne (_History of the Highlands_, vol. i. p. 33) says that 'he
traversed the whole of North Britain, from the wall of Antoninus to
the very extremity of the island.' The same thing is stated in
_Pennant's Scotland_, vol. i. p. 90. Neither of these writers quote
their authority for this; but they probably relied on a passage in
_Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. iv. p. 94. 'Neque tamen
desideratis quinquaginta millibus (ut scribit Dion) prius ab
inc[oe]pto destiterunt, quam ad finem insulæ penetrassent.' I
believe, however, that Scotch antiquaries are now agreed that this
is wrong, as Chalmers was one of the first to perceive. See his
_Caledonia_, vol. i. p. 187; a very valuable and learned, but
unhappily ill-arranged, book, and written in a style which is
absolutely afflicting. See also _Irving's History of
Dumbartonshire_, 4to, 1860, p. 14.
It is at this point that we begin to discern the operation of those
physical and geographical peculiarities which I have mentioned as
influencing the fortunes of Scotland. The Romans, gradually losing
ground, the proximity of Ireland caused repeated attacks from that
fertile island, whose rich soil and great natural advantages gave rise to
an exuberant, and therefore a restless, population. An overflow, which,
in civilized times, is an emigration, is, in barbarous times, an
invasion. Hence the Irish, or Scotti as they were termed, established
themselves by force of arms in the west of Scotland, and came into
collision with the Picts, who occupied the eastern part. A deadly
struggle ensued, which lasted four centuries after the withdrawal of the
Romans, and plunged the country into the greatest confusion. At length,
in the middle of the ninth century, Kenneth M'Alpine, king of the
Scotti, gained the upper hand, and reduced the Picts to complete
submission.[6] The country was now united under one rule; and the
conquerors, slowly absorbing the conquered, gave their name to the whole,
which, in the tenth century, received the appellation of Scotland.[7]
[6] The history of Scotland, in this period, is in great confusion, and
perhaps will never be recovered. For the statements made in the
text, I have chiefly used the following authorities: _Fordun's
Scotichronicon_, vol. i.; _Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum Historia_,
lib. v. pp. 121-132, and the beginning of the sixth book. Also
various parts of _Bede_; _Pinkerton's Enquiry into the Early History
of Scotland_; _Chalmers' Caledonia_; the first volume of _Browne's
History of the Highlands_; and, above all, Mr. Skene's acute and
learned work on the Highlanders. In the last-named book, the western
boundary of the Picts is traced with great ingenuity, though perhaps
with some uncertainty. _Skene's Highlanders of Scotland_, vol. i.
pp. 26-33, London, 1837.
[7] Here, again, we are involved in doubt; it being uncertain when the
name Scotia was first applied to Scotland. The date, therefore,
which I have given, is only intended as an approximative truth. In
arriving at it, I have compared the following different, and often
conflicting, passages: _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. i. p. 339.
_Browne's History of the Highlands_, vol. i. p. 34. _Pinkerton's
Enquiry into the Early History of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 253, 254,
vol. ii. pp. 151, 228, 237, 240. _Spottiswoode's History of the
Church of Scotland_, edit. Russell, 1851, vol. i. p. 16, note,
where, however, Pinkerton's authority is appealed to for an
assertion which he did not make. _Skene's Highlanders_, vol. i. pp.
45, 61, 244. _Anderson's Prize Essay on the Highlands_, p. 34.
But the kingdom was to have no rest. For, in the mean time,
circumstances, which it would be tedious to relate, had raised the
inhabitants of Norway to be the greatest maritime power in Europe. The
use which that nation of pirates made of their strength, forms another
and a very important link in the history of Scotland, and moreover
illustrates the immense weight, which, in an early period of society,
should be assigned to mere geographical considerations. The nearest land
to the centre of the long coast of Norway is the Shetland Isles, whence
it is an easy sail to the Orkneys. The northern pirates naturally seized
these small, but, to them, most useful islands, and, as naturally, made
them intermediate stations, from which they could conveniently pillage
the coasts of Scotland. Being constantly reinforced from Norway, they, in
the ninth and tenth centuries, advanced from the Orkneys, made permanent
settlements in Scotland itself, and occupied not only Caithness, but also
great part of Sutherland. Another body of them got possession of the
Western Islands; and as Skye is only separated from the mainland by a
very narrow channel, these pirates easily crossed over, and fixed
themselves in Western Ross.[8] From their new abodes, they waged
incessant and destructive war against every district within their reach;
and, keeping a large part of Scotland in constant alarm, they, for about
three centuries, prevented the possibility of its social improvement.
Indeed, that unhappy country was never free from the dangers of Norwegian
invasion, until the failure of the last great attack, in 1263, when Haco
left Norway with a prodigious armament, which he further strengthened by
reinforcements from the Orkneys and Hebrides. Scotland could offer but
little resistance. Haco, with his allies, sailed along the western coast
to the Mull of Kentire, wasted the country with fire and sword, took
Arran and Bute, entered the Firth of Clyde, suddenly fell upon Loch
Lomond, destroyed all the property on its shores and on its islands,
ravaged the whole county of Stirling, and threatened to descend with all
his force upon Ayrshire. Fortunately, the inclemency of the weather broke
up this great expedition, and scattered or destroyed the entire fleet.[9]
After its dispersal, the course of affairs in Norway prevented the
attempt from being renewed; and danger from that quarter being over, it
might have been hoped that Scotland would now enjoy peace, and would have
leisure to develop the natural resources which she possessed,
particularly those in the southern and more favoured districts.
[8] _Pinkerton's Enquiry into the Early History of Scotland_, vol. i.
pp. 136, 317, vol. ii. pp. 179, 298. _Skene's Highlanders_, vol. i.
pp. 90, 91, 94, 106, 114, 258, 259. _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. i.
pp. 340-347.
[9] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 38-54. The account in
_Hollinshead's Scottish Chronicle_, vol. i. pp. 399-403, ascribes
too much to the prowess of the Scotch, and too little to the
elements which dispersed the fleet. Compare _Irving's History of
Dumbartonshire_, second edition, 4to, 1860, pp. 48, 49.
This, however, was not to be. For, scarcely were the attacks from Norway
at an end, when those from England began. Early in the thirteenth
century, the lines of demarcation which separated Normans from Saxons,
were, in our country, becoming so obliterated, that in many cases it was
impossible to distinguish them.[10] By the middle of the same century,
the two races were fused into one powerful nation; and, as that nation
had a comparatively feeble neighbour, it was certain that the stronger
people would try to oppress the weaker.[11] In an ignorant and barbarous
age, military success is preferred to all other kinds of fame; and the
English, greedy for conquest, set their eyes upon Scotland, which they
were sure to invade at the first opportunity. That Scotland was near,
made it tempting; that it was believed to be defenceless, made the
temptation irresistible. In 1290, Edward I. determined to avail himself
of the confusion into which Scotland was thrown by disputes respecting
the succession of the crown. The intrigues which followed, need not be
related; it is enough to say, that, in 1296, the sword was drawn, and
Edward invaded a country which he had long desired to conquer. But he
little recked of the millions of treasure, and the hundreds of thousands
of lives, which were to be squandered, before that war was over.[12] The
contest that ensued was of unexampled length and severity; and in its sad
course, the Scotch, notwithstanding their heroic resistance, and the
victories they occasionally gained, had to endure every evil which could
be inflicted by their proud and insolent neighbour. The darling object of
the English, was to subjugate the Scotch; and if anything could increase
the disgrace of so base an enterprise, it would be that, having
undertaken it, they ignominiously failed.[13] The suffering, however, was
incalculable, and was aggravated by the important fact, that it was
precisely the most fertile part of Scotland which was most exposed to the
English ravages. This, as we shall presently see, produced some very
curious results on the national character; and for that reason, I will,
without entering into many details, give a slight summary of the more
immediate consequences of this long and sanguinary struggle.
[10] _Buckle's History of Civilization_, vol. ii. pp. 116, 117.
[11] In _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 18, 'the early part
of the reign' of Alexander III. is indicated as the period in which
'the first approaches were made towards the great plan for the
reduction of Scotland, by the English.' Alexander III. came to the
throne in 1249. Earlier, the feeling was very different. Thus, late
in the twelfth century, 'the two nations, according to Fordun,
seemed one people; Englishmen travelling at pleasure through all
the corners of Scotland (?); and Scotchmen in like manner through
England.' _Ridpath's Border History_, p. 76. Compare _Dalrymple's
Annals of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 158. At that time, England, being
weak, was peaceably disposed.
[12] An old Scotch writer says, with some exaggeration, 'The year 1296,
at which tyme, the bloodyest and longest warr that ever was betwixt
two nationes fell out, and continued two hundreth and sextie years,
to the undoeing and ruineing of many noble families, with the
slaughter of a million of men.' _Somerville's Memorie of the
Somervilles_, vol. i. p. 61.
[13] See some just and biting remarks in _Hume's History of the House
of Douglas_, vol. i. p. 85.
In 1296, the English entered Berwick, the richest town Scotland
possessed, and not only destroyed all the property, but slew nearly all
the inhabitants.[14] They then marched on to Aberdeen and Elgin; and so
completely desolated the country, that the Scotch, flying to the
mountains, and stripped of their all, had no resource left but to wage
from their native fastnesses a war similar to that which their savage
ancestors, twelve centuries earlier, had conducted against the
Romans.[15] In 1298, the English again broke in, burnt Perth and St.
Andrews, and ravaged the whole territory south and west.[16] In 1310,
they invaded Scotland by the eastern march, and carrying off such
provisions as were left, caused so terrible a dearth, that the people
were forced to feed on horses and other carrion.[17] All over southern
Scotland, both east and west, the inhabitants were now reduced to a
horrible condition, being for the most part houseless and starved. In
1314, made desperate by their state, they rallied for a moment, and, in
the battle of Bannockburn, gloriously defeated their oppressors. But
their unrelenting enemy was at hand, and pressed them so hard, that, in
1322, Bruce, in order to baffle an English invasion, was obliged to lay
waste all the districts south of the Firth of Forth; the people taking
refuge, as before, in the mountains.[18] This time, therefore, when
Edward II. reached Edinburgh, he plundered nothing, because, the country
being a desert, there was nothing to plunder; but, on his return, he did
what he could, and meeting with some convents, which were the only signs
of life that he encountered, he fell upon them, robbed the monasteries of
Melrose and Holyrood, burnt the abbey of Dryburgh, and slew those monks
who, from age or disease, were unable to escape.[19] In 1336, the next
king, Edward III., equipped a numerous army, devastated the Lowlands,
and great part of the Highlands, and destroyed every thing he could find,
as far as Inverness.[20] In 1346, the English overran the districts of
Tweeddale, the Merse, Ettrick, Annandale, and Galloway;[21] and in 1355,
Edward, in a still more barbarous inroad, burnt every church, every
village, and every town he approached.[22] And scarcely were these
frightful losses somewhat repaired, when another storm burst upon the
devoted land. In 1385, Richard II. traversed the southern counties to
Aberdeen, scattering destruction on every side, and reducing to ashes the
cities of Edinburgh, Dunfermline, Perth, and Dundee.[23]
[14] 'Anno gratiæ MCCXCVI. tertio kalendas Aprilis, villa et castro de
Berevvico, per magnificum regem Angliæ Eadvvardum captis, omnes
ibidem inuentos Angli gladio occiderunt, paucis exceptis, qui ipsam
villam postmodum abiurar[=u]t.' _Flores Historiarum per Matthæum
Westmonasteriensem collecti_, Lond. 1570, folio, lib. ii. p. 403.
'Atque modo prædicto villâ captâ, civibus prostratis, rex Angliæ
prædictus nulli ætati parcens aut sexui, duobus diebus rivulis de
cruore occisorum fluentibus, septem millia et quingentas animas
promiscui sexûs jusserat, in sua tyrannide desæviens, trucidari.'
_Fordun's Scotichronicon, curâ Goodall_, Edinb. 1775, folio, vol.
ii. pp. 159, 160. 'Secutus Rex cum peditum copiis miserabilem omnis
generis cædem edit.' _Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum Historia_,
Abredoniæ, 1762, lib. viii. p. 200. 'They left not one creature
alive of the Scotish blood within all that toune.' _Hollinshead's
Scottish Chronicle_, Arbroath, 1805, 4to, vol. i. p. 418. In 1286,
that is, only ten years earlier, 'No other part of Scotland, in
point of commercial importance, came near to a comparison with
Berwick.' _Macpherson's Annals of Commerce_, London, 4to, 1805,
vol. i. p. 446. Such were the brutal crimes of our wretched and
ignorant ancestors.
[15] 'The Scots assembled in troops and companies, and betaking
themselves to the woods, mountains, and morasses, in which their
fathers had defended themselves against the Romans, prepared for a
general insurrection against the English power.' _Scott's History
of Scotland_, London, 1830, vol. i. p. 70. Elgin appears to have
been the most northern point of this expedition. See _Tytler's
History of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 119, and _Chalmers' Caledonia_,
vol. i. p. 657. The general results are summed up by Buchanan:
'Hanc stragem ex agrorum incultu consecuta est fames, et famem
pestis, unde major quàm è bello clades timebatur.' _Rerum
Scoticarum Historia_, lib. viii. p. 203.
[16] 'The army then advanced into Scotland by moderate marches, wasting
and destroying every thing on their way.' ... 'A party of Edward's
army, sent northwards, wasted the country, and burnt Perth and
Saint Andrews.' _Ridpath's Border History_, pp. 146, 147.
[17] 'The king entered Scotland by the eastern march with a great army.'
... 'There was this year so terrible a dearth and scarcity of
provisions in Scotland, arising from the havoc of war, that many
were obliged to feed on the flesh of horses and other carrion.'
_Ibid._ pp. 164, 165. See also _Fordun's Scotichronicon_, vol. ii.
pp. 242, 243. 'Quo anno, propter guerrarum discrimina, tanta erat
panis inopia et victualium caristia in Scotia, quòd in plerisque
locis, compellente famis necessitate, multi carnibus equorum et
aliorum pecorum immundorum vescebantur.'
[18] Bruce 'carefully laid the whole borders waste as far as the Firth
of Forth, removing the inhabitants to the mountains, with all their
effects of any value. When the English army entered, they found a
land of desolation, which famine seemed to guard.' _Scott's History
of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 145. See also _Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum
Historia_, lib. viii. p. 218.
[19] 'Eadwardus, rex Angliæ, intravit Scotiam cum magno exercitu equitum
et peditum, ac navium multitudine copiosa, duodecimo die mensis
Augusti, et usque villam de Edinburgh pervenit.' ... 'Spoliatis
tamen tunc in reditu Anglorum et prædatis monasteriis Sanctæ Crucis
de Edinburgh et de Melros, atque ad magnam desolationem perductis.
In ipso namque monasterio de Melros dominus Willelmus de Peblis,
ejusdem monasterii Prior, unus etiam monachus tunc infirmus, et duo
conversi cæci effecti, in dormitorio eorundem ab eisdem Anglis sunt
interfecti, et plures monachi lethaliter vulnerati. Corpus
Dominicum super magnum altare fuit projectum, ablatâ pixide
argenteâ in quâ erat repositum. Monasterium de Driburgh igne
penitùs consumptum est et in pulverem redactum. Ac _alia pia loca
quamplurima_ per prædicti regis violentiam ignis flamma consumpsit:
quod, Deo retribuente, eisdem in prosperum non cessit.' _Fordun's
Scotichronicon_, vol. ii. p. 278. 'In redeundo sacra juxta ac
prophana spoliata. Monasteria Driburgum et Mulrossia etiam cæsis
monachis infirmioribus, qui vel defectu virium, vel senectutis
fiducia soli remanserant, incensa,' _Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum
Historia_, lib. viii. p. 219.
[20] _Fordun's Scotichronicon_, vol. ii. pp. 322, 323. _Dalrymple's
Annals_, vol. ii. pp. 232, 447. _Scott's History of Scotland_,
vol. i. pp. 187, 188.
[21] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 451.
[22] _Dalrymple's Annals_, vol. ii. p. 288. _Fordun's Scotichronicon_,
vol. ii. pp. 352-354.
[23] 'Rex Angliæ, Richardus secundus ægrè ferens Scotos et Francos tam
atrociter terram suam deprædare, et municipia sua assilire et ad
terram prosternere, exercitum collegit grandem, et intravit
Scotiam, ætate tunc novemdecim annorum, in multitudine superba
progrediens, omnia circumquaque perdens, et nihil salvans; templa
Dei et sanctuaria religiosorum monasteria viz. Driburgh, Melros et
Newbottel, ac nobilem villam de Edinburgh, cum ecclesia Sancti
Ægidii ejusdem, voraci flammâ incineravit; et, destructione
permaximâ factâ per eum in Laudonia, ad propria sine damno
repatriavit' _Fordun's Scotichronicon_, vol. ii. p. 401. 'En ce
séjour que le roi Richard fit en Haindebourch les Anglois coururent
tout le pays d'environ et y firent moult de desrois; mais nullui
n'y trouvèrent; car tout avoient retrait ens ès forts, et ens ès
grands bois, et là chassé tout leur bétail.' ... 'Et ardirent les
Anglois la ville de Saint-Jean-Ston en Ecosse, où la rivière du Tay
cuert, et y a un bon port pour aller partout le monde; et puis la
ville de Dondie; et n'épargnoient abbayes ni moûtiers; tout
mettoient les Anglois en feu et en flambe; et coururent jusques à
Abredane les coureurs et l'avant-garde.' _Les Chroniques de
Froissart_, edit. Buchon, vol. ii. pp. 334, 335, Paris, 1835. See
also, on this ruffianly expedition, _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. ii.
pp. 592, 593, and _Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. ix.
p. 253: 'Nulli loco, neque sacro, neque profano, nulli homini, qui
modò militari esset ætate, parcebat.'
By these disasters, the practice of agriculture was every where
interrupted, and in many places ceased for several generations.[24] The
labourers either fled, or were murdered; and there being no one to till
the ground, some of the fairest parts of Scotland were turned into a
wilderness, overgrown with briers and thickets. Between the invasions, a
few of the inhabitants, taking courage, issued from the mountains, and
raised wretched huts in the place of their former abodes. But, even then,
they were pursued to their very doors by wolves, searching for food, and
maddened with hunger. If they escaped from these famished and ferocious
animals, they and their families were exposed to a danger still more
horrible. For, in those terrible days, when famine stalked abroad,
despair perverted the souls of men, and drove them to new crime. There
were cannibals in the land; and we have it on contemporary authority,
that a man and his wife, who were at length brought to justice, subsisted
during a considerable period on the bodies of children, whom they caught
alive in traps, devouring their flesh, and drinking their blood.[25]
[24] 'Agriculture was ruined; and the very necessaries of life were lost,
when the principal lords had scarcely a bed to lye on.' _Chalmers'
Caledonia_, vol. ii. p. 142. See also, in p. 867 of the same volume
of this learned work, some curious extracts from Scotch charters
and other sources, illustrating the horrible condition of the
country. And on the difficulty of obtaining food, compare _Fordun's
Scotichronicon_, vol. ii. pp. 242, 324; _Dalrymple's Annals_, vol.
i. p. 307, vol. ii. pp. 238, 330; and _Tytler's History of
Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 94.
[25] Notices of Scotch cannibals will be found in _Lindsay of
Pitscottie's Chronicles of Scotland_, edit. 1814, vol. i. p. 163;
and in _Hollinshead's Scottish Chronicle_, 4to, 1805, vol. ii. pp.
16, 99. In _Fordun's Scotichronicon_, vol. ii. p. 331, the
following horrible account is given: it refers to the neighbourhood
of Perth in the year 1339: 'Tota illa patria circumvicina eo
tempore in tantum fuit vastata, quòd non remansit quasi domus
inhabitata, sed feræ et cervi de montanis descendentes circa villam
sæpiùs venabantur. Tanta tunc temporis facta est caristia, et
victualium inopia, ut passim plebicula deficeret, et tanquam oves
herbas depascentes, in foveis mortua reperirentur. Prope illinc in
abditis latitabat quidam robustus rusticus, Crysticleik nomine, cum
viragine sua, qui mulierculis et pueris ac juvenibus insidiabantur,
et, tanquam lupi eos strangulantes, de ipsorum carnibus
victitabant.'
Thus the fourteenth century passed away. In the fifteenth century, the
devastations of the English became comparatively rare; and although the
borders were the scene of constant hostilities,[26] there is no instance,
since the year 1400, of any of our kings invading Scotland.[27] An end
being put to those murderous expeditions, which reduced the country to a
desert, Scotland drew breath, and began to recover her strength.[28] But,
though the material losses were gradually repaired; though the fields
were again cultivated, and the towns rebuilt, there were other
consequences, which were less easy to remedy, and from whose effects the
people long smarted. These were inordinate power of the nobles, and the
absence of the municipal spirit. The strength of the nobles, and the
weakness of the citizens, are the most important peculiarities of
Scotland during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; and they, as I am
about to show, were directly encouraged by the ravages committed by the
English troops. We shall, moreover, see that this combination of events
increased the authority of the clergy, weakened the influence of the
intellectual classes, and made superstition more prevalent than it would
otherwise have been. It is in this way, that in Scotland, as in all other
countries, every thing is linked together; nothing is casual or
accidental; and the whole march of affairs is governed by general causes,
which, owing to their largeness and remoteness, often escape attention,
but which, when once recognized, are found to be marked by a simplicity
and uniformity, which are the invariable characteristics of the highest
truths that the mind of man has reached.
[26] Even when the two nations were at peace, the borderers were at war.
See _Ridpath's Border History_, pp. 240, 308, 394; and for other
evidence of this chronic anarchy, compare _Hollinshead's Scottish
Chronicle_, vol. ii. p. 30. _Lesley's History of Scotland_, pp. 40,
52, 67. _Sadler's State Papers_, vol. i. pp. 300, 301, 444, 449.
_State Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII._, 4to, 1836, vol. iv. pp.
366, 370, 569, 570, vol. v. pp. 17, 18, 161. _Historie of James the
Sext_, pp. 21, 91, 146.
[27] In 1400, Henry IV. made 'the last invasion which an English monarch
ever conducted into Scotland.' _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol.
ii. p. 406. It is said, however, that it was not till the reign of
Elizabeth than an English sovereign 'had the policy to disavow any
claim of sovereignty over Scotland.' _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. i.
p. 650.
[28] But very slowly. Pinkerton (_History of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 166,
167) says: 'The frequent wars between Scotland and England, since
the death of Alexander III., had occasioned to the former country
the loss of more than a century in the progress of civilization.
While in England, only the northern provinces were exposed to the
Scotish incursions, Scotland suffered in its most civilized
departments. It is apparent that in the reign of Alexander III.,
the kingdom was more abundant in the useful arts and manufactures,
than it was in the time of Robert III.'
The first circumstance favourable to the authority of the nobles, was the
structure of the country. Mountains, fens, lakes, and morasses, which
even the resources of modern art have only recently made accessible
supplied the great Scottish chieftains with retreats, in which they could
with impunity defy the power of the crown.[29] The poverty of the soil
also, made it difficult for armies to find means of subsistence; and from
this cause alone, the royal troops were often unable to pursue the
lawless and refractory barons.[30] During the fourteenth century,
Scotland was constantly ravaged by the English; and in the intervals of
their absence, it would have been a hopeless undertaking for any king to
try to repress such powerful subjects, since he would have had to march
through districts so devastated by the enemy, that they no longer yielded
the common necessaries of life. Besides this, the war with the English
lessened the authority of the crown, absolutely as well as relatively.
Its patrimony, lying in the south, was incessantly wasted by the
borderers, and before the middle of the fourteenth century, greatly
deteriorated in value.[31] In 1346, David II. fell into the hands of the
English, and during his captivity of eleven years, the nobles carried all
before them, and affected, says an historian, the style and title of
princes.[32] The longer the war with England continued, the more these
consequences were felt; so that before the close of the fourteenth
century, a few of the leading Scotch families had raised themselves to
such preëminence, that it was evident, either that a deadly struggle must
ensue between them and the crown, or else that the executive government
would have to abdicate its most essential functions, and leave the
country a prey to these headstrong and ferocious chiefs.[33]
[29] Owing to this, their castles were, by position, the strongest in
Europe; Germany alone excepted. Respecting their sites, which were
such as to make them in many instances almost unassailable, see
_Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. ii. pp. 122, 406, 407, 918, 919, vol.
iii. pp. 268, 269, 356-359, 864; _Pennant's Scotland_, vol. i. pp.
175, 177; _Sinclair's Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 169, vol. vii. p.
510, vol. xi. pp. 102, 212, 407, 408, vol. xii. pp. 25, 58, vol.
xiii. p. 598, vol. xv. p. 187, vol. xvi. p. 554, vol. xviii. p.
579, vol. xix. p. 474, vol. xx. pp. 56, 312; _Macky's Scotland_,
pp. 183, 297; and some good remarks in _Nimmo's History of
Stirlingshire_, p. 56. Neither England, nor France, nor Italy, nor
Spain, afforded such immense natural advantages to their
aristocracy.
[30] 'By retiring to his own castle, a mutinous baron could defy the
power of his sovereign, it being almost impracticable to lead an
army through a barren country, to places of difficult access to a
single man.' _History of Scotland_, book i. p. 59, in _Robertson's
Works_, edit. London, 1831. Notwithstanding the immense materials
which have been brought to light since the time of Robertson, his
_History of Scotland_ is still valuable; because he possessed a
grasp of mind which enabled him to embrace general views, that
escape ordinary compilers, however industrious they may be.
[31] 'The patrimony of the Crown had been seriously dilapidated during
the period of confusion which succeeded the battle of Durham,'
_Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 86.
[32] 'During the long captivity of David,' the nobles had been completely
insubordinate, and 'affected the style and title of princes,'
_Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 85. See also, on the
state of the barons under David II., _Skene's Highlanders_,
vol. ii. pp. 63-67.
[33] In 1299, 'a superior baron was in every respect a king in
miniature.' _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 150. In
1377, 'the power of the barons had been decidedly increasing since
the days of Robert the First,' p. 332. And, by 1398, it had risen
still higher, p. 392.
At this crisis, the natural allies of the throne would have been the
citizens and free burgesses, who in most European countries were the
eager and resolute opponents of the nobles, whose licentious habits
interfered not only with their trade and manufactures, but also with
their personal liberty. Here again, however, the long war with England
was favourable to the aristocracy of Scotland. For, as the invaders
ravaged the southern parts of Scotland, which were also the only
tolerably fertile parts, it was impossible that towns should flourish in
the places which nature had appointed for them. There being no large
cities, there was no asylum for the citizens, and there could be no
municipal spirit. There being no municipal spirit, the crown was deprived
of that great resource, which enabled the English kings to curtail the
power of the nobles, and to punish a lawlessness which long impeded the
progress of society.
During the middle ages, the Scotch towns were so utterly insignificant,
that but few notices have been preserved of them; contemporary writers
concentrating their attention upon the proceedings of the nobles and
clergy. Respecting the people, who found shelter in such miserable cities
as then existed, our best accounts are very imperfect; it is, however,
certain that, during the long English wars, the inhabitants usually fled
at the approach of the invaders, and the wretched hovels in which they
lived were burned to the ground.[34] Hence the population acquired a
fluctuating and vagabond character, which prevented the formation of
settled habits of industry, and thus took away one reason which men have
for congregating together. This applied more especially to the southern
Lowlands; for the north, there were other evils equally threatening. The
ferocious Highlanders, who lived entirely by plunder, were constantly at
hand; and to them were not unfrequently added the freebooters of the
Western Isles. Any thing which bore even the semblance of wealth, was an
irresistible excitement to their cupidity. They could not know that a man
had property, without longing to steal it; and, next to stealing, their
greatest pleasure was to destroy.[35] Aberdeen and Inverness were
particularly exposed to their assaults; and twice during the fifteenth
century, Inverness was totally consumed by fire, besides having to pay at
other times a heavy ransom, to save itself from a similar fate.[36]
[34] On this burning of Scotch towns, which appears to have been the
invariable practice of our humane forefathers, see _Chalmers'
Caledonia_, vol. ii. pp. 592, 593; _Kennedy's Annals of Aberdeen_,
vol. i. pp. 18, 27, 375, vol. ii. p. 304; _Mercer's History of
Dunfermline_, pp. 55, 66; _Sinclair's Scotland_, vol. v. p. 485,
vol. x. p. 584, vol. xix. p. 161; _Ridpath's Border History_,
pp. 147, 221, 265.
[35] A curious description of them is given in a Scotch statute, of the
year 1597. 'They hawe lykwayis throche thair barbarus inhumunitie
maid and presentlie makis the saidis hielandis and Iles qlk are
maist c[=o]modious in thame selwes alsueill be the ferteillitie of
the ground as be riche fischeingis altogidder vnproffitabill baithe
to thame selffis and to all vthuris his hienes liegis within this
realme; Thay nathair intertening onie ciuill or honest societie
amangis thame selffis neyther, zit admittit vtheris his hienesse
lieges to trafficque within thair boundis vithe saiftie of thair
liues and gudes; for remeid quhairof and that the saidis
inhabitantis of the saidis hilandeis and Iles may the better be
reduced to ane godlie, honest, and ciuill maner of living, it is
statute and ordanit,' &c. _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_,
vol. iv. p. 138, edit. folio, 1816.
These little peculiarities of the Highlanders remained in full
force until about the middle of the eighteenth century, as will
appear in the course of this history. But without anticipating what
will be narrated in a subsequent chapter, I will merely refer the
reader to two interesting passages in _Pennant's Scotland_, vol. i.
p. 154, and in _Heron's Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 218, 219; both of
which illustrate the state of things a little before 1745.
[36] Inverness was burned in 1429. _Gregory's History of the Western
Highlands_, p. 36; and again in 1455, _Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum
Historia_, lib. xi. p. 322. 'The greatest part' of it was also
burned in 1411. See _Anderson on the Highlands_, Edinb. 1827,
p. 82.
Aberdeen, being richer, was more tempting, but was likewise more
able to defend itself. Still, its burgh records supply curious
evidence of the constant fear in which the citizens lived, and of
the precautions which they took to ward off the attacks, sometimes
of the English, and sometimes of the clans. See the _Council
Register of Aberdeen_ (published by the Spalding Club, Aberdeen,
1844-1848, 4to), vol. i. pp. 8, 19, 60, 83, 197, 219, 232, 268,
vol. ii. p. 82. The last entry, which is dated July 31, 1593,
mentions 'the disordourit and lawles helandmen in Birss,
Glentanner, and their about, nocht onlie in the onmerciful
murthering of men and bairnis, bot in the maisterfull and violent
robbing and spulzeing of all the bestiall, guidis, and geir of a
gryt pairt of the inhabitantis of theas boundis, rasing of gryt
hairschip furth of the samen, being committit to ewous and nar this
burgh, within xx mylis theirunto, deuysit and ordanit for
preservation of this burgh and inhabitantis theirof, fra the
tyrannous invasion of the saidis hieland men, quha has na respect
to God nor man; that the haill inhabitantis of this burgh,
fensiball persones als weill onfrie as frie, salbe in reddiness
weill armit for the defence of this burgh, thair awin lyvis, gudis,
and geir, and resisting and repressing of the said heland men, as
occasioun salbe offered, at all tymes and houris as thay salbe
requirt and chargit.'
Even in 1668 we find complaints that Highlanders had forcibly
carried off women from Aberdeen or from its neighbourhood. _Records
of the Synod of Aberdeen_, p. 290. Other evidence of their attacks
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, may be seen in
_Kennedy's Annals of Aberdeen_, vol. i. p. 133; _Spalding's History
of the Troubles_, vol. i. pp. 25, 217; _Extracts from the
Presbytery Book of Strathbogie_, pp. 62, 73.
Such insecurity[37] both on the north and on the south, made peaceful
industry impossible in any part of Scotland. No where could a town be
built, without being in danger of immediate destruction. The consequence
was, that, during many centuries, there were no manufactures; there was
hardly any trade; and nearly all business was conducted by barter.[38]
Some of the commonest arts were unknown. The Scotch were unable to make
even the arms with which they fought. This, among such a warlike people,
would have been a very profitable labour; but they were so ignorant of
it, that, early in the fifteenth century, most of the armour which they
wore was manufactured abroad, as also were their spears, and even their
bows and arrows; and the heads of these weapons were entirely imported
from Flanders.[39] Indeed, the Flemish artizans supplied the Scotch with
ordinary farming implements, such as cart-wheels and wheel-barrows,
which, about the year 1475, used to be regularly shipped from the Low
Countries.[40] As to the arts which indicate a certain degree of
refinement, they were then, and long afterwards, quite out of the
question.[41] Until the seventeenth century, no glass was manufactured in
Scotland,[42] neither was any soap made there.[43] Even the higher class
of citizens would have deemed windows absurd in their wretched
abodes;[44] and as they were alike filthy in their persons as in their
houses, the demand for soap was too small to induce any one to attempt
its manufacture.[45] Other branches of industry were equally backward. In
1620, the art of tanning leather was for the first time introduced into
Scotland;[46] and it is stated, on apparently good authority, that no
paper was made there until about the middle of the eighteenth
century.[47]
[37] Even Perth ceased to be the capital of Scotland, because 'its
vicinity to the Highlands' made it dangerous for the sovereign to
reside there. _Lawson's Book of Perth_, p. xxxi.
[38] On the prevalence of barter and lack of specie, in Scotland, see the
_Spalding Club Miscellany_, vol. iv. pp. lvii.-lx., Aberdeen, 1849,
4to. In 1492, the treasury of Aberdeen was obliged to borrow 4_l._
16_s._ Scots. _Kennedy's Annals of Aberdeen_, vol. i. p. 61.
Compare _Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland_, vol. x. p.
542. Fynes Moryson, who was in Scotland late in the sixteenth
century, says, 'the gentlemen reckon their revenues not by rents of
money, but by chauldrons of victuals.' _Moryson's Itinerary_, part
iii. p. 155, London, folio, 1617; a rare and extremely curious
book, which ought to be reprinted. A hundred years after Moryson
wrote, it was observed that, 'in England, the rents are paid in
money; in Scotland, they are, generally speaking, paid in kind, or
victual, as they call it.' _De Foe's History of the Union_, p. 130.
[39] In the reign of James I. (1424-1436), 'It appears that armour, nay
spears, and bows and arrows, were chiefly imported.' ... 'In
particular, the heads of arrows and of spears seem to have been
entirely imported from Flanders,' _Pinkerton's History of
Scotland_, vol. i. p. 163. We learn from Rymer's _F[oe]dera_, that,
in 1368, two Scotchmen having occasion to fight a duel, got their
armour from London. _Macpherson's Annals of Commerce_, vol. i.
p. 575.
[40] From the _Bibel of English Policy_, supposed to have been written in
the reign of Edward IV., we learn that 'the Scotish imports from
Flanders were mercery, but more haberdashery, cart-wheels, and
wheel-barrows,' _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 408.
In _Mercer's History of Dunfermline_, p. 61, we are told that, in
the fifteenth century, 'Even in the best parts of Scotland, the
inhabitants could not manufacture the most necessary articles.
Flanders was the great mart in those times, and from Bruges
chiefly, the Scots imported even horse-shoes, harness, saddles,
bridles, cart-wheels, and wheel-barrows, besides all their mercery
and haberdashery.'
[41] Aberdeen was, for a long period, one of the most wealthy,
and, in some respects, the most advanced, of all the Scotch cities.
But it appears, from the council-registers of Aberdeen, that, 'in
the beginning of the sixteenth century, there was not a mechanic in
the town capable to execute the ordinary repairs of a clock,'
_Kennedy's Annals of Aberdeen_, vol. i. p. 99. On the Scotch clocks
in the middle of the sixteenth century, compare Mr. Morley's
interesting _Life of Cardan_, London, 1854, vol. ii. p. 128. Cardan
was in Scotland in 1552.
[42] About 1619, Sir George Hay 'set up at the village of Wemyss, in
Fife, a small glass-work, being the first known to have existed
amongst us.' _Chambers' Annals_, vol. i. p. 506. See also p. 428.
[43] 'Before this time, soap was imported into Scotland from foreign
countries, chiefly from Flanders.' _Ibid._, vol. i. p. 507, under
the year 1619, where mention is made of the manufactory set up at
Leith. 'The sope-workes of Leith' are noticed in 1650, in
_Balfour's Annales_, vol. iv. p. 68.
[44] Ray, who visited Scotland in 1661, says, 'In the best Scottish
houses, even the king's palaces, the windows are not glazed
throughout, but the upper part only; the lower have two wooden
shuts or folds to open at pleasure and admit the fresh air.' ...
'The ordinary country-houses are pitiful cots, built of stone, and
covered with turves, having in them but one room, many of them no
chimneys, the windows very small holes and not glazed.' _Ray's
Itineraries_, p. 153, edited by Dr. Lankester, London, 1846. 'About
1752, the glass window was beginning to make its appearance in the
small farm-houses.' _Brown's History of Glasgow_, vol. ii. p. 265,
Edinburgh, 1797.
[45] In 1650, it was stated of the Scotch, that 'many of their women are
so sluttish, that they do not wash their linen above once a month,
nor their hands and faces above once a year.' _Whitelock's
Memorials_, p. 468, London, 1732, folio. Six or seven years after
this, a traveller in Scotland says, 'the linen they supplied us
with, were it not to boast of, was little or nothing different from
those female complexions that never washed their faces to retain
their christendom.' _Franck's Northern Memoirs_, edit. Edinburgh,
1821, p. 94. A celebrated Scotchman notices, in 1698, the uncleanly
habits of his countrymen, but gives a comical reason for them;
since, according to him, they were in a great measure caused by the
position of the capital. 'As the happy situation of London has been
the principal cause of the glory and riches of England, so the bad
situation of Edinburgh has been one great occasion of the poverty
and uncleanliness in which the greater part of the people of
Scotland live.' _Second Discourse on the Affairs of Scotland_, in
_Fletcher of Saltoun's Political Works_, p. 119, Glasgow, 1749.
Another Scotchman, among his reminiscences of the early part of the
eighteenth century, says, that 'table and body linen [were] seldom
shifted.' _Memoires by Sir Archibald Grant of Monymusk_, in
_Spalding Club Miscellany_, vol. ii. p. 100, Aberdeen, 1842, 4to.
Finally, we have positive proof that in some parts of Scotland,
even at the end of the eighteenth century, the people used, instead
of soap, a substitute too disgusting to mention. See the account
communicated by the Rev. William Leslie to Sir John Sinclair, in
_Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland_, vol. ix. p. 177,
Edinburgh, 1793.
[46] _Chambers' Annals_, vol. i. p. 512.
[47] A paper-mill was established near Edinburgh in 1675; but 'there is
reason to conclude this paper-mill was not continued, and that
paper-making was not successfully introduced into Scotland till the
middle of the succeeding century.' _Chambers' Annals_, vol. ii. p.
399. I have met with so many proofs of the great accuracy of this
valuable work, that I should be loath to question any statement
made by Mr. Chambers, when, as in this case, I have only my memory
to trust to. But I think that I have seen evidence of paper being
successfully manufactured in Scotland late in the seventeenth
century, though I cannot recall the passages. However, Arnot, in
his _History of Edinburgh_, p. 599, edit. 4to, says, 'About forty
years ago, printing or writing paper began to be manufactured in
Scotland. Before that, papers were imported from Holland, or
brought from England,' As Arnot's work was printed in 1788, this
coincides with Mr. Chambers' statement. I may add, that, at the end
of the eighteenth century, there were 'two paper-mills near Perth.'
_Heron's Journey through Scotland_, vol. i. p. 117, Perth, 1799;
and that, in 1751 and 1763, the two first paper-mills were erected
north of the Forth. _Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland_,
vol. ix. p. 593, vol. xvi. p. 373. Compare _Lettice's Letters from
Scotland in 1792_, p. 420.
In the midst of such general stagnation, the most flourishing towns were,
as may be easily supposed, very thinly peopled. Indeed, men had so little
to do, that if they had collected in large numbers, they must have
starved. Glasgow is one of the oldest cities in Scotland, and is said to
have been founded about the sixth century.[48] At all events, in the
twelfth century, it was, according to the measure of that age, a rich and
prosperous place, enjoying the privilege of holding both a market and a
fair.[49] It had also a municipal organization, and was governed by its
own provosts and baillies.[50] Yet, even this famous town had no kind of
trade before the fifteenth century, when the inhabitants began to cure
salmon, and export it.[51] That was the only branch of industry with
which Glasgow was acquainted. We need not, therefore, be surprised at
hearing, that so late as the middle of the fifteenth century, the entire
population did not exceed fifteen hundred persons, whose wealth consisted
of some small cattle, and a few acres of ill-cultivated land.[52]
[48] 'This city was founded about the sixth century.' _M'Ure's History of
Glasgow_, edit. 1830, p. 120. Compare _Denholm's History of
Glasgow_, p. 2, Glasgow, 1804.
[49] In 1172, a market was granted to Glasgow; and in 1190, a fair. See
the charters in the Appendix to _Gibson's History of Glasgow_, pp.
299, 302, Glasgow, 1777.
[50] 'By the sale of land made by Robert de Mythyngby to Mr. Reginald de
Irewyne, A.D. 1268, it is evident that the town was then governed
by provosts, aldermen, or wardens, and baillies, who seem to have
been independent of the bishop, and were possessed of a common
seal, distinct from the one made use of by the bishop and chapter.'
_Gibson's History of Glasgow_, p. 72.
[51] 'A Mr. William Elphinston is made mention of as the first promoter
of trade in Glasgow, so early as the year 1420; the trade which he
promoted was, in all probability, the curing and exporting of
salmon.' _Gibson's History of Glasgow_, p. 203. See also _M'Ure's
History of Glasgow_, p. 93.
[52] Gibson (_History of Glasgow_, p. 74), with every desire to take a
sanguine view of the early state of his own city, says, that, in
1450, the inhabitants 'might perhaps amount to fifteen hundred;'
and that 'their wealth consisted in a few burrow-roods very
ill-cultivated, and in some small cattle, which fed on their
commons.'
Other cities, though bearing a celebrated name, were equally backward at
a still more recent period. Dunfermline is associated with many historic
reminiscences; it was a favourite residence of Scotch kings, and many
Scotch parliaments have been held there.[53] Such events are supposed to
confer distinction; but the illusion vanishes, when we inquire more
minutely into the condition of the place where they happened. In spite of
the pomp of princes and legislators, Dunfermline, which at the end of the
fourteenth century was still a poor village, composed of wooden huts,[54]
had, by the beginning of the seventeenth century, advanced so slowly that
its whole population, including that of its wretched suburbs, did not
exceed one thousand persons.[55] For a Scotch town, that was a
considerable number. About the same time, Greenock, we are assured, was a
village consisting of a single row of cottages, tenanted by poor
fishermen.[56] Kilmarnock, which is now a great emporium of industry and
of wealth, contained, in 1668, between five and six hundred
inhabitants.[57] And, to come down still lower, even Paisley itself, in
the year 1700, possessed a population which, according to the highest
estimate, did not amount to three thousand.[58]
[53] 'Dunfermline continued to be a favourite royal residence as long as
the Scottish dynasty existed. Charles I. was born here; as also his
sister Elizabeth, afterwards Queen of Bohemia, from whom her
present Majesty is descended; and Charles II. paid a visit to this
ancient seat of royalty in 1650. The Scottish parliament was often
held in it.' _M'Culloch's Geographical Dictionary_, London, 1849,
vol. i. p. 723. Compare _Mercer's History of Dunfermline_, 1828,
pp. 56, 58, and _Chalmers' History of Dunfermline_, 1844, p. 264.
[54] In 1385, it was 'only a sorry wooden village, belonging to the
monastery.' _Mercer's History of Dunfermline_, p. 62.
[55] See 'Ms. Annals,' in _Chalmers' History of Dunfermline_, p. 327. In
1624, we learn from _Balfour's Annales_, edit. 1825, vol. ii. p.
99, that 'the quholl bodey of the towne, which did consist of 120
tenements, and 287 families was brunt and consumed.'
[56] 'Greenock, which is now one of the largest shipping towns in
Scotland, was, in the end of the sixteenth century, a mean fishing
village, consisting of a single row of thatched cottages, which was
inhabited by poor fishermen.' _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. iii.
p. 806, 4to, 1824.
[57] In May 1668, Kilmarnock was burnt; and 'the event is chiefly worthy
of notice as marking the smallness of Kilmarnock in those days,
when as yet, there was no such thing as manufacturing industry in
the country. A hundred and twenty families speaks to a population
of between five and six hundred.' _Chambers' Annals_, Edinburgh,
1858, vol. ii. p. 320. In 1658, their houses are described by an
eye-witness as 'little better than huts.' _Franck's Northern
Memoirs_, reprinted Edinburgh, 1821, p. 101.
[58] 'Betwixt two and three thousand souls,' _Denholm's History of
Glasgow_, p. 542, edit. Glasgow, 1804.
Aberdeen, the metropolis of the north, was looked up to as one of the
most influential of the Scotch towns, and was not a little envied during
the Middle Ages, for its power and importance. These, however, like all
other words, are relative, and mean different things at different
periods. Certainly, we shall not be much struck by the magnitude of that
city, when we learn, from calculations made from its tables of mortality,
that so late as 1572, it could only boast of about two thousand nine
hundred inhabitants.[59] Such a fact will dispel many a dream respecting
the old Scotch towns, particularly if we call to mind that it refers to a
date, when the anarchy of the Middle Ages was passing away, and Aberdeen
had for some time been improving. That city--if so miserable a collection
of persons deserves to be termed a city--was, nevertheless, one of the
most densely peopled places in Scotland. From the thirteenth century to
the close of the sixteenth, no where else were so many Scotchmen
assembled together, except in Perth, Edinburgh, and possibly in Saint
Andrews.[60] Respecting Saint Andrews, I have been unable to meet with
any precise information;[61] but of Perth and Edinburgh, some particulars
are preserved. Perth was long the capital of Scotland, and after losing
that preëminence, it was still reputed to be the second city in the
kingdom.[62] Its wealth was supposed to be astonishing; and every good
Scotchman was proud of it, as one of the chief ornaments of his
country.[63] But, according to an estimate recently made by a
considerable authority in these matters, its entire population, in the
year 1585, was under nine thousand.[64] This will surprise many readers;
though, considering the state of society at that time, the real wonder
is, not that there were so few, but that there were so many. For,
Edinburgh itself, notwithstanding the officials and numerous hangers-on,
which the presence of a court always brings, did not contain, late in the
fourteenth century, more than sixteen thousand persons.[65] Of their
general condition, a contemporary observer has left us some account.
Froissart, who visited Scotland, and records what he saw, as well as what
he heard, gives a lamentable picture of the state of affairs. The houses
in Edinburgh were mere huts, thatched with boughs; and were so slightly
put together, that when one of them was destroyed, it only took three
days to rebuild it. As to the people who inhabited these wretched hovels,
Froissart, who was by no means given to exaggeration, assures us, that
the French, unless they had seen them, could not have believed that such
destitution existed, and that now, for the first time, they understood
what poverty really was.[66]
[59] In 1572, the registers of Aberdeen show that seventy-two deaths
occurred in the year. An annual mortality of 1 in 40 would be a
very favourable estimate; indeed, rather too favourable,
considering the habits of the people at that time. However,
supposing it to be 1 in 40, the population would be 2880; and if,
as I make no doubt, the mortality was more than 1 in 40, the
population must of course have been less. Kennedy, in his valuable,
but very uncritical, work, conjectures that 'one fiftieth part of
the inhabitants had died annually;' though it is certain that there
was no town in Europe any thing like so healthy as that. On this
hypothesis, which is contradicted by every sort of statistical
evidence that has come down to us, the number would be 72 × 50 =
3600. See _Kennedy's Annals of Aberdeen_, vol. i. p. 103, London,
1818, 4to.
[60] 'St. Andrews, Perth, and Aberdeen, appear to have been the three
most populous cities before the Reformation.' _Lawson's Roman
Catholic Church in Scotland_, 1836, p. 26. The same assertion is
made in _Lyon's History of St. Andrews_, 1843, vol. i. p. 2. But
neither of these writers appear to have made many researches on the
subject, or else they would not have supposed that Aberdeen was
larger than Edinburgh.
[61] I have carefully read the two histories of St. Andrews, by Dr.
Grierson and by Mr. Lyon, but have found nothing in them of any
value concerning the early history of that city. Mr. Lyon's work,
which is in two thick volumes, is unusually superficial, even for a
local history; and that is saying much.
[62] 'Of the thirteen parliaments held in the reign of King James I.,
eleven were held at Perth, one at Stirling, and one at Edinburgh.
The National Councils of the Scottish clergy were held there
uniformly till 1459. Though losing its pre-eminence by the
selection of Edinburgh as a capital, Perth has uniformly and
constantly maintained the second place in the order of burghs, and
its right to do so has been repeatedly and solemnly acknowledged.'
_Penny's Traditions of Perth_, Perth, 1836, p. 231. See also p.
305. It appears, however, from Froissart, that Edinburgh was deemed
the capital in the latter half of the fourteenth century.
[63] I find one instance of its being praised by a man who was not a
Scotchman. Alexander Necham 'takes notice of Perth in the following
distich, quoted in Camden's Britannia:
Transis ample Tai, per rura, per oppida, per Perth:
Regnum sustentant illius urbis opes.
Thus Englished in Bishop Gibson's Translations of Camden's Book:
'Great Tay, through Perth, through towns, through country flies:
Perth the whole kingdom with her wealth supplies.'
_Sinclair's Scotland_, vol. xviii. p. 511.
[64] 1427 × 6 = 8562, the computed population in 1584 and 1585, exclusive
of the extraordinary mortality caused by the plague. _Chambers'
Annals of Scotland_, 1858, vol. i. p. 158.
[65] 'The inhabitants of the capital, in the reign of Robert II., hardly
exceeded sixteen thousand.' _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_,
vol. i. p. 152.
[66] When the French arrived in Edinburgh, the Scotch said, '"Quel diable
les a mandés? Ne savons-nous pas bien faire notre guerre sans eux
aux Anglois? Nous ne ferons jà bonne besogne tant comme ils soient
avec nous. On leur dise que ils s'en revoisent, et que nous sommes
gens assez en Escosse pour parmaintenir notre guerre, et que point
nous ne voulons leur compagnie. Ils ne nous entendent point, ni
nous eux; nous ne savons parler ensemble; ils auront tantôt riflé
et mangé tout ce qui est en ce pays: ils nous feront plus de
contraires, de dépits, et de dommages, si nous les laissons
convenir, que les Anglois ne feroient si ils s'étoient embattus
entre nous sans ardoir. Et si les Anglois ardent nos maisons, que
peut il chaloir? Nous les aurons tantôt refaites à bon marché, nous
n'y mettons au refaire que trois jours, mais que nous ayons quatre
ou six estaches et de la ramée pour lier par dessus."'
'Ainsi disoient les Escots en Escosse à la venue des seigneurs de
France,' ... 'Et quand les Anglois y chevauchent ou que ils y vont,
ainsi que ils y ont été plusieurs fois, il convient que leurs
pourvéances, si ils veulent vivre, les suivent toujours au dos; car
on ne trouve rien sur le pays: à grand'peine y recuevre-l'en du fer
pour serrer les chevaux, ni du cuir pour faire harnois, selles ni
brides. Les choses toutes faites leur viennent par mer de Flandre,
et quand cela leur défaut, ils n'ont nulle chose. Quand ces barons
et ces chevaliers de France qui avoient appris ces beaux hôtels à
trouver, ces salles parées, ces chasteaux et ces bons mols lits
pour reposer, se virent et trouvèrent en celle povreté, si
commencèrent à rire et à dire: "En quel pays nous a ci amenés
l'amiral? Nous ne sçumes oncques que ce fût de povreté ni de dureté
fors maintenant."' _Les Chroniques de Froissart_, edit. Buchon,
Paris, 1835, vol. ii. pp. 314, 315. 'The hovels of the common
people were slight erections of turf, or twigs, which, as they were
often laid waste by war, were built merely for temporary
accommodation. Their towns consisted chiefly of wooden cottages,'
... 'Even as late as 1600, the houses of Edinburgh were chiefly
built of wood.' _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. i. p. 802. Another
account, written in 1670, says, 'The houses of the commonalty are
very mean, mudwall and thatch, the best; but the poorer sort live
in such miserable huts as never eye beheld.' ... 'In some parts,
where turf is plentiful, they build up little cabbins thereof, with
arched roofs of turf, without a stick of timber in it; when the
house is dry enough to burn, it serves them for fuel, and they
remove to another.' _Harleian Miscellany_, vol. vi. p. 139, 4to,
1810.
After this period, there was, no doubt, considerable improvement; but it
was very slow, and even late in the sixteenth century, skilled labour was
hardly known, and honest industry was universally despised.[67] It is
not, therefore, surprising, that the citizens, poor, miserable, and
ignorant, should frequently purchase the protection of some powerful
noble by yielding to him the little independence that they might have
retained.[68] Few of the Scotch towns ventured to elect their chief
magistrate from among their own people; but the usual course was, to
choose a neighbouring peer as provost or baillie.[69] Indeed, it often
happened that his office became hereditary, and was looked upon as the
vested right of some aristocratic family.[70] To the head of that family,
every thing gave way. His authority was so incontestable, that an injury
done even to one of his retainers was resented, as if it had been done to
himself.[71] The burgesses who were sent to parliament, were completely
dependent on the noble who ruled the town. Down to quite modern times,
there was in Scotland no real popular representation. The so-called
representatives were obliged to vote as they were ordered; they were, in
fact, delegates of the aristocracy; and as they possessed no chamber of
their own, they sat and deliberated in the midst of their powerful
masters, by whom they were openly intimidated.[72]
[67] 'Our manufactures were carried on by the meanest of the people, who
had small stocks, and were of no reputation. These were, for the
most part, workmen for home-consumpt, such as masons,
house-carpenters, armourers, blacksmiths, taylors, shoemakers, and
the like. Our weavers were few in number, and in the greatest
contempt, as their employments were more sedentary, and themselves
reckoned less fit for war, in which all were obliged to serve, when
the exigencies of the country demanded their attendance.' _The
Interest of Scotland Considered_, Edinburgh, 1733, p. 82. Pinkerton
(_History of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 392), referring to the Sloane
manuscripts, says, 'The author of an interesting memoir concerning
the state of Scotland about 1590, observes, that the husbandmen
were a kind of slaves, only holding their lands from year to year;
that the nobility being too numerous for the extent of the country,
there arose too great an inequality of rank and revenue; and there
was no middle station between a proud landholder and those who,
having no property to lose, were ready for any tumult. A rich
yeomanry, numerous merchants and tradesmen of property, and all the
denominations of the middle class, so important in a flourishing
society, were long to be confined to England.' Thirteen years
later, we are told that the manufactures of Scotland 'were confined
to a few of the coarsest nature, without which the poorest nations
are unable to subsist.' _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. p.
7, under the year 1603.
[68] Thus, for instance, 'the town of Dunbar naturally grew up under the
shelter of the castle of the same name.' ... 'Dunbar became the
town, in demesn, of the successive Earls of Dunbar and March,
partaking of their influences, whether unfortunate or happy.'
_Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. ii. p. 416. 'But when the regal
government became at any time feeble, these towns, unequal to their
own protection, placed themselves under the shelter of the most
powerful lord in their neighbourhood. Thus, the town of Elgyn found
it necessary, at various periods between the years 1389 and 1452,
to accept of many charters of protection, and discharges of taxes,
from the Earls of Moray, who held it in some species of vassalage.'
_Sinclair's Scotland_, vol. v. p. 3. Compare _Pinkerton's History
of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 396; and two letters, written in 1543 and
1544, by the magistrates of Aberdeen, to the Earl of Huntly, and
printed in the _Council Register of Aberdeen_, vol. i. pp. 190,
201, Aberdeen, 1844, 4to. They say to him, 'Ye haf our band as
protectour to wss.'
[69] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 225. See also p. 131;
and _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 179. Sometimes
the nobles did not leave to the citizens even the appearance of a
free election, but fought it out among themselves. An instance of
this happened at Perth, in 1544, 'where a claim for the office of
provost was decided by arms, between Lord Ruthven on the one side,
supported by a numerous train of his vassals, and Lord Gray, with
Norman Leslie, master of Rothes, and Charteris of Kinfauns, on the
other.' _Tytler_, vol. iv. p. 323.
[70] For illustrations of this custom, see _Hollinshead's Scottish
Chronicle_, vol. ii. p. 230. _Brown's History of Glasgow_, vol. ii.
p. 154. _Denholm's History of Glasgow_, p. 249. _Mercer's History
of Dunfermline_, p. 83.
[71] 'An injury inflicted on the "man" of a nobleman was resented as
much as if he himself had been the injured party.' _Preface to the
Council Register of Aberdeen_, vol. i. p. xii.
[72] See, in _Macaulay's History of England_, vol. i. p. 93, 1st edit., a
spirited description of Scotland in 1639. 'The parliament of the
northern kingdom was a very different body from that which bore the
same name in England.' ... 'The three estates sat in one house. The
commissioners of the burghs were considered merely as retainers of
the great nobles,' &c. To come down much later, Lord Cockburn gives
a terrible account of the state of things in Scotland in 1794, the
year in which Jeffrey was called to the bar. 'There was then, in
this country, no popular representation, no emancipated burghs, no
effective rival of the established church, no independent press, no
free public meetings, and no better trial by jury, even in
political cases (except high treason), than what was consistent
with the circumstances, that the jurors were not sent into court
under any impartial rule, and that, when in court, those who were
to try the case were named by the presiding judge. The Scotch
representatives were only forty-five, of whom thirty were elected
for counties, and fifteen for towns. Both from its price and its
nature (being enveloped in feudal and technical absurdities), the
elective franchise in counties, where alone it existed, was far
above the reach of the whole lower, and of a great majority of the
middle, and of many even of the higher, ranks. There were probably
not above 1500 or 2000 county electors in all Scotland; a body not
too large to be held, hope included, in government's hands. The
return, therefore, of a single opposition member was never to be
expected.' ... 'Of the fifteen town members, Edinburgh returned
one. The other fourteen were produced by clusters of four or five
unconnected burghs electing each one delegate, and these four or
five delegates electing the representative. Whatever this system
may have been originally, it had grown, in reference to the people,
into as complete a mockery as if it had been invented for their
degradation. The people had nothing to do with it. It was all
managed by town-councils, of never more than thirty-three members;
and every town-council was self-elected, and consequently
perpetuated its own interests. The election of either the town or
the county member was a matter of such utter indifference to the
people, that they often only knew of it by the ringing of a bell,
or by seeing it mentioned next day in a newspaper; for the farce
was generally performed in an apartment from which, if convenient,
the public could be excluded, and never in the open air.'
_Cockburn's Life of Jeffrey_, Edinburgh, 1852, vol. i. pp. 74-76.
On the state of Scotch representation between this and the Reform
Bill, compare _Irving's History of Dumbartonshire_, 4to, 1860, pp.
275, 276, with _Moore's Memoirs_, edited by Lord John Russell, vol.
iv. p. 268, vol. vi. p. 163, London, 1853-4.
Under these circumstances, it would have been idle for the crown to have
expected aid from a body of men who themselves had no influence, and
whose scanty privileges existed only on sufferance. But there was another
class, which was extremely powerful, and to which the Scotch kings
naturally turned. That class was the clergy; and the interest which both
parties had in weakening the nobles, caused a coalition between the
church and the throne, against the aristocracy. During a long period, and
indeed until the latter half of the sixteenth century, the kings almost
invariably favoured the clergy, and increased their privileges in every
way they could. The Reformation dissolved this alliance, and gave rise to
new combinations, which I shall presently indicate. But while the
alliance lasted, it was of great use to the clergy, by imparting to their
claims a legitimate sanction, and making them appear the supporters of
order and of regular government. The result, however, clearly proved that
the nobles were more than equal to the confederacy which opposed them.
Indeed, looking at their enormous power, the only wonder is, that the
clergy could have prolonged the contest as they did; since they were not
actually overthrown until the year 1560. That the struggle should have
been so arduous, and should have extended over so considerable a period,
is what, on a superficial view, no one could have expected. The reason of
this, I shall now endeavour to explain; and I shall, I trust, succeed in
proving, that in Scotland there was a long train of general causes, which
secured to the spiritual classes immense influence, and which enabled
them, not only to do battle with the most powerful aristocracy in Europe,
but to rise up, after what seemed their final defeat, fresh and vigorous
as ever, and eventually to exercise, as Protestant preachers, an
authority nowise inferior to that which they had wielded as Catholic
priests.
Of all Protestant countries, Scotland is certainly the one where the
course of affairs has for the longest period been most favourable to the
interests of superstition. How these interests were encouraged during the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, I shall hereafter relate. At
present, I purpose to examine the causes of their early growth, and to
show the way in which they were not only connected with the Reformation,
but gave to that great event some peculiarities which are extremely
remarkable, and are diametrically opposed to what happened in England.
If the reader will bear in mind what I have elsewhere stated,[73] he will
remember that the two principal sources of superstition are ignorance and
danger; ignorance keeping men unacquainted with natural causes, and
danger making them recur to supernatural ones. Or, to express the same
proposition in other words, the feeling of veneration, which, under one
of its aspects, takes the form of superstition, is a product of wonder
and of fear;[74] and it is obvious that wonder is connected with
ignorance, and that fear is connected with danger.[75] Hence it is, that
whatever in any country increases the total amount of amazement, or
whatever in any country increases the total amount of peril, has a direct
tendency to increase the total amount of superstition, and therefore to
strengthen the hands of the priesthood.
[73] _History of Civilization_, vol. i. pp. 125-129, 373-380.
[74] _History of Civilization_, vol. ii. p. 171.
[75] We must discriminate between wonder and admiration. Wonder is the
product of ignorance; admiration is the product of knowledge.
Ignorance wonders at the supposed irregularities of nature; science
admires its uniformities. The earlier writers rarely attended to
this distinction, because they were misled by the etymology of the
word 'admiration.' The Romans were very superficial thinkers upon
all matters except jurisprudence; and their blundering use of
'admirari' gave rise to the error, so common among our old writers,
of 'I admire,' instead of 'I wonder.'
By applying these principles to Scotland, we shall be able to explain
several facts in the history of that country. In the first place the
features of its scenery offer a mark contrast to those of England, and
are much more likely, among an ignorant people, to suggest effective and
permanent superstitions. The storms and the mists, the darkened sky
flashed by frequent lightning, the peals of thunder reverberating from
mountain to mountain, and echoing on every side, the dangerous
hurricanes, the gusts sweeping the innumerable lakes with which the
country is studded, the rolling and impetuous torrent flooding the path
of the traveller and stopping his progress, are strangely different to
those safer and milder phenomena, among which the English people have
developed their prosperity, and built up their mighty cities. Even the
belief in witchcraft, one of the blackest superstitions which has ever
defaced the human mind, has been affected by these peculiarities; and it
has been well observed, that while, according to the old English creed,
the witch was a miserable and decrepit hag, the slave rather than the
mistress of the demons which haunted her, she, in Scotland, rose to the
dignity of a potent sorcerer, who mastered the evil spirit, and, forcing
it to do her will, spread among the people a far deeper and more lasting
terror.[76]
[76] 'Our Scottish witch is a far more frightful being than her
supernatural coadjutor on the south side of the Tweed. She
sometimes seems to rise from the proper sphere of the witch, who is
only the slave, into that of the sorcerer, who is master of the
demon.' ... 'In a people so far behind their neighbours in domestic
organization, poor and hardy, inhabiting a country of mountains,
torrents, and rocks, where cultivation was scanty, accustomed to
gloomy mists and wild storms, every impression must necessarily
assume a corresponding character. Superstitions, like funguses and
vermin, are existences peculiar to the spot where they appear, and
are governed by its physical accidents.' ... 'And thus it is that
the indications of witchcraft in Scotland are as different from
those of the superstition which in England receives the same name,
as the Grampian Mountains from Shooter's Hill or Kennington
Common.' _Burton's Criminal Trials in Scotland_, vol. i. pp.
240-243. This is admirably expressed, and exhausts the general view
of the subject. The relation between the superstition of the Scotch
and the physical aspects of their country is also touched upon,
though with much inferior ability, in _Brown's History of the
Highlands_, vol. i. p. 106, and in _Sinclair's Scotland_, vol. iv.
p. 560. Hume, in his _Commentaries on the Laws of Scotland_, vol.
ii. p. 556, has an interesting passage on the high pretensions of
Scotch witchcraft, which never degenerated, as in other countries,
into a mere attempt at deception, but always remained a sturdy and
deep-rooted belief. He says, 'For among the many trials for
witchcraft which fill the record, I have not observed that there is
even one which proceeds upon the notion of a vain or cheating art,
falsely used by an impostor to deceive the weak and credulous.'
Further information respecting Scotch witchcraft will be found in
_Mackenzie's Criminal Laws of Scotland_, Edinburgh, folio, 1699,
pp. 42-56; _Correspondence of Mrs. Grant of Laggan_, London, 1844,
vol. iii. pp. 186, 187; _Southey's Life of Bell_, London, 1844,
vol. i. p. 52; _Vernon Correspondence_, edited by James, London,
1841, vol. ii. p. 301; _Weld's History of the Royal Society_,
London, 1848, vol. i. p. 89; _Letters from a Gentleman in the North
of Scotland_, edit. 1815, vol. i. pp. 220, 221; _The Spottiswoode
Miscellany_, vol. ii. p. 41, Edinburgh, 1845; _Lyon's History of
St. Andrews_, Edinburgh, 1843, vol. ii. pp. 56, 57. The work of
James I., and that of Sir Walter Scott, need hardly be referred to,
as they are well known to every one who is interested in the
history of witchcraft; but Pitcairn's _Criminal Trials_, though
less read, are, in every respect, more valuable, on account of the
materials they contain for a study of this department of Scotch
superstition.
Similar results were produced by the incessant and sanguinary wars to
which Scotland was exposed, and especially by the cruel ravages of the
English in the fourteenth century. Whatever religion may be in the
ascendant, the influence of its ministers is invariably strengthened by a
long and dangerous war, the uncertainties of which perplex the minds of
men, and induce them, when natural resources are failing, to call on the
supernatural for help. On such occasions, the clergy rise in importance;
the churches are more than usually filled; and the priest, putting
himself forward as the exponent of the wishes of God, assumes the
language of authority, and either comforts the people under their losses
in a righteous cause, or else explains to them that those losses are sent
as a visitation for their sins, and as a warning that they have not been
sufficiently attentive to their religious duties; in other words, that
they have neglected rites and ceremonies, in the performance of which the
priest himself has a personal interest.
No wonder, therefore, that in the fourteenth century, when the sufferings
of Scotland were at their height, the clergy flourished more than ever;
so that as the country became poorer, the spiritual classes became richer
in proportion to the rest of the nation. Even in the fifteenth, and first
half of the sixteenth century, when industry began somewhat to advance,
we are assured that notwithstanding the improvement in the position of
laymen, the whole of their wealth put together, and including the
possessions of all ranks, was barely equal to the wealth of the
Church.[77] If the hierarchy were so rapacious and so successful during
a period of comparative security, it would be difficult to overrate the
enormous harvest they must have reaped in those earlier days, when danger
being much more imminent, hardly any one died without leaving something
to them; all being anxious to testify their respect towards those who
knew more than their fellows, and whose prayers could either avert
present evil, or secure future happiness.[78]
[77] Pinkerton (_History of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 414) says that, in the
reigns of James II. and James III., 'the wealth of the Church was
at least equivalent to that of all the lay interest.' See also
_Life of Spottiswoode_, p. liii., in vol. i. of his _History of the
Church of Scotland_. 'The numerous devices employed by
ecclesiastics, both secular and regular, for enriching the several
Foundations to which they were attached, had transferred into their
hands more than half of the territorial property of Scotland, or of
its annual produce.'
In regard to the first half of the sixteenth century, it is stated
by a high authority, that, just before the Reformation, 'the full
half of the wealth of the nation belonged to the clergy.' _M'Crie's
Life of Knox_, p. 10. And another writer says, 'If we take into
account the annual value of all these abbeys and monasteries, in
conjunction with the bishoprics, it will appear at once that the
Scottish Catholic hierarchy was more munificently endowed,
considering the extent and resources of the kingdom, than it was in
any other country in Europe.' _Lawson's Roman Catholic Church in
Scotland_, p. 22. See also, respecting the incomes of the Scotch
bishops, which, considering the poverty of the country, were truly
enormous, _Lyon's History of St. Andrews_, Edinburgh, 1843, vol. i.
pp. 97, 125.
[78] 'They could employ all the motives of fear and of hope, of terror
and of consolation, which operate most powerfully on the human
mind. They haunted the weak and the credulous; they besieged the
beds of the sick and of the dying; they suffered few to go out of
the world without leaving marks of their liberality to the Church,
and taught them to compound with the Almighty for their sins, by
bestowing riches upon those who called themselves his servants.'
_History of Scotland_, book ii. p. 89, in _Robertson's Works_,
London, 1831. It is interesting to observe the eagerness with which
the clergy of one persuasion expose the artifices of those of
another. By comparing their different statements, laymen gain an
insight into the entire scheme.
Another consequence of these protracted wars was, that a more than
ordinary proportion of the population embraced the ecclesiastical
profession, because in it alone there was some chance of safety: and the
monasteries in particular were crowded with persons who hoped, though
frequently in vain, to escape from the burnings and slaughterings to
which Scotland was exposed. When the country, in the fifteenth century,
began to recover from the effects of these ravages, the absence of
manufactures and of commerce, made the Church the best avenue to
wealth;[79] so that it was entered by peaceful men for the purpose of
security, and by ambitious men as the surest means of achieving
distinction.
[79] Pinkerton observes, under the year 1514, that 'ecclesiastical
dignities presented almost the only path to opulence.' _History of
Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 123.
Thus it was, that the want of great cities, and of that form of industry
which belongs to them, made the spiritual classes more numerous than they
would otherwise have been; and what is very observable is, that it not
only increased their number, but also increased the disposition of the
people to obey them. Agriculturists are naturally, and by the very
circumstances of their daily life, more superstitious than manufacturers,
because the events with which they deal are more mysterious, that is to
say, more difficult to generalize and predict.[80] Hence it is, that, as
a body, the inhabitants of agricultural districts pay greater respect to
the teachings of their clergy than the inhabitants of manufacturing
districts. The growth of cities has, therefore, been a main cause of the
decline of ecclesiastical power; and the fact that, until the eighteenth
century, Scotland had nothing worthy of being called a city, is one of
many circumstances which explain the prevalence of Scotch superstition,
and the inordinate influence of the Scotch clergy.
[80] _Buckle's History of Civilization_, vol. i. pp. 376-380.
To this, we must add another consideration of great moment. Partly from
the structure of the country, partly from the weakness of the Crown, and
partly from the necessity of being constantly in arms to repel foreign
invaders, the predatory habits incidental to an early state of society
were encouraged, and consequently the reign of ignorance was prolonged.
Little was studied, and nothing was known. Until the fifteenth century,
there was not even an university in Scotland, the first having been
founded at St. Andrews in 1412.[81] The nobles, when they were not making
war upon the enemy, occupied themselves in cutting each other's throats,
and stealing each other's cattle.[82] Such was their ignorance, that,
even late in the fourteenth century, there is said to be no instance of a
Scotch baron being able to sign his own name.[83] And as nothing
approaching to a middle class had been yet formed, we may from this gain
some idea of the amount of knowledge possessed by the people at
large.[84] Their minds must have been immersed in a darkness which we can
now barely conceive. No trades, or arts, being practised which required
skill, or dexterity, there was nothing to exercise their intellects. They
consequently remained so stupid and brutal, that an intelligent observer,
who visited Scotland in the year 1360, likens them to savages, so much
was he struck by their barbarism and their unsocial manners.[85] Another
writer, early in the fifteenth century, uses the same expression; and
classing them with the animals which they tended, he declares that
Scotland is fuller of savages than of cattle.[86]
[81] Arnot (_History of Edinburgh_, p. 386) says, that the University of
St. Andrews was founded in 1412; and the same thing is stated in
_Kennedy's Annals of Aberdeen_, vol. ii. p. 83. Grierson, in his
_History of St. Andrews_, Cupar, 1838, p. 14, says, 'In 1410, the
city of St. Andrews first saw the establishment of its famous
university, the most ancient institution of the kind that exists in
Scotland;' but, at p. 144 of the same work, we are told, that the
charter, 'constituting and declaring it to be a university,' is
'dated at St. Andrews, the 27th of February, 1411.' See also
_Lyon's History of St. Andrews_, vol. i. pp. 203-206, vol. ii. p.
223. At all events, 'at the commencement of the fifteenth century,
no university existed in Scotland; and the youth who were desirous
of a liberal education were under the necessity of seeking it
abroad.' _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. i. p. 211. The charter
granted by the Pope, confirming the university, reached Scotland in
1413. _Lawson's Roman Catholic Church in Scotland_, Edinburgh,
1836, p. 12.
[82] Those were times, when, as a Scotch lawyer delicately expresses
himself, 'thieving was not the peculiar habit of the low and
indigent, but often common to them with persons of rank and landed
estate.' _Hume's Commentaries on the Law of Scotland_, 4to, 1797,
vol. i. p. 126. The usual form of robbery being cattle-stealing, a
particular name was invented for it; see p. 148, where we learn
that it 'was distinguished by the name of Hership or Herdship,
being the driving away of numbers of cattle, or other bestial, by
the masterful force of armed people.'
[83] Tytler, who was a great patriot, and disposed to exaggerate the
merit of everything which was Scotch, does nevertheless allow that,
"from the accession of Alexander III. to the death of David II.
(_i.e._ in 1370), it would be impossible, I believe, to produce a
single instance of a Scottish baron who could sign his own name."
_Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. ii. pp. 239, 240. Early in the
sixteenth century, I find it casually mentioned, that 'David
Straiton, a cadet of the house of Laureston,' ... 'could not read.'
_Wodrow's Collections_, vol. i. pp. 5, 6. The famous chief, Walter
Scott of Harden, was married in 1567; and 'his marriage contract is
signed by a notary, because none of the parties could write their
names.' _Chambers' Annals_, vol. i. p. 46. Crawfurd (_History of
Renfrew_, part iii. p. 313) says: 'The modern practice of
subscribing names to writes of moment was not used in Scotland till
about the year 1540;' but he forgets to tell us why it was not
used. In 1564, Robert Scot of Thirlstane, 'ancestor of Lord
Napier,' could not sign his name. See _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials
in Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 394.
[84] A Scotchman, of considerable learning, says: 'Scotland was no less
ignorant and superstitious at the beginning of the fifteenth
century, than it was towards the close of the twelfth.'
_Dalrymple's Annals of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 428.
[85] 'Et sont ainsi comme gens sauvages qui ne se savent avoir ni de
nulli accointer.' _Les Chroniques de Froissart_, edit. Buchon,
Paris, 1835, vol. ii. p. 315.
[86] 'Plus pleine de sauvagine que de bestail.' _Hist. de Charles VI, par
Le Laboureur_, quoted in _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_, vol. i.
p. 149.
By this combination of events, and by this union of ignorance with
danger, the clergy had, in the fifteenth century, obtained more influence
in Scotland than in any other European country, Spain alone excepted. And
as the power of the nobles had increased quite as rapidly, it was natural
that the Crown, completely overshadowed by the great barons, should turn
for aid to the Church. During the fifteenth century, and part of the
sixteenth, this alliance was strictly preserved;[87] and the political
history of Scotland is the history of a struggle by the kings and the
clergy against the enormous authority of the nobles. The contest, after
lasting about a hundred and sixty years, was brought to a close in 1560,
by the triumph of the aristocracy, and the overthrow of the Church. With
such force, however, had the circumstance just narrated, engrained
superstition into the Scotch character, that the spiritual classes
quickly rallied, and, under their new name of Protestants, they became as
formidable as under their old name of Catholics. Forty-three years after
the establishment of the Reformation in Scotland, James VI. ascended the
throne of England, and was able to array the force of the southern
country against the refractory barons of the northern. From that moment
the Scotch aristocracy began to decline; and the equipoise to the clergy
being removed, the Church became so powerful, that, during the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it was the most effectual obstacle
to the progress of Scotland; and even now it exercises a sway which is
incomprehensible to those who have not carefully studied the whole chain
of its antecedents. To trace with minuteness the long course of affairs
which has led to this unfortunate result, would be incompatible with the
object of an Introduction, whose only aim it is to establish broad and
general principles. But, to bring the question clearly before the mind of
the reader, it will be necessary that I should give a slight sketch of
the relation which the nobles bore to the clergy in the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries, and of the way in which their relative positions,
and their implacable hatred of each other, brought about the Reformation.
By this means, we shall perceive, that the great Protestant movement,
which, in other countries, was democratic, was in Scotland aristocratic.
We shall also see, that, in Scotland, the Reformation, not being the work
of the people, has never produced the effects which might have been
expected from it, and which it did produce in England. It is, indeed, but
too evident, that, while in England Protestantism has diminished
superstition, has weakened the clergy, has increased toleration, and, in
a word, has secured the triumph of secular interests over ecclesiastical
ones, its result in Scotland has been entirely different; and that, in
that country, the Church, changing its form, without altering its
spirit, not only cherished its ancient pretensions, but unhappily
retained its ancient power; and that, although that power is now
dwindling away, the Scotch preachers still exhibit, whenever they dare,
an insolent and domineering spirit, which shows how much real weakness
there yet lurks in the nation, where such extravagant claims are not
immediately silenced by the voice of loud and general ridicule.
[87] Occasionally, we find evidence of it earlier, but it was hardly
systematic. Compare _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 66,
with _Dalrymple's Annals_, vol. i. pp. 72, 110, 111, 194, vol. iii.
p. 296; _Nimmo's History of Stirlingshire_, p. 88; _Chalmers'
History of Dunfermline_, pp. 133, 134.
CHAPTER II.
CONDITION OF SCOTLAND IN THE FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES.
Early in the fifteenth century, the alliance between the Crown and the
Church, and the determination of that alliance to overthrow the nobles,
became manifest. Indications of this may be traced in the policy of
Albany, who was Regent from 1406 to 1419, and who made it his principal
object to encourage and strengthen the clergy.[88] He also dealt the
first great blow upon which any government had ventured against the
aristocracy. Donald, who was one of the most powerful of the Scottish
chieftains, and who, indeed, by the possession of the Western Isles, was
almost an independent prince, had seized the earldom of Ross, which, if
he could have retained, would have enabled him to set the Crown at
defiance. Albany, backed by the Church, marched into his territories, in
1411, forced him to renounce the earldom, to make personal submission,
and to give hostages for his future conduct.[89] So vigorous a proceeding
on the part of the executive, was extremely unusual in Scotland;[90] and
it was the first of a series of aggressions, which ended in the Crown
obtaining for itself, not only Ross, but also the Western Isles.[91] The
policy inaugurated by Albany, was followed up with still greater energy
by James I. In 1424, this bold and active prince procured an enactment,
obliging many of the nobles to show their charters, in order that it
might be ascertained what lands they held, which had formerly belonged to
the Crown.[92] And, to conciliate the affections of the clergy, he, in
1425, issued a commission, authorizing the Bishop of Saint Andrews to
restore to the Church whatever had been alienated from it; while he at
the same time directed that the justiciaries should assist in enforcing
execution of the decree.[93] This occurred in June; and what shows that
it was part of a general scheme is, that in the preceding spring, the
king suddenly arrested, in the parliament assembled at Perth, upwards of
twenty of the principal nobles, put four of them to death, and
confiscated several of their estates.[94] Two years afterwards, he, with
equal perfidy, summoned the Highland chiefs to meet him at Inverness,
laid hands on them also, executed three, and imprisoned more than forty,
in different parts of the kingdom.[95]
[88] 'The Church was eminently favoured by Albany.' _Pinkerton's History
of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 86. But Pinkerton misunderstands his
policy in regard to the nobles.
[89] _Skene's Highlanders_, vol. ii. pp. 72-74; _Browne's History of the
Highlands_, vol. i. p. 162, vol. iv. pp. 435, 436.
[90] Chalmers (_Caledonia_, vol. i. pp. 826, 827), referring to the state
of things before Albany, says, 'There is not a trace of any attempt
by Robert II. to limit the power of the nobles, whatever he may
have added, by his improvident grants, to their independence. He
appears not to have attempted to raise the royal prerogative from
the debasement in which the imprudence and misfortunes of David II.
had left it.' And, of his successor, Robert III., 'So mild a
prince, and so weak a man, was not very likely to make any attempt
upon the power of others, when he could scarcely support his own.'
[91] In 1476, 'the Earldom of Ross was inalienably annexed to the Crown;
and a great blow was thus struck at the power and grandeur of a
family which had so repeatedly disturbed the tranquillity of
Scotland.' _Gregory's History of the Western Highlands_, Edinburgh,
1836, p. 50. In 1493, 'John, fourth and last Lord of the Isles, was
forfeited, and deprived of his title and estates.' _Ibid._ p. 58.
[92] As those who held crown lands were legally, though not in reality,
the king's tenants, the act declared, that 'gif it like the king,
he may ger s[=u]monde all and sindry his tenand at lauchfull day
and place to schawe thar chartis.' _The Acts of the Parliament of
Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 4, § 9, edit. folio, 1814.
[93] 'On the 8th June, 1425, James issued a commission to Henry, bishop
of St. Andrews, authorising him to resume all alienations from the
Church, with power of anathema, and orders to all justiciaries to
assist.' This curious paper is preserved in Harl. Ms. 4637, vol.
iii. f. 189. _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 116.
Archbishop Spottiswoode, delighted with his policy, calls him a
'good king,' and says that he built for the Carthusians 'a
beautiful monastery at Perth, bestowing large revenues upon the
same.' _Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i.
p. 113. And Keith assures us that, on one occasion, James I. went
so far as to give to one of the bishops 'a silver cross, in which
was contained a bit of the wooden cross on which the apostle St.
Andrew had been crucified.' _Keith's Catalogue of Scotch Bishops_,
Edinburgh, 1755, 4to, p. 67.
[94] Compare _Balfour's Annales_, vol. i. pp. 153-156, with _Pinkerton's
History_, vol. i. pp. 113-115. Between these two authorities there
is a slight, but unimportant, discrepancy.
[95] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. pp. 95-98; _Skene's
Highlanders_, vol. ii. p. 75; and an imperfect narrative in
_Gregory's History of the Western Highlands_, p. 35.
By these measures, and by supporting the Church with the same zeal that
he attacked the nobles, the king thought to reverse the order of affairs
hitherto established, and to secure the supremacy of the throne over the
aristocracy.[96] But herein, he overrated his own power. Like nearly all
politicians, he exaggerated the value of political remedies. The
legislator and the magistrate may, for a moment, palliate an evil; they
can never work a cure. General mischiefs depend upon general causes, and
these are beyond their art. The symptoms of the disease they can touch,
while the disease itself baffles their efforts, and is too often
exasperated by their treatment. In Scotland, the power of the nobles was
a cruel malady, which preyed on the vitals of the nation; but it had long
been preparing; it was a chronic disorder; and, having worked into the
general habit, it might be removed by time, it could never be diminished
by violence. On the contrary, in this, as in all matters, whenever
politicians attempt great good, they invariably inflict great harm.
Over-action on one side produces reaction on the other, and the balance
of the fabric is disturbed. By the shock of conflicting interests, the
scheme of life is made insecure. New animosities are kindled, old ones
are embittered, and the natural jar and discordance are aggravated,
simply because the rulers of mankind cannot be brought to understand,
that, in dealing with a great country, they have to do with an
organization so subtle, so extremely complex, and withal so obscure, as
to make it highly probable, that whatever they alter in it, they will
alter wrongly, and that while their efforts to protect or to strengthen
its particular parts are extremely hazardous, it does undoubtedly possess
within itself a capacity of repairing its injuries, and that to bring
such capacity into play, there is merely required that time and freedom
which the interference of powerful men too often prevents it from
enjoying.
[96] Tytler (_History of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 126), under the year
1433, says: 'In the midst of his labours for the pacification of
his northern dominions, and his anxiety for the suppression of
heresy, the king never forgot his great plan for the diminution of
the exorbitant power of the nobles.' See also p. 84. 'It was a
principle of this enterprising monarch, in his schemes for the
recovery and consolidation of his own power, to cultivate the
friendship of the clergy, whom he regarded as a counterpoise to the
nobles.' Lord Somerville (_Memorie of the Somervilles_, vol. i. p.
173) says, that the superior nobility were 'never or seldome called
to counsell dureing this king's reign.'
Thus it was in Scotland, in the fifteenth century. The attempts of James
I. failed, because they were particular measures directed against general
evils. Ideas and associations, generated by a long course of events, and
deeply seated in the public mind, had given to the aristocracy immense
power; and if every noble in Scotland had been put to death, if all their
castles had been razed to the ground, and all their estates confiscated,
the time would unquestionably have come, when their successors would have
been more influential than ever, because the affection of their retainers
and dependents would be increased by the injustice that had been
perpetrated. For, every passion excites its opposite. Cruelty to-day,
produces sympathy to-morrow. A hatred of injustice contributes more than
any other principle to correct the inequalities of life, and to maintain
the balance of affairs. It is this loathing at tyranny, which, by
stirring to their inmost depth the warmest feelings of the heart, makes
it impossible that tyranny should ever finally succeed. This, in sooth,
is the noble side of our nature. This is that part of us, which, stamped
with a godlike beauty, reveals its divine origin, and, providing for the
most distant contingencies, is our surest guarantee that violence shall
never ultimately triumph; that, sooner or later, despotism shall always
be overthrown; and that the great and permanent interests of the human
race shall never be injured by the wicked counsels of unjust men.
In the case of James I., the reaction came sooner than might have been
expected; and, as it happened in his lifetime, it was a retribution, as
well as a reaction. For some years, he continued to oppress the nobles
with impunity;[97] but, in 1436, they turned upon him, and put him to
death, in revenge for the treatment to which he had subjected many of
them.[98] Their power now rose as suddenly as it had fallen. In the south
of Scotland, the Douglases were supreme,[99] and the earl of that family
possessed revenues about equal to those of the Crown.[100] And, to show
that his authority was equal to his wealth, he, on the marriage of James
II., in 1449, appeared at the nuptials with a train composed of five
thousand followers.[101] These were his own retainers, armed and resolute
men, bound to obey any command he might issue to them. Not, indeed, that
compulsion was needed on the part of a Scotch noble to secure the
obedience of his own people. The servitude was a willing one, and was
essential to the national manners. Then, and long afterwards, it was
discreditable, as well as unsafe, not to belong to a great clan; and
those who were so unfortunate as to be unconnected with any leading
family, were accustomed to take the name of some chief, and to secure his
protection by devoting themselves to his service.[102]
[97] Compare _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. ii. p. 263, with _Buchanan's
Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. x. p. 286.
[98] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. pp. 157, 158.
[99] Lindsay of Pitscottie (_Chronicles_, vol. i. p. 2) says, that
directly after the death of James I., 'Alexander, Earle of Douglas,
being uerie potent in kine and friendis, contemned all the kingis
officeris, in respect of his great puissance.' The best account I
have seen of the rise of the Douglases is in Chalmers' learned, but
ill-digested, work, _Caledonia_, vol. i. pp. 579-583.
[100] In 1440, 'the chief of that family had revenues perhaps equivalent
to those of the Scottish monarch.' _Pinkerton's History of
Scotland_, vol. i. p. 192.
[101] 'It may give us some idea of the immense power possessed at this
period by the Earl of Douglas, when we mention, that on this
chivalrous occasion, the military suite by which he was
surrounded, and at the head of which he conducted the Scottish
champions to the lists, consisted of a force amounting to five
thousand men.' _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 215.
The old historian of his family says: 'He is not easy to be dealt
with; they must have mufles that would catch such a cat. Indeed,
he behaved himself as one that thought he would not be in danger
of them; he entertained a great family; he rode ever well
accompanied when he came in publick; 1000 or 2000 horse were his
ordinary train.' _Hume's History of the House of Douglas_, vol. i.
pp. 273, 274, reprinted Edinburgh, 1743.
[102] In the seventeenth century, 'To be without a chief, involved a kind
of disrepute; and those who had no distinct personal position of
their own, would find it necessary to become a Gordon or a
Crichton, as prudence or inclination might point out.' _Burton's
Criminal Trials in Scotland_, vol. i. p. 207. Compare _Pitcairn's
Criminal Trials in Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 250, on 'the protective
surname of Douglas;' and _Skene's Highlanders_, vol. ii. p. 252,
on the extreme importance attached to the name of Macgregor.
What the Earl of Douglas was in the south of Scotland, that were the
Earls of Crawford and of Ross in the north.[103] Singly they were
formidable; united they seemed irresistible. When, therefore, in the
middle of the fifteenth century, they actually leagued together, and
formed a strict compact against all their common enemies, it was hard to
say what limit could be set to their power, or what resource remained to
the government, except that of sowing disunion among them.[104]
[103] 'Men of the greatest puissance and force next the Douglases that
were in Scotland in their times.' _Hume's History of the House of
Douglas_, vol. i. p. 344. The great power of the Earls of Ross in
the north, dates from the thirteenth century. See _Skene's
Highlanders_, vol. i. pp. 133, 134, vol. ii. p. 52.
[104] In 1445, the Earl of Douglas concluded 'ane offensiue and defensiue
league and combinatione aganist all, none excepted, (not the king
himselue), with the Earle of Crawfurd, and Donald, Lord of the
Isles; wich was mutually sealled and subscriued by them three, the
7 day of Marche.' _Balfour's Annales_, vol. i. p. 173. This
comprised the alliance of other noble families. 'He maid bandis
with the Erle of Craufurd, and with Donald lorde of the Ylis, and
Erle of Ross, to take part every ane with other, and with dyvers
uther noble men also.' _Lesley's History of Scotland_, from 1436
to 1561, p. 18.
But, in the mean time, the disposition of the nobles to use force against
the Crown, had been increased by fresh violence. Government, instead of
being warned by the fate of James I., imitated his unscrupulous acts, and
pursued the very policy which had caused his destruction. Because the
Douglases were the most powerful of all the great families, it was
determined that their chiefs should be put to death; and because they
could not be slain by force, they were to be murdered by treachery. In
1440, the Earl of Douglas, a boy of fifteen, and his brother, who was
still younger than he, were invited to Edinburgh on a friendly visit to
the king. Scarcely had they arrived, when they were seized by order of
the chancellor, subjected to a mock trial, declared guilty, dragged to
the castle-yard, and the heads of the poor children cut off.[105]
[105] An interesting account of this dastardly crime is given in _Hume's
History of the House of Douglas_, vol. i. pp. 274-288, where
great, but natural, indignation is expressed. On the other hand,
Lesley, bishop of Ross, narrates it with a cold-blooded
indifference, characteristic of the ill-will which existed between
the nobles and the clergy, and which prevented him from regarding
the murder of two children as an offence. 'And eftir he was set
doun to the burd with the governour, chancellour, and otheris
noble men present, the meit was sudantlie removed, and ane bullis
heid presented, quhilk in thay daies was ane signe of executione;
and incontinent the said erle, David his broder, and Malcolme
Fleming of Cummernald, wer heidit before the castell yett of
Edenburgh.' _Lesley's History_, p. 16.
Considering the warm feelings of attachment which the Scotch entertained
for their chiefs, it is difficult to overrate the consequences of this
barbarous murder, in strengthening a class it was hoped to intimidate.
But this horrible crime was committed by the government only, and it
occurred during the king's minority: the next assassination was the work
of the king himself. In 1452, the Earl of Douglas[106] was, with great
show of civility, requested by James II. to repair to the court then
assembled at Stirling. The Earl hesitated, but James overcame his
reluctance by sending to him a safeconduct with the royal signature, and
issued under the great seal.[107] The honour of the king being pledged,
the fears of Douglas were removed. He hastened to Stirling, where he was
received with every distinction. The evening of his arrival, the king,
after supper was over, broke out into reproaches against him, and,
suddenly drawing his dagger, stabbed him. Gray then struck him with a
battle-axe, and he fell dead on the floor, in presence of his sovereign,
who had lured him to court, that he might murder him with impunity.[108]
[106] The cousin of the boys who were murdered in 1440. See _Hume's
History of the House of Douglas_, vol. i. pp. 297, 816.
[107] 'With assurance under the broad seal.' _Hume's House of Douglas_,
vol. i. p. 351. See also _Nimmo's History of Stirlingshire_,
Edinb. 1777, pp. 246, 322, 323.
[108] _Hume's House of Douglas_, vol. i. pp. 351-353. The king 'stabbed
him in the breast with a dagger. At the same instant Patrick Gray
struck him on the head with a pole-ax. The rest that were
attending at the door, hearing the noise, entred, and fell also
upon him; and, to show their affection to the king, gave him every
man his blow after he was dead.' _Compare Lindsay of Pitscottie's
Chronicles of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 103. 'He strak him throw the
bodie thairwith; and thairefter the guard, hearing the tumult
within the chamber, rusched in and slew the earle out of hand.'
The ferocity of the Scotch character, which was the natural result of the
ignorance and poverty of the nation, was, no doubt, one cause, and a very
important one, of the commission of such crimes as these, not secretly,
but in the open light of day, and by the highest men in the State. It
cannot, however, be denied, that another cause was, the influence of the
clergy, whose interest it was to humble the nobles, and who were by no
means scrupulous as to the means that they employed.[109] As the Crown
became more alienated from the aristocracy, it united itself still closer
with the Church. In 1443, a statute was enacted, the object of which was,
to secure ecclesiastical property from the attacks made upon it by the
nobles.[110] And although, in that state of society, it was easier to
pass laws than to execute them, such a measure indicated the general
policy of the government, and the union between it and the Church.
Indeed, as to this, no one could be mistaken.[111] For nearly twenty
years, the avowed and confidential adviser of the Crown was Kennedy,
bishop of Saint Andrews, who retained power until his death, in 1466,
during the minority of James III.[112] He was the bitter enemy of the
nobles, against whom he displayed an unrelenting spirit, which was
sharpened by personal injuries; for the Earl of Crawford had plundered
his lands, and the Earl of Douglas had attempted to seize him, and had
threatened to put him into irons.[113] The mildest spirit might well have
been roused by this; and as James II., when he assassinated Douglas, was
more influenced by Kennedy than by any one else, it is probable that the
bishop was privy to that foul transaction. At all events, he expressed no
disapprobation of it; and when, in consequence of the murder, the
Douglases and their friends rose in open rebellion, Kennedy gave to the
king a crafty and insidious counsel, highly characteristic of the cunning
of his profession. Taking up a bundle of arrows, he showed James, that
when they were together, they were not to be broken; but that, if
separated, they were easily destroyed. Hence he inferred, that the
aristocracy should be overthrown by disuniting the nobles, and ruining
them one by one.[114]
[109] In _Nimmo's History of Stirlingshire_, pp. 99, 100, the alienation
of the nobles from the Church is dated 'from the middle of the
fifteenth century;' and this is perhaps correct in regard to
general dislike, though the movement may be clearly traced fifty
years earlier.
[110] See _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 33, edit.
folio, 1814; respecting the 'statute of haly kirk quhilk is
oppressit and hurt.'
[111] In 1449, James II., 'with that affectionate respect for the clergy,
which could not fail to be experienced by a prince who had
successfully employed their support and advice to escape from the
tyranny of his nobles, granted to them some important privileges.'
_Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 226. See also p. 309.
Among many similar measures, he conceded to the monks of Paisley
some important powers of jurisdiction that belonged to the Crown.
Charter, 13th January, 1451-2, in _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. iii.
p. 823.
[112] _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 188, 209, 247, 254.
_Keith's Catalogue of Scotch Bishops_, p. 19. _Ridpath's Border
History_, p. 298. _Hollinshead's Scottish Chronicle_, vol. ii. p.
101. In _Somerville's Memorie of the Somervilles_, vol. i. p. 213,
it is stated, under the year 1452, that fear of the great nobles
'had once possest his majestie with some thoughts of going out of
the countrey; but that he was perswaded to the contrary by Bishop
Kennedie, then Archbishop of Saint Andrewes, whose counsell at
that tyme and eftirward, in most things he followed, which at
length proved to his majesties great advantage.' See also
_Lesley's History_, p. 23. 'The king wes put to sic a sharp point,
that he wes determinit to haif left the realme, and to haif passit
in Fraunce by sey, were not that bischop James Kennedy of St.
Androis causit him to tarrye.'
[113] 'His lands were plundered by the Earl of Crawford and Alexander
Ogilvie of Inveraritie, at the instigation of the Earl of Douglas,
who had farther instructed them to seize, if possible, the person
of the bishop, and to put him in irons.' Memoir of Kennedy, in
_Chambers' Lives of Scotchmen_, vol. iii. p. 307, Glasgow, 1834.
'Sed Kennedus et ætate, et consilio, ac proinde auctoritate
cæteros anteibat. In eum potissimum ira est versa. Crafordiæ comes
et Alexander Ogilvius conflato satis magno exercitu, agros ejus in
Fifa latè populati, dum prædam magis, quam causam sequuntur, omni
genere cladis in vicina etiam prædia grassati, nemine congredi
auso pleni prædarum in Angusiam revertuntar. Kennedus ad sua arma
conversus comitem Crafordiæ disceptationem juris fugientem diris
ecclesiasticis est prosecutus.' _Buchanan_, _Rerum Scoticarum
Historia_, lib. xi. p. 306.
[114] 'This holie bischop schew ane similitud to the king, quhilk might
bring him to experience how he might invaid againes the Douglass,
and the rest of the conspiratouris. This bischop tuik furth ane
great scheife of arrowes knitt togidder werrie fast, and desired
him to put thame to his knie, and break thame. The king said it
was not possible, becaus they war so many, and so weill fastened
togidder. The bischop answeired, it was werrie true, bot yitt he
wold latt the king sea how to break thame: and pulled out on be
on, and tua be tua, quhill he had brokin thame all; then said to
the king, "Yea most doe with the conspiratouris in this manner,
and thair complices that are risen againes yow, quho are so many
in number, and so hard knit togidder in conspiracie againes yow,
that yea cannot gett thame brokin togidder. Butt be sick pratick
as I have schowin yow be the similitud of thir arrowes, that is to
say, yea must conqueis and break lord by lord be thamselffis, for
yea may not deall with thame all at once."' _Lindsay of
Pitscottie's Chronicles of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 172, 173.
In this he was right, so far as the interests of his own order were
concerned; but, looking at the interest of the nation, it is evident that
the power of the nobles, notwithstanding their gross abuse of it, was, on
the whole, beneficial, since it was the only barrier against despotism.
The evil they actually engendered, was indeed immense. But they kept off
other evils, which would have been worse. By causing present anarchy,
they secured future liberty. For, as there was no middle class, there
were only three orders in the commonwealth; namely, government, clergy,
and nobles. The two first being united against the last, it is certain
that if they had won the day, Scotland would have been oppressed by the
worst of all yokes, to which a country can be subjected. It would have
been ruled by an absolute king and an absolute Church, who, playing into
each other's hands, would have tyrannized over a people, who, though
coarse and ignorant, still loved a certain rude and barbarous liberty,
which it was good for them to possess, but which, in the face of such a
combination, they would most assuredly have forfeited.
Happily, however, the power of the nobles was too deeply rooted in the
popular mind to allow of this catastrophe. In vain did James III. exert
himself to discourage them,[115] and to elevate their rivals, the
clergy.[116] Nothing could shake their authority; and, in 1482, they,
seeing the determination of the king, assembled together, and such was
their influence over their followers, that they had no difficulty in
seizing his person, and imprisoning him in the Castle of Edinburgh.[117]
After his liberation, fresh quarrels arose;[118] and in 1488, the
principal nobles collected troops, met him in the field, defeated him,
and put him to death.[119] He was succeeded by James IV., under whom the
course of affairs was exactly the same; that is to say, on one side the
nobles, and on the other side the Crown and the Church. Every thing that
the king could do to uphold the clergy, he did cheerfully. In 1493, he
obtained an act to secure the immunities of the sees of Saint Andrews and
of Glasgow, the two most important in Scotland.[120] In 1503, he procured
a general revocation of all grants and gifts prejudicial to the Church,
whether they had been made by the Parliament or by the Council.[121] And,
in 1508, he, by the advice of Elphinston, bishop of Aberdeen, ventured on
a measure of still greater boldness. That able and ambitious prelate
induced James to revive against the nobility several obsolete claims, by
virtue of which the king could, under certain circumstances, take
possession of their estates, and could, in every instance in which the
owner held of the Crown, receive nearly the whole of the proceeds during
the minority of the proprietor.[122]
[115] 'He wald nocht suffer the noblemen to come to his presence, and to
governe the realme be thair counsell.' _Lesley's History of
Scotland_, p. 48. 'Wald nocht use the counsall of his nobilis.' p.
55. 'Excluding the nobility.' _Hume's History of the House of
Douglas_, vol. ii. p. 33. 'The nobility seeing his resolution to
ruin them.' p. 46. 'Hes conteming his nobility.' _Balfour's
Annales_, vol. i. p. 206.
[116] Also to aggrandize them. See, for instance, what 'has obtained the
name of the golden charter, from the ample privileges it contains,
confirmed to Archbishop Shevez by James III. on 9th July 1480.'
_Grierson's History of Saint Andrews_, p. 58, Cupar, 1838.
[117] 'Such was the influence of the aristocracy over their warlike
followers, that the king was conveyed to the castle of Edinburgh,
without commotion or murmur.' _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_,
vol. i. p. 308.
[118] 'The king and his ministers multiplied the insults which they
offered to the nobility.' ... 'A proclamation was issued,
forbidding any person to appear in arms within the precincts of
the court; which, at a time when no man of rank left his own house
without a numerous retinue of armed followers, was, in effect,
debarring the nobles from all access to the king.' ... 'His
neglect of the nobles irritated, but did not weaken them.'
_History of Scotland_, book i. p. 68, in _Robertson's Works_,
edit. London, 1831.
[119] _Balfour's Annales_, vol. i. pp. 213, 214; Buchanan, _Rerum
Scoticarum Historia_, lib. xii. p. 358. Lindsay of Pitscottie
(_Chronicles_, vol. i. p. 222) says: 'This may be ane example to
all kingis that cumes heirefter, not to fall from God.' ... 'For,
if he had vsed the counsall of his wyse lordis and barrones, he
had not cum to sick disparatioun.'
[120] _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, folio, 1814, vol. ii.
p. 232. 'That the said abbaceis confirmit be thame sall neid na
prouisioun of the court of Rome.'
[121] _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 240; and the
summary of the statute (p. 21), 'Revocation of donations,
statutis, and all uthir thingis hurtand the croune or hali kirk.'
In the next year (1504), the king 'greatly augmented' the revenues
of the bishoprick of Galloway. _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. iii. p.
417.
[122] _Pinkerton's History of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 63; _Calderwood's
History of the Kirk of Scotland_, vol. viii. p. 135, edit. Wodrow
Society, Edinburgh, 1849. The latter authority states, that 'The
bishop devysed wayes to King James the Fourth, how he might
attaine to great gaine and profit. He advised him to call his
barons and all those that held any lands within the realme, to
show their evidents by way of recognition; and, if they had not
sufficient writings for their warrant, to dispone upon their lands
at his pleasure; for the which advice he was greatlie hated. But
the king, perceaving the countrie to grudge, agreed easilie with
the possessors.'
To make such claims was easy; to enforce them was impossible. Indeed, the
nobles were at this time rather gaining ground than losing it; and,
after the death of James IV., in 1513, they, during the minority of James
V., became so powerful, that the regent, Albany, twice threw up the
government in despair, and at length abandoned it altogether.[123] He
finally quitted Scotland in 1524, and with him the authority of the
executive seemed to have vanished. The Douglases soon obtained possession
of the person of the king, and compelled Beaton, archbishop of Saint
Andrews, the most influential man in the Church, to resign the office of
chancellor.[124] The whole command now fell into their hands; they or
their adherents filled every office; secular interests predominated, and
the clergy were thrown completely into the shade.[125] In 1528, however,
an event occurred by which the spiritual classes not only recovered
their former position, but gained a preëminence, which, as it turned out,
was eventually fatal to themselves. Archbishop Beaton, impatient at
proceedings so unfavourable to the Church, organized a conspiracy, by
means of which James effected his escape from the Douglases, and took
refuge in the castle of Stirling.[126] This sudden reaction was not the
real and controlling cause, but it was undoubtedly the proximate cause,
of the establishment of Protestantism in Scotland. For, the reins of
government now passed into the hands of the Church; and the most
influential of the nobles were consequently persecuted, and some of them
driven from the country. But, though their political power was gone,
their social power remained. They were stripped of their honours and
their wealth. They became outcasts, traitors, and beggars. Still, the
real foundation of their authority was unshaken, because that authority
was the result of a long train of circumstances, and was based on the
affections of the people. Therefore it was, that the nobles, even those
who were exiled and attainted, were able to conduct an arduous, but
eventually a successful, struggle against their enemies. The desire of
revenge whetted their exertions, and gave rise to a deadly contest
between the Scotch aristocracy and the Scotch Church. This most
remarkable conflict was, in some degree, a continuation of that which
began early in the fifteenth century. But it was far more bitter; it
lasted, without interruption, for thirty-two years; and it was only
concluded by the triumph of the nobles, who, in 1560, completely
overthrew the Church, and destroyed, almost at a blow, the whole of the
Scotch hierarchy.
[123] The Regency of Albany, little understood by the earlier
historians, has been carefully examined by Mr. Tytler, in whose
valuable, though too prolix, work, the best account of it will be
found. _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 98-160,
Edinburgh, 1845. On the hostility between Albany and the nobles,
see _Irving's History of Dumbartonshire_, p. 99; and, on the
revival of their power in the north, after the death of James IV.,
see _Gregory's History of the Western Highlands_, pp. 114, 115.
[124] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 180-182: 'Within a
few months, there was not an office of trust or emolument in the
kingdom, which was not filled by a Douglas, or by a creature of
that house.' See also pp. 187, 194; and _Keith's Catalogue of
Scotch Bishops_, pp. 22, 23. Beaton, who was so rudely
dispossessed of the chancellorship, that, according to Keith, he
was, in 1525, obliged 'to lurk among his friends for fear of his
life,' is mentioned, in the preceding year, as having been the
main supporter of Albany's government; 'that most hath favoured
the Duke of Albany.' _State Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII._,
vol. iv. p. 97, 4to, 1836.
[125] The complete power of the Douglases lasted from the cessation of
Albany's regency to the escape of the king, in 1528. _Keith's
History of the Affairs of Church and State in Scotland_, edit.
Edinburgh, 1835, vol. i. pp. 33-35. Compare _Balfour's Annales_,
vol. i. p. 257. 'The Earle of Angus violentley takes one him the
gouerniment, and retanes the king in effecte a prisoner with him;
during wich tyme he, the Earle of Lennox, and George Douglas, his
auen brother, frely disposses vpone all affaires both of churche
and staite.'
[126] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 195, 196. The curious
work, entitled _A Diurnal of Occurrents_, p. 10, says, 'In the
zeir of God 1500, tuantie aucht zeiris, the kingis grace by slicht
wan away fra the Douglassis.' From Stirling, he repaired to
Edinburgh, on 6th July 1528, and went to 'the busshop of Sainct
Andros loegeing.' See a letter written on the 18th of July 1528,
by Lord Dacre to Wolsey, in _State Papers of Henry VIII._, vol.
iv. p. 501, 4to, 1836. Compare a proclamation on 10th September
1528, in _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in Scotland_, vol. i. part i.
pp. 138*, 139*, Edinburgh, 4to, 1833. I particularly indicate
these documents, because Lindsay of Pitscottie (in his _Chronicles
of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 335) erroneously places the flight of
James in 1527; and he is generally one of the most accurate of the
old writers, if indeed he be the author of the work which bears
his name.
The events of this struggle, and the vicissitudes to which, during its
continuance, both parties were exposed, are related, though somewhat
confusedly, in our common histories: it will be sufficient if I indicate
the salient points, and, avoiding needless detail, endeavour to throw
light on the general movement. The unity of the entire scheme will thus
be brought before our minds, and we shall see, that the destruction of
the Catholic Church was its natural consummation, and that the last act
of that gorgeous drama, so far from being a strained and irregular
sequence, was in fit keeping with the whole train of the preceding plot.
When James effected his escape in 1528, he was a boy of sixteen, and his
policy, so far as he can be said to have had any mind of his own, was of
course determined by the clergy, to whom he owed his liberty, and who
were his natural protectors. His principal adviser was the Archbishop of
Saint Andrews; and the important post of chancellor, which, under the
Douglases, had been held by a layman, was now conferred on the Archbishop
of Glasgow.[127] These two prelates were supreme; while, at the same
time, the Abbot of Holyrood was made treasurer, and the Bishop of Dunkeld
was made privy seal.[128] All nobles, and even all followers, of the
house of Douglas, were forbidden to approach within twelve miles of the
court, under pain of treason.[129] An expedition was fitted out, and sent
against the Earl of Caithness, who was defeated and slain.[130] Just
before this occurred, the Earl of Angus was driven out of Scotland, and
his estates confiscated.[131] An act of attainder was passed against the
Douglases.[132] The government, moreover, seized, and threw into prison,
the Earl of Bothwell, Home, Maxwell, and two Kerrs, and the barons of
Buccleuch, Johnston, and Polwarth.[133]
[127] _State Papers of Henry VIII._, vol. iv. p. 501.
[128] 'Archibald was depryvit of the thesaurarie, and placit thairin
Robert Cairncorse, abbot of Halyrudhous. And als was tane fra the
said Archibald the privie seill, and was givin to the bischope of
Dunkell.' _A Diurnal of Occurrents_, p. 11.
[129] Tytler (_History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 196) says: 'His first
act was to summon a council, and issue a proclamation, that no
lord or follower of the house of Douglas should dare to approach
within _six_ miles of the court, under pain of treason.' For this,
no authority is cited; and the historian of the Douglas family
distinctly states, 'within _twelve_ miles of the king, under pain
of death.' _Hume's House of Douglas_, vol. ii. p. 99. See also
_Diurnal of Occurrents_, p. 10: 'that nane of thame nor thair
familiaris cum neir the king be tuelf myllis.' The reason was,
that 'the said kingis grace haid greit suspicioun of the temporall
lordis, becaus thaj favourit sum pairt the Douglassis.' _Diurnal_,
p. 12.
[130] 'The Erle of Caithnes and fyve hundreth of his men wes slayne and
drownit in the see.' _Lesley's History of Scotland_, p. 141.
[131] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 203, 204.
[132] _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 324, edit.
folio, 1814.
[133] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 207.
All this was vigorous enough, and was the consequence of the Church
recovering her power. Other measures, equally decisive, were preparing.
In 1531, the king deprived the Earl of Crawford of most of his estates,
and threw the Earl of Argyle into prison.[134] Even those nobles who had
been inclined to follow him, he now discouraged. He took every
opportunity of treating them with coldness, while he filled the highest
offices with their rivals, the clergy.[135] Finally, he, in 1532, aimed
a deadly blow at their order, by depriving them of a large part of the
jurisdiction which they were wont to exercise in their own country, and
to the possession of which they owed much of their power. At the
instigation of the Archbishop of Glasgow, he established what was called
the College of Justice, in which suits were to be decided, instead of
being tried, as heretofore, by the barons, at home, in their castles. It
was ordered that this new tribunal should consist of fifteen judges,
eight of whom must be ecclesiastics; and to make the intention still more
clear, it was provided that the president should invariably be a
clergyman.[136]
[134] _Tytler_, vol. iv. p. 212.
[135] 'His preference of the clergy to the temporal lords disgusted these
proud chiefs.' _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 230.
See also p. 236. His reasons are stated by himself, in a curious
letter, which he wrote so late as 1541, to Henry VIII. 'We
persaif,' writes James, 'be zoure saidis writingis yat Ze ar
informyt yat yair suld be sum thingis laitlie attemptat be oure
kirkmen to oure hurte and skaith, and contrar oure mynde and
plesure. We can nocht understand, quhat suld move Zou to beleif
the samyn, assuring Zou _We have nevir fund bot faithfull and trew
obedience of yame at all tymes_, nor yai seik nor attemptis
nouthir jurisdictioun nor previlegijs, forthir nor yai have usit
sen the first institutioun of the Kirk of Scotland, quhilk We may
nocht apoun oure conscience alter nor change in the respect We
have to the honour and faith of God and Halikirk, and douttis na
inconvenient be yame to come to Ws and oure realme yerthrou; for
sen the Kirk wes first institute in our realme, the stait yairof
hes nevir failzeit, bot _hes remanyt evir obedient to oure
progenitouris, and in our tyme mair thankefull to Ws, nor evir yai
wer of before_.' This letter, which, in several points of view, is
worth reading, will be found in _State Papers of Henry VIII._,
vol. v. pp. 188-190, 4to, 1836.
[136] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 212, 213, and _Arnot's
History of Edinburgh_, 4to, 1788, p. 468: 'fifteen ordinary
judges, seven churchmen, seven laymen, and a president, whom it
behoved to be a churchman.' The statute, as printed in the folio
edition of 1814 (_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii.
p. 335) says 'xiiij psouñs half sp[=u]ale half temporall wt ane
president.' Mr. Lawson (_Roman Catholic Church in Scotland_,
Edinburgh, 1836, p. 81) supposes that it was the Archbishop of St.
Andrews who advised the erection of this tribunal.
This gave the finishing touch to the whole, and it, taken in connexion
with previous measures, exasperated the nobles almost to madness. Their
hatred of the clergy became uncontrollable; and, in their eagerness for
revenge, they not only threw themselves into the arms of England, and
maintained a secret understanding with Henry VIII., but many of them went
even further, and showed a decided leaning towards the principles of the
Reformation. As the enmity between the aristocracy and the Church grew
more bitter, just in the same proportion did the desire to reform the
Church become more marked. The love of innovation was encouraged by
interested motives, until, in the course of a few years, an immense
majority of the nobles adopted extreme Protestant opinions; hardly caring
what heresy they embraced, so long as they were able, by its aid, to
damage a Church from which they had recently received the greatest
injuries, and with which they and their progenitors had been engaged in a
contest of nearly a hundred and fifty years.[137]
[137] Keith, who evidently does not admire this part of the history of
his country, says, under the year 1546, 'Several of our nobility
found it their temporal interest, as much as their spiritual, to
sway with the new opinions as to religious matters.' _Keith's
Affairs of Church and State_, vol. i. pp. 112, 113. Later, and
with still more bluntness: 'The noblemen wanted to finger the
patrimony of the kirkmen.' vol. iii. p. 11.
In the mean time, James V. united himself closer than ever with the
hierarchy. In 1534, he gratified the Church, by personally assisting at
the trial of some heretics, who were brought before the bishops and
burned.[138] The next year, he was offered, and he willingly accepted,
the title of Defender of the Faith, which was transferred to him from
Henry VIII.; that king being supposed to have forfeited it by his
impiety.[139] At all events, James well deserved it. He was a stanch
supporter of the Church, and his privy-council was chiefly composed of
ecclesiastics, as he deemed it dangerous to admit laymen to too large a
share in the government.[140] And, in 1538, he still further signalized
his policy, by taking for his second wife Mary of Guise; thus
establishing an intimate relation with the most powerful Catholic family
in Europe, whose ambition, too, was equal to their power, and who made it
their avowed object to uphold the Catholic faith, and to protect it from
those rude and unmannerly invasions which were now directed against it in
most parts of Europe.[141]
[138] 'In the month of August (1534), the bishops having gotten fitt
opportunitie, renewed their battell aganest Jesus Christ. David
Stratilon, a gentelman of the House of Lawrestoune, and Mr. Norman
Gowrlay, was brought to judgement in the Abby of Halyrudhouse. The
king himself, all cloathed with reid, being present, grait pains
war taken upon David Stratoun to move him to recant and burn his
bill; bot he, ever standing to his defence, was in end adjudged to
the fire. He asked grace at the king. The bishops answred
proudlie, that "the king's hands war bound, and that he had no
grace to give to such as were by law condemned." So was he, with
Mr. Norman, after dinner, upon the 27th day of Agust, led to a
place beside the Rude of Greenside, between Leth and Edinbrug, to
the intent that the inhabitants of Fife, seeing the fire, might be
striken with terrour and feare.' _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in
Scotland_, vol. i. part i. p. 210*. Also _Calderwood's History of
the Kirk of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 106, 107.
[139] 'It appears, by a letter in the State-paper Office, that Henry
remonstrated against this title being given to James.' _Tytler's
History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 223. See also p. 258.
[140] In 1535, 'his privy council were mostly ecclesiastics.' _Ibid._
vol. iv. p. 222. And Sir Ralph Sadler, during his embassy to
Scotland in 1539-40, writes: 'So that the king, as far as I can
perceive, is of force driven to use the bishops and his clergy as
his only ministers for the direction of his realm. They be the men
of wit and policy that I see here; they be never out of the king's
ear. And if they smell any thing that in the least point may touch
them, or that the king seem to be content with any such thing,
straight they inculk to him, how catholic a prince his father was,
and feed him both with fair words and many, in such wise as by
those policies they lead him (having also the whole governance of
his affairs) as they will.' _State Papers and Letters of Sir Ralph
Sadler_, Edinb., 1809, 4to, vol. i. p. 47.
[141] _State Papers of Henry VIII._, vol. v. p. 128. _A Diurnal of
Occurrents_, p. 22. The Reverend Mr. Kirkton pronounces that the
new queen was 'ane egge of the bloody nest of Guise.' _Kirkton's
History of the Church of Scotland_, edited by Sharpe, Edinburgh,
1817, 4to, p. 7.
This was hailed by the Church as a guarantee for the intentions of the
king. And so indeed it proved to be. David Beaton, who negotiated the
marriage, became the chief adviser of James during the rest of his reign.
He was made Archbishop of Saint Andrews in 1539,[142] and, by his
influence, a persecution hotter than any yet known, was directed against
the Protestants. Many of them escaped into England,[143] where they
swelled the number of the exiles, who were waiting till the time was ripe
to take a deadly revenge. They, and their adherents at home, coalesced
with the disaffected nobles, particularly with the Douglases,[144] who
were by far the most powerful of the Scotch aristocracy, and who were
connected with most of the great families, either by old associations, or
by the still closer bond of the interest which they all had in reducing
the power of the Church.[145]
[142] 'At his return home, he was made coadjutor, and declared future
successor to his uncle in the primacy of St. Andrews, in which see
he came to be fully invested upon the death of his uncle the next
year, 1539.' _Keith's Catalogue of Scotch Bishops_, pp. 23, 24.
[143] _M'Crie's Life of Knox_, p. 20. _Spottiswoode's History of the
Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 139. _Lawson's Roman Catholic
Church in Scotland_, p. 178. _Wodrow's Collections upon the Lives
of the Reformers_, vol. i. p. 100.
[144] Tytler (_History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 241) says, that the
cruelties of 1539 forced 'many of the persecuted families to
embrace the interests of the Douglases.'
[145] It is asserted of the Douglases, that, early in the sixteenth
century, their 'alliances and power were equal to one-half of the
nobility of Scotland.' _Brown's History of Glasgow_, vol. i. p. 8.
See also, on their connexions, _Hume's House of Douglas_, vol. i.
pp. xix. 252, 298, vol. ii. p. 293.
At this juncture, the eyes of men were turned towards the Douglases, whom
Henry VIII. harboured at his court, and who were now maturing their
plans.[146] Though they did not yet dare to return to Scotland, their
spies and agents reported to them all that was done, and preserved their
connexions at home. Feudal covenants, bonds of manrent, and other
arrangements, which, even if illegal, it would have been held disgraceful
to renounce, were in full force; and enabled the Douglases to rely with
confidence on many of the most powerful nobles, who were, moreover,
disgusted at the predominance of the clergy, and who welcomed the
prospect of any change which was likely to lessen the authority of the
Church.[147]
[146] Henry VIII., 'in the year 1532, sought it directly, among the
conditions of peace, that the Douglas, according to his promise,
should be restored. For King Henry's own part, he entertained them
with all kind of beneficence and honour, and made both the Earl
and Sir George of his Privy Council.' _Hume's History of the House
of Douglas_, vol. ii. pp. 105, 106. James was very jealous of any
communication taking place between the Douglases and his other
subjects; but it was impossible for him to prevent it. See a
letter which he wrote to Sir Thomas Erskine (in _Miscellany of the
Spalding Club_, vol. ii. p. 193, Aberdeen, 1842, 4to), beginning,
'I commend me rycht hartly to yow, and weit ye that it is murmuryt
hyr that ye sould a spolkyn with Gorge and Archebald Dougles in
Ingland, quhylk wase again my command and your promys quhan we
departyt.' See also the cases of Lady Trakware, John Mathesone,
John Hume, and others, in _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in
Scotland_, vol. i. part i. pp. 161*, 177*, 202*, 243*, 247*.
[147] 'The Douglases were still maintained with high favour and generous
allowances in England; their power, although nominally extinct,
was still far from being destroyed; their spies penetrated into
every quarter, followed the king to France, and gave information
of his most private motions; their feudal coven
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/44495