The Project Gutenberg eBook of The history of civilisation in Scotland, Vol 1 (of 4)
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: The history of civilisation in Scotland, Vol 1 (of 4)
Author: John Mackintosh
Release date: June 24, 2026 [eBook #78937]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Alexander Gardner, 1892
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/78937
Credits: Richard Hulse and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND, VOL 1 (OF 4) ***
THE HISTORY OF CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ Most of the abbreviations used to save space in printing have │
│ been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for easier reading. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ Index references have not been checked for accuracy. │
│ │
│ Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript │
│ number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the │
│ text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
THE HISTORY
OF
CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND.
BY
JOHN MACKINTOSH, LL.D.
_Author of “The Story of Scotland,”
“The Revolution of 1688 and Viscount Dundee,”
“The Highland Land Question Historically Considered,” Etc._
_A NEW EDITION._
PARTLY REWRITTEN, AND CAREFULLY REVISED THROUGHOUT.
Volume First.
ALEXANDER GARDNER,
Publisher to her Majesty the Queen,
PAISLEY, AND 26 PATERNOSTER SQUARE, LONDON.
1892
PREFACE.
IN recent years the study of the human race has been prosecuted in many
directions, and the range of the historic view has been much extended.
Researches have been made in the departments of anthropology, ethnology,
philology, archæology, and craniology, and thus a great body of
materials, more or less valuable for historical purposes, has been
collected. It is the special function of the historian to discriminate
and estimate the value of such materials.
Fifteen years have elapsed since the issue of the first volume of
the present work. Since then there has been much investigation into
prehistoric subjects, many ancient structures within the limited area
to which this work is specially devoted, having been carefully examined;
while, by the publication of the series of Exchequer Rolls, Burgh
Records, and other important documents, the materials relating to the
twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, have been
rendered more accessible. In preparing this volume for a new edition,
I have found it necessary to recast and rewrite the whole. Two new
sections have been added to the Introduction, while most of the others
have been much enlarged. About one-fourth of the volume is new.
This is the first attempt to present a synthetic narrative of the
condition, progress, and development of the civilisation of the people
from the earliest traces of their occupation of the country down to the
present day. The difficulties in the way of successfully accomplishing
such a work are obvious, and I can scarcely hope that I have completely
vanquished them; still, I trust that this effort will prove interesting
and valuable. While the statements of ascertained facts may be
implicitly relied upon, yet the more obscure prehistoric phenomena
may be susceptible of different interpretations; in such cases, I have
endeavoured to make the best use of such evidence as is available.
Amongst the works which have appeared on the early history of Scotland,
Dr. Anderson’s two volumes of the Rhind Lectures, entitled, _Scotland
in Pagan Times_, are especially valuable. Sir Arthur Mitchell also
has made some very important suggestions. To Mr. Alexander Macbain, an
eminent Celtic scholar, and author of a work on Celtic Mythology, I am
indebted for information touching the religion of the Celts in early
times.
Regarding the Normans, and the introduction of Norman feudalism into
Scotland, after a full examination of the evidence, I have rejected
many of the conclusions of preceding historians, especially on
questions relating to the land and the people.
The social state of the nation in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries
has been treated at length, and many interesting points explained;
while the chapters on the disputed Succession, and the War of
Independence, have been much enlarged. The tenth chapter contains an
exhaustive view of the social state and characteristics of the nation
in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the materials for which have
been mainly drawn from the National Records and other original sources.
The chapters on Literature, Education, and Art, have been improved and
rendered more complete.
J. M.
ABERDEEN,
February, 1892.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.――INTRODUCTION.
SECTION I.
_The Scope of the Work._
⭘ The Import and Interest of the Subject――Primary Causes of
Civilisation――Influence of Climate, Soil, and Food on the
development of Man――Origin of Myths
SECTION II.
_Geographical and Physical Features of the Country._
⭘ Position of Scotland, the Islands, and the Coasts――General
Aspect of the Country
⭘ Mountain Ranges: Watershed, Rivers, Valleys, and
Plains――Characteristics of the Central Region――Lakes――Soil:
Coal and Iron District
⭘ Flora and Fauna――Aspects of the Country when Man arrived
⭘ The Influence of Climate, Food, and Geographical Features on
the Organisation of Society in Early Times――General Effect of
the Features of External Nature on the Mind
SECTION III.
_Historic Interpretation. Ethnological Problem._
⭘ Natural Order of Development――Thought preceded Language;
relation of Thought and Language
⭘ Interpretation of the Phenomena and Relics of the Prehistoric
Ages――Discrimination and Estimation of Historic
Evidence――Human Intelligence in relation to Means
⭘ II. Supposed Cradle of the Human Race――The Question of the
Original Home of the Aryans――The Early Races of Europe; Fossil
Races――Result of recent Research touching the Aryans
⭘ Ethnology of Scotland――Aboriginal Race, a long-headed and
short-limbed People inhabited the Island alone for a long
period――Migration of the Celtic Race to Britain; they
amalgamated with the Earlier Race――Later Migrations from
Gaul――Irish Ethnology――Scandinavians――Constituent Elements
of the Ethnology of Scotland
SECTION IV.
_The Stone Age._
⭘ Natural Sequence of Development――Stone Weapons and Tools: Axes
hammers, spear-heads, arrow-heads, knives, saws, scrapers――The
Process of their Manufacture
⭘ Sepulchral Structures――Chambered Cairns, their External
Characteristics, Retaining Walls and Horns; Internal Structure,
Entrance Passages and Chambers; Human Remains, Bones of
Animals and other Phenomena in the Floors of the Chambers
――The Long Cairns of England resemble those of Caithness:
Similarity of their Contents――Sepulchral Structures of
Orkney――Maeshowe――Other Groups of Chambered Cairns――Reference
to Unwarranted Inferences――Condition of the Remains: An
Attempt to Explain how the Interments were originally made
⭘ Dwellings of the Stone Age People――Did they construct the
“Earth-houses?” examination of the point――Description of the
“Earth-houses;” Resemblance between them and the Chambered
Cairns; probably the “Earth-houses” were originated and
constructed by the Men of the Stone Age――Primitive Boats
SECTION V.
_The Bronze Age._
⭘ Introduction of the use of Bronze: transitional stage
――Hoards of Bronze Weapons and Tools: Bronze swords, daggers,
spear-heads, shields, battle-axe, and war-trumpet――Bronze
Tools and Implements: Axe-heads, chisels, anvils, needles, and
sickles
⭘ Ornaments: Gold diadems, armlets, and rings; bronze rings,
armlets, pins, and jet necklaces
⭘ Traces of the Sites and the Dwellings of the Prehistoric
People――Causes and probable Origin of the Scotch Crannogs and
Hill Forts――Description of the Crannogs; Articles and Tools
associated with them――Three Classes of Hill Forts, their
various characteristics, and purpose
⭘ Bronze Age Interments: Cairn burial; Urn interments; Cremation
cemeteries――Stone Circles: Interments within stone circle
areas――Result of recent Investigation
⭘ Probable length of the Prehistoric Period in Scotland――Social
State of the Prehistoric Peoples, their Religion, Culture, and
Civilisation
SECTION VI.
_Roman Period._
⭘ Roman Invasion――Agricola’s Advance; the Native Tribes offered
a vigorous resistance――Battle of Mons Grampius――Agricola
recalled to Rome
⭘ The Roman Legions had an incessant conflict with the
Independent Tribes――Roman Walls――Severus’ Campaign――Departure
of the Romans
SECTION VII.
_Chief Tribes of the Country from the Fifth Century
to the Foundation of the Monarchy._
⭘ New Historic Conditions: the Britons and the Kingdom of
Strathclyde――The Picts, extent of their Territories――Settlement
of the Angles in the south――Battle of Dunnichen――Migration of
the Scots from Ireland to Argyle and the Isles――Aidan, King of
the Scots――The Norsemen
⭘ Intermittent Warfare amongst the Chief Tribes; Causes which
led to the Foundation of the Historic Monarchy――Kings of
the Picts: Angus, Constantine, Kenneth M‘Alpin――founded the
Historic Kingdom; its extent――M‘Alpin’s reign
SECTION VIII.
_Introduction of Christianity._
⭘ Christianity an important factor in the Civilisation of
Scotland――Missionary Efforts of St. Ninian; his Miracles and
Churches――St. Kentigern’s; his difficulties with the King of
Strathclyde; leaves Strathclyde, but afterwards returned――His
Death, Tomb, and Relics――St. Cuthbert
⭘ St. Columba; his early life――His arrival in Iona, and his
labour amongst the Picts; He founded many Monasteries――His
encounters with the Magi and evil-spirits
⭘ The form of Christianity introduced――Columba’s Institution
of Iona: the Buildings, and the Monastic Community and its
Organisation, Divine Service, Priest’s Orders, Interment of
the Dead, Sign of the Cross, Hospitality, Food; Regular Work
of the Columban Community
⭘ Death and Character of Columba――Importance of the Institution
of Iona――Attacked by the Norsemen; Dunkeld the chief Religious
Centre――Influence of the early Saints on the subsequent
religious feelings of the People
SECTION IX.
_Gradual Extension of the Kingdom
to the End of the Eleventh Century._
⭘ External and Internal Conflicts――Long Struggle against the
Norsemen――Reign of Constantine II., a Meeting on the Mote Hill
of Scone――Attempts to extend the Kingdom south-westward, and
northward――Malcolm I., Indulf annexed Edinburgh――A Contest
for the Throne――Reign of Kenneth II.――Constantine III.
and Macduff――Reign of Malcolm II.; Battle of Carham, and
annexation of Lothian; Death of Malcolm
⭘ King Duncan engaged in a struggle with the Chiefs of the
North; Duncan slain; Reign of Macbeth――King Duncan’s sons;
Siward’s Expedition against Macbeth unsuccessful――Macbeth
slain
⭘ Reign of Malcolm III. (Canmore); extent of his Kingdom――His
marriage with a Saxon Princess; her influence――Malcolm
invaded Northumberland――Meeting of William the Conqueror and
Malcolm III.――Death of the Conqueror――Malcolm again invaded
Northumberland; his death――A Contest for the Crown between
Donald Bane and Malcolm’s sons――Edgar placed on the Throne
SECTION X.
_State of Society from the Seventh Century
to the End of the Eleventh._
⭘ Early Forms of Tribal Organisation; Relation of the Tribal
Community to the Land; Causes of Social Changes; Origin of
Private Property in Land――Divisible Rights in Land; Tribal
Organisation in the Eleventh Century
⭘ Agriculture, Food, and Dwellings of the People――Trade, Markets
⭘ Crime and Punishment――Social Morality――Customs associated with
Marriage――Attempts to place the Institution of Marriage on a
proper footing――State of Religion
SECTION XI.
_Early Architecture. Sculptured Stones._
⭘ Local Area and Number of the Brochs――The form and
characteristics of the Brochs――Origin of the Brochs
――Indications of the Civilisation of the People who erected
and occupied the Brochs
⭘ Early Stone Churches――Round Towers of Brechin and Abernethy
⭘ Sculptured Stones: the Earliest Class; other Classes having
a Cross on them; the Earliest Class having only the peculiar
Symbols――probably of Pre-Christian origin――The Representations
on the Stones treated Historically
⭘ Characteristics of the Art of these Monuments――Associated with
the Art of the Illuminated Manuscripts; Elaborate Decoration
――Ethnic Relations of these Monuments
⭘ Inscribed Monuments: Ogham, Gaelic, debased Roman, and Runic
SECTION XII.
_Characteristics of Early Celtic Art.
Fragments of Early Literature._
⭘ Celtic Art as developed on Metal Work――Mirrors, Rings,
Brooches, Chains; Crosier of St. Fillan
⭘ Cummene’s Life of St. Columba――Adamnan, Abbot of Iona: his
Life of St. Columba; its characteristics――Other fragments of
Latin Writings――Earliest Specimen of Gaelic Writing
⭘ The Ferleiginn: the Monasteries as Schools――Legends, Stories,
and Rhymes common among the People――Conclusion of the
Introduction
CHAPTER II.
_Critical Estimate of the Result of Norman Feudalism
on the Civilisation of Scotland._
⭘ Statement of the Historical Question――Commencement of the
Plundering Expeditions of the Normans; infested France
and threatened Paris; Normandy ceded to Rollo, who became
the first Duke――The succeeding Dukes; Rising of the
Peasantry――Robert the Magnificent; Birth of William the
Conqueror――Robert the Magnificent attempted to invade England
⭘ William the Conqueror ascended the ducal throne; his struggle
with the Nobles: He ordered the mutilation of thirty-two of
the Citizens of Alençon――Character of the Feudal Government
of Normandy――William prepared for the Invasion of England;
he defeated Harold, and proceeded to subdue the English
People――His Death and Character
⭘ Uncivilised and Savage Characteristics of the Normans; Norman
Feudalism almost destitute of the essential elements of
Civilisation
⭘ Effects of the Norman Conquest upon the English People; it
created new Historic Conditions――Result of the Introduction of
Norman Feudalism into Scotland
CHAPTER III.
_Narrative. Introduction of Feudalism._
⭘ Reign of Alexander I., and Earl David――Election and
Consecration of Bishops of St. Andrews
⭘ Accession of David I.――Commencement of the Introduction of
Feudalism――David misapprehended its Nature and Tendency;
Rising against the King; the Province of Moray forfeited to
the Crown――Invasion of England; Battle of the Standard
⭘ Death of Prince Henry; his children; Death of David I.――Reign
of Malcolm IV.; Local Risings――Accession of William the
Lion――Invasion of England; Capture of the King of Scots;
Surrender of the Independence of the Kingdom to Henry II.,
but restored by Richard I.
⭘ Risings in Galloway and the North; Disaffection of the People
――Progress of Feudalism
⭘ Reign of Alexander II.; Rising in the North――Alexander and
King John――Argyle subjected to the Crown; Diocese of Lismore
erected――Local Risings――Policy of the King; his death――Councils
of the Scottish Church
⭘ Coronation of Alexander III.; Policy of the Nobles during his
Minority――Interference of Henry III.
⭘ Alexander III. resolved to subject the Western Isles――Haco’s
great Expedition; its failure and cession of the Isles to
Scotland――Death of Alexander’s children――Meeting of the
Estates; Death of the King
⭘ Guardians appointed; Robert Bruce aspired to the Throne
――Marriage Project of Edward I.――Treaty of Brigham――Death
of the Maid of Norway
CHAPTER IV.
_Social Condition of the Nation in the
Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries._
⭘ Feudal Organisation: the King, Revenue, Crown Officials;
King’s Council; Legal Functionaries
⭘ Early Specimens of Charters; Charters made a requisite
condition of holding Land, and a test of Freedom and Civil
Rights; Thus many of the People were deprived of their
Rights――Powers and Privileges granted by the Kings to the
Norman Nobles――Connection of the Church with Feudalism and
the Land――Hereditary tendency of Feudalism
⭘ Law――Crime――Forms of Trial and Punishment――Compurgators
――Ordeals――Wager of Battle, Hot Iron, and Water――Origin of
Jury Trial――Indications of Improvement――Sanctuaries
⭘ Early Towns: Royal Burghs; their Relations to the Crown
――Trading Communities to the north of the Grampians――Court of
the Burghs――Laws of the Burghs――Government and Organisation
of the Burghal Communities; Guild Brethren――Markets――Burghs of
Regality and Barony――Church Burghs
⭘ Coinage; Weights and Measures; Commerce of the Kingdom;
Commercial Treaty with Flanders――Home Manufactures; Hand
Craftsmen――Seals of the Kings, Nobles, and Bishops
⭘ Reorganisation of the Church――Dioceses and Parishes; Monastic
Ideal; Celibacy――Schools
⭘ Literature of the Period: Chronicles; Records
⭘ Architecture: Castles; Churches
⭘ Husbandry; Herds of Cattle; Dairy Produce; Grain Crops;
Mills, Brewhouses――Crown Lands――Church Lands――Condition
of the Occupiers and the Toilers of the Land――Bondmen and
Serfs――Conclusion
CHAPTER V.
_Disputed Succession. War of Independence._
⭘ Edward I. resolved to decide the fate of Scotland; the Nobles
and Clergy admitted his claim of feudal superiority, and the
Claimants of the Crown acknowledge him as their Lord Superior;
they granted Edward seisin of the Kingdom; he took possession
of the Castles, and began the swearing-in process
⭘ Claims of the Competitors for the Crown; Edward’s proceedings;
the issue lay between Bruce and Baliol; they argued their
Claims at great length, but the Lord Superior gave judgment in
favour of Baliol
⭘ Baliol crowned at Scone; his position in Scotland――The Lord
Superior insulted and humiliated the vassal King――A Parliament
at Scone; perilous state of Scotland――Treaty between France
and Scotland――Position of the Scotch Nobles
⭘ Commencement of the War of Independence――Edward I. massacred
the Citizens of Berwick――Baliol renounced his allegiance――The
Scots defeated――Edward’s march through Scotland――Baliol
deposed――Edward’s Measures for the Government of Scotland
⭘ The Scotch Nobles and the People――Wallace appeared as the
National Leader, attacked parties of the Invaders; Organised
an Army and captured Castles――Battle of Stirling Bridge
⭘ Wallace’s efforts to promote Industry; appointed Guardian of
the Kingdom; the Difficulties he had to contend with――Edward I.
again invaded Scotland――Wallace’s Tactics――Battle of Falkirk
――Wallace resigned the Guardianship
⭘ New Guardians elected――Wallace proceeded to France――Edward
continued his efforts to subdue the Scots――A Papal Bull
against his Claims on Scotland――A Truce
⭘ France and the Pope deserted the Cause of Scotland――Battle
of Roslin――Another great Invasion――Edward’s March through the
Kingdom; his Negotiations with Comyn and the Nobles; their
submission――Wallace must surrender unconditionally to Edward
⭘ Siege and Surrender of Stirling Castle――Edward’s efforts
to capture Wallace; Menteith seized Wallace――Execution of
Wallace――Influence of Wallace’s career on the Scots――Edward’s
new form of Government for Scotland
CHAPTER VI.
_War of Independence. Robert Bruce._
⭘ Position of Bruce; a Bond between him and Bishop Lamberton
――Bruce’s tragic meeting with Comyn――Bruce mounted the Throne
of Scotland; his adherents few in number――Edward I. proclaimed
severe measures against him; Bruce’s small army defeated, and
his followers captured and executed
⭘ Bruce reduced to great extremities; forced to wander in the
woods and mountains; he retired to the Island of Rathlin;
but the tide turned, and in May 1307, he defeated a body of
English Cavalry――Death of Edward I.
⭘ Bruce defeated the Comyns and broke their power――The Scottish
Clergy recognised Bruce as their King――Step by step the
Castles and the Country were recovered from the Invaders
⭘ Battle of Bannockburn
⭘ Bruce’s Policy after the Battle; Attempts to make
Peace; intervention of the Pope; Bruce and his Adherents
Excommunicated――An Address to the Pope
⭘ Attempts to make Peace; invidious Policy of the English
Government――A great Invasion of Scotland resolved on;
Bruce’s tactics led to the failure and defeat of the English
Army――Renewal of the Alliance with France
⭘ The English Government sued for Peace――Independence of
Scotland acknowledged; Stipulations of the Treaty
⭘ Closing years of Bruce’s Reign――Marriage of his Son――His
Residence and Life at Cardross――Letter to his Son――His Death
CHAPTER VII.
_Narrative to the Return of James I._
⭘ Succession of David II.; Regency of Randolph; his Death
――Edward Baliol claimed the Crown, and invaded the Kingdom;
his supporters; Efforts of Andrew Moray and the National
Party――Invasions of Edward III.
⭘ Baliol and his English supporters driven out of the Kingdom
――Return of David II.――Invasion of England; Battle of Durham,
defeat of the Scots, and Capture of the King――The English
seized the Southern Counties
⭘ The Steward elected Regent――The King’s Ransom; great difficulty
of paying it――Parliamentary Proceedings; Measures adopted
――Position, Action, and Character of David II.――Arrangements
about the payment of the balance of the Ransom
⭘ Death of David II.――Accession of Robert II.――Settlement of the
Succession to the Throne――Renewal of the Alliance with France
⭘ Border Warfare――Arrival of French Troops; a Raid into England;
Departure of the French――Battle of Otterburn
⭘ A Regent appointed――Death of Robert II.――Accession of Robert
III. The Wolf of Badenoch; Turbulence of the Nobles; Weakness
of the Crown――Duke of Rothesay appointed Lieutenant-General
of the Kingdom――Recommencement of War on the Borders; English
Invasions; Henry IV.
⭘ A Plot against the Duke of Rothesay, seized and imprisoned;
his Death――Prince James captured by the English――Battle of
Harlaw――Death of the Regent; his son succeeded him――Return of
James I.
CHAPTER VIII.
_Reign of James I._
⭘ James I. crowned at Scone; his first Parliament; Inquiry
concerning Crown Lands; He resolved to reduce the power of the
Nobles; Arrest of Sir Walter Stewart, Thomas Boyd, the Earl of
Lennox, and Sir Robert Graham――Proceedings of Parliament――The
Duke of Albany and Thirty Nobles and Knights seized and
imprisoned; Trial and Execution of Albany, his Sons, and the
Earl of Lennox
⭘ A Parliament at Inverness――Seizure and Imprisonment of the
Lord of the Isles, and a large number of Highland Chiefs;
Risings in the Highlands――Marriage of the King’s Daughter with
the Dauphin of France――The King’s Ransom never paid
⭘ Policy and Legislation of James I.――Administration of Justice
――His relations with the Church; a Heretic Executed――James
encouraged Industry
⭘ James’ Encroachments upon the Nobles; Forfeiture of the Earl
of March, the Earldom of Mar annexed to the Crown――A Plot
formed against the King: Sir Robert Graham and the Earl of
Athole; the Plot matured; Murder of James I.――Capture and
Execution of his Murderers
CHAPTER IX.
_Narrative to the Battle of Flodden._
⭘ Succession of James II.――Struggles among the Nobles during the
King’s Minority; Execution of the young Earl of Douglas and
his Brother――William, Earl of Douglas, assumed the title of
Lieutenant-General of the Kingdom, and summoned a Parliament:
A Struggle with the Crown became inevitable
⭘ Marriage of the King――The Livingston Faction crushed, and
their Lands forfeited――Proceedings of Parliament――The Earl
of Douglas and his Allies; Murder of the Earl of Douglas;
Civil War; the new Earl of Douglas defied the King; Battle
of Brechin; at last the King defeated the Douglas Tribe, and
forfeited their Lands
⭘ Siege and Capture of Roxburgh Castle; Death of the King;
James III., a boy, Crowned; the Government conducted by
Bishop Kennedy and the Earl of Angus; Death of Kennedy; then
the Nobles recommence their plotting; the Faction of the
Boyds assumed the supreme power――Relations of Denmark and
Scotland; Marriage of the King――Fall and Forfeiture of the
Boyds――Parliamentary Proceedings
⭘ Character of James III.――Treaty between the Lord of the Isles
and the King of England; Proceedings against the Lord of the
Isles; Earldom of Ross annexed to the Crown; the Lord of the
Isles created a Peer――The King incurred the enmity of the
Nobles; his brothers――Death of the Earl of Mar, and Flight of
the Duke of Albany; he plotted against the Crown of Scotland
――Menacing attitude of England: the Scottish Parliament and
Edward IV.
⭘ Muster of the Scotch Army――The Nobles seized the King’s
Favourites and hanged them, and imprisoned the King; the Duke
of Albany assumed the Government, but soon fled――A Party of
the Nobles continued to Plot against the King; induced his Son
to join them and rose in Rebellion――Battle of Sauchie Burn,
Death of James III.
⭘ Proceedings of the Dominant Faction――James IV.――Church Affairs
⭘ Forfeiture of the Lord of the Isles――Policy of the Government
towards the Celtic People
⭘ Foreign Relations of Scotland――Characteristics of James IV.;
his welcome to Perkin Warbeck; recognising him as Prince
Richard――James mustered an Army and crossed the Tweed in
support of Perkin’s claim to the Throne of England, but the
Expedition failed, and Perkin was sent away
⭘ A Truce with England was concluded after Perkin’s Departure
――James IV. was popular; and he had several Natural Children
――Marriage Treaty between James and the Princess Margaret of
England; celebration of the Marriage
⭘ Foreign Relations: Death of Henry VII.; Henry VIII.――Sea Fight
between the English and Scottish Captains――War between England
and France――James IV. resolved to support his old Ally,
mustered his Army, and invaded England; Battle of Flodden
CHAPTER X.
_Social Condition of the Nation in the
Fourteenth and ♦Fifteenth Centuries._
♦ “Fifthteenth” replaced with “Fifteenth”
⭘ Origin of the Scotch Parliament; admission of the
Representatives of the Burghs; import of certain Phrases;
Functions assumed by Parliament; the Judicial Committee of
Parliament; the Lords of the Articles――Attempts to establish
a Court of Supreme Jurisdiction; Proceedings of the Judicial
Committee and of the Lords of Council――Church Courts
⭘ Power of the Nobles; rise of new Families during the War of
Independence, but Robert I. increased the feudal power and
privileges of the Nobles; Subsequently they entered into bonds
with each other and marriage alliances, which often led to
lawless proceedings and anarchy; All the efforts of James I.
and the succeeding Kings failed to restrain their oppressive
lawlessness
⭘ Deplorable State of the Nation――The small-landed Proprietors
and Tenants greatly oppressed
⭘ State of Agriculture――The Crown Lands; the Tenants and
Occupiers of these Lands――Church Lands
⭘ Condition of the Tillers of the Soil――Causes which led to the
emancipation of the Bondmen and Serfs
⭘ Burghal Communities; the Border Burghs; Characteristics of the
People of the Borders
⭘ The Northern Burghal Communities
⭘ Burghs of the Central Region of the Kingdom; Burgh Rents
――Custom of the Burghs――Number of Sheep in the Country――The
Earl of Douglas and others evaded the payment of Custom, and
often seized the Money in the hands of the Collectors――Revenue
of the Crown
⭘ Commerce of the Kingdom――Seasons of Dearth――Description of
Imports
⭘ The Coinage; depreciation of the Currency; value of Scots
Money at the end of the Fourteenth Century, and at the end
of the Fifteenth
⭘ Characteristics of the Daily Life, and the Laws of the Burghal
Communities――The Chamberlain’s Court: Inquisitoral System of
Inspection; Ale Tasters, and Official Fixers of the Price of
Food and Goods; Forestallers and Regraters――The Burgesses of
Guild
⭘ Position of the Craftsmen; Acts of Parliament touching them;
mode of incorporating the Craftsmen, illustrated from the
Records of Edinburgh――State of Mechanical Skill
⭘ Cities and Burghs of the Church
⭘ Defence of the Country; Military Habits of the People; Armour
and Weapons; the Organisation of the Army――Tactics of the
Scots――Introduction of Artillery
⭘ Probable Population of the Nation――Roads and Inns――Defective
Sanitary Conditions; Pestilence――Lack of Medical Science
⭘ Drinking Habits; Chief Festivals――Rural Sports and Games
⭘ Sumptuary Enactments: Dress of the different Ranks of Society;
Household Goods; Ornaments and Plate
⭘ Price of the staple Necessaries of Life――Condition of the
Vassals, Tenants, and Labourers on the Crown Lands――Wages of
Workmen
⭘ The State of Crime――Beggars, Sorners, Oppressors, and
Vagabonds were numerous; Modes of Punishing them; Defects
in the Administration of Justice――Functions of the Sheriff:
Murder, Robbery, Rape, and Theft; Custom of saving Criminals
from Punishment; Various forms of Punishment; Penance――Crime
in the Burghs――Social Vice
⭘ Architecture――Castles, Churches
⭘ Wealth of the Church; Monasteries; Nunneries; Friars;
Hospitals
⭘ Religious Feeling of the People: Avowed Motives for assigning
Money and Property to the Church――Pilgrimages; Processions;
Relics; Sunday――Conclusion of the Chapter
CHAPTER XI.
_Literature of the Nation in the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth ♦Centuries._
♦ “Centurees” replaced with “Centuries”
⭘ The Lowland Scotch Language, influence of the Celtic genius on
it――Early Celtic Ballads and Tales; Celtic Heroes――Specimen of
Gaelic Poetry――Origin of Rhyme
⭘ Lowland Scotch Ballad Literature――Thomas the Rhymer――Early
Specimens of the Language――Ballad on the Battle of Otterburn,
Battle of Harlaw; Sir Patrick Spens――Romantic Rhymes; Fairies
and Elves――Holland’s _Howlat_; Cockelbie’s _Sow_
⭘ Barbour: his Life; his _Metrical Story of Robert Bruce_
――Literary Merits of his Work; its Historical Value――The
Achievements of Bruce celebrated by other Poets
⭘ Andrew Winton’s _Chronicle_; its Characteristics
⭘ James I.; his Attainments and Energy; his Writings; _The
King’s Quair_
⭘ Blind Henry, the Minstrel; his mode of Life; his Rhymed
Book on Sir William Wallace; the Materials from which it was
composed; its great popularity
⭘ Robert Henryson; his Life; Characteristics of his Writings
⭘ Sir John Rowll’s Poem――Fordun’s _Chronicle_――Increasing
Importance of the National Literature
CHAPTER XII.
_Education, Music, and Art of the Period._
⭘ Schools: the First Educational Act――Origin and Institution
of the University of St. Andrews――The Institution of the
University of Glasgow――Establishment of the University of
Aberdeen――Constitution of the Scottish Universities――Early
Scottish Teachers of Philosophy
⭘ Scottish Music: Singers, Harpers, Fiddlers, and Pipers――Musical
Instruments――Dramatic Plays
⭘ Painting――Seal Engraving――Seals of the Period――Conclusion
♦INDEX
⭘ Listing
♦ added to Contents listing
THE HISTORY OF CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND.
CHAPTER I.――INTRODUCTION.
SECTION I.
_The Scope of the Work._
IN every stage of a nation’s career from barbarism to civilisation,
there are many conditions involved. The underlying causes of progress
in the early stages being so remote and varied that they often elude
investigation; still, if some of the salient points of the process
can be reached, the social phenomena may be partially realised: if the
surrounding circumstances of early tribes can be ascertained, patient
research may elicit valuable results. It is exceedingly interesting to
search for the causes and the influences which have operated upon the
life of our early ancestors in their many struggles. To trace the light
of consciousness dawning, and experience slowly becoming more effective,
gradually dispelling the mists of far-gone ages――the spirits, myths,
and legends, which enveloped the minds and affected the thoughts and
emotions of our early kindred――till the flickering rays of intelligence
ascended the horizon, and the shadows and myths receded, step by
step into the background. Yet the many retarding influences and
circumstances constantly recurring, and the difficulties and obstacles
encountered at every turn, were only slowly overcome by the persistent
energy of man. As time rolled on, original thought was developed,
new influences and agencies arose and came into operation, which
tended to subdue the ruder features of the race and to promote social
organisation and advance culture; and when these became effectual,
the people gradually emerged from the trammels of ignorance and
superstition, and at last enjoyed a more secure and happier life.
Any attempt to indicate the causes which have induced a number of
scattered tribes, almost living in a primitive state, to pass through
the various stages of progress to a comparatively high civilisation,
must examine many conflicting agencies. The difficulties of truly
assigning the effects of different causes, especially in the early
stages, are very great, where ascertained facts are few and the
phenomena so obscure; while the natural tendency of the human mind to
generalise upon incomplete data is not easily resisted. Scotland offers
a fair and tempting field for the study of this subject. Inasmuch as we
find man living there in a very early stage, and can trace the social
organisation of tribes, their conflicts issuing in the foundation of
a monarchy, and the development of an intense nationality; and the
beginnings of industry, of art, and of culture among the people, and
their continuous progress, through the various stages of civilisation,
onward to the present time. In this period, extending over four
thousand years, we can study the various agencies and influences,
and the different historic conditions which successively arose, and
controlled the stream of events and moulded the historic phenomena.
Thus the aboriginal race which long occupied the country, were subdued
and absorbed by another race, which in turn were invaded by powerful
enemies, but the natives made a vigorous resistance. After this, other
migrations and invasions followed, issuing in new historic conditions,
which contributed to the extension of the kingdom, and the development
of the nation. In the natural course of events the kingdom fell under
the influence of foreign interference, which led to new invasions and
determined attempts to conquer the nation. The people resisted, and a
long struggle for liberty and independence ensued, which, in its heroic
features of resistance to oppression and the importance of its ultimate
result, is unmatched in the annals of any nation. While later, internal
political and religious conflicts were manifested in a variety of forms,
and constitute an exceedingly interesting and important part of the
national history. Thus, although some countries have a greater history
than Scotland, few have a longer, a more eventful, or a more peculiarly
interesting one.
The work does not profess to present an exhaustive political history.
This branch will be treated according to its comparative importance
in the different periods, and the relative value of its facts and
phenomena, viewed as a factor in the general movement of the nation.
The main aim of the work being to reach the moral and intellectual
factors of progress, and especially to present ample details of the
material and social conditions of each period; and thus embracing all
the causes, agencies, and influences, in a connected scheme, to unfold
the successive stages of the progress, the culture, and the development
of the civilisation of the people.
As the term civilisation, in its widest import, includes all
the material and intellectual products, the religion and social
organisations and institutions of a civilised nation, a disquisition
on the elements of these complex subjects would be out of character in
this section. From my standpoint, historically, civilisation began with
the first conscious efforts of man, whenever he began to act with an
end in view, such as to make weapons to defend himself or implements
to procure food: and this is sometimes called the primitive state,
from which mankind have gradually advanced in culture, more or less,
according as surrounding nature, circumstances, and historic conditions,
were favourable to their progress, or the reverse. To trace and explain
such a progress and development in the limited area of Scotland is
the conception and end of this work; so the prehistoric ages will
be treated in a concise and connected form onward into the historic
age, and associated with the manifold causes, circumstances, changes,
and influences, which have operated upon the people, and ultimately
resulted in our present stage of civilisation.
The primary causes of civilisation may be shortly indicated thus:――1,
The human mind itself; 2, Surrounding nature, including climate,
soil, and natural products; 3, Historical conditions; and 4, Social
and material conditions. The mind of man is the prime factor of
civilisation, and unless this is recognised no satisfactory explanation
of development and progress can be given. For the internal power of
the mind is the only natural and conceivable cause of the origin of
civilisation; insomuch, that without it civilisation is inexplicable.
Still, the circumstances in which man finds himself placed may have
an important effect upon him. In the early stages, climate, soil, and
natural products have a potent bearing on the direction which man’s
progress might take; if he can live without much effort, as when his
wants are supplied by nature in abundance, he will feel inclined to
enjoy himself in ease. But the increase of numbers sooner or later
begins to affect him, and exertion in the form of migration or in other
ways at last becomes necessary, and outward movements and conflicts
would then commence. When historical conditions arise, they become
the chief external causes of relative changes in the state of society,
but such changes may not be always favourable to progress, though they
often tend in that direction. The social and material conditions are
exceedingly important factors in civilisation. It is principally the
social feeling which originates society, and binds mankind into groups,
tribes, and nations. Religion also often operates as a social influence,
in association at first with the instinct of self-preservation, and at
later stages in association with the higher emotions.
The lower and narrower forms of moral tendency spring out of human
nature and the necessities of life――the social and sympathetic feelings.
The higher sentiments and emotions, and the definite ideas of right
and wrong, of justice, honesty, truth, and so on, were only developed
slowly, and with extreme difficulty. The very sentiment and idea upon
which justice itself rests is distinctly progressive; as at first it
appears obscure and often contorted, so it has only been gradually
growing in clearness, in purity, and in comprehensiveness. How far it
is even yet from being perfect needs no exposition.
Following the lines above indicated, the geographical and physical
features of the country will be described, seeing that they have had an
influence on the development of the inhabitants. The direct action of
climate, soil, and food, on man is difficult to estimate, and varies
in different quarters of the globe; its operation is obscure, as it is
independent of volition, and man is merely passive under it. But the
indirect action of external nature is more potent on the development
of man, for it presupposes a reaction on his part under the stimulus
of his wants and activities, and in this relation the influence of
physical agencies upon man and society, especially in the early stages,
were everywhere felt.
We may safely assume that man has always sought to gratify the
inherent cravings of his being. His primeval feelings and passions were
strong, and sometimes bounded into activity with endless degrees of
force; hence the varied ethnic affinities of races, the diversity of
historical conditions, tribal and political conflicts, conquests, and
amalgamations, which have contributed to produce such manifold results
throughout the world.
Myth appears to spring from the same source as science; originally it
was simply man’s early attempt to interpret his surroundings. In the
myth-making stage of culture, man was ignorant of the causes of the
natural forces around him, hence he was eagerly looking for something
to give him an explanation of external phenomena. He found an
explanation in his own will and feelings; and so every moving object,
animate and inanimate, was thought to be impelled by a force akin to
his own mind. All the mental powers that man found in himself were
transferred to external nature. Thus the ancient world became inhabited
by multitudes of spirits, demons, and gods. Long after the original
mythical meanings were lost, new explanations were fastened on names
and words, and thus the process proceeded;¹ until the attainment of
definite knowledge dethroned the swarms of spirits, gods, demons, and
witches.
¹ _Celtic Mythology_, by Alexander Macbain, M.A.
SECTION II.
_Geographical and Physical Features of the Country._
Scotland is separated from England by the River Tweed, the Cheviot
Hills, the Liddel Water, and the Solway Firth; the Cheviot range
naturally tended to fix the southern limit of the country. The boundary
line runs in a slanting direction from Berwick-on-Tweed to the Solway
Firth, a distance of seventy miles, and except on this line Scotland is
surrounded by the sea. On the east side lies the North Sea, on the west
the Atlantic Ocean; the North Channel, between the south-western part
of the country and Ireland, is only thirteen and a half miles broad at
the Mull of Cantyre, and the most southerly part of the coast is washed
by the Irish Sea. The west coast is nearly in a line with the east of
Ireland, and the greater part of Scotland lies west of England; and
the south-eastern end of the island approaches so near the continent
of Europe that the opposite coasts of England and France are only
twenty-one miles apart from each other at the narrowest point of the
Channel. Between Scotland and Norway there are 300 miles of sea, and
between Denmark and Scotland 400 miles of sea. These natural facts,
as we shall find, had an important bearing on the early history of the
island.
The coasts of Scotland are very irregular, and broken, and rocky. On
the whole of the west coast there are numerous arms and inlets of the
sea, which penetrate far into the interior of the country, while here
and there the land extends out to the sea in numerous islands and
surf-beaten rocks. Amongst the most noted of these inlets of the sea
are Lochs Linnhe, Torridon, Duich, Hourn, and Nevis; on the south and
north coasts the bays and inlets are not so numerous, though on the
northern there are the Firths of Moray, Inverness, Beauly, Cromarty,
and Dornoch. The east coast is much less indented than the other sides,
but on it are the two important estuaries of the Forth and Tay. Owing
to these numerous firths, inlets, and arms of the sea, the coast-line
of Scotland measures about 2,500 miles, which affords many industrial
and commercial advantages.
The Orkney Islands lie off the northern mainland, and are separated
from Caithness by the Pentland Firth――a dangerous channel――6 miles
broad, and noted for the strength and rapidity of its tides and
currents. This group of islands amounts to upwards of sixty, but most
of them are small, and others merely bare rocks, and only twenty-nine
are inhabited. The largest of the group is about thirty miles in
length. The surface of these islands mostly consists of heathy wastes,
intersected with rocks, swamps, and lochs; there are scarcely any trees,
and the cultivated portions yield oats and green crops. The only towns
are Kirkwall and Stromness. The climate is rather moist, but not severe.
The Shetland ♦Islands lie about one hundred miles off the northern
coast of Scotland, and they are separated from the Orkneys by seventy
miles of sea. This group exceeds one hundred islands, but more than
the half of them are small holms or rocky islets, and only about thirty
of them are inhabited. These islands have a less favourable climate
than the Orkneys; they are more rugged, and the agriculture is poor;
but the Shetland sheep yield a fine soft wool, which is much valued.
The inhabitants chiefly live by fishing, and Lerwick, their only town,
has a harbour which is frequented by the vessels of different nations
as a haven of refuge. The Shetlands are only two hundred miles from
Norway, and hence they became important in relation to the ethnology
and colonisation of the northern and western coasts of Scotland.
♦ “Island lies” replaced with “Islands lie”
The Hebrides or Western Isles lie on the western side of Scotland, and
are very numerous. They stretch along the western shores nearly to the
coasts of Ireland, and are regarded as the natural breakwater of the
north-west coasts. They consist of two chief groups: 1, those lying
close to the mainland, as Mull, Islay, Skye, and others, called the
inner group; 2, those lying to the west of the Channel of Minch, and
usually called the outer islands. These outer ones form a continuous
group of 140 miles in length, and so close together that they have
been regarded as one, and named the Long Island. Lewis is sixty miles
long, being the longest of the group, and the longest island belonging
to Scotland. Probably some of these islands were inhabited at an
early period, and they became connected with the ethnology and the
colonisation of the west of Scotland; and also with the introduction
of Christianity, and thus were associated with the early history of the
country.
The islands in the Firth of Clyde are Bute and Arran, the two Cumbraes,
and the Rock of Ailsa. The climate of Bute is mild, and its central
and southern parts are well suited for tillage and pasture, but its
northern extremity is rugged. Arran is remarkable for its lofty hills
and glens, and only a small portion of it is suitable for cultivation.
Ailsa Craig lies in the broad part of the Firth, and is simply an
insulated rocky hill, about two miles in circumference, and rising in
steep cliffs to 1,098 feet above the sea. It is a great resort of the
solan goose and immense numbers of other sea birds.
On the east coast there are only a few detached islets. The Bass Rock,
on the south side of the entrance of the Firth of Forth, is a mass
of basalt rising perpendicularly to 400 feet. The islands of May,
Inchkeith, and Inchcolm, are all in the Forth. The Bell Rock lies 14
miles east of the entrance of the Firth of Tay, and is the site of a
notable lighthouse.
Turning now to the mainland, the country presents to the eye an
exceedingly varied prospect. The fine diversity of mountains and wooded
heights, rivers and valleys, narrow glens and ravines, and lakes,
present stretches of charming scenery, and in other parts a succession
of picturesque scenes of rugged and wild scenery, striking and imposing
from the grandeur of their outstanding features. Many of the valleys
and glens in every quarter of the country present scenery of exquisite
beauty when seen in a fine summer-day in all their verdant glory. The
existing aspects of external nature are the result of the operation
of forces which have been working for untold æons, stretching far back
into eternity. If we could recall the echoes from that vasty deep,
and figure in imagination the successive phenomena as they appeared,
then we might form some faint idea of the sublimity and the infinite
significance of the great work of creation. The space which Scotland
now occupies, and after the formation of its rocks, was repeatedly
submerged by the ocean, and also at different periods enveloped in
mountains of snow and glacier ice. The action of immense moving masses
of glacier ice have contributed much to deepen and smooth the glens and
the lochs, and to modify the contour of the mountains and hills;¹ while
the wasting powers which rain, frost, wind, and the sea possess, have
all contributed to produce changes on the surface of the earth, and
formed the many contrasts, the varied and picturesque features of the
grand and beautiful scenery of the country.
¹ Dr. A. Geikie’s _Scenery of Scotland_, pages 81‒87, 1887.
“While land-ice is thus a most powerful geological agent in
new-modelling the surface of the earth, its operations are
not entirely confined to the dry land. As already stated,
it creeps along the sea bottom for some distance from land
until flotation comes into play, when large masses break off
from the ice-cliff, and rising up and floating, sail away
seaward as icebergs. These ice islands carry with them any
soil or rock-rubbish which may have fallen upon them from
inland cliffs while they formed part of the ice-sheet of the
country. The debris so borne off is, of course, thrown down
upon the sea bottom as each berg melts away, after a voyage
of perhaps hundreds of miles. Year by year whole fleets of
these bergs are sent southwards in the arctic regions, so
that the bed of the northern seas must be strewn with earth
and boulders. As only between an eighth and a ninth part of
a mass of ice appears above the sea water on which it floats,
the bulk of many bergs must be enormous. One rising two
hundred feet above the waves――not an uncommon height――must
have its bottom more than seven hundred feet below them,
and the thickness of the ice cap at its outer edge must be
there about two thousand feet. The Antarctic ice-sheets and
icebergs are of still more colossal dimensions.”
The mountain ranges and the river system of the country may be briefly
indicated. The Highlands are naturally marked off by mountains from
the eastern Lowlands and the central valleys of the Forth and Clyde.
The Grampian range of mountains stretches from near the coast of
Kincardineshire across the country to Ardnamurchan on the west coast.
These mountains vary greatly in figure and elevation; the average
height of their higher summits runs from 3000 to 4000 feet above sea
level, and their greatest height is reached at the top of Ben Nevis,
which rises 4,406 feet, but it is not quite within the limit of
perpetual snow. To the north of the Grampians ranges of mountains run
off in successive waves to Cape Wrath, the shores of the North Sea,
and the Moray Firth, and southward along the west coasts to the Mull of
Cantyre, gradually diminishing in height as they approach the coasts,
where the river valleys widen out into limited plains. These mountains
are mainly formed of masses of rocks consisting of gneiss, granite,
schist, and other crystalline rocks, and bands of quartzose, which are
associated with some strips of limestone.
The scenery of the Highlands presents many varied and striking features,
associated with much similarity and wonderful order. The craggy array
of peaks overhanging the narrow passes and glens, often present to the
eye a marked similarity of bend and slope, of figure and contour; still
taking the whole of the Highlands, a rich variety of contrasts can
easily be observed. Many of the Highland valleys present exceedingly
picturesque and beautiful scenery.
Glenmore, or the Great Glen, is a remarkable feature in the physical
structure of the Highlands. It extends from the Moray Firth at
Inverness to the Sound of Mull, a distance of about one hundred miles,
and separates the Highlands into two regions. In its middle portion
there are three lakes――Loch Ness, the source of the beautiful river
Ness, which flows through the town of Inverness; Loch Oich, and Loch
Lochy. These lochs are very deep. “The deepest soundings in Loch Ness
gives a depth of 129 fathoms opposite the Falls of Foyers; in Loch Oich,
23 fathoms; in Loch Lochy, 76 fathoms.”¹ The lochs are situated in the
midst of varied and beautiful scenery; and the Caledonian Canal now
connects them by navigable channels from shore to shore.
¹ “Its very straightness is enough to suggest that the
Great Glen owes its direction to a line of dislocation. I
ascertained in the year 1864 that the line of the fracture,
or of one continued in the same line, can be seen along the
western side of the Moray Firth, where the Jurassic beds
of Eathic and Shandwick are thrown down against the Old Red
Sandstone. Hence the downthrow at this end of the line is to
the east side. It seems to me that this line has been from
a very early geological period up, indeed, to the present
day, a line of weakness in the crust of the earth. The
prolongation of the tongue of the Old Red Sandstone up
the valley of Loch Ness appears to show that the valley is
older than that formation; the dislocation of the Eathic
and Shandwick shales proves disturbance even after the
Lias; and the agitation of the waters of Loch Ness, during
great earthquakes in modern times, shows that, even yet,
underground movements tend to reveal themselves along
the same old line. Hence it may be reasonably conjectured
that the fracture along the line of the Great Glen has
been repeatedly modified during the subterranean changes
of successive geological periods.” Geikie’s _Scenery of
Scotland_, page 234.
Some parts of the Highlands consist of barren moor, such as the Moor
of Rannoch, extending to 400 square miles, which is little better than
a desert. Its surface is level and a part of it covered by a bog; it
produces no vegetation, except a few fir trees, but granite covers many
miles of it. To the north of it another sterile tract lies between Ben
Nevis and the shores of Loch Ericht.
The Lowland region is marked off on the one side by the lines of the
Highland mountains, and on the other by the southern uplands. From
St. Abb’s Head to the cliffs of Portpatrick a range of hilly ground
runs across the country from sea to sea; and in East Lothian and
Edinburghshire, the long chain of the Lammermuir Hills rises into steep
heights. The surface of the Lammermuirs, like most of the southern
hills, is pretty smooth and covered with heath or coarse grass, except
where the peat covers the hollows, and where the streams keep open
their channels through the bare drift or hard rock. The tops of these
hills are usually broad, smooth, and grassy; but on the western ridges
they descend abruptly into the plains, and present gulleys and narrow
glens, through which the drainage flows into the low grounds. These
heights of the Lammermuirs fairly represent the general features of
the scenery of the country between the North Sea and the Vale of the
Nith, although in the higher parts of the region the smoothness and
verdure of the hills are exchanged for the rocky scarfs, bare crags and
cliffs, and deep narrow defiles, which remind us of some parts of the
Highlands.¹
¹ Geikie’s _Scenery of Scotland_, page 281, _et seq._
The Lammermuirs, the Moorfoots, and the Pentland Hills, form a range
running from east to west; further south, the Cheviots, the Moffat
Hills, and the Lowther Hills, form a continuous range extending in
a zig-zag course from east to west. The general features of these
southern and border hills are remarkably uniform throughout; they are
mostly covered with pasture nearly to the tops, and a great part of
this region is naturally a pasture land.
The Lowlands of southern Scotland consist of a series of fertile
valleys, some of which are of considerable extent. It may be observed
that a different local topography prevails; as the term dale, instead
of strath or glen, is used to indicate a stretch of low lying ground,
a cultivated valley or a pastoral one. Amongst these notable local
districts are Tweeddale, Teviotdale, and Lauderdale, which belong to
the basin of the Tweed; Liddlesdale, Eskdale, Annandale, and Nithsdale,
each of which belong to the respective rivers of the same name, and
slope toward the shores of the Solway Firth; the vale of Yarrow, the
vale of Gala, and Ettrick, which have been rendered famous in the
national songs and poetry.
But many parts of the central Lowlands are dotted with hills, and
even long ranges. The Sidlaw Hills commence in the vicinity of Perth,
thence extending in a north-east direction and terminating by a
rapid declivity on the side of Strathmore, but descending in a fine
succession of terraces towards the North Sea. The Ochil Hills, with
their offshoots, occupy much of the peninsula of Fife, and in some
parts rise to a considerable height; Ben Glack is 2359 feet above sea
level.
Among the influences of external nature few have a more important
bearing upon the people than the water courses of the country. The
Watershed of Scotland runs southward from Cape Wrath to the head of
Loch Quoich, whence it turns eastward between Lochs Lochy and Oich,
then sweeping round the top of Strathspey and over the hills above the
head of Loch Laggan, and thence following a curving southerly course
past the west end of the Moor of Rannoch and the Brae Lyon mountains
to Crianlarich, thence across Ben Lomond and south-eastward over
the Campsie Fells into the broad Lowland valley: whence skirting the
south-western parts of Linlithgow and Mid-Lothian, it sweeps up into
the Pentland Hills, and then south between the valleys of the Clyde and
Tweed to the Hartfell Heights, thence it strikes across to the Cheviot
Hills. To the west of this line the water flows into the Atlantic, and
to the east, into the North Sea or the Firths connected with it. Owing
to the steep and mountainous nature of the west side of the Island, the
Watershed keeps much nearer to the Atlantic than to the North Sea; and
hence the greater part of the country is drained into the latter. In
the northern half of Scotland no large river enters the Atlantic; on
the western side of the Watershed as it runs through the counties of
Sutherland, Ross, and Inverness, nearly all the great valleys which
enter the sea come down from the south-east, and have their seaward
portions filled by the tides of the Atlantic. Thus they form the series
of inland sea lochs, narrow firths, and fords which characterise the
western shores of the country.
On the north-east side, the Ness, the Spey, the Deveron, the Don, the
Dee, the North Esk, the South Esk, and the Tay, and a number of smaller
rivers, carry the drainage of the mountains into the sea. The principal
rivers of the Central Lowlands are the Tay, the Forth, and the Clyde.
The Tay descends from the heights of the Highlands, and as it were
issues into the Lowlands through the narrow defile of Birnam, winds
by Perth and gradually opens into a fine estuary; and pours a greater
body of water into the sea than any other river in Britain. The Forth
rises on the eastern side of Ben Lomond; and issues from the Highlands
through the narrow defile of Aberfoyle; and winding on it passes by
Stirling and Alloa, and enters its estuary. The Clyde rises from the
Moffat Hills in the Southern uplands, flows northward, winding its
course through the broad meadows, cultivated fields, fine woodlands,
and beautiful stretches of scenery. The basins of the Forth and Clyde
are not separated by ranges of hills, between the two rivers, the
ground undulates across the great coal and iron fields from Campsie
to the Pentland Hills.
The numerous rivers and streams give rise to a corresponding variety of
defiles, straths, dales, and valleys. Besides those already mentioned,
there are in the north-eastern side of the ♦country, the valleys of
the Dee, the Don, the Deveron, the Spey, and the Ness; and the notable
ravines of the Findhorn, Nairn, and Beauly. Much of the best cultivable
land of the country lies in the valleys, on the banks and haughs of the
rivers.
♦ “county” replaced with “country”
Caithness presents a tract of comparatively flat land; and in the lower
parts of Moray, Banffshire, and Aberdeenshire, there are considerable
stretches of pretty level ground; but the greatest extent of level land
in Scotland is the plain of Strathmore, which runs from the banks of
the river Forth to the vicinity of Stonehaven, where it is terminated
by the eastern Grampians. This plain is nearly ninety miles in length,
and its breadth varies from sixteen miles at its widest part along
the course of the Forth and Teith to less than a mile at its northern
extremity. It is the largest extent of level and cultivable land in
Scotland. The Carse of Gowrie lies along the banks of the beautiful
estuary of the Tay, it is two or three miles broad, and one of the most
fertile spots in Scotland. The Carse of Stirling lies on the south side
of the Forth, and is remarkably fertile.
The Central Region extending between the Firths of Forth and Clyde
presents a striking feature in the physical configuration of the
country. The two Firths penetrate inwards on opposite sides, and
opening out the mouths of the rivers, nearly cuts the country into two
halves; and at this point reduces its breadth to forty miles. These
natural features have had a controlling influence on the stream of
events for ages: 1, In relation to the origin of historical conditions;
2, In relation to military and political conditions; 3, In relation
to national defence and political independence; 4, In relation to
the development of industry and commerce. The details of these will
successively appear in the sequel of the work.
Lakes are still pretty numerous in Scotland; although in early times
they were far more numerous. During the last hundred and fifty years
many lochs have been drained and turned into cultivated land; while the
natural processes of growth have transformed others into mosses. They
are most numerous in the Highland and Middle divisions of the country.
Loch Lomond is the largest one in the Kingdom; it is twenty-four miles
long and seven miles broad at its widest part. It contains upwards of
thirty islands, many of which are richly wooded. For some time it has
been held to be scientifically proved, that the greater part of the
lochs of Scotland were formed or at least deepened by the action of
glacier ice; some of them are scooped out of solid rock, the immense
weight of a great moving mass of ice having effected this result.
Although the country is comparatively poor in soil, it is rich in
the raw materials of industry. Limestone, greenstone, freestone,
flagstone, slatestone, and granite of various colours are abundant.
The carboniferous rocks extend from Fife Ness to the coast of Ayrshire,
and cover the greater part of the Central Region――the coal, iron,
and shale district. It has been estimated that the total depth of
the carboniferous strata cannot be less than 6000 feet.¹ The richest
portions of the coal fields are in Clydesdale, Lanarkshire, and
Renfrewshire; the counties of Ayr, Fife, Stirling, Edinburgh, and
Linlithgow, follow in order; and in most of these counties more or
less valuable beds of ironstone, shale, and limestone, are intermixed
with the coal. Broken strata of coal have been found as far north as
Sutherlandshire. Lead and copper are found in small quantities; gold
also has been discovered in several parts of the country, though not
in sufficient quantities to repay the labour of searching for it. About
twenty years ago, a number of persons employed themselves searching for
gold in Sutherlandshire, and though small quantities were found, the
occupation did not prove remunerative.
¹ Geikie’s _Scenery of Scotland_, page 329, 1887.
Within the limit of the close of the latest geological epoch, the flora
and fauna of the country may be briefly noticed. The character of the
vegetation varied in different localities, and according to altitude
on the mountains. Heaths, and here and there a straggling alpine plant,
graced the higher brows of the mountains; lower down, on their ribs,
waving ferns and other wild growths shot up; around their base, and
some 1500 feet upward on their sides, trees of pine and oak spread out
their trunks and branches. The oak also abounded on the low grounds,
and other indigenous trees, such as the birch, hazel, alder, willow,
and juniper, all lived and grew wonderfully. In the boggy valley and
glen, marsh plants, sea growths, and other wild flowers sprang up.
In the more level and dry grounds, natural grasses, and wood wherever
the conditions were suitable covered the scene. How many of the fruit
bearing trees and bushes were indigenous I am unable to tell; that
there were wild fruit of various kinds need not be doubted.
Passing to the fauna of the country, vast multitudes of trout swarmed
in the streams, rivers, and lakes; and immense shoals of fish, then as
now, inhabited the firths and bays, and the encircling ocean. Touching
the feathered species, there were several kinds of game, wild ducks,
and fresh water and sea fowls were plentiful. Rapacious birds of the
hawk and owl varieties, and the golden eagle were common. The British
Islands are very rich in birds, nearly three hundred species are known,
some of which are nowhere else found. The small singing birds of the
country are well known, and need not be enumerated, for in spring and
summer they enliven the garden, the wood, the valley and the mountain.
Among the higher indigenous animals there were one or two species of
the ox, from which the native cattle were probably derived. The sheep,
red deer, and the roebuck were common; and the dog and the horse appear
to have been domesticated at a very early period. The hare, the fox,
wild cats, weasels, fumarts, and other wild animals, some of which have
long been extinct in Scotland, such as the wild boar, the wolf, the
beaver, and others, were common. The wolf held out for many centuries
into the present era, and Acts of Parliament were passed in the
fifteenth century, commanding the people to muster at certain seasons
every year to hunt and destroy them.
Although the main outline of the country was the same then as now;
yet the external surface and face of the country then presented a very
different aspect to that which we see around us in every quarter at the
present time. There was more water over the whole country; the Firths
of Forth and Clyde rose some thirty feet above the present level of
their tides; and the ground on which Leith, Dundee, Arbroath, Ayr,
Greenock, Cromarty, and many other towns on the coast now stand, was
then either wholly or in part covered with water. The rivers too were
then much larger than they are now, and in many places their waters
spread over a wider area. Then there were ♦innumerable lakes and
swamps, black mosses and moors; and vast forests which swept in long
withdrawing glades across the country. Thick clouds of mist often
enveloped the land and water, and a severer climate prevailed. The
reigning silence was only broken by the howl and snort of the wild
beasts which roamed throughout the country. Such was the state of the
country, when man first planted his foot on the soil of Scotland, and
found himself surrounded by the conditions and the natural resources
of the home, which I have briefly described; and how far he has turned
them to account this history should show.
♦ “inumerable” replaced with “innumerable”
The influence of climate, soil, food, and other natural agencies on
man, and the early inhabitants of Scotland, have now to be considered.
According to the brief statement in the first section, it is extremely
difficult to distinguish in the early stages of society, what is due
to external agencies on the one hand, from what is due on the other to
the internal energy of man himself. Still the co-relative potency of
external influences and natural agencies on the destiny of the human
race can hardly be questioned. At once discarding visionary notions,
and endeavouring to grapple with the real and living world; we find
men naked upon the earth amid the forces of nature, and on every side
ferocious and venomous creatures to contend against; while he had
everything to learn, how to protect himself and to fight and struggle
for his life. Thus we must see the importance of the surrounding
conditions and circumstances. Here man had to shield himself from
the biting cold and frost, there from the scorching and burning sun;
everywhere he found himself face to face with numerous forces which
might have hurt or destroyed him.
Looking then to the climate and soil of Scotland in prehistoric times,
the difficulty of obtaining food and protection from the cold and frost
incident to the country, would have been the first matters to seriously
affect the early inhabitants. The limited quantity of vegetable roots
and wild fruit, which the soil spontaneously produced, must have
rendered a supply of food from this source exceedingly precarious; and,
prior to cultivation in so sterile a country, the early inhabitants
could hardly have subsisted on vegetable food. The only remaining
source of food in sufficient abundance was the wild animals, fowls, and
the fish swarming in the waters. But it demanded much exertion and some
ingenuity on man’s part to procure a supply of this description; owing
to the coldness of the climate, however, and his imperfect means of
sheltering himself, animal food was most suitable for him, as it is
best fitted to keep up the warmth of the body. The results of these
external conditions on the spirit and habits of the early inhabitants
may be easily realised. The exertion and risk incurred in pursuing
and slaying wild animals would naturally ♦develop habits of daring and
determination; and the very efforts necessary for his self-preservation
tended to develop his faculties. In short, we may easily comprehend
how the circumstances in which man found himself placed in this quarter
of the globe, were admirably calculated to develop a fund of energy,
a spirit of independence, and a physical constitution capable of great
and heroic endurance.
♦ “develope” replaced with “develop”
The natural structure of the country was favourable to lawless freedom.
Geographically there are few countries less adapted to the requirements
of a central despotism than Scotland. As the obstacles interposed by
nature rendered regular communication between the different parts of
the country almost impossible for ages, the results of these structural
features of the country have been enormous, and they will again and
again force themselves upon our notice. Here I am mainly concerned
with the effort to understand their early effects. Their outcome
was exhibited in the form of a number of little local rulers planted
throughout the country――sometimes called chiefs, at other times nobles,
and they long possessed the supreme power in Scotland, though not
always its nominal holders; and they offered a prolonged and determined
resistance to the formation of an effective central authority.
The general features of a country may be considered in relation to the
imagination, and also in relation to the understanding. The appearances
presented by external nature to the eye and the senses mainly operates
through the imagination, and this process has been supposed to have
originated many of the superstitions which have afflicted mankind,
such as those primitive notions of spirits and ghosts, myths, legends,
and so on, which arose in the infancy of the race. Generally, it
may be said, that whatever in the aspects of nature is calculated to
inspire feelings of fear, terror, or bewilderment, and everything that
raises in the mind an idea of the uncontrollable and unfathomable,
has a tendency to inflame the uncultured imagination. In the early
prehistoric ages, when men looked around and contrasted their own
powers with the forces of nature, they were apt to become painfully
conscious of their own helplessness and their dependent condition.
Hence have sprung up the mythologies and polytheisms of the world.
In those regions of the earth, where nature is seen on a grand and
imposing scale, the impressions produced on the mind would be the most
effective and abiding.
But the mountains and rivers of Scotland, though numerous, cannot be
considered as being on an exceedingly grand scale, when compared with
those of other countries. The aspects of these mountains and rivers
could scarcely have presented an unsurmountableness calculated to
overawe or stagger the minds of the people, although doubtless in the
early stages these outstanding features of the country had some effect
upon the feelings of the inhabitants. The rolling and raging waves
of the sea, the rocks, and torrents streaming down the mountains,
the storms and mists, have all been considered as suggesting and
intensifying the superstitions of the Scots.¹ It seems to me that the
influence of these natural agencies on the peculiar characteristics of
Scotch superstition have been greatly overdrawn. There were many other
ways in which their superstitions might have arisen, even supposing
that the Scots had any superstitions essentially peculiar to themselves.
¹ Buckle’s _History of Civilisation_, Volume II., page 181;
Burton’s _Criminal Trials in Scotland_, Volume I., pages
240‒248.
In relation to the understanding, on the other hand, the influence of
the mountains and hills, the rivers, the lakes, the firths, and the sea,
on the mind and daily life of the inhabitants, is clearly manifested.
This will appear on all sides as we proceed with their history. The
hills and elevated rocks were selected as the appropriate sites for
strongholds; and the lakes were utilised for a similar purpose. We
find the banks of rivers, the heights near the side of an estuary, and
the elevated positions in the vicinity of the sea shore, all chosen
with remarkable sagacity as the fittest sites for the habitations
of communities. Here we can trace with something like precision the
co-relative action of external nature on the understanding of man;
here we can see him picking out the spots best suited for his purposes,
and exerting that faculty which has enabled the human race to obtain an
undisputed supremacy upon the earth.
SECTION III.
_Historic Interpretation――Ethnological Problem._
I. Whether man was originally descended from some species of extinct
or still surviving apes,¹ does not come within the scope of my subject.
But to render my principle of historic interpretation clear, it is
necessary to make a brief statement. Man from the beginning of his
career upon the earth has been in possession of his physical organism,
his external senses, and his psychical faculties. Although in the early
stages his mental powers were undeveloped, still he had the use of
his external senses and the capacity of thinking, however limited his
views might have been. For in the order of human development thought
necessarily preceded language, and always has preceded it. In spite of
the opinion of an eminent writer, who has asserted and reiterated that
thought and language is absolutely identical, a notion well calculated
to introduce confusion into the subject.² In nature and reality, if
thought had not preceded language, the rational origin of language
itself would be inconceivable. Is there not evidence recorded of
individuals, who have thought much without using articulate language? I
have observed an infant of three months old manifest distinct evidence
of memory in relation to inanimate objects. I have also observed
infants of eighteen months, who had a clear idea of the relation
of cause and effect, and showed a wonderful power of reasoning and
a spirit of inquiry. It is the internal psychical capacity of the
mind-thinking power, which renders language itself possible. In the
early stages of the human race it is certain that man did think hard
and long too――thousands of years before he had even a very limited
vocabulary of articulate speech; and we know that alphabets and written
languages were only of comparatively recent origin. Instead of language
being absolutely identical with thought, it is merely an instrument for
the expression and communication of thought, and an instrument to some
extent fortuitously formed, as is shown by the multitude of different
languages; and even the most highly developed ones are inadequate to
express the infinite combinations and relations of thought.
¹ “My own theory of the matter, however, is slightly different
from this. For, while accepting all that goes to constitute
the substance of Mr. Darwin’s suggestion, I think it almost
certain that the faculty of articulate sign-making was a
product of a much later evolution, so that the creature
who first presented this faculty must have already been
more human than ape like. This Homo alius stands before the
mind’s eye as an almost brutal object, indeed, yet still
erect in attitude, shaping his flints to serve as tools and
weapons, living in tribes or societies, and able in no small
degree to communicate the logic of his recepts by means of
gesture-signs, facial expressions, and vocal tones. From
such an origin the subsequent evolution of sign-making
faculty in the direction of articulate sounds would be
an even more easy matter to imagine than it was under the
previous hypothesis. Having traced the probable course of
this evolution, as inferred by sundry analogies; and having
dwelt upon the remarkable significance in this connection
of the inarticulate sounds which still survive as so-called
‘clicks’ in the lowly formed language of Africa; I went
on to detail sundry considerations which seemed to render
probable the prolonged existence of the imaginary being in
question――traced the presumable phases of his subsequent
evolution, and met the objection which might be raised on
the score of Homo alius being Homo postulatus.” _Mental
Evolution of Man_, by G. J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., page
429, 1888. This volume is part of an attempt to strengthen
the theory of evolution, by showing how the psychological
barrier between man and the brute may be overcome. The
effort is carried on with vigour and considerable ingenuity.
² _Gifford Lectures_, pages 24, 356, 406, by Max Müller, 1888.
From the historic standpoint, languages may be called the products
of social organisation. Thus different tribes, communities, and
nations originate and develop languages in harmony with their special
circumstances, social state, and stages of civilisation. The evolution
of language everywhere is partly a natural and partly an artificial
process, springing out of the growth of the varied organisations,
states of society, and human culture; and hence the multiplicity and
diversity of languages throughout the world.
But the laws of thought are not dependent on language, or necessarily
identical with any form of speech. Thought can create mere arbitrary
signs, such as the formula and symbols used in science, which in
themselves have no meaning until the mind and the laws of thought
assign to them ideas, powers, and so on, which represent quantity
and quality and explain the infinite relations of the universe.
But, excepting Max Müller, did any one ever assert that the symbols
themselves were identical with the ideas, thoughts, and reasonings
involved in mathematics, astronomy, and chemistry?
In the earliest stage of society man’s thinking faculty appears to have
been comparatively narrow, owing to his limited experience. Still it is
an ♦indispensable requisite of a historic principle of interpretation
to take account of the inner psychical faculties of man as a factor in
the origin of the first stage of society, in the subsequent creation
of historical conditions, and throughout the entire development
of civilisation. The psychical characteristics of tribes are more
important than their physical peculiarities, and when both sides
of these characteristics are strongly marked, they tend to make new
historical conditions, to produce relative changes, and thus advance
civilisation. There is little progress in human society until a series
of intersective relations arise and begin to operate and affect the
positions and circumstances of tribes, and then onward and progressive
movements gradually proceed.
♦ “indispensible” replaced with “indispensable”
In the interpretation of the prehistoric ages and early culture the
first requisite is a just conception of human nature, to recognise the
natural rights of all communities, and human rights, wherever there is
evidence of their existence. For it must be remembered that there has
been an almost perpetual tendency among the more powerful peoples to
cruelly oppress the weaker and less fortunate communities.
Touching the investigation of the remains, relics, and the phenomena
of a people in a given area, the first question is, what are the facts?
The relation of such facts as can be ascertained, and their meaning,
have to be explained. Following the natural course of development in
Scotland, we find a people using stone and taking the materials within
their reach, adapting them to suit the ends and circumstances of their
daily life. Associated with this people and their stage of culture
we find a series of remarkable structural remains which demands the
greatest care and discrimination to interpret, owing to the remoteness
of the period and the very imperfect knowledge of these people now
obtainable. Explanations of unfamiliar phenomena are often apt to be
wrong, unless when carefully made, and only relevant points admitted
as evidence.
Proceeding down the stream of time we find a people using bronze,
and manufacturing their weapons and implements in this material. They
developed a culture which is specially connected with the products of
this industry, and they occasionally adorned their persons with fine
ornaments of jet and gold. This people erected stone circles in which
they placed the remains of the dead, and they also erected unchambered
cairns over the remains of the dead. But there is an overlapping of
the bronze and iron periods, which causes difficulty in the sequent
arrangement of certain classes of remains, and in such cases I have
endeavoured to make the best use of circumstantial evidence. In
Scotland there is a remarkable overlapping of all the three stages
of stone, bronze, and iron; and, therefore, though bronze and iron
implements may be found associated with the earth houses and the
crannogs, it does not follow that their origin and period of occupation
should be assigned to the iron age.
The discrimination and estimation of historical evidence, and
prehistoric evidence in particular, is a difficult and arduous task.
In estimating prehistoric evidence great care and caution is requisite,
since owing to the imperfect character of the materials on which to
form a direct conclusion, recourse to inference is tried: and many
of the inferences which have been drawn in this department rests on
no sufficient evidence; the merest shadow of analogy, far fetched
instances from some other quarter of the globe――utterly inapplicable to
the point in hand, some allusion or conjecture found in Greek and Roman
literature, have been often adduced as evidence, which it is heresy to
question.
Even written materials, and national documents, when viewed as
matter of historical evidence, must be discriminated, and their value
estimated according to circumstances and the characteristics of the
times to which they belong. Thus, surrounding circumstances is always
an element of more or less value in estimating every description of
historical evidence.
Strange as it seems, the intelligence of mankind has often been in
advance of their means. This appears to have been the case in the
earlier stages of human progress. Even now intellect is in advance of
the means of attainment amongst the highest civilised nations. This is
the case in physical science generally; and when we look at ethical and
social science, it is plain that intellect is far ahead of the means of
attainment. For instance, it is well known that unequal and defective
laws produce disastrous results. So the difficulty in this lies not in
the want of knowledge, but about the most efficient remedies, and the
most effective means of applying them to remove the evils. On these
points men hold different opinions, and so the evils continue. Such
has been more or less the experience of mankind from the dawn of
consciousness to the present hour. Man knew about many things long
before he could command the requisite means to accomplish them; and
therefore the mere wrecks and fragments of the handiwork of prehistoric
peoples are not a complete index of their intelligence and powers. This
has to be taken into account in our interpretation, and in our final
estimate of the culture of such peoples. We can easily realise that
similar difficulties, and much greater ones, beset our early ancestors,
than those which still beset many of our own efforts.
But the description of prehistoric objects would have little interest,
unless we knew about the people who produced and used these things
in their daily life, something touching the race then inhabiting the
country, and whence they came. To this question I will now turn.
II. For long it was the fashion to fix the cradle of the human race
somewhere in the centre of Asia. It was said, that all the early
movements of mankind were always from the East to the West: that
all the migrations of the tribes which had peopled Europe, came at
intervals in successive hordes from the East. It was also said, that
the progress of civilisation had followed the sun from the East to the
West. In the first edition of this volume (1877) I ventured to make the
following statement:――“Touching the idea so generally embraced, that
the early invasions of Europe have always been from the East to the
West, I confess that I cannot see the necessity for this assumption.
Its wide prevalence is probably largely due to long fixed habits of
thought. Why should the central region of Asia be deemed the cradle
of the human race? This does not relieve the problem of any of its
difficulties. It is just as easy to conceive man originating in one
place as in another; in the heart of Africa, America, or Europe, as in
Asia, especially as the race had spread over all these quarters of the
earth long before we have any records. What can all our science tell us
about the spot where man first came into existence? Imaginary theories
are swiftly formed on a point of which nothing is known. There is
little or no philosophic ground for this Eastern origin of the race;
and it is vain to cover our ignorance in the garb of knowledge.”
The only semblance of a reason for imagining that the centre of Asia
was the cradle of the race, is the assumption that it was warm in
this region, and therefore primitive man could easily have lived and
multiplied there; but of course we cannot know whether it was warm
or not at the period of man’s first appearance on the earth.
Recently vigorous attempts have been made to shift the cradle of the
great Aryan race from the centre of Asia to Europe. In the early part
of this century comparative philology gave currency to the relationship
of the far-spread family of Aryan languages. Then shortly after a
theory was formed to the effect that these allied languages had all
originally sprung from a clan somewhere located in Asia, in Bactria, or
the banks of the Oxus. But it is now strongly contended that Europe was
the centre in which the ancestors of the Aryan race first saw the light,
and that there is no Aryan race in the same sense that there is an
Aryan language, and that the question touching the origin of the Aryans
can only refer to the ethnic affinities of those various races which
have acquired Aryan speech. The real problem is among which of these
races did Aryan language arise, and where was the cradle of that race?¹
This is not likely to be soon solved.
¹ _The Origin of the Aryans_, by Isaac Taylor, LL.D., page 7,
1890. J. G. Rhode first advanced the theory that central
Asia was the cradle of the Indo-European race, and based
his arguments mainly on geographical indications. Pott’s
argument is founded on the notion that “the path of the sun
must be the path of culture.” _Ibid._, pages 9, 10. Hegel
also strongly maintained that the spirit of humanity, in its
historic manifestation, followed the course of the sun from
the east to the west, and at last culminated in the German
nation, which being interpreted meant in himself――in his own
system of philosophy.
In 1848 Jacob Grimm ennunciated the theory that――“Few will
be found to question that all the nations of Europe migrated
anciently from Asia,” and so on. In 1859 Max Müller adopted
Grimm’s theory, and superimposed on it a fine flowing poetic
strain, which captivated multitudes of people. The same
year Pictet published the first volume of his _Origines
Indo-Européennes_, in which he presented an elaborate theory
of the successive Aryan migrations from Central Asia. He
brought the Celts south of the Caspian and through the
Caucasus to the north of the Black Sea, and then up the
Danube to the extreme west of Europe; and the Greeks and
Italians by a route, south of the Caspian, through Asia
Minor to Greece and Italy; while the Slavs and Teutons
marched north of the Caspian through the Russian steppes.
Taylor’s _Origin of the Aryans_, pages 11‒12.
Amongst the causes which tended to discredit the Asiatic origin of the
Aryans may be mentioned the evidence of the antiquity of man presented
by geology, prehistoric investigation, anthropological study, and
craniology. From the results obtained in these branches of inquiry, it
became apparent that man in Europe was the contemporary of the mammoth,
the reindeer, the musk-sheep, lion, elephant, bear, and other animals,
which are either locally or wholly extinct. It further appeared that
man had inhabited France and the south of Britain at the close of the
quaternary period.¹ When this was at last recognised, views of man
and traditional notions which had long prevailed began to recede into
the region of delusion. It was then asked whether there was any real
evidence of these great successive migrations from Central Asia? “Is
there any reason for supposing that the present inhabitants of Europe
are not in the main the descendants of the neolithic races whose rude
implements fill our museums? If not, what has become of these primitive
peoples?”² After it had been shown that the skulls of the primitive
inhabitants of central France were of the same type as those of
the present inhabitants, and that the skulls of the Spanish Basques
belonged to another neolithic type, and similar results obtained in
Denmark, Britain, and Eastern Europe, the logical conclusion from such
facts seemed clear.³
¹ _Prehistoric Europe_, by J. Geikie, LL.D., pages 19‒23,
74, 89, 92, _et seq._, 114, 360, 378, 544‒556; _The Ancient
Stone Implements, Weapons, and Ornaments of Great Britain_,
by J. Evans, pages 430‒462, 578‒621.
² Taylor’s _Origin of the Aryans_, page 19.
³ _The Human Species_, by A. De ♦Quatrefages, 1879. This
authority says:――“In the quaternary period there is more
precise information about man than of several of the
existing races. The caves which he inhabited, those in which
he buried his dead, and the alluvial deposits formed by
rivers which have borne away his corpse, have preserved
numerous bones for our study. As many as forty different
places in all, especially in the western portion of Europe,
have supplied our museums with as many as forty skulls, more
or less intact, and numbers of fragments of the cranium and
face, as well as a great number of the bones of the trunk
and limbs, and even some entire skeletons,” page 287.
“In fossil, as well as in modern skulls, we find between
races and individuals oscillations of a more or less
striking character. Although these are often of less extent
in known fossil races than those observed in existing
populations.” _Ibid._, page 293.
“In all fossil races we find the essentially human character
of the predominance of the cranium over the face. With them,
as with us, the bony framework which contains the brain
becomes longer, narrower, or shorter, at the same time
increasing in size; it rises or is flattened, but always
possesses a capacity comparable to that of the present day.”
_Ibid._, page 295.
“We admit, then, two dolichocephalic races――those of
♦Canstadt and of ♦Cro-Magnon. The more or less brachycephalic
races are four in number. Under the name of Furfooz races we
have included two races discovered in that famous locality,
(the valley of the Lesse, in Belgium). The Grenelle race
(name of a place near Paris) and that of La Truchere also
take their names from the localities where they were found.”
_Ibid._, page 301. He gives many interesting details of
these several races, but the evidence on which some of the
details rests does not come up to my standard.
♦ “Quaterfages” replaced with “Quatrefages”
“Constadt” replaced with “Canstadt”
“Cro-Magon” replaced with “Cro-Magnon”
It was seen that the Aryan languages must either all have originated
in Europe, one member, the Indo-Iranian, separating from the rest and
migrating to its present region, or they must all have originated in
Asia, and then migrated severally to Europe, still retaining in their
new homes the precise relative positions which their mutual connections
prove must have originally existed. Which of the two alternatives is
the more probable? That of a single migration, of a people whom we
know to have been nomads at no very remote period, or six distinct
migrations of six separate peoples, of which there is no evidence that
they ever migrated at all, and whose traditions assert that they were
aboriginal?¹
¹ Taylor’s _Origin of the Aryans_, pages 22‒23.
According to Dr. Schrander two positions are settled――that from the
earliest period of which there is evidence we find Asiatic Aryans on
the Jaxartes, and the European Aryans in Northern Europe. He maintains
that not a shred of evidence has been adduced to show that any
migration of the European Aryans from the East ever occurred. At the
earliest period the European Aryans seem to have been moving toward
the south and the south-east; and he has now finally placed the main
original home of the Aryans on the Middle Volga where it is joined by
the Sanna.
As yet, however, there is not a concurrence of view among scholars and
inquirers, some holding that Central Europe was the original cradle
of the Aryans, others Eastern Europe, and some Northern Europe. The
problem itself has often been discussed with needless heat. French
and German scholars range themselves on opposite sides, and each
representative of the two nationalities vehemently contends in turn
that his ancestors alone were the pure primitive Aryans.¹
¹ ♦Poesche writes thus:――“The true scientific theory, which
uplifts itself calm and clear, like the summit of Olympus,
over the passing storm-clouds, is that a noble, fair-haired,
blue-eyed people vanquished and subjugated an earlier race
of short stature and dark hair. In opposition to this is the
French theory, without scientific foundation, originating
in political hatred, which asserts that the primitive Aryans
were a short and dark people, who Aryanised the tall, fair
race.” _Die Arier_, page 44.
M. Chavée maintains that the mental superiority lies with
the other race:――“Look at the beautifully formed head of the
Iranians and Hindus, so intelligent and so well developed.
Look at the perfection of those admirable languages, the
Sanscrit and the Zind. The Germans have merely defaced and
spoilt the beautiful structure of the primitive Aryan speech.”
Again, Ujfalvy remarks: “If superiority consists merely
in physical energy, enterprise, invasion, conquest, then
the fair dolichocephalic race may claim to be the leading
race in the world; but if we consider mental qualities, the
artistic and intellectual faculties, then the superiority
lies with the brachycephalic race.” Another Frenchman, De
Mortillet, in his _Le Préhistorique_, strongly maintains
that the civilisation of Europe is almost entirely due to
the great brachycephalic race.
The German writers further argue, “That while the peasantry
and middle classes over the greater part of Europe
are brachycephalic, the nobles and landed proprietors
approximate rather to the long Teutonic type. This, they
say, is a proof that a brachycephalic aboriginal people was
conquered and Aryanised by Teutonic invaders.” _Origin of
the Aryans_, pages 227, 229.
♦ “Posche” replaced with “Poesche”
Dr. Taylor has presented the following conclusions:――“The four European
types of race may be traced continuously in occupation of their present
seats to the neolithic period; and in the case of the Italic and Swiss
pile dwellers, and the round barrow people of Britain, we must believe
that their speech in neolithic times was Aryan――either Celtic or Italic.
We are, therefore, forced to adopt the view that one of the four races
must be identified with the primitive Aryans, and that this race,
whichever it was, imposed its Aryan speech on the other three. It is
most reasonable to believe that the Aryan civilisation originated with
the broad-headed race of Central Europe, which possessed the skill to
construct, with rude stone tools, the pile dwellings of Switzerland and
Italy. And on archæological grounds we have come to the conclusion that
the Slavo-Celtic race, as represented in the round barrows of Britain,
and in the pile dwellings of Central Europe, comes nearest to the
primitive Aryans as disclosed by linguistic palæontology. Aryan speech
may have been evolved out of a language of the Ural Altaic class; the
grammatical resemblances pointing to a primitive unity of speech, just
as the physical resemblances point to a primitive unity of race. There
must have been some ruder form of speech from which the elaborate Aryan
inflection was evolved, and there is no other known form of speech,
except the Ural Altaic, which can be regarded as the germ out of
which the Aryan languages may have sprung. We have also arrived at the
conclusion that the Celto-Slavic race best represents the primitive
Aryans, whose speech may have been evolved out of a language of the
Ural Altaic class. We may, therefore, conjecture that at the close of
the reindeer period a Finnic people appeared in Western Europe, whose
speech, remaining stationary, is represented by the agglutinative
Basque, and that much later, at the beginning of the pastoral age, when
the ox had been tamed, a taller and more powerful Finnic-Ugric people
developed in Central Europe the inflective Aryan speech.”¹
¹ _Origin of the Aryans_, pages 217, 242, 295‒296.
Whether the Aryan language was originated in Europe or not, it seems
pretty evident that its origin must stretch back to a period at least
three or four thousand years before the Christian era. But identity or
relationship of language by no means proves identity of race; at the
utmost it only raises a presumption in favour of a common racial origin.
Language belongs to the organised community, not specially to the
race; so it can only prove social contact, not racial kinship, unless
where other evidence is available, such as physical characteristics,
religious beliefs, similar customs and habits. Tribes and races
sometimes lose their own speech and adopt the tongues of others,――a
social phenomena which occurs from various causes operating in the
ceaseless evolution of human society.
I have briefly touched on the early inhabitants of Europe, and the
questions of the origin of the Aryan race and languages, merely
preparatory to the treatment of the ethnology of Scotland. No relics
of Palæolithic man have been found anywhere in Scotland.¹ Although
such relics, and even fragments of human bones have been discovered
in the southern parts of the island, yet it is not usually maintained
that these earliest tribes or cavemen survived through the subsequent
geological and climatic changes, and continuously occupied the country
on to the polished stone age.² I now come to the ethnological problem
in the limited sense in which it relates to Scotland; but this question
cannot be treated at all without reference to the southern part of the
island and to the Continent.
¹ Geikie’s _Prehistoric Europe_, page 428.
² “We have seen that during the last glacial epoch Palæolithic
man retreated with the reindeer and its congeners, and
occupied the valleys of Southern France. What is his
subsequent history? Did he return northwards with the Arctic
and Alpine animals to re-occupy the Belgian and English
caves in Postglacial times? As a matter of fact, he did
not.... It is open, of course, to argue that the Neolithic
race or races were identical with the Palæeolithic tribes,
who had somehow acquired a knowledge of husbandry, spinning,
and pottery; who had learned to domesticate certain animals,
and to finish their implements more perfectly.... All this
is possible, but, on the other hand, it is so extremely
improbable that, until some positive evidence in favour
of such a view be advanced, we may well leave it out of
account.... Other writers are of opinion that the man of the
reindeer period in Southern France probably remained where
he was, to become absorbed in the new wave of population
that swept into Europe at the close of the glacial period....
There are certain appearances in some Pyrenean caves, as
in that of Gourdan, described by M. ♦Piette, which lead
to the suspicion that the interval between the Palæolithic
and Neolithic ages in Southern France may not have been
prolonged.” _Ibid._, pages 546, 551‒552.
♦ “Pette” replaced with “Piette”
The earliest prehistoric race in Britain of whom we have reliable
evidence, was a long-headed people of comparatively short stature.
Their physical characteristics resembled the Berber race and North
African tribes, and they probably migrated from that quarter into
Europe at a very remote period. They seem to have spread over the
Spanish peninsula, the coasts and islands of the Mediterranean,
Sardinia, Corsica, Southern Italy, and a great part of France; but they
do not appear to have extended to Germany or the north-east of Europe.
They were non-Aryan in race and in speech, and probably spoke Numidian
dialects akin to the inscriptions of that character. This race arrived
in the south of Britain about the beginning of the polished stone
period: and gradually spread over the Island, and even reached the
Orkneys.
They appear to have inhabited the Island alone for a very long period.
They constructed the long barrows of England: and the chambered cairns
of Caithness, Argyle, and Orkney. In Scotland they also seem to have
constructed the curious underground structures called earth-houses, as
will be shown in the sequel.
The first migration of a race of people of Aryan descent, who spoke a
Celtic dialect, came from the Continent of Europe, and arrived on the
southern or eastern shores of Britain, long before the close of the
stone period. It is almost certain that there were several unrecorded
migrations of Celtic tribes from the coasts of France and Belgium to
the southern parts of Britain. These tribes spread very slowly over the
country, and subdued, and intermixed with the long headed race which
had preceded them in the occupation of the Island. The new-comers soon
realised the advantage of living on friendly terms with the original
inhabitants, instead of attempting to exterminate them; as all the
available evidence tends to show that the two races peaceably and
slowly amalgamated. The skulls and remains of the two peoples have
often been found lying together in the same barrows.¹
¹ _British Barrows._ By Wm. Greenwell, pages 126‒129, 559‒632.
The earlier race, sometimes called Iberians, Basques, and other names,
were a short limbed people, only averaging about five feet five inches
in height, the tallest of the men reaching five feet six inches, and
the shortest of the women four feet eight inches. Their heads were long
and narrow, of the type termed dolichocephalic: their physical frame
was not strong, though some individuals of the race possessed well
developed muscular powers. It is said that they were dark and swarthy
in complexion. On the other hand, the newly arrived Celtic tribes were
of the brachycephalic type――a people with broad heads and very powerful
physical frames; their average height was about five feet nine inches;
and the female sex was also tall, very handsome and muscular.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 559‒632, 680, 682, _et seq._ Strabo, when
speaking of the inhabitants of the interior of Britain,
says of the Coritavi, a tribe in Lincolnshire:――“The men are
taller than the Celts of Gaul; their hair is not so yellow
and their limbs are more loosely knit. To show how tall they
are, I may say that I saw myself some of their young men at
Rome, and they were taller by six inches than any one else
in the city.” Elton’s _Origins of English History_, page 240,
1882.
The Celts imposed their Aryan speech on the aboriginal race, and became
the ruling people.¹ They formed themselves into strong but separate
tribes. Owing to a number of natural causes and circumstances, the
movement of the Celtic people into the interior of the country,
northward and westward, was extremely gradual and slow:――1, They had to
come to an understanding with the original inhabitants as they advanced,
even though there was little fighting; 2, A large part of the country
was then covered with swamps, fens, and dense forests; 3, The natural
barriers of rivers and firths which often overflowed their valleys,
and of mountain ranges; 4, The difficulties connected with procuring
a sufficient supply of food; and 5, The difficulties of protecting
themselves from the severe colds and frosts, as the climate was
much colder than the sunny region which they had left. Taking these
conditions and circumstances into account, which must have greatly
impeded the onward and outward movement of the Celts in overrunning the
Island, we may reasonably assume that from the time the first Celtic
tribes landed in the south of England, to the time when they reached
the quarter now called Scotland, at least a century had elapsed. After
they had crossed the borders, it must have taken more than another
century to overrun Scotland and reach the extremities of the northern
Highlands. If we recall the fact, that it took the Romans with all
their resources, appliances, and disciplined legions, upwards of forty
years to conquer their way from the South of England to the Firth of
Forth, we will easily realise the probable truth of what has just been
indicated.
¹ Some recent writers have in a half-hearted way maintained
that one of the prehistoric races of Britain was of a
Finnish type from the Baltic region; but there seems to
be a lack of evidence to support this view. See _Origins
of English History_, by Elton, pages 126, 144, 151, 160,
167‒179. The evidence adduced by this writer in support of
the Finnic origin of the men of the Bronze age in Britain is
altogether unsatisfactory, and indicates a lack of knowledge
touching the conditions of the prehistoric ages.
As I have said, there were probably several unrecorded migrations
or invasions of Celtic tribes from Gaul or Belgium into Britain. The
result of this would have been a continuance and an intensification
of the onward and outward movement of the people; and ultimately the
creation of real historical conditions, which in turn and in process
of time, would account for all the varieties of Celtic language in the
British Islands.
At a much later period, and after the foundation of the Gaulish empire
in the sixth century B.C., invasions of Britain from the Gaulish
territories took place. About the end of the second century B.C.,
the King of Soissons had extended his sway over a portion of southern
Britain; and those Gaulish people, who came over during the later
period, settled along the southern and eastern shores of England, and
carried on a commercial traffic with their kindred on the other side of
the Channel. But they did not then penetrate far into the interior of
the country. In 58‒50 B.C. Cæsar conquered Gaul; and in 55‒54 he twice
attempted to conquer Britain but failed; and nearly a century elapsed
ere the Romans made another effort to conquer the Island.
Thus, at the opening of the Christian era, the whole area of Scotland
was inhabited by people speaking an Aryan language――called Celtic. But
this people themselves, as we have seen, were not a pure Celtic race;
on the contrary, they had intermingled with and absorbed that original
short-stature and long-headed race, whose blood runs in their veins
more or less to this day. The same may be said of the whole of England,
excepting the narrow strips along the southern and eastern shores which
had been colonised by the later migrations and invasions of the Gauls.
I must now turn to Ireland and its early inhabitants.
Into the maze of Irish ethnology and endless legends I cannot enter at
length, but it is necessary to state a few facts. Ireland was inhabited
in the Stone age, and probably by tribes akin to the short stature
people which we have found occupying Britain. Celtic tribes migrated to
Ireland at a very early prehistoric period, either from the Continent
or from the southern shores of Britain. This Island was not invaded
by the Romans, and consequently its early inhabitants were permitted
to follow their own course of development uninterrupted by external
interference till a much later period than Britain. The population
of Ireland seems to have multiplied rapidly, and became crowded at a
comparatively early period; and they began to molest the western shores
of Britain in the early centuries of the Christian era. Migrations
from Ireland to the western parts of Scotland became frequent; and
an intercourse based on ethnic affinities sprung up between the two
countries. The details of this connection will appear in the sequel.
About the seventh century the Scandinavians began a movement through
the ocean towards the Shetland and Orkney Islands, and onward to the
northern quarter of Scotland, which they ultimately reached; and hence
became an element of the ethnology of Scotland. This movement will be
detailed in the subsequent narrative. The Angles or Saxons reached the
southern borders of Scotland about the middle of the sixth century, and
settled in Lothian. Their subsequent movement and intermixture with the
earlier inhabitants, and the gradual spread of their language, will be
treated at length in the sequel. The last ethnic influx was the Norman
Invasion; and in so far as it effected Scotland, it will be specially
discussed in its appropriate order.
The origin and the consecutive relations of the constituent elements
of the ethnology of the people of Scotland as briefly indicated in the
preceding pages, may now be summarised:――1, The aboriginal people were
a race of short stature, with long narrow heads; 2, They were invaded
and subdued by a taller and broad-headed race, of Aryan descent, and
speaking a Celtic dialect, and ultimately these two races amalgamated;
3, At a later period, Gaulish tribes settled on the south and
south-eastern shores of England; 4, Migrations from Ireland, of tribes
speaking Celtic, to the western parts of Scotland, began early in the
Christian era and continued for several centuries; 5, The movement of
the Scandinavians to the Shetland and Orkney Islands, onward to the
Western Isles and the northern mainland of Scotland; 6, The invasion
and settlement of the Saxons in the south of Scotland; 7, Finally, an
influx of Norman nobles. Such simply stated, were the real ethnological
elements out of which the Scottish nation was ultimately developed.
Thus the subject is freed from a mass of legends and the obscuring
accretions of many generations.
SECTION IV.
_The Stone Age._
In this section and the following one, an attempt will be made to
indicate the state of the inhabitants in the earliest times. Although
the relics, implements and structures, which they have left, may
not always be available for eliciting clear information, still these
remains when well sifted yield valuable results. In such an expository
narrative, touching prehistoric matters, dates can rarely be assigned;
but the natural sequence of development may be followed, and several
stages of early civilisation explained.
Beginning with the group of things which may safely be assumed to
have been an indispensable requisite in the circumstances of the daily
life of the people, namely, their weapons, tools, and implements. The
greater number of our stone implements and weapons have been casually
found in the ground, in draining, ploughing, making roads, in peat
mosses, the beds of rivers, on the margins of lochs, and on the sandy
wastes near the sea shore. It must be observed that all these stone
tools and weapons are not strictly assignable to the stone age, for
such stone objects are sometimes found in bronze age graves, and in
association with many other circumstances, which clearly indicate a
survival of some kinds of stone objects and implements into a much
later period. Moreover, various kinds of stone implements seem to
have continued in use long after the introduction of bronze.¹ So far
as investigation has been made, there appears to be almost universal
evidence of a stone age over the globe at one time or another, which
shows that the early culture of the human race has proceeded on
wonderfully similar lines in the most distant regions of the earth.
On the other hand, there is often no satisfactory evidence of the same
wide and distinct character of a passing from the stone age and through
the bronze age. But the causes of this are easily understood, and will
become clear as we proceed.
¹ “Sir William Wilde informs us that in Ireland stone hammers,
and not unfrequently stone anvils, have been employed by
country smiths and tinkers in some of the remote country
districts until a comparative recent period. The same use
of stone hammers and anvils for forging prevails among the
Kaffirs of the present day. In Iceland, also, perforated
stone hammers are still in use for pounding dried fish,
driving in stakes, for forging and other purposes.” Evans’
_Ancient Stone Implements_, page 11, 1872. For other
instances of the use of stone for various purposes in the
Shetland and Orkney Islands, see _Past and Present_, by Dr.
A. Mitchell, pages 121‒129.
The stone weapons, tools, and objects, which have been found in
Scotland, may be separated into several groups, according to the
purposes for which they were used: such as axes, spear and arrow heads,
knives, saws, borers, and scrapers.
Axes, including hammers, are of two kinds, those with a hole for a
shaft and those without a hole, and the first class is not so numerous
as the other. The axes with a hole for a shaft present a greater
variety of form, and are often ornamented, while the others are plain.
They are rarely made of flint, but often of granite, schist, basalt,
greenstone, and other kinds of stones. They vary much in size, and are
distinguishable into three varieties, thus: 1, those with an edge at
both ends; 2, with an edge at one end only; 3, with both ends blunt or
rounded. Those with an edge at both ends are the rarest of the three
forms. A fine specimen of this class in greenstone was found in a
bronze age grave, in a stone circle, at Crichie, Aberdeenshire. Other
examples have been found in Orkney, and in the Island of Coll, in an
unfinished condition. It has been supposed that these stones were used
as battle axes.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 306‒307, _et seq._
The second class, with the edge at one end only, is more common. A
fine specimen was found associated with a cremated interment in an
urn, which was turned up by the plough near Ardrossan, in Ayrshire. It
is formed of granite, with an ornamental band of three incised lines
round the concave edges pierced by the shaft hole, and the shorter end
finished like a hammer with a rounded face. They have been found in
every quarter of the country, and often in an unfinished state. The
hole for the handle was usually pierced from both sides, so the boring
has not always met exactly. They vary much in size and form, and in
degrees of finish and polish. The third class, hammer-shaped at both
ends, has been called a war hammer. A very fine specimen of it was
found in the parish of Urquhart, Elginshire, formed of a whitish flint,
and finely polished.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 309‒319, 320, 321; Wilson’s _Prehistoric
Annals of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 102‒194; _Proceedings
of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_, Volume IV.,
pages 55, 379; Volume V., pages 214, 240; Volume VI., pages
42, 86, 310, 332; Volume VII., pages 101, 102, 499; Volume
VIII., pages 264, 232; Volume IX., pages 55, 384; Volume X.,
page 460; Volume XXIII., pages 205, 210.
The class of stone axes without a hole for the shaft are very numerous.
They vary greatly in size and shape, from 3 inches in length to 15;
some of them are of flint, others of different kinds of stone, and many
of them are smoothed and polished over the surface. The smaller ones
seem to have been tools, which were used for various purposes, but
a number of the larger ones, which are more carefully polished and
finished, have been considered weapons.
Arrow-heads show two distinct forms――the leaf-shaped and the triangular,
and it seems probable that the leaf-shaped class may have been the
earliest form. But both forms, with barbs and a central stem, were
found in a chambered cairn at Unstan, in Orkney. They are all usually
made of flint, and none of them are large; some of them have barbs
but no stem, others have barbs and stems both. Many of them are
beautifully shaped, and some specimens are finely serrated along the
edges. Arrow-heads have occasionally been found still in the shaft;
an example of a leaf-shaped one was found in 1875 in a moss at Fyvie,
Aberdeenshire, with the shaft entire to the length of nine inches. The
arrow-heads and spear-heads differ from each other only in size.¹ A
very large collection of both arrow and spear heads may be seen in the
National Museum at Edinburgh, in provincial museums, and private
collections.²
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 354‒365.
² There are upwards of thirty provincial museums in Scotland,
which have collections of Scotch antiquities both in stone
and bronze, more or less extensive and valuable. Reports on
these collections may be seen in the twenty-second volume of
the _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_.
There is a series of tools and implements, mostly of flint, which seem
to have been used for various purposes in connection with the daily
life of the people. These are knives, saws, scrapers, borers, and
flaking tools, and we may endeavour to form some idea of the process
of their manufacture. The ground-work of all these tools is a flake of
flint, struck from a prepared core in such a way that it presents a
more or less cross-section. These flakes may be of any length up to six
inches, but in Scotland, where it is difficult to find large blocks of
flint, the flakes are commonly short. Flakes just as when struck off
the core of flint have sometimes been found along with the core itself.
Such flakes may be used for many purposes, and many of them show
evidence of having been so used without any preparation of the edge.
The natural edge, however, soon becomes blunt and broken, so when a
cutting tool of this kind was intended for constant use, it was worked
along its edges and trimmed to a point resembling a shoemaker’s knife,
or of a somewhat oval form. Many flint knives, trimmed for cutting or
scraping, have been found throughout the country, some of which are
single-edged and others double-edged. But knives, formed of various
kinds of stone, have frequently been found, of slatestone, greenstone,
schist, and other stones, flat, well-made, and highly finished.¹
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume III., pages 252, 439; Volume VII., pages 121‒136,
212‒219; Volume VIII., pages 64, 66; Volume XI., pages
172‒174; Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 365‒371.
Dr. Evans, perhaps the highest authority on stone tools
and implements in Britain, has the following on flint
flakes:――“The inner or flat face of a flake is that produced
by the blow which dislodged it from the parent block, core,
or nucleus. The outer, ridged, or convex face comprises the
other facets. The base, or butt-end of a flake, is that at
which the blows to form it were administered, the other end
is the point. Flakes may be subdivided into――1. External, or
those which have been struck off by a single blow from the
edge of a nodule of flint. Many of these are as symmetrical
as those resulting from a more complicated process of
manufacture. 2. Ridged flakes, or those presenting a
triangular section. One face of these sometimes presents the
external crust of the flint; in others the ridge has been
formed by transverse chipping, as was the case with the long
flaxes of Pressigny, but this method appears to have been
almost unknown in Britain. 3. Flat, where the external face
is nearly parallel to the internal, and the two edges are
formed by narrow facets. These several varieties may be long
or short, broad or narrow, straight or curved, thick or thin,
pointed or obtuse.” _Ancient Stone Implements_, pages 248‒49.
A flint saw is simply a flake trimmed to a jagged edge, instead of
being sharpened by chipping or grinding. They are mostly of very
small size, and in some specimens the teeth are formed with remarkable
regularity and fineness. Though not so common as flint-knives, they
are not rare, and there are upwards of sixty specimens in the National
Museum.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, page 372.
Flint tools, seemingly intended for awls or borers, are not very common
in Scotland. Two kinds have been found――a long-pointed tool, which may
have been used for piercing holes in skins or other soft material, and
a shorter-pointed tool which may have been used for drilling holes in
harder material. Another class have been called flaking tools; they are
long and chisel-shaped, and usually appear blunted, worn, and rounded
at the ends, as if from attrition against a hard substance. They are
supposed to have been used for trimming and chipping other flint and
stone tools. The tool called a flint-scraper is a round-nosed flake,
with a semicircular end chipped to a bevelled edge, and usually flat
on the under side, with the upper side trimmed to a ridged form. There
are several varieties of this tool, and they seem to have been used for
various purposes. Some of them are double-edged, others circular; and
they also vary much in size. There seems to be no doubt that the larger
ones were used for scraping hides and preparing leather. It also seems
highly probable that the smaller class of these tools were used for
a distinctly different purpose――that of producing fire with a nodule
of pyrites of iron――in the same way as the flint and steel in our own
times to strike a light. For the purpose of producing sparks, pyrites
is as effective as iron, and they were so used among the Romans until
a comparative late period. Pyrites of iron abound in the chalk-beds
of England, but when they are exposed upon the surface of the ground
decomposition in no very long time removes all appearance of them.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 373‒376; Evans’
_Ancient Stone Implements_, etc., pages 269‒287, 367, _et
seq._
Flint is nowhere very abundant in Scotland, but there are some
localities which afford transported nodules in greater abundance than
others, and in these there is always evidence of a long-continued
and widespread industry in the manufacture of tools and weapons from
the raw material. A site of such a manufacture was discovered at the
confluence of the Leochel and the Don in Aberdeenshire, though flint
is not native in the neighbourhood.¹ There is evidence of many such
sites of flint manufactures, which, when closely examined, the mass of
splinters “usually reveals the fact that among them are many flakes,
cores, and unfinished implements, and not unfrequently hammer and
anvil-stones, and even perfectly finished knives, saws, arrow-heads,
or axes, may be occasionally found, although the rule is that only the
waste products of the manufacture are met with. From these and from
experimental knowledge of the qualities of the material the processes
of the fabrication may to some extent be inferred. The tools were
apparently, for the most part, naturally formed pebbles of quartz of
a shape and size convenient for the purposes for which they were used.
The larger pebbles, often of the shape and size of a cobbler’s lapstone,
seem to have been used as anvil-stones, while the smaller pebbles, of
such size and shape as could be conveniently grasped in the hand, have
been used as hammer-stones.”
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume IV., page 385.
“When the inferences deduced from an examination and comparison of the
chips, flakes, and cores, which compose the refuse of these ancient
flint workshops, are compared with the results of the methods still
employed, whether of savage arrow-makers or civilised manufacturers of
gun-flints and strike-a-lights, the ancient methods of workmanship are
found to coincide with the natural properties of the material and the
modern processes so far as they go. But the ancient flint-workers went
further than modern knowledge and modern skill can follow them. There
are some of their processes which have not been discovered by modern
science, and some of their products which cannot be imitated by modern
skill, with all its ingenuity of contrivance and all its resources of
means and appliances.”¹
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 374‒5; Evans’
_Ancient Stone Implements_, etc., pages 13‒48.
In this very brief account of the weapons, implements, and tools, of
our early ancestors of the stone age, we can discern clear evidence of
the knowledge, the ingenuity, and the skill which they possessed and
exercised in the practical uses which they made of the means within
their reach. These products of their industry, associated with their
daily life, shows one side of a striking form of culture, considering
the surrounding conditions and circumstances. There is another side of
this culture, in some respects even more remarkable, and to it I will
now turn.
Amongst all the prehistoric remains of Scotland there is scarcely
anything that surpasses the Chambered Cairns of the Stone Age in
significance and interest. Their great antiquity, their peculiarity
of type, and their structural characteristics, associated with the
phenomena of their internal deposits, offer a subject for examination
of prime historic value. There is little doubt that the Long Barrows of
England, and the Chambered Cairns of Caithness, Argyle, and Orkney, are
the monuments of one and the same people; and that in the latter, so
far as we can discover, we reach the representative of primeval man in
Scotland.
Both the long and the short horned cairns of Caithness differ widely
from those of the Bronze Age, and from those of all later periods.
Their structural type is distinguished by two characteristics, namely:
1, by having an internal chamber accessible by a passage; 2, by having
a regular external outline on the ground-plan, structurally defined
by a double or single retaining wall. During the last thirty years a
considerable number of them have been excavated and carefully explored;
and I cannot do better than reproduce briefly a description of a few
typical examples, and then present some details of their internal
contents.
The external dimensions of some of the horned cairns are very great. On
the crest of a hill overlooking the south end of the loch of Yarhouse,
in Caithness, there are two cairns of great magnitude not far from each
other. They lie across the hill from east to west, and have at both
their ends curved horn-like projections, falling gradually to the level
of the ground. The length of the longest one was two hundred and forty
feet, the breadth at its eastern end was sixty-six feet, and at its
western end thirty-six feet; but the curved horns expanded so that the
line across their tips at the eastern end was ninety-two feet, and at
the western end fifty-three feet. The height of the cairn at the east
end was twelve feet, sloping gradually to below five feet at the west
end. When the loose stones were removed from the upper part of the
highest end, a chamber with a passage leading into it was disclosed.
The outer opening of the passage was in the middle between the
projecting horns; and two flat stones placed on end, 2½ feet high,
formed the door jambs on the outside of the entrance. A well built
passage two feet wide runs inward for ten feet, and where it opens
into the chamber, two stones similar to those at the outside entrance,
but higher, are set on end, and form a doorway of eighteen inches wide.
The chamber itself is small compared with the external magnitude of the
cairn; and it only measured twelve feet in length from front to back,
and six feet from side to side. The side walls were entire to a height
of seven feet, and at this height they began to converge to form a
rudely vaulted roof, like the roofs of other erections of dry-built
stone. The chamber is divided into three parts by two pairs of
divisional stones projecting from the side walls opposite to each
other; these stones are undressed flags sunk on end into the floor,
and leaving about two feet between their edges. When the explorers
had cleared the three compartments of the chamber and ascertained
its construction, seeing that the chamber did not occupy more than
a twentieth part of the length of the cairn, they thought that other
chambers would be found within it. The centre was then tried, and
trials were made all round the cairn, but no other chamber was found
in it. The floor of the chamber itself was formed of a dark clay five
inches thick, intermixed with ashes and calcined bones, in a state of
extreme comminution; this layer was easily detached from the natural
subsoil below, and was raised in large cake like masses, each of which
was carried outside to be crumbled and searched. No single fragment
of bone was discovered exceeding an inch in length; and the few bits
which afforded any clear indications, such as portions of teeth and
jawbones, were unmistakably human. A number of small flint chips, and
two fragments of pottery, were the only manufactured articles found.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 230‒236.
The other cairn closely resembled the first one, and stood about three
hundred yards from it. But on the floor of the first compartment of
its chamber a cist was placed to the left of the entrance. The cist was
formed of slabs; and it was four feet four inches long, twenty inches
wide, and nine inches deep to the level of the floor; and in the dark
earthy clay inside of it, there was a whitish layer of softened bones
in a condition of extreme decay. In the east end of the cist, fragments
of an urn were found, and a necklace of small beads of lignite. The
floor of the chamber consisted of a layer of clay and ashes over six
inches thick, intermixed with burnt human bones, and animal bones;
and in the corners of the chamber there were numbers of human teeth,
of which the osseous parts had perished, and the enamel of the crowns
only remained. About three miles from this cairn, another of the same
character lies on the ridge of a height in the Moor of Camster. Its
contents presented phenomena similar to the preceding ones. In the
loose layer on the surface of the floor of the chamber, a few fragments
of skulls and other unburnt bones of the human skeleton were found,
mingled with the splintered bones of the horse, ox, deer, and swine. No
fragments of pottery, flint-chips, or tools of any kind were found in
it.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 237‒243.
In a short cairn of the horned class which lies on a small height at
Ormiegill, near Ulbster, there were found in its chamber a polished
hammer of gray granite, an oval flint knife, and an arrow head, several
flint flakes serrated on one side, and a number of well made scrapers.
Another of the same class, locally called the Cairn of Get, lies in
a hollow among the hills at Garrywhin, near Bruan. Its extreme length
is eighty feet, and its greatest breadth sixty feet; the horns project
about twenty feet in front, and about fifteen feet behind. On the
surface of the floor of the first compartment of the chamber there were
four unburnt human skeletons, and the skulls lying close to the wall
on the right of the entrance. The skulls appeared to Dr. Anderson “to
be fully as well formed as many of the heads to be seen on living men
of the present day.” In the compacted mass of the floor of the chamber,
there were an enormous quantity of human and animal bones, mostly more
or less burnt; and with these were intermixed many chips and flakes of
flint and fragments of pottery.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 244‒249.
There are many chambered cairns in Caithness without the external
peculiarity of horns, oval shaped or roundish ones, some of which have
been excavated, and the internal characteristics of their structure
are similar to that of the preceding ones. On the crests of the hills
of Yarhouse, there were four chambered cairns which the late Mr. A. H.
Rhind explored. On the surface of the floors of the chambers he found
unburnt bones and pottery, and in the layers burnt bones and pottery,
but no flints or tools of any description. Dr. Anderson excavated
another cairn on the hill above Bruan, the characteristics of which he
considered as forming a connecting link between the Caithness and the
Orkney forms of chambered cairns. This cairn was forty feet in diameter
and fourteen feet in height, and the passage was ten feet long and two
feet nine inches wide at the entrance, where it was three feet high,
increasing in width and height inwards to the chamber. The interior
differed from that of the preceding ones, inasmuch as it consisted
of a principal chamber of two compartments, and also presented the
peculiarity of a small side chamber opening off the principal one. The
divisional slabs did not rise to the roof, which formed one vault over
both the compartments of the chamber. The walls sloped outwards from
the base to near the middle of their height, and were then brought
inward above the middle by the overlapping of the stones to form
a dome-shaped roof. The small side chamber off the principal one,
measured four feet by three, and three feet six inches in height. Its
floor was formed of a single flag, and on raising it, another flag
was found underneath, and under both a layer of clay four inches deep,
intermingled with charcoal, ashes, and burnt bones; and under this
layer there was a third flag which lay upon the subsoil of the hill.
The entire floor of the principal chamber and the inner part of the
entrance passage was a mass twelve inches thick of broken and burnt
bones mixed with ashes; the human bones were numerous, but so much
broken that it was impossible to determine how many skeletons they
represented. Amongst the animal bones, those of the horse, ox, red-deer,
sheep or goat, and a large-sized dog, were distinguishable. A number of
flint chips, a great quantity of broken pottery, amounting to several
hundreds of fragments, and an oblong pebble with smoothed ends and
sides, and a flat piece of bone three inches long, with a smoothed
chisel-like edge, were found.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Stone and Bronze Ages_, pages 253‒260. A group
of three cairns at Rhinavie, near Skelpick, in Strathnaver,
Sutherlandshire, were examined by the late Mr. MacKay of
Skelpick at the instance of the late Dr. John Stuart; and
more recently, they have been described by the Rev. Robert
Munro, in the _Proceedings of the Society of the Antiquaries
of Scotland_, Volume XVIII., page 228, _et seq._
As mentioned in a preceding page, the long cairns have been found in
many parts of England, in some of the south-western counties, also in
Yorkshire, and they are numerous in Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, and
Dorsetshire. The long cairns of Caithness “agree with those of England
in being, as a rule, placed approximately east and west, also in having
one end, and that the east, broader and higher than the other, as well
as in other particulars. They are also frequently provided with walls,
which enclose and support them, and have sometimes the peculiarity of
having what have been termed ‘horns.’ These are formed by the enclosing
walls inclining outwards at the ends and then returning with a curve
inwards, making at the point in question a figure something like the
conventional representation of the human heart. This curve usually
constitutes the mode of approach into the burial chamber when it is
placed at the end of the mound. The same remarkable feature is found
in some of the long barrows of the south-west of England. The barrow,
then (a long one at Upper Swell, in Gloucestershire,) may be taken as
a fairly illustrative specimen of the horned variety of Long Barrow――a
variety of the tumulus of the non-metallic period which is represented
in Caithness, as described by Dr. Joseph Anderson, as well as in the
south-west of England, and found to contain there interments similarly
arranged, and pottery and implements of similar type and rudeness
to those we have found here.... This Upper Swell barrow, however,
differs from the other horned cairns in Caithness, Wiltshire, and
Gloucestershire, in having its grave sunk below the natural surface
of the ground, instead of being represented by a chamber with upright
slabs for its walls, and placed on the surface and defined by the
piling of stones round it.”¹ On the other hand, the English specimens
of Long Barrows with horns, have the horns at one end only, usually
at the widest end; while the Caithness cairns have horns at both ends,
and externally this is the chief difference between them. But in the
internal arrangements of the chambers there are also, as might be
expected, several varying features. The character of the internal
deposits in those of England and the North are remarkably similar; the
bones of animals of the same species are found in both, and the tools
and pottery, though not usually numerous in either of their contents,
are also similar; but in the south of England the interments in them
are mostly unburnt, while in the north of Scotland cremation seems to
have been more common.²
¹ _British Barrows_, by Wm. Greenwell, M.A., pages 480, 481,
535‒536.
² “The similarity of this pottery, whether found in
Caithness, the East Riding of Yorkshire, Gloucestershire,
or Wiltshire, is a fact of less doubtful interpretation
and greater significance; especially when we couple with
it a consideration of the similarity of the weapons and
implements, of the similarity of the ground plans of the
Scottish horned cairns and of so many of the Gloucestershire,
Wiltshire, and Somersetshire long barrows, and finally
of the similarity of the skulls from the neolithic
tumuli of all these localities. These similarities are
the more surprising when we recollect how difficult
intercommunication must have been at the period when they
existed.” _British Barrows_, page 537. “The occurrence of
animal bones is another frequent incident. It is rare indeed
to meet with a barrow (where the material is such as to
favour the preservation of bone) without a considerable
number of them being scattered indiscriminately throughout
the mound.... For instance, in one at Rudstone, they were
literally in hundreds, placed with flint-chippings and
shreds of pottery, in a dark-coloured, unctuous layer,
which extended throughout the whole area of the mound,
on the natural surface of the ground.... They may be the
remains of food offered to the dead, an observance which has
extensively prevailed in many countries and in various ages.
They would in this case form part of the practice of the
worship of our ancestors, which has been a feature almost
universal in the growth of the religions of the human race,
and allied always with fear.” _Ibid._, pages 9, 10.
Having indicated at some length one characteristic type of sepulchral
constructions, which prevailed in both divisions of the island, which
seems to show that one ♦homogeneous race had spread over Britain at
a very remote period. The other varieties of chambered cairns can
be noticed only in the briefest terms. Farther north than Caithness,
in the Orkney Isles, there is a remarkable group of cairns of an
exceedingly interesting character; the most notable of these is the
chambered mound of Maeshowe. It lies about a mile to the east of
the great stone circle of Stennis, and externally it presents the
appearance of a mound thirty-six feet in height, ninety-two feet in
diameter, and surrounded by a trench forty feet wide, and still in
some parts eight feet deep. When it was opened from the top a central
chamber was discovered, which measured about fifteen feet square on the
level of the floor, and thirteen feet in height to the top of the walls;
but the upper part of the wall had fallen in, and its original height
may have been about twenty feet. In the east, north, and south sides
of the chamber there are three small openings, at a height of three
feet above the floor, which gives access to cells measuring about four
feet six inches wide, from seven feet to five feet six inches long,
and three feet high. In the middle of the west side of the chamber, the
passage leading to the outside of the mound opens; the doorway is four
feet eight inches high, and three feet four inches wide, decreasing in
height and width as it proceeds outward, and at the external entrance
it is only two feet four inches wide. At thirty feet outward from
the chamber there are checks for a door, and behind them a recess in
one side of the passage, in front of which there was a slab, which
might have been used as a door; and from this point inward the passage
is four feet four inches high, and three feet three inches wide,
continuing thus for twenty-six feet, when it becomes narrowed to two
feet five inches by two slabs placed upright to form checks for the
inmost door.²
♦ “homogenous” replaced with “homogeneous”
² _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume V., pages 247‒252; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Annals of
Scotland_, Volume I., page 67. I was deeply indebted to the
late Mr. Andrew Gibb, F.S.A. Scotland, of Aberdeen, for
particulars about Maeshowe, and suggestions on many other
points of our prehistoric annals.
The chamber is built of undressed slabs and blocks of the close-grained
claystone of the locality, and, although the walls are built without
any lime or mortar, the masonry is very neat. “Whoever built it, the
chamber of Maeshowe is the most perfect and elegant known to exist in
any sepulchre of its class, on this side of the Alps.”¹ Dr. Anderson
remarks that the indications of its original purpose, and the evidence
of its earlier history, probably lay hidden in its floor, “and have not
been placed on record either by its earlier or later explorers.” From
the character of the structure itself, however, he rightly classes it
with the Caithness chambered cairns.²
¹ _The Brochs and the Rude Stone Monuments of the Orkney
Islands and the North of Scotland_, by J. Fergusson, D.C.L.,
page 28, 1877.
² Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, page 280. It is believed
on pretty good evidence that the chamber of Maeshowe was
broken open by the Norsemen, in the hope of finding treasure,
about the middle of the twelfth century. The walls of
the chamber are covered with Runic inscriptions slightly
scratched on the stones, comprising, it is said, nearly
one thousand letters, and there is no doubt that the
inscriptions were made after the breaking open of the mound.
See _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume V., pages 247‒252, 262‒278; and Anderson’s _Bronze
and Stone Ages_, pages 277‒279.
At Quoyness, in Elsness, in the Island of Sanday, Orkney, a large
chambered cairn was explored in 1867. It lies close to the sea, only
a few feet above high water mark; and its size had been reduced by the
removal of stones for various purposes before it was examined. It was
circular in form, with the entrance to the passage on the south-east
side, and the passage was twenty-four feet long, three feet high, and
twenty inches wide, covered by flat stones laid across, and slightly
widening and increasing in height towards the chamber. The chamber was
oblong, and measured twelve feet six inches in length, and five feet
six inches wide; the walls still stood to a height of twelve feet, but
the roof was gone. Opening off the chamber there were six entrances
to six small oval cells, two of which were placed on each of the long
sides of the central chamber, and one at each of its ends. The walls
of the cells rose with an inward curve to a height of from five to six
feet, and then their roofs were closed with flat stones; the largest of
these cells was seven feet two inches long, and four feet eight inches
wide, and the others somewhat smaller. “At the distance of twelve feet
within the external wall there was a retaining wall, within the mass
of the cairn surrounding the chamber, similar to that in the cairn at
Ormiegill, near Ulbster, in Caithness. The structural characteristics
of this cairn thus combine the peculiarities of two local groups:
the double external walling defining its circular outlines, and the
retaining wall surrounding the chamber, are features of the Caithness
group, and the oblong rectangular chamber, with smaller cells opening
from its sides, are features of the Orkney group.” In the central
chamber, and in three of the smaller cells, quantities of unburnt human
bones were found; and Dr. Thurnam said of them:――“There are fragments
of twelve or fifteen skulls, some male and some female, some of them
children or quite young persons; one or two of them have the appearance
of being cleft prior to being interred, and the teeth in the lower jaws
are much corroded.” Two implements of polished stone were found in one
of the side cells, and a bone tool seven inches long.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 283‒287.
There are other cairns in Orkney of a similar structure. At Quanterness,
near Kirkwall, on the north side of the Wideford Hill, there was
one a hundred and twenty-eight feet in circumference at the base,
and fourteen feet in height. On the western slope of the same hill,
overlooking the Bay of Firth, there is another of a similar class,
which was explored by Mr. George Petrie in 1849. In its chamber
and side cells quantities of the bones of the horse, ox, sheep,
and swine, were found, but no human remains were noticed. There are
other sepulchral cairns in Orkney which show features more closely
resembling the Caithness group. On the Holm of Papa Westray, there
is a cairn which presented the threefold division of the chamber, so
characteristic of the Caithness cairns; and another in the Island of
Burray, which was sixty feet in length. On the floor of the chamber
of the Burray cairn, the remains of a large number of unburnt human
skeletons were found; and ten human skulls were lying in the first
compartment of the chamber, near the opening of the entrance passage.
Large quantities of the bones of the common domestic animals were
identified, amongst which were the skulls of seven dogs. At Ustan,
near the Bridge of Waith, Stennis, a chambered cairn which lies on
a little promontory projecting into the lake, was recently excavated
by Mr. R. S. Clouston. It is round, but it presented the constructive
characteristics of the Caithness cairns, except a slight variation in
the internal arrangement. A passage two feet wide and fourteen feet
in length, led into an oblong chamber of twenty-one feet long, and six
feet six inches at its widest part. The chamber was divided into five
compartments, by slabs placed on edge similar to the Caithness cairns.
The sepulchral deposits in this cairn were almost similar to those
found in the chambered cairns of Caithness and Argyle. In the floor
of the chamber and the inner part of the passage, a large quantity of
unburnt human bones and animal bones were found; and numerous fragments
of pottery, supposed to represent about thirty urns, and also charcoal
and burnt bones were found. The implements and weapons found in the
chamber, consisted of four leaf-shaped arrow-heads of large size, and
well formed, and one with barbs and stem of smaller size, a finely made
flint scraper, and a flint knife with the edge ground smooth, and a
flint flaking tool.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 287‒298. “Taking
the Orkney group of chambered cairns as a whole, we find
it presenting the same essential characteristics as are
exhibited by the groups which have been described on the
mainland of Scotland. There is a considerable variation
in the arrangement of the chambers, and a strongly marked
tendency to a grouping of smaller cells round the main
chamber, which may be regarded as a local characteristic
peculiar to the Orkney Islands. But with this local
peculiarity there are associated instances of the tripartite
chamber so characteristic of the northern mainland area, and
in several cases the still more characteristic features of
the bounding wall and the curved extremities are presented.”
_Ibid._, page 299.
A group of cairns once existed in the plain of Clava, in ♦Strathnairn,
a few miles from Inverness. There seems to have been seven or eight
cairns, of these, only two now remain in a condition to show the
characteristics of their structure. Complete and accurate ground plans
of these have recently been published.²
♦ “Strathnain” replaced with “Strathnairn”
² By Mr. J. Fraser, C.E.; see also _Proceedings of the Society
of Antiquaries of Scotland_, Volume XVIII., page 328, _et
seq._
Perhaps it may be thought, that I should offer some explanation of the
occurrence of such large quantities of animal bones found intermingled
with the human remains in the series of cairn interments, which have
been briefly described. This, however, can hardly, as yet, be presented
in a satisfactory manner; but some customs and incidents, supposed to
have been associated with the funerals of the departed in prehistoric
times, may be mentioned. It has been repeatedly asserted that our early
ancestors of the stone period were addicted to cannibalism; that at
their tombs many human victims, mothers and infants, were sacrificed;
and that at their great funeral feasts there was always a general
holocaust of human and animal sacrifice. But the evidence adduced
to prove the prevalence of these practices among the prehistoric
inhabitants of this Island is utterly insufficient. Indeed, much
of what has been advanced as evidence of such customs amongst the
people of the Neolithic period in Britain, rests upon an unwarranted
assumption which assumes this form:――Seeing that in such and such
quarters of the globe certain existing savage tribes are addicted
to cannibalism, and certain other savage tribes in some other part
of the earth practice the custom of human sacrifice; these tribes are
in a certain social stage, the stone age people of Britain were in a
similar stage; therefore, the stone age people of Britain must have
been addicted to cannibalism, and human sacrifice. Funeral feasts were,
no doubt common, at which many animals were killed, but that human
beings were sacrificed at these feasts in Britain, there is no reliable
evidence to prove.¹
¹ Sir J. Lubbock, Mr. Bateman, and Dr. Thurnam, have asserted
that human sacrifice prevailed in Britain in prehistoric
times, and the latter especially, implicitly averred that
the stone age people were cannibals, and that even the
bronze age people practised human sacrifice. In a paper
published in the third volume of the _Memoirs of the
Anthropological Society of London_, in 1870, Dr. Thurnam
maintained that the people who constructed the Long Barrows
of England were addicted to many extremely barbarous customs,
and that, “if not addicted to cannibalism, they, without
doubt, sacrificed many human victims, whose cleft skulls
and half-charred bones are found in their tombs,” page 76.
In the first edition of this volume, published in 1877, I
canvassed his evidence for the above assertions, and found
it altogether insufficient to sustain his conclusions. I
also carefully examined the evidence advanced by Sir J.
Lubbock in reference to the prevalence of these inhuman
practices among the prehistoric people of Britain, and found
it not only quite insufficient, but in many points clearly
irrelevant and inapplicable, while some of his far-fetched
analogies and inferences based thereon, were manifestly
delusive. I am, therefore, glad to find that Mr. Wm.
Greenwell, and the late Professor Rolleston, have contested
Dr. Thurnam’s conclusions. They have given more reasonable
and probable explanations of the contents and the phenomena
of the barrows. See especially pages 544‒548, of that great
and invaluable work――_British Barrows_, by Wm. Greenwell,
M.A., F.S.A., 1879. In the very able and exhaustive
remarks which Professor Rolleston made upon the series
of prehistoric Crania, discovered in the barrows which
Mr. Greenwell had so carefully explored, he completely
overthrows Dr. Thurnam’s conclusions on the points in
question. I can only give a short quotation:――“I have to say
that the bones found in the Long Barrows of England do not
seem to me to bear the interpretation which Dr. Thurnam has
put upon them.” He proceeds to show at length the grounds
and the reasons why Dr. Thurnam’s conclusions are untenable,
pages 684‒692. Rolleston then remarks, the question arises,
“how is it that in the very large number of interments
recorded in this book we have never come upon any bony
remains bearing their evidence to the existence of a
practice which is spoken of by such a very large number of
literary authorities? In answer to this, I have to say that
the literary evidence, when duly considered, proves simply
that slaves and captives were slaughtered at the funeral of
their lords, without proving that they were allowed to lie
beside them afterwards.... We have a large mass of literary
evidence in favour of the continuation of this practice into
historical times amongst the Gauls, and other foreign races
with whom the Romans and Greeks came into contact.” _Ibid._,
pages 684, 692.
In so far as the early inhabitants of Britain are concerned,
I attach very little importance to this mass of literary
evidence; when closely examined, it yields no definite or
conclusive evidence on the points in question.
As already indicated, the bones of animals found in the chambered
cairns may be the remains of food offered to the dead; and thus would
have formed a part of the worship of their ancestors, so that feasts
might not only have been celebrated at the actual funerals, but also
long afterwards at certain times in commemoration of the departed
ancestors. There also may have been a form of animal worship among our
ancestors of the Stone Age, which may have assumed practical expression
in association with the interment of the dead. Reasoning by analogy,
they may have imagined that seeing animals were exceedingly useful
to the living, therefore they must be useful to the dead. On the same
ground of imagined use to the dead, we may account for the occurrence
of weapons, tools, and ornaments in the closest association with human
remains.
Regarding the extreme comminution of the human remains in the chambered
cairns of Scotland, several causes may reasonably be assigned. First,
the process of cremation which seems to have been the prevailing mode
of burial in these cairns, though not exclusively so, as unburnt
remains also occur in them. This taken in connection with the great
antiquity of the interments, the thousands of years which have elapsed
since they took place, and the action of the natural agencies around
them during that long period. Second, it seems obvious that in many of
these cairns numerous interments have been made at longer or shorter
intervals; and this might partly account for the bones being so much
broken and mixed as they appear in the compacted layers of the floors
in the internal chambers. But owing to the very limited dimensions
of the entrance passages leading into the internal chambers of these
cairns, it is hardly conceivable that interments could have often taken
place after the cairns were externally and internally finished. It is
possible that there may have been some interments after the completion
of a cairn, as a person might have crept through the low narrow passage
with an urn, and placed it on the floor of the chamber; but it is in
the highest degree improbable that this mode of depositing the remains
took place. Such being the real state of the matter, I offer the
following view as to how the interments were originally made:――1, When
a site for a cairn was fixed on, the first thing done was to mark off
the ground plan of the cairn and to erect the external retaining wall;
2, Then the space where the internal chamber of the cairn was to be
erected, was definitely marked off; 3, Interments might then be made
in the space where the chamber was designed to be. Now it is not only
conceivable, but also highly probable, that the structure may have
remained in this incomplete state for an indefinite period; and thus
a number of successive interments on the same spot could have been
made through one or more generations, or until the head of the family
or tribe resolved that the structure should be completed. The great
funeral feasts would be held in and around the outline of the cairn at
each successive interment; and also the feasts held in commemoration
of their departed ancestors. On which occasions the actions and
proceedings of the people in giving expression to their worship and
rejoicing, were all performed on and around the same spot. We may
imagine the scene: the slaughter and roasting of horses, oxen, sheep,
and dogs; and the people moving to and fro in a state of intense
excitement, when the remains of another ancestor was consigned to its
last resting place. This view of successive interments before the cairn
was closed up and completed, would in some measure at least account for
the layers on the floors of the chambers, and the state of the human
remains as we now find them.
It has been said that, “there is not a vestige of a dwelling or a
defensive construction in Scotland which can be proved by evidence to
be the work of the men of the Stone Age.”¹ This may be the case; and
yet we may be certain that the people who erected the chambered cairns
of Scotland, would have contrived to construct dwellings to protect
themselves from the cold and frost, incident to a rather severe climate.
Although they have left much clear evidence of their skill and industry
in relation to the dead, still we cannot assume that the dead were more
cared for than the living. If no trace of the dwellings in which they
lived can be found, then they must have been a very peculiar people. We
have seen evidence that they had horses, cattle, swine, and dogs; and
that they were skilful in making tools and weapons in such materials as
were available to them. Let us therefore carefully look over the many
prehistoric structures of Scotland, and try to find if any of them can
be assigned to the men of the Stone Age.
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, page 305; 1886.
There is only one type of structures which could on any reasonable
grounds be assigned to this period, and that is the “earth houses.”
The period of this class has been recently fixed as lying between
“the general establishment of Christianity and the departure of the
Romans from Scotland.” The grounds on which this conclusion rests are
these:――1, That in two of the earth-houses some of the stones in their
walls had distinctively Roman mouldings on them; and consequently
they must have been built after the Roman occupation. One of these was
discovered near the village of Newstead, Roxburghshire, and the other
at Crichton Mains, in Mid Lothian. A Roman type of pottery and traces
of Samian ware have also been found in some of the earth-houses. 2,
“The presence in most of them of querns and implements of the Iron Age,
and the entire absence of such implements as are characteristic of the
ages of stone and bronze.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 300‒304.
The first point is conclusive evidence so far as it goes; but it
does not follow that these two earth-houses were the first structures
of this type built in Scotland. For anything that we know their
construction might have been the result of special circumstances
of an individual character. So far as known, the earth-houses are
not numerous in that quarter of the country. Let it then be clearly
understood, that merely to show the limit of the age of one or two
in a certain locality, is not conclusive evidence of the origin and
the possible age of a type of so peculiarly characteristic structures,
spread over a wide area, unless where other evidence in harmony with
the natural and known surroundings of the people is adduced. Thus the
strongest point is inconclusive touching the origin and possible age
of this special class of structures.
The second point is not quite accurate. For it is recorded that some
of the earth houses have been found empty; that in others cinders and
charred wood, the bones of the ox, deer, and other animals, shells and
remains of fish, a few objects of flint, bone, and bronze, as well as
querns and iron implements, have been discovered in them.¹ Although
there had been nothing but querns and iron implements found in
them, that would not afford conclusive evidence as to their origin
and possible age, but only evidence of their latest frequenters or
temporary occupiers.
¹ _Chalmers’ Caledonia_, Volume I., page 97; Wilson’s
_Prehistoric Annals of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 108‒110;
_Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 260‒263; Volume III., pages 465‒471; Volume
IV., pages 64, 492‒499; Volume VI., pages 249‒250; Volume
VII., pages 276, 532‒534; Volume VIII., page 24; Volume X.
page 287.
1, Now it can hardly be questioned that the men who erected the
horned and chambered cairns were capable in point of skill, power,
and persistency of will, to construct the earth-houses. This much will
be admitted. 2, Taking into account the climate and the circumstances
under which our ancestors of the Stone Age lived and moved; and also
having regard to their imperfect means of protecting themselves from
the biting cold and frost, if we duly consider these things, it will
at once be perceived that the earth-houses were the most suitable
dwellings for their condition and circumstances. 3, Let us carefully
examine the entrances and passages of the chambered cairns, the
internal structure and characteristics of the chambers; and then
compare these with the entrances and the galleries and chambers of the
earth-houses, not fanciful but striking resemblances will be perceived
between the two classes of structures. Indeed this resemblance is
so marked that it is difficult to imagine that they were not both
constructed by the same people. 4, So far as I know, the people of
the Stone Age were a quiet race; and seeing that they found leisure to
erect such great memorials to the dead, it may be reasonably assumed
that they also found time to erect the earth-houses, which were in
harmony with their genius and conditions of life, excepting of course
the two with the Roman stones, which were no doubt the product of
some eccentric and timid individual, born out of due time. 5, It is
well known that the different races and tribes in Scotland, after the
departure of the Romans, were so much engaged in conflicts with one
another that they could scarcely have found time to construct the
earth-houses, which could not have been built in a day or perhaps in
a year. Besides, is there any direct evidence that the Celtic people
of Scotland constructed underground galleries for any purpose after
the departure of the Romans? There was but one people whose genius,
condition, and circumstances, harmonised with the earth-houses, and
that was the race who erected the chambered cairns.
The area of the earth-houses extends from Berwickshire to the Orkney
Islands, embracing all the eastern region of Scotland; but not many of
them have been discovered on the south side of the Forth. These curious
structures are sometimes found singly, and sometimes in groups of
from five up to forty. Many of them lie in cultivated lands, and have
often been discovered by the plough striking on the stones of their
roofs. I will first give a general description of their structure, and
then point out the features which bear a resemblance to some of the
characteristics of the chambered cairns.
Their chief features are:――1, They are under the natural level of
the ground; 2, A narrow and low entrance, apt to escape notice, and a
narrow passage; 3, A more or less curved chamber, gradually widening
inwards and usually terminating with a rounded end; 4, The internal
characteristics of the chamber, which is sometimes single, in others
small chambers run off the main one, to the right and left; 5,
Converging side walls which support a lintelled roof. They vary greatly
in size, but their features are pretty similar.
At Airlie, in Forfarshire, there is a group of five, one of which
was sixty-seven feet long, and about seven feet wide. The entrance
was under two feet in height, and the floor gradually slopes down for
twenty feet till it reaches a height of six feet. The walls are pretty
regularly built of undressed boulders, and they converge inward to
four feet at the roof, which is formed of large stones, many of them
over seven feet long and four feet wide. Its contents consisted of an
accumulation of ashes, and bones of animals, fragments of querns, a
stone vessel, and a brass pin.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Iron Ages_, page 292.
In 1816, Professor John Stuart of Aberdeen, discovered a group spread
over a space of about a mile in diameter, on what was then a dry
moor,¹ in the parishes of Auchindoir and Kildrummy, Aberdeenshire.
He estimated the number then discovered in this locality at upwards
of forty; and he states that the ground where they lay had originally
been a forest, as the trunks of large trees were still dug up there.
There was no indication of them on the surface of the ground. The only
entrance was a small opening of about eighteen inches wide between two
projecting stones, through which a man might enter, and then descending
a sloping passage of five or six feet, he comes to a vaulted chamber.
The chambers of this group are from six to eight feet in height, from
six to nine feet wide, and thirty feet long and upwards. They are
built of rough blocks of granite, many of which are five to six feet
long and more than a ton in weight; the side walls converge inward by
overlapping to form a rude arch, and are covered with large stones. On
the surface of the ground close to these structures, Professor Stuart
found a number of spaces from ten to fifteen yards square, and about
two feet deep, with the earth thrown outward; and these excavated
spaces he conjectured to have been the sites of the summer huts of the
people, who retired to the underground places in winter, and stored
their provisions in them all the year round. He added that no articles
of furniture or instruments either of stone or metal had been found
in them, so far as could be ascertained, but only wood, ashes, and
charcoal――mostly at the inmost end, where in some of them a small
opening appeared at the top, supposed to be an outlet for the smoke.²
Foundations of huts on the surface of the ground have been observed in
association with a few other earth-houses, one example was found near
Arbroath, in Forfarshire.³
¹ This moor is now under cultivation.
² _Archæologia Scotica_, Volume II., pages 56‒58.
³ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume IV., pages 492‒499.
In other localities the earth-houses vary much in length, some examples
reaching to sixty feet long; and as already observed, some of them have
smaller chambers branching off the main chamber. But on the whole they
are remarkably similar in structure.
Some resemblances between those underground houses and the chambered
cairns may now be noticed. 1, The hidden nature of the entrance, and
its lowness and narrowness, are features peculiar to both classes of
structures. From a comparison of a considerable number of recorded
measurements of the height and width of both classes of structures
at their entrances, I have found that the highest entrance in an
earth-house is 3 feet, and the lowest 18 inches, the average being
about 2 feet. Now the highest entrance of a chambered cairn is 3 feet
6 inches, and its width 2 feet, while the lowest is 21 inches in height,
and the same in breadth. The average height and width of the entrances
to the passages of the cairns and those of the earth-houses are almost
identical; and it is difficult to believe that this coincidence could
have been the result of chance. 2, In some of the earth-houses there
are small chambers opening off the main chamber, a feature which occurs
in some of the chambered cairns. 3, The mode of forming the roof or
the device for closing in the walls at the top is similar in both
classes of these structures. 4, These coincidences and similarities are
difficult to explain, except upon the ground that both classes of these
structures were originated by one race of people, and belong to the
same period. Moreover the bones of the same animals have been found
in both classes of structures; while the mere absence of stone weapons
and implements is not of much historic significance, seeing that these
rarely occur even in the chambered cairns themselves.
The most probable conclusion seems to be that the people of the Stone
Age, who erected the chambered cairns, also originated the underground
structures which we call earth-houses; and that they constructed a
considerable number of those specimens which are still known to exist,
though not necessarily the whole of them. In succeeding centuries such
structures may have been constructed in localities where the exigences
and circumstances of the people suggested their utility, down even to
the time of the departure of the Romans. I take the view suggested by
Professor Stuart, that from the first these underground structures have
never been continuously occupied as common dwellings, but only at the
seasons of extreme cold and frost, when the people resorted to them
in order to protect themselves in some measure from the inclemency
of the weather. Recently distinct traces of overground huts have been
discovered, so closely associated with earth-houses as to leave no
doubt that both belonged to the same family. Still it seems that some
at least of the earth-houses were occasionally frequented by certain
people even late into the Iron Age; but that circumstance affords no
evidence to invalidate the conclusion that they were originated by and
belonged to the Stone Age people.¹
¹ There is a group of underground structures in Ireland,
but they differ considerably from the Scottish class. The
Irish specimens are mostly associated with forts or raths,
excavated in the ground and enclosed by the rampart of a
fort; and they consist of various forms of chambers which
are connected by low narrow passages. There is also a group
of underground structures in Cornwall, which in some of
their features resemble those of Scotland; but they appear
to have been usually associated with overground dwellings.
From the natural features of the country, and the very varied
intersection of the land and water, it might be expected that boats
would have come into use at an early period, and this appears to have
been the case. The primitive boats of the early inhabitants were made
by simply hollowing out the middle of a single oak tree with such tools
as have been described, or some have supposed that this was effected
by the application of fire. They are sometimes called canoes, and have
been often found in lakes associated with the Crannogs. But they have
been discovered in every quarter of the country, in lochs and mosses,
on the banks and in the beds of rivers; and many of them have been
found imbedded at a depth of from thirteen to thirty feet below the
surface of the ground. In Lochar Moss, Dumfriesshire, a track bordering
on the Solway Firth, a number of canoes have from time to time been
dug up, one of which measured 8 feet 8 inches in length, 2 feet in
breadth, and 11 inches in depth. The Valley of the Clyde has yielded
the greatest number of these single tree boats. Under the streets of
Glasgow, and in its vicinity, when digging the foundation of houses,
cutting drains, and in operations connected with the harbour work,
and the dredging of the channel of the Clyde, nearly thirty have been
discovered.¹ These vary considerably in length and depth, but they all
belong to the first stage of shipbuilding; which here, and from this
primitive starting-point, has at last attained a development as yet
unsurpassed in any quarter of the globe.
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 44, 211‒213; Volume VI., pages 119, 121,
146, 148, 458; J. Geikie’s _Great Ice Age_, page 212;
Wilson’s _Prehistoric Annals of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
52‒55.
From what has been presented in the preceding pages, we may imagine
our early ancestors of the Stone Age as living and moving in a state
of comparative safety and comfort. They possessed the greater number
of the domesticated animals which are still common in this country;
they built such structures for habitations as were suited to their
condition and the surrounding circumstances, and the means within their
reach. They manifested much intelligence, skill, and industry in the
manufacture of their weapons, tools, and implements――using the only
available means and materials at their command with admirable ingenuity
and striking effect. We can discern and trace the evidence of mind
and of thought even in the fragments of their works; and the memorials
which they erected to the memory of the dead, have long survived the
wreck of proud empires, dynasties, and thrones.
SECTION V.
_The Bronze Age._
This section will deal with the introduction of metals, and touch on
the transition from the stone to the bronze period. A description of
the various bronze objects, weapons, tools, and gold ornaments will
be presented. The defensive works, habitations, and other matters
associated with the daily life of the people will be treated. The
modes of burial of the bronze period, and the phenomena associated with
interments. Finally, an expository statement and summary touching the
religion, social state, and culture of the prehistoric people will be
offered.
The question of the introduction of the use of metals or bronze is
easily understood, but the question of the origin of bronze, or the
original centre where it was discovered, is a more difficult matter,
and has caused much inquiry and discussion. It is the first only of
these questions which comes within the scope of my work, and the second
will be very briefly touched. As to the original centre where bronze
was discovered, this is a problem still under discussion; and, like the
origin of the Aryans, it is not likely to be soon solved. Some writers
have pointed to Western Asia, the supposed cradle and original source
of early civilisation; but, in truth, when or where the alloy called
bronze was first discovered and manufactured for use no one really
knows.¹ It is, however, well ascertained that bronze weapons and tools
were used much earlier in some quarters of the globe than in others,
for instance in Egypt, and the regions around the Mediterranean, long
before it was used in Britain or other Northern European countries.²
¹ Touching the early sources of copper and tin in Europe,
it may be observed that native copper occurs in Hungary,
Norway, Sweden, Saxony and Cornwall; and copper and its ores
are abundant in Ireland. Copper pyrites is very general in
most countries of the world, in more or less abundance. In
early times tin seems to have been found in large quantities
in some parts of Spain; and we know that the tin mines of
Cornwall, in Britain, were worked at an early period. In
the East, Malacca was a source from which tin may have been
obtained in early times. Evans’ _Ancient Bronze Implements_,
pages 419, 424.
² Bronze was extensively used in Egypt for weapons and tools
as early as 3000 B.C.; but the use of iron seems to have
been restricted, owing probably to some religious motive.
_Ibid._, pages 6, 7, 8. Among the Aryans iron seems to have
been used at an early period.
Concerning the means through which the use of bronze was introduced
to Britain different views have been held. Some authorities have
maintained that the use of bronze was spread from a common centre by an
intruding and conquering race, or the migration of tribes; others hold
that the people of each separate country, where bronze is known to have
been used, discovered the art independently and manufactured their own
implements; some again maintain that the art was discovered and the
articles manufactured on one spot, and thence disseminated by means of
commerce; and finally, others aver that the art of making bronze was
spread from a common centre, but that the implements were usually made
in the countries in which they have been found.¹ A discussion of these
views would require a separate volume, and I can only indicate the
region whence Britain, or rather Scotland, probably received the first
instruction in the use of bronze.
¹ _Ibid._, page 475. “The familiarity of the ancient Britons
with tin, though this metal does not occur in a native state,
may be readily accounted for from the one being frequently
found near the surface, and requiring only the use of
charcoal and a very moderate degree of heat to reduce it
to the state of metal.” Wilson’s _Prehistoric Annals of
Scotland_, Volume I., page 304. 1863.
It has frequently been stated that the use of bronze was introduced
into Britain by invasion and conquest. Professor Dawkins advances the
idea that the Celts arrived on the southern shores of Britain with
bronze swords in their hands, and thus introduced the use of bronze
into this country.¹ But this mode of explanation is seldom satisfactory,
unless well supported by other circumstances and evidence; and,
although it is highly probable that the people of Britain did receive
the knowledge of the use of bronze from France, it was by means of
barter and not by warfare; seeing that the first arrival of Celtic
tribes in the south of Britain was probably long anterior to the
general use of bronze in France itself or the Continent. It appears
to me that the Celts had overrun the whole of England, and penetrated
into Scotland, as far at least as Glenmore, before bronze began to
be introduced in the south of Britain. The view which supposes that
the art of making bronze was discovered at a single centre, where
implements were manufactured and afterwards spread by commerce, is
probably in a limited sense true. For wheresoever the discovery of
bronze may have originated, there is evidence of its use having spread
over the greater part of Europe, and probably at first bronze tools
and implements were widely diffused by barter. The view, however, which
comes nearest to the requisite conditions of the known facts everywhere
associated with the subject, assumes that the art of making bronze
was spread from a common centre, though the weapons and tools were
manufactured in greater or less numbers in each country where the use
of bronze prevailed. This does not imply that in any given district all
the weapons and tools found in it were of home manufacture, and none of
them imported, for there is evidence in most countries that some of the
bronze articles found there are of foreign manufacture, and had been
introduced by commerce or other means of intercourse.²
¹ _Early Man in Britain_, pages 321, 322, 343. 1880. This
writer is perhaps wrong in his statement of facts and in
the inferences which he draws. The Silures, whom he supposes
to have been Iberians, were in all probability mixed
Celtic tribes. And this much is certain, that the tribes
called Silures, made a desperate and prolonged resistance
to the advance of the Roman legions――a resistance quite
inconsistent with the feeble characteristics of the Iberians.
² Evans’ _Ancient Bronze Implements_, pages 420, 475‒477.
There is ample evidence that in Britain, in course of time, the
manufacture of bronze weapons and tools was extensively and widely
carried on. The moulds for casting various tools and weapons have been
found both in England and in Scotland, and they are numerous in Ireland;
and founders hoards have been found in many places in Britain. There
were also travelling founders, who practised their art at any place
where their work was required. In these and in other ways, many of
the bronze weapons and tools found in England, Scotland, and Ireland,
were manufactured. Amongst the hoards of bronze articles which have
from time to time been found, some are considered to represent the
stock-in-trade of the ancient bronze founders; and other hoards, from
their characteristics, are considered to have belonged to dealers in
bronze articles.¹ Some of the moulds found in Scotland will be noticed
in connection with the description of the weapons and implements.
¹ Evans’ _Ancient Bronze Implements_, pages 422, 428, 438‒453.
“Judging from the unfinished condition of the tools and
weapons in some of the old bronze founders hoards, and from
the large deposits of socketed celts having been found with
the clay cores still in them, it seems not improbable that
the founders often bartered away their castings nearly in
the state in which they came from the moulds, with only
the runners broken off, and that those who acquired them
finished the manufacture themselves.” _Ibid._, page 451.
From a concurrence of circumstances and ascertained facts, it is
evident that the transitional stage from stone weapons and tools to
the use of metal ones extended over a long period. The one class of
articles and tools did not supersede the other suddenly; for there is
much evidence that stone, bone, and horn weapons and tools continued to
be used long after bronze, and even iron, was introduced. For such work
as stone and bone tools were naturally suitable, they continued to be
used, as they were much easier obtained than bronze ones; and in some
instances stone implements were used down to a comparatively recent
period. In the case of certain ornaments which belong to a somewhat
later period, bronze and brass were used.
In Scotland bronze weapons, tools, and articles have been found under
various circumstances. A few have been found associated with interments;
a greater number have been discovered in hoards from time to time;
some casually found in the soil; and others when carefully sought in
excavating the early sites of human habitation. I will first touch on
a few of the hoards, and then proceed to describe the different kinds
of weapons, implements, and ornaments of the bronze period, as it is
represented in Scotland.
In the process of marl dredging in the Loch of Duddingston, near
Edinburgh, in 1775, the workmen dragged up a heap of swords,
spear-heads, and other lumps of bronze. They seem to have been mostly
broken; and the hoard as presented to the National Museum, consisted
of twenty-nine pieces of broken swords; twenty-three portions of spear
heads; and a ring and staple of large size. The fragments of the swords
were mostly under six inches in length, and show that the weapons were
of the leaf-shaped type; the spear-heads were pieces of large weapons
with sockets and leaf-shaped blades.¹ In 1849, a hoard of bronze
weapons was discovered in a moss on the north side of the point
of Sleat, in the Isle of Skye, which consisted of one sword of the
leaf-shaped form, with a flat handle-plate pierced for rivet holes;
two spear-heads; and a long thin pin with a cup-shaped head; and
also a curious socketed tool of a bent leaf-shaped form, four inches
long. A hoard of bronze weapons and objects was found at Tarves,
Aberdeenshire, which mostly consisted of swords; and in 1853, at
Cauldhame, near Brechin, a hoard was found, consisting of four
leaf-shaped swords, and a large spear-head. One of the swords was
twenty-four inches long. In 1868, at Achtertyre, near Elgin, a hoard
of bronze articles was discovered in ploughing a mossy field, which
consisted of one axe-head; two spear-heads; two penannular rings,
some fragments of broken rings; and portions of a ring, which on
analysis yielded only tin and lead, no copper. When a gravel hillock
was being trenched at Monadhmor, Killin, Perthshire, in 1868, the
workmen discovered a hoard of bronze objects, consisting of two
socketed axe-heads; a leaf-shaped spear-head; a socketed gouge of rare
occurrence in Scotland; a portion of a leaf-shaped sword; a hollow
circular ring, a ♦penannular ring, and nine plain annular rings. In
1869, when the foundation of a house in Grosvenor Crescent, Edinburgh,
was being dug, a hoard of bronze weapons was found, said to have
consisted of some fourteen or fifteen swords, but only four of these
are now known; and with them were found a bronze ring and a broken
pin.²
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 132‒133. The proprietor of the estate on
the side of the Loch, Sir Alexander Dick, who commenced
the dredging operations, said――“Some of the lumps of brass
seemed as if half melted; and my conjecture is, that there
had been upon the side of the hill, near the lake, some
manufacture for brass arms of the several kinds for which
there was a demand.”
♦ “pennanular” replaced with “penannular”
² _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 181, 224; Volume III., page 182; Volume IX.,
page 435; Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 142‒153.
All the bronze articles found in Scotland and reasonably assigned to
this period, may be classified as weapons, useful tools, and ornaments.
The first class includes swords, daggers, spear-heads, and shields. The
sword of the bronze period is amongst the finest of the ancient weapons.
The small and short leaf-shaped blade, and its hilt without a guard, is
a form greatly admired. Different specimens in the Scottish collection
vary in size; a fine example was dredged up from the bottom of the
Tay near Perth, it measures 28½ inches in length, and is the largest
one known in Scotland. Another from the Isle of South Uist, measures
27 inches; and one found in the parish of Latheron, Caithness, is 25
inches long. In rare specimens, such as one of the swords found in the
hoard at Edinburgh, the hilt is formed and cast in the same mould with
the blade. Another form of sword, of rare occurrence in Scotland, is
characterised by a narrow rapier-shaped blade, without a handle-plate,
the hilt being made of bone or wood and attached to the flattened base
of the blade by rivets. The leaf-shaped swords are numerous in Scotland,
and have been found in almost every quarter of the country.¹
¹ “Among ancient weapons of bronze, perhaps the most
remarkable, both for elegance of form and for the skill
displayed in their casting, are the leaf-shaped swords, of
which a considerable number have come down to our time. The
only other forms that can vie with them in these points are
the spear-heads, of which many are gracefully proportioned,
while the coring of their sockets for the reception of the
shafts would do credit to the most skillful modern founder.
Neither the one nor the other belong to the earliest period
when bronze first came into general use for weapons and
tools, the flat celts and the knife-daggers characteristic
of that period being as a rule absent from the hoards in
which fragments of swords and spear-heads are present.”
Evans’ _Ancient Bronze Implements_, page 273.
Apparently both these classes of sword-blades were cast in stone moulds;
but no sword moulds have as yet been discovered in Scotland. Two stone
moulds were found in the parish of Hennock, in Devonshire, which were
both for the production of rapier-shaped blades.¹
¹ _Ibid._, page 434.
The dagger blades are usually thick and heavy in proportion to
their length. They differ from the thin flat blades of smaller size
occasionally found in the graves of the period. The thick daggers
vary much in size, from six inches in length to over thirteen, and in
breadth some of the larger ones are from three inches to over four.
Some of them have two and others four rivet-holes for attaching their
handles. A few of them are slightly ornamented, and many of them are
finely shaped.¹
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume X., pages 84, 459; Volume XII., pages 439, 440, 449,
456; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Annals of Scotland_, Volume I.,
page 392.
The spear-head of the bronze period is usually a socketed weapon,
without barbs, and often leaf-shaped; and the variation in their length
and the taper of the blades is extreme. The largest specimen in the
National Museum is nineteen inches long, and exceedingly well formed.
The larger ones are often pierced with segmental openings in the sides,
formed in the casting, which diminish their weight and add to the
beauty of the finished weapons. Another class, with the base of the
blade pierced by loop-like holes, have been found exceeding fifteen
inches long, but other specimens of the same class are only eight
inches long, and some not over six inches. The looped variety of
spear-heads have also been found in Scotland, some specimens of which
have the loops low down on the socket. These are very common in Ireland,
and are more elaborately ornamented than the Scotch examples.¹
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume V., page 214; Volume XXIII., pages 9, 150, 224;
Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 184, 185.
The spear-heads, like the sword and dagger blades, were cast in moulds
of stone. Two stone moulds for looped spear-heads were found together
under the surface of the ground near Campbeltown, in Argyleshire.
Similar moulds have been found in England, Ireland, and in other
countries.¹
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume VI., page 48; Volume XVI., page 103; Evans’ _Ancient
Bronze Implements_, pages 435‒438.
Bronze shields are not numerous in Scotland, but a few specimens have
been found. In 1779 a fine example was discovered in a peat moss in
the parish of Beith, Ayrshire, which was afterwards presented to the
Society of Antiquaries of London. This shield is formed of thin beaten
bronze, circular in form, and 26½ inches in diameter. Its surface is
ornamented with concentric circles of ridges, and also hammered up from
the back between the circular rows of studs; the handle is fixed across
the inner side of the boss, and the grip rounded by turning the edges
inwards. In 1837 a shield of a similar character was found in digging a
drain in a marshy piece of ground at Yetholm, in Roxburghshire; and in
1870 another shield was ploughed up in the same piece of ground. They
are beautiful and finely finished. They were not intended for use on
the arm, like the shields of later times, but held in the left hand by
a single handle riveted across the hollow of the central boss.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 155‒159;
_Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume V., page 165; Volume VIII., page 393.
Only one specimen of a bronze battle-axe is known in Scotland, which
was found in a morass at Bannockburn. It is a very peculiar weapon,
four pounds in weight, and has been figured by Dr. Anderson.
A fine specimen of a cast bronze war trumpet was found in the parish
of Tarbolton, Ayrshire, about the year 1653, and since preserved in
Coilsfield House. It is the only one of the class known in Scotland. A
portion of a bronze side-blast trumpet was found at Innermessan in the
parish of Inch, Wigtonshire. These bronze war trumpets are more common
in Ireland and in Denmark than in Scotland.¹
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume XII., page 565; Volume XXIII., pages 151, 224.
Having noticed the warlike weapons, I turn to the tools and implements
which appear to have been used for the purposes of every-day life,
beginning with those which seem to have come earliest into use. The
flat, bronze axe-heads are broad at the cutting end, and vary greatly
in size. Some of them are five inches in length and three inches across
the cutting face, which is always their broadest part. The largest
specimen known in Scotland is 13⅜ inches in length and 9 inches across
the cutting face; it was found in digging a drain on the farm of
Loanhead, on the south side of the Pentland Hills. Amongst a number
found on the farm of Colleonard, in Banffshire, there were two with a
series of short lines incised upon their flat sides, and another one
had raised ribs lengthwise. Others have been found over the whole area
of Scotland. It has been supposed that this class of axe-heads were
cast in open moulds of stone.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume IV., pages 187, 380; Volume IX., pages 182,
430, 431; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Annals of Scotland_, Volume
I., page 344; Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages
190‒194.
There are several other varieties of axe-heads which have been termed
fanged and socketed. Some of these are very finely formed, and more or
less ornamented. The two halfs of a stone mould for casting socketed
axe-heads of bronze were found at Rooskeen, in Ross-shire, and have
been figured by Wilson and Dr. Anderson.
The difference between the axes and the chisels of the bronze period
appears more in the mode of hafting and of use than in the form of the
tool itself. Tools of the chisel form are not very numerous in Scotland,
they are much more common in Ireland. Some good specimens, however,
have been found in the southern and northern counties of Scotland.¹
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume XII., pages 6, 13; Volume XVII., page 338; Anderson’s
_Bronze and Stone Ages_, page 201.
Awls, needles, and fish-hooks of bronze have occasionally been found
in Scotland. Bronze awls have frequently been found in England, and
sometimes in association with interments.¹ Only three specimens of
bronze sickles are known in Scotland. One was found at Edengerach,
in the parish of Premnay, Aberdeenshire, which is a curved, tapering
blade set at right angles to the end of an oval socket; the blade is
imperfect, but seems to have been over four inches in length. Another
sickle was dredged from the bed of the Tay, near Errol, in 1840, and
it is preserved in the Museum of the Literary and Antiquarian Society
of Perth. The blade is a little over six inches in length, and over an
inch in breadth at its junction with the socket. The third sickle is in
the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, and its blade is five inches in length.
These are the only agricultural implements of the bronze period as yet
discovered in the kingdom, though it was stated in the _Old Statistical
Account of Scotland_ that an implement of this class was found at
Ledberg, in Sutherlandshire.²
¹ Evans’ _Ancient Bronze Implements_, pages 188‒191.
² _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume VII., page 376; Volume XXII., pages 339, 350.
No bronze hammers have been found in Scotland, and only one example
of the Bronze Age anvil has yet been discovered. The anvil was found
near Kyle of Oykel, in Sutherlandshire, and is preserved in the museum
of Dunrobin Castle. Several good specimens of large cauldrons, formed
of thin bronze plates riveted together, have been found associated
with the leaf-shaped swords and the socketed axe-heads, as in the loch
of Duddingston, Kilkerran in Ayrshire, and Poolewe; some of them are
beautifully formed and finely made.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume XXII., pages 36‒42; Anderson’s _Bronze and
Stone Ages_, pages 205‒207.
The people of the Bronze Age seem to have adorned themselves profusely
with fine ornaments, for gold ornaments assigned to this period have
been found in every quarter of the kingdom. They are suggestive of a
magnificence of attire and a life which ill accords with the view that
I have often seen stated, namely, that our prehistoric ancestors were
simply untutored savages! Men, indeed, who assumed the upright attitude,
but savages nevertheless. Two beautiful golden diadems were found on
the farm of Southside, near Coulter, Lanarkshire, in 1860. Their form
is a broad lunette of beaten gold, terminating in disc-shaped ends; and
the central opening is wide enough to admit of the ornament being worn
on the head as a diadem or on the neck as a gorget. Another beautiful
gold diadem of a similar form was found at Auchentaggart, in the parish
of Sanquhar, Dumfriesshire, which, when turned up by the plough, was
folded and rolled up almost into a ball. A magnificent specimen of
a large and massive armlet, formed of intertwisted rods of gold, was
found at Slateford, near Edinburgh, in 1864. It consisted of three gold
rods twisted together round a common centre, and uniting at the ends
in a single rod, which recurves and forms a terminal hook; and it was
so coiled as to encircle the arm in four complete coils, which, when
extended, measured 4½ feet long. This armlet “was by far the finest
specimen of goldsmith’s work from the bronze age that had ever been
seen in this country, and the only one of its kind then or now known
to exist; yet it was clipped to pieces and consigned to the melting-pot
by a jeweller in Edinburgh. A cast of it, however, is preserved in the
National Museum.”¹
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 220‒223.
Another exceedingly beautiful gold armlet is formed of a flat band,
tapering slightly from the middle to the end, and twisted like
the thread of a screw, passing at the ends into slender hook-like
terminations, with conical knobs which interlock and serve to fasten
the armlet when worn. In 1848 a hoard of four of these armlets was
discovered on the top of a steep bank at the village of Lower Largo, in
Fifeshire. They are most beautifully formed, and all nearly of the same
size. Another hoard of gold armlets of a similar type was turned up by
the plough on the farm of Law, in the parish of Urquhart, Elginshire,
in 1857; the number found amounted to thirty-six, and they were all
nearly of the same style and pattern. A gold armlet of a similar
pattern was found at Belhelvie, in Aberdeenshire; another near the
border of the parish of Coulter, Lanarkshire; one at the head of
Little Lochbroom, in Ross-shire; and a very massive one on the Moor
of Rannoch.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 214, 219.
In 1856 a hoard of gold ornaments was discovered in a moss in the
West Highlands, amongst which were two penannular armlets. These are
formed of solid rods of gold, bent to a slightly elliptical form, and
terminating in slightly expanded ends. The heaviest one weighed 19 dwts.
6 grs. In 1852 a massive gold armlet, formed of solid rods, was found
at Bonnyside, in Stirlingshire, and it weighed 6 ozs. 10 dwts. 6 grs.
Four armlets, formed of solid rods of gold, of a similar pattern, were
found in digging a drain at Ormidale, near Brodick, in the Island of
Arran, in 1864. In 1845 five similar armlets were found in digging a
drain in the vicinity of the Gallow Hill, in the parish of St. Vigeans,
Forfarshire, and these were sold to a pedlar “as old drawer handles.”
In 1834 three penannular gold armlets were found in Stonehill Wood,
in the parish of Carmichael, Lanarkshire, and the largest one weighed
4 ozs. 212 grs. A hoard of thirty-six gold armlets was ploughed up on
the farm of Coul, in the Isle of Islay, in 1780; and about 1784 a gold
armlet, weighing over 5 ozs., was found by a labourer in Galloway.
In 1871 two gold armlets were found in the vicinity of Killmailie,
Inverness-shire; other two found in Argyleshire are preserved in
Inveraray Castle. About 1827 five penannular gold rings were discovered
on the estate of the Duke of Fife, near Duff House, Banffshire, and
these rings were associated with a bronze age interment. From the
associated circumstances in which several of these gold ornaments have
been found, there is no question that they belong to the bronze period.
Besides the gold ornaments mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, and
many others of gold which I have not mentioned, there were bronze rings,
armlets, pins, and jet necklaces, which have been found in many parts
of the country. Some of the jet necklaces and the bronze armlets are
very pretty.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 58, 59, 60, 61‒63,
144, 208‒214; _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland_, Volume VI., page 311; Volume VII., pages 351, 352;
Volume VIII., pages 28‒32, 407, 408; Wilson’s _Prehistoric
Annals of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 434‒475.
The curious phenomena of the prevalence of the use of gold in the form
of ornaments amongst the Bronze Age people, at a time when silver and
iron were unknown, and bronze the only metal used in their manufactured
products, seems to indicate a taste and culture which could scarcely
have been expected. This will be again touched on after the available
evidence in other directions has been gone over, to which attention
must be directed.
It may be “that not a trace of a dwelling or site of a settlement
of the Bronze Age has been discovered in Scotland.”¹ Still, when the
historian finds that the people lived, and moved, and died, and were
interred in various forms in the Bronze Age, he must endeavour to find
traces of their dwellings and sites. Seeing that their tombs have been
discovered, it is more than probable that their sites and dwellings
were at no great distance from their tombs. We have already seen
evidence that there must have been considerable organisation and united
action among our ancestors of the Stone and Bronze Ages, and therefore,
in consistency, we should try to find traces of their dwellings;
although possibly we cannot obtain positive information about them.
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, page 227.
Traces of what may reasonably be supposed to have been the foundations
of prehistoric dwellings, have been observed in many quarters of
Scotland, in short from Mid Lothian to Caithness. The rudest of
these hut foundations are simply shallow excavations in the ground,
usually circular in form and from seven to eight feet in diameter,
and generally occur in groups. But the foundations of many groups of
circular huts of larger dimensions have been observed in Scotland.
The structure of those hut circles consists of two concentric rows of
stones separated by a space of six or eight inches, which is filled by
small stones and earth, the whole forming a rude wall of about eighteen
inches in height; and the space within this wall is generally from
twenty to thirty feet in diameter. They have often been discovered on
the summits, the brows, and the sides of hills; and also on the lower
grounds, the sea beaches, and on the banks of lochs and of rivers.¹ Now
it is probable that these were the foundations of prehistoric dwellings,
and that above these foundations a structure formed of wood was erected.
Many indications, circumstances, and final results, tend to show that
the sites and settlements of the prehistoric people of Scotland were
often on elevated positions――on heights and hills. The natural reasons
and circumstances which originally led the prehistoric people to select
the heights for their habitations, probably were that abodes erected
upon the high grounds would be more likely to escape the ravages of
inundation from a high tide, a heavy rainfall, a sudden thaw of snow,
or any unusual rising of the waters upon the lower grounds; while the
heights were also best adapted for defence against the attacks of
enemies. Thus it is in the highest degree probable that the earliest
dwellings of man in Scotland were on pretty elevated positions. Further,
many of the towns of Scotland which stretch back into the prehistoric
period, were originally sites of human habitation upon heights or
hills, such as Edinburgh, Stirling, Paisley, Dundee, Aberdeen, Banff,
Inverness, and many others. As indicated in the second section, man
selected the sites for his dwellings with remarkable sagacity.
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume VII., pages 291, 297, 300, 541; Volume VIII., page
410; Volume IX., pages 158, 169; Wilson’s _Prehistoric
Annals of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 103‒106.
But in the prehistoric ages it frequently happened that the
advantages of the elevated sites, great as they were――mainly owing
to the difficulties of obtaining food――these advantages were partly
counterbalanced, and hence the selection of spots on the banks of
lakes and rivers, and near the sea, as sites of early occupation.
Thus, traces of hut foundations have been observed on the sea beaches,
the banks of lakes and rivers, in close association with shell mounds,
kitchen middens, and grave mounds. On the links between the Meikle and
Little Ferries, Sutherlandshire, the hut foundations, the shell mounds,
and the grave mounds, were found in close proximity with each other;
and similar traces and remains occur in Elginshire, and in other parts
of the country. From these indications it has reasonably been inferred
that these places were sites of early habitation, and that shell fish
or eatable mussel formed a main part of the food of those people. A
few flint and stone implements, and the bones of animals, were found
embedded amongst these shell heaps.¹
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume VI., pages 423‒426; Volume VIII., pages 63‒64,
177‒178; Volume IX., pages 250‒260, 452‒454, 45‒52.
There are a number of caves in Scotland which appear to have
been used for human habitations, or hiding places; but their
occupation cannot be assigned to definite periods, unless in
rare instances. In quite recent times travelling tinkers and
bands of vagrants occasionally lived in caves. Several of
the early Scottish saints sometimes resorted to caves.
In the Gaswork Cave, at Wemyss, there was a mass of debris
like a kitchen midden, containing bones of the ox, sheep,
pig, deer, hare, and bones of birds; and also shells of the
limpet and the whelk. Another cave at Seacliff, near North
Berwick, contained similar evidence of human occupation.
――_Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 87‒88.
The Burness Cave in the Parish of Borgue, Kirkcudbrightshire,
the exploration of which commenced in 1872, presented
evidence of prolonged occupation. Large quantities of the
bones of animals and of birds were found in it, and also
indications that its occupiers had used grain. Nearly two
hundred implements, tools, and objects of human art, were
disinterred from this cave; and the greater part of these
implements were made of bone, comparatively few stone or
bronze tools were found in it. _Proceedings of the Society
of Antiquaries of Scotland_, Volume X., pages 479‒507; also
Volume XI.
There is always more or less uncertainty in assigning prehistoric
structures to a given period; for from the nature of the subject such
evidence as exists is rarely conclusive. This is the case with the
Scotch Crannogs and the Hill Forts. Both these classes of structures
are prehistoric, and it would be difficult to determine which of them
is the oldest. The period of the Scotch Crannogs has been placed after
the departure of the Romans; a time of darkness and confusion, which
somehow seems to have been exceedingly fertile in originating new
buildings and structures.¹ But looking at the antiquity assigned to a
somewhat similar class of structures in Switzerland and Italy, which
were constructed by a kindred race, and other circumstances of the
people themselves associated with the Crannogs in Scotland, it appears
to me highly probable that they were originated and some of them
constructed in the later stage of the Bronze Age. In fact, only the
origin of the Crannogs within the area of the Kingdom of Strathclyde
are accounted for, on Dr. Munro’s hypothesis, as he explicitly
admits:――“Turning now to the Celtic area beyond the limits of the
Scottish portion of the Kingdom of Strathclyde, I may at once state
that there is no data derived from an examination of its artificial
islands, nor any relics of their occupiers, which can give even an
approximate notion of their chronological range.”² Thus the question
of their origin and possible age is left unsettled for the greater part
of Scotland. An attempt therefore may be made to indicate the natural
causes and the conditions which led to their origin and construction,
without having recourse to a special line of explanation.
¹ Dr. P. Munro, who has specially examined and has given a
very interesting account of the Scottish Crannogs, and also
in a larger work presented a masterly account of this class
of structures in Europe; touching those of Scotland, he
says:――“There is, in my opinion, only one hypothesis that
can satisfactorily account for all the facts and phenomena
here adduced, viz., that the lake dwellings in the south-west
of Scotland were constructed by the Celtic inhabitants as a
means of protecting themselves and their movable property,
when, upon the frequent withdrawal of the Roman soldiers
from the district, they were left single-handed, to contend
against the Angles on the east, and the Picts and Scots on
the south. It is not likely that these provincials ... would
become the assailants of such fierce and lawless enemies....
Hence their military tactics and operations would assume
more the character of defence than of aggression, and
in order to defeat the object of the frequent and sudden
inroads of the northern tribes, which was to plunder the
inhabitants rather than to conquer the country, experience
taught them the necessity of being prepared for emergencies,
by having certain places of more than ordinary security,
where they could deposit their wealth, or to which they
could retire as a last resource when hard pressed. These
retreats might be caves, fortified camps, or inaccessible
islands; but in localities where no such natural strongholds
exists, the military genius of the Celtic inhabitants,
prompted perhaps by inherited notions, led them to construct
these wooden islands. Since the final departure of the
Romans till the conquest of the Kingdom of Strathclyde by
the Northumbrian Angles, a period of several centuries,
this unfortunate people had few intervals of peace, and
with their subjugation, ended the special function of the
lake-dwellings as a national system of protection.”――_Ancient
Scottish Lake-dwellings_, pages 283‒284.
² _Ibid._, page 287.
The area of the Crannogs and artificial islands embrace the whole of
modern Scotland, excepting its two northmost counties, and one or two
on its south-eastern extremity, and even in these such structures may
yet be discovered. The question then is, what were the causes of their
origin? We need not travel beyond the natural and known circumstances
of the country and its inhabitants, and the motives of human action and
effort. All Crannogs have in view one common end,――defence, protection,
and security. They were probably often used as places of refuge, though
no doubt they were often in many instances occupied continuously.
“There is often a fort on the top of some neighbouring hill, to which
the lake-dwellers may have gone when the lochs were frozen and the
Crannogs open to invasion.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, page 187.
In the later part of the bronze period the people of Scotland were
organised and formed into strong tribes, which were separate and
independent, and each tribe living under the rule of its own head. No
doubt these tribes sometimes waged war with one another. But before
this time, there was a strong and constant pressure from the south
on the tribes to the north of the Tweed and the Cheviot Hills, which
arose from fresh migrations from the Continent to the southern shores
of the Island. So there was a continuous onward and outward movement
of the tribes from the south of the Island toward the north, which
naturally caused the tribes to construct defensive works for their
self-preservation, protection, and security. Such then were the causes
of the origin of the Hill Forts and the Crannogs of Scotland. As to
which of those two classes of structures was the earliest, I will not
undertake to determine; but that both were in use many centuries before
the Roman invasion, I have no doubt whatever. Thus we have a real
historic explanation of the origin of the Crannogs and the Hill Forts;
they were the effects of the state of the inhabitants of the whole
Island, and the historic conditions which had arisen.
Crannogs would continue to be used so long as the circumstances of
the people rendered them necessary, or till they were superseded by
structures more in harmony with the conditions of society. Thus many
of them may have been occasionally occupied long after the departure
of the Romans, and even after the kingdom of Strathclyde was annexed
to Scotland.
In many instances natural islands in lochs were selected as suitable
sites on which to erect defensive works and secure dwellings. Advantage
also was often taken of the natural ridges and the shallows in the
bottom of the lochs, on which to construct abodes with stones or wood,
and then connect them with the shore by a causeway.¹
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume VI., pages 114‒117; Volume X., pages 31‒34, 741.
But the class of structures most frequently found in lochs in
Scotland, is usually constructed wholly or principally of wood, and
on that account are called Crannogs. They are pretty numerous, and
a considerable number of them have been systematically explored by
Dr. Munro; and he gives the following account of the method of their
construction:――“This is how they worked: 1, Immediately over the
chosen site a circular raft of trunks of trees laid above branches and
brushwood was formed, and above it additional layers of logs, together
with stones, gravel, etc., were heaped up till the whole was grounded.
2, As this process went on, upright piles, made of oak and of the
requisite length, were inserted into prepared holes in the structure,
and probably also a few were inserted into the bed of the lake. 3, The
rough logs forming horizontal layers were made of various kinds of wood,
generally birch, it being the most abundant. These were occasionally
pinned together by thick oak pegs, and here and there at intervals
oak beams mortised into one another stretched across the substance
of the island, and fixed the surrounding piles. 4, When a sufficient
height above the water-line was attained, a prepared pavement of oak
beams was constructed, and mortised beams were laid over the tops
of the encircling piles, which bound them firmly together as already
described. The margin of the island was also slantingly shaped by
an intricate arrangement of beams and stones, constituting in some
cases a well-formed breakwater. 5, When the skeleton of the island was
thus finished, probably turf would be laid over its margin, where the
pointed piles protruded, and a superficial barrier of hurdles, or some
such fence, erected close to the edge of the water. 6, Frequently a
wooden gangway, probably submerged, stretched to the shore, by means of
which secret access to the Crannog could be obtained without the use of
a canoe.
“Bearing in mind that all these structures were solidly put together
without nails or bolts, and that the gangways, which have remained
permanently fixed to the present time, had neither joint nor mortise,
we may fearlessly challenge modern science to produce better results
under these, or indeed under any circumstances. Not only do these
wooden islands evince much mechanical and technical skill on the part
of their producers, but what is still more singular, their area of
distribution appears to have been co-extensive with the districts
formerly occupied by Celtic tribes. Hence we have here another proof of
the extraordinary vigour, intense individuality, and plastic character
of early Celtic civilisation, in thus developing, from its own inherent
resources, an unique form of stronghold, simple in its structure, but
admirably adapted to the unsettled conditions of life and military
requirements of the period.”¹
¹ _Ancient Lake Dwellings of Scotland_, pages 262‒264.
The dimensions of the Crannogs vary considerably, some of them
are twenty-three feet in diameter, while others are much less. The
character of the relics and implements found in association with them
are pretty various, embracing culinary articles, tools, weapons, and
ornaments, such as cauldrons, stone-hammers, spindle-whorls, objects
in bronze, bone pins, needles, and borers, and deer horn implements,
and many ornaments. Altogether the collection of articles discovered
in the Scottish Crannogs, indicates that some of them were frequented
and occasionally occupied after the Christian era.¹ But this in no
way proves that they were not originated and constructed, and many of
them occupied at a much earlier period; indeed the very nature of the
construction of these Crannogs, without nails or bolts of any kind,
points to an early and prehistoric origin, and it was already observed
that the primitive canoes have been often found associated with the
Crannogs.
¹ _Ibid._, page 277; _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages 121, 132, 148; Volume IX.,
pages 389, 391; Volume XX., iii. page 148.
The Hill Forts may be divided into three classes:――1, Those formed of
earth; 2, Those formed partly or wholly of stones; and 3, Those formed
of stones and partly vitrified. Seeing that they are all prehistoric,
there seems no necessity for placing them after the Roman invasion.
Although it may be quite true, that we cannot with certainty assign any
of them to the Bronze Age, still I have sufficiently shown, on probably
historic grounds, that the movements of the population in the island,
and the tribal organisation of society, would have naturally and
politically led to the construction of such defensive works; and that
at least some of these works were constructed several centuries before
the Christian era. The movement of the tribes from the southern parts
of the Island, inwards and outwards, issued in the first creation of
historic conditions in Britain; and the consequent necessity of efforts
for self-preservation and defence. It is therefore of comparatively
little importance whether the defensive works in question be assigned
to the Bronze Age or the Iron Age, provided that the causes of their
origin and their consecutive development can be shown, in association
with the advance of the people.
The first class of hill-forts, which were probably the earliest,
consists of a number of low mounds of earth drawn round the brow, or
summits of natural heights. They are mostly circular or oval in form,
as this was often modified by the nature of the sites selected, and
the number of the enclosing mounds of earth vary for similar reasons,
sometimes there are two, three, four or more, which enclose a central
space. They differ from most of the other early constructions, inasmuch
as they are adaptations of naturally elevated sites for purposes of
defence. They are numerous and extend over the whole area of Scotland;
and, as noticed in a preceding page, they were probably sometimes
used in connection with the crannogs. A characteristic example occurs
on a height on the estate of Borthwick Hall, in Mid Lothian, which
has recently been examined. It consists of four mounds of earth which
enclose a space of 410 feet in length from east to west, and 284 feet
in breadth from north to south. The mounds are only a few feet in
height; and there are three entrances to the central enclosure. This
class of earthworks in general, simply consist of a series of earthen
walls enclosing the highest part of a hill of moderate elevation.¹
¹ Chalmers’ _Caledonia_, Volume I., pages 87‒98; _Proceedings
of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_, Volume XVI.,
page 254, _et seq._
The second class of hill-forts formed of stones, in some instances have
only a single wall round the brow of a hill, which encloses ♦the area
of its summit; while others have two, three, or more walls drawn round
the ribs of a conical hill, at short distances apart. In Argyleshire
there are a number of prehistoric forts with only one line of walls:
in all, there are fifty-nine forts in this ancient district: of these
thirty-seven are simply enclosed by a single wall, some of which are
circular or oval in form, and others whose figure follow the contour
of the site, and others again on sites partly protected from attack by
nature――steep crags and rocks are only partially defended by walls on
the accessible sides. The greater part of the Argyle forts have had
only one entrance. Out of fifty-four of these forts, sixteen are under
50 feet in length inside the walls, and four of them had outworks;
twenty-four were between 50 and 100 feet inside, and seven had outworks;
eight were between 100 and 200 feet in length inside, and three
had outworks; and four were between 200 and 300 feet in length, but
comparatively narrow. Evidence of wells of water within these Argyle
forts is rare.¹
♦ duplicate word “the” removed
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume XXIII., pages 368‒431. In the same volume of the
_Proceedings of the Society_, Mr. Alexander Hutcheson,
architect, gives an interesting description of several
hill-forts in Aberfeldy, Perthshire. One of these is on
the eastern spur of Drummond Hill, and occupies the summit
of a projecting rock, a site admirably chosen for defence.
“The walls of the fort have followed the contour of the
hill, twisting out and in to suit the exigencies of the
site. The area within the walls is thus of very irregular
outline, measuring in greatest longitude from north-west
to south-east about 100 yards, and at right angles to this
about 70 yards.... The walls are much broken down ... but
there are many parts where the inside and outside faces of
the walls can still be traced. In one part from 16 to 20
feet in length by about 6 feet in height of the original
wall may still be seen. This fragment shows that the walls
had been erected of rough and massive unhewed blocks without
any mortar or cementing material. The wall here is some 9
feet in thickness at the base, and is almost perpendicular
externally, but in the inside it is considerably sloped.
There are at some parts evidences that the ground had been
raised or filled in at the back of the walls, probably
to give those inside the fort an advantage in scaling the
walls for defence. This feature I have observed elsewhere
in similar structures.” Pages 359‒361.
The largest hill-fort in Scotland crowns the summit of a conical hill,
called the White Caterthun, in the parish of Menmuir, Forfarshire.
It is on a well-chosen and commanding position, overlooking the great
plain of Strathmore. The central area enclosed is a long oval of about
450 by 200 feet, and this inner space represents the citadel. The
inmost inclosing wall, now in ruins, was of enormous size and strength.
At 150 feet from it down the slope of the hill there is a second wall,
and below it the remains of a third wall; and beyond this the outer
wall, enclosing an oblong area, which is supposed to have been used
for a cattle-fold. As similar out-enclosures have been observed in
connection with these forts, it is reasonably assumed that they were
used in cases of emergency, such as war or invasion, for the protection
of the live stock, on which the people mainly depended for their food
and clothing.¹ On another hill in the neighbourhood there is a smaller
fort of the same class.
¹ Roy’s _Military Antiquities_, page 47, plates 47‒48. The vast
and massive structure of this fort, and the immense labour
which its construction must have involved, will be best
understood by an examination of the plans and sections in
Roy’s great work.
Farther northward, on the Barmekyn Hill, in the Echt district,
Aberdeenshire, there is a remarkable hill-fort. It consists of five
concentric ramparts, which enclose the summit of the hill, and about
the beginning of this century it was in a perfect state of preservation,
so far as regarded the lines of fortification, though otherwise partly
crumbled into ruins, and much of it removed to supply materials for
the fences in the neighbourhood. The walls were about five feet in
thickness, of dry masonry, and appear to have been of considerable
height, but the inner rampart was twelve feet thick at the base, and
several feet of its height then remained entire. The outer ditches were
nine feet in breadth, and the inner one over thirty feet. The interior
enclosure was reduced to a level, nearly circular, three hundred feet
in diameter, and included about one acre of ground. Traces of a similar
class of hill-forts may still be observed all over the country.¹
¹ _Archæologia Scotica_, Volume II., pages 322‒326. 1822.
The third class of hill-forts are those which show vitrification in
their walls. They have attracted much attention, and yet very little
decisive result as to the cause or the extent of the vitrification
of their walls has been obtained. For all that has been written about
these curious forts, very few of them have as yet been thoroughly
excavated and explored. So far as known, there is no specimen in
Scotland of a fort with its walls vitrified throughout. In every
case where careful examination has been made, “vitrified portions of
walling were found overlying portions built in the ordinary manner
and unvitrified.” This was the result which Dr. Angus Smith obtained
from his investigation of a vitrified fort at Loch Etive. And recently
Mr. Macdonald examined the remains on the Hill of Noath, in the
parish of Rhynie, Aberdeenshire, and found a similar result. He made
wide cuts through the wall in two places down to the natural soil,
and found that it consisted of a mass of loose stones in one of the
sections without any vitrification whatever, and in the other section
it was only vitrified at the top. This is a valuable contribution,
as it touches the precise points which must be determined before
satisfactory conclusions can be formed, as to whether the vitrification
is structural or incidental; or, in other words, a result of design or
the effect of a long series of incidental agencies and circumstances.¹
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume IX., page 396, _et seq._, Volume X. page 70; Volume
XI., page 298; Volume XII., page 13; Volume XXIII., pages
371‒373. Mr. Macdonald, of “The Farm,” Huntly, conducted
his investigations on the remains of the fort on the hill of
Noath at the instance of the Huntly Field Club; and it may
be said, with truth, that these local clubs fill a useful
place, and sometimes make important additions to prehistoric
facts and natural science collections. Mr. Macdonald’s
paper, giving an interesting account of his examination of
the walls of the fort on the Hill of Noath, has just been
published in a volume, along with other local historic
matter of great value.
Examples of partially vitrified forts occur on Craig Phadrig, a
conical hill near Inverness; one at Dunnideer, in the parish of Insch,
Aberdeenshire; another at Finhaven, near Aberlemno, in Forfarshire;
one on the Hill of Barry, Perthshire; several in Galloway, and in other
quarters of the country. But they are not peculiar to Scotland, though
this has sometimes been asserted. A considerable number have been
observed in France, and also in Bohemia.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume III., pages 451‒453; Volume VII., page 301;
Volume VIII., pages 145‒155; Volume IX., pages 397, 398;
_Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 451, 453;
_Mémoires de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France_,
Volume XXXIII., page 83, _et seq._
The Hill Fort of Dunsimane caps a conical hill, 800 feet in height, and
it presents some peculiarities which have not been found in connection
with any other of this class of structures. The hill on which it lies
is detached from the surrounding hills by valleys, and it commands a
wide prospect of the country on the south, the Sidlaw Hills, the Carse
of Gowrie, the estuary of the Tay, St. Andrews, and the hills of Fife;
and to the north the plain of Strathmore is seen stretching out, till
terminated by the range of the Grampians. This fort had several walls
originally, but the remaining rampart is mostly composed of earth,
intermingled with large stones, and some parts of it is twenty feet
wide at the base, and from six to eight feet in height. Some fragments
of the rampart are vitrified. The enclosed space measures 150 yards in
length by 70 in width. In its south-east side, two underground chambers
were discovered, twenty feet in length, and from six to eight feet
in width, and about six feet in height. These chambers communicated
with each other, near their ends, by two narrow passages, and the
floors were paved with undressed slabs. The walls of the chambers were
built of undressed stones, which at the height of three feet began
to converge until the roof was closed by flagstones. The floors were
covered with ashes and refuse, consisting mostly of the bones of horses,
and cattle, and deer horns. A quern was found in one of the passages;
and in another, portions of three human skeletons.¹ So far as known,
this is the only Scottish hill-fort associated with underground
chambers――a peculiarity which seems to indicate that it may belong to
the Stone Age.
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume II., pages 95‒97; Volume IX., pages 378‒380;
Anderson’s _The Iron Age_, page 281.
Having noticed the defensive works which the prehistoric people deemed
it necessary to construct for their self-preservation and protection;
and, although we have no direct evidence touching the character of
their common dwellings, we know that they possessed herds of cattle,
and that they made provision for the safety of their flocks in times
of danger and of war. In their every-day life in times of peace, we may
imagine them tending their flocks in the valleys and on the hill sides;
and making in summer what preparation they could to provide a store of
food for their cattle in winter. In all probability life with them was
not nearly such a severe struggle as it is even with most of us at the
present day; and if at times they had to endure privation, they had
also times of real enjoyment and rejoicing. Let us again turn attention
to the disposal of the dead, and the phenomena associated with it in
the Bronze Age.
Interments in the Bronze Age are found under various external
circumstances, and present many differences in their underground
phenomena. Bronze Age burials have been discovered in cairns, in
circular areas fenced off by standing stones, in natural knolls and
gravelly hillocks; and urns and cists have often been found in places
where no external signs of them appeared to the eye. A few examples of
these several modes of burial, with their overground and underground
appearances and associations, will now be presented.
At Collessie in Fife, a cairn consisting of a mass of stones and
boulders, covering a space of one hundred and twenty feet in diameter,
and rising in its centre to a height of fourteen feet, was excavated in
♦1876‒77. In its centre a cist formed of slabs was found on the natural
surface of the ground. The inside of the cist was four feet six inches
long, and three feet wide in the centre; and among the gravel in the
bottom of it some portions of the unburnt bones of a human skeleton
were found in a condition of extreme decay. In one of the ends of
the cist, a clay urn was lying on its side. The urn was high and well
formed of a fine paste which had been baked at an open fire; and though
made without the aid of the wheel, it was nearly regular in its outline;
and its ornamentation consisted of groups of parallel lines alternating
with bands of zigzag and short lines. On a further examination of the
subsoil underneath the cairn, two spots were discovered which indicated
previous disturbance. These turned out to be deep pits; and after the
loose gravel was thrown out, in the bottom of the pit fragments of
an urn was found amongst ashes and charcoal. In the other pit at the
depth of four feet there was a layer of burnt bones, about an inch in
thickness, and spread over a space of from three to four square feet;
and portions of a human skull and the vertebral column were recognised
among the bones. A thin dagger blade of bronze, measuring six inches
in length, was found in this pit; and thin dagger blades are a usual
feature of Bronze Age interments.¹
♦ “1076‒77” replaced with “1876‒77”
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 3‒8.
The above may be taken as an example of a Bronze Age cairn burial;
and I will proceed to other modes of interment. Although many casual
discoveries of single urns have occurred, still it would require an
exhaustive examination of each separate site to warrant the conclusion
that the casually found urn interment is not one of a group. Where
such investigations have been made, it has generally been found that
the site of the casually discovered interment was a cemetery; thus
indicating the use of the site as a family or tribal burying-ground
over a long period.¹
¹ _Ibid._ page 28.
Such cemeteries have been discovered in many places throughout the
kingdom. Recently at Lawpark, near St. Andrews, a cremation cemetery
was discovered, in which twenty urns of a cinerary type were found,
varying in size from ten to sixteen inches in height, and from eight
to eleven inches in diameter; and two small bronze blades were found
amongst the burnt bones. In 1845, when workmen were engaged trenching
a rocky knoll in the parish of Creich, Fifeshire, they discovered
twenty-one urns, of which fourteen were placed singly in a straight
line about three feet apart. About six years ago, a cemetery was
found in a gravelly knoll at Shanwell, in Kinross-shire, and among
the burnt bones a fine specimen of a thin oval bronze blade was found.
At Magdalen Bridge, between Musselburgh and Joppa, a cemetery was
discovered in excavating a sandpit, which contained nine urns, and
one thin bronze blade associated with them. In 1849, at Lesmurdie,
Banffshire, in a sandy height five cists associated with small urns and
chips of flint were found; these were unburnt interments. At Genock,
in the parish of Straiton, Ayrshire, a cremation cemetery was found,
and removed in levelling the ground for the foundation of a dwelling
house; and about a dozen urns were there destroyed. In 1878, in making
a branch railway, a group of interments were discovered at Dalmore, in
Ross-shire, which consisted of ten interments in cists of flat stones
set in gravel; and two of them contained bronze implements. Nine of
these were burnt burials, but only one urn was found, a few beads, a
flint knife, and other objects of stone and bone.¹
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 205‒211; Volume VI., pages 217, 218,
276‒278, 388‒391, 394‒418; Volume VII., pages 24, 198,
401‒407, 475; Volume VIII., pages 166, 466; Volume IX.,
pages 158‒160, 268‒270; Volume X., pages 43, 739; Anderson’s
_Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 28‒51.
Stone circles were once exceedingly numerous in every quarter of
Scotland, and though cultivation and other agencies have effaced
many of them, still considerable numbers remain. Merely considered
externally, these circles present a fine variety of forms and figures,
and various degrees of constructive elaboration. Some of them have one
ring of stones, others two or three; and while some groups are oval
in form, others aim at the perfect circle. The stones which form these
circles in all their variations are rough and undressed; excepting
that on some of the stones traces of cup and ring cuttings have been
observed. A large number of the smaller stone circles, as already
indicated, have been supposed to be the foundations on which the huts
of the early inhabitants were erected. But many of the areas within
stone circles and standing stones, were the cities of the dead in the
Bronze Age, and perhaps even later: as a series of careful excavations
and recent investigation have shown that many of the stone circles were
places of burial.
Many stone circles and single standing-stones still exist in the Island
of Arran, though many have been removed to make way for agricultural
improvements, and others have disappeared through various agencies.
The late Dr. James Bryce, having obtained the permission of the Duke
of Hamilton, made a series of careful excavations of a number of areas
within stone circles in the Island of Arran. In 1860 he investigated
six stone circles on Mauchrie Moor, in the townland of Tormore; and
stone cists and interments were discovered in five of them, two urns,
flint chips, twelve flint arrow-heads, a bronze pin, a skull, and
other human remains. The urns were wide-mouthed, one seven-and-a-half
inches high, and the other six-and-a-half inches, and their surface was
ornamented in bands of oblique lines and impressed markings. This group
of Arran interments is of much value as evidence of the purpose of the
standing-stone circles.¹
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume IV., pages 499‒524.
Many years ago a series of very careful investigations were made by Mr.
Charles E. Dalrymple, which have yielded invaluable materials for the
elucidation of the original purpose of the standing-stone circles. A
group of seven interments, within a circle of six upright pillar-stones,
was disclosed by Mr. Dalrymple at Tuack, near Kintore, in Aberdeenshire.
These were cremation burials, and associated with large urns of the
bronze period type. At Crichie, in the same district, another group
of interments was found within a circular area, marked off by a trench
twenty feet wide; and within this trench there had been a circle of
six standing-stones, and a seventh one in the centre, five of which had
been removed for building purposes. In the centre of the circle, under
the apparent surface of the ground, a cairn of stones was disclosed,
fifteen feet in diameter; and a cist was found underneath the cairn
which contained the remains of an unburnt human skeleton. Near one of
the stones of the circle an urn was discovered, containing a cremation
interment; and at the foot of another stone a deposit of incinerated
bones was found, and near it another of a similar character. At the
same spot a finely-made stone hammer-head was found. Several other
interments were found in different parts of the area, one of which was
in a small cist, and another in a well-formed urn. At Fullarton, also
in the Kintore district, seven interments of incinerated human bones,
associated with fragments of urns, and one unburnt interment, were
found in a circle of twenty-eight feet in diameter; only three of the
stones of the circle remained, two of which were fallen and broken.
In other districts of Aberdeenshire deposits of human remains have
been found in the areas of many stone circles, the most of which were
cremation interments.¹
¹ The results of these investigations were briefly but ably
stated in Dr. Stuart’s two volumes of the _Sculptured Stones
of Scotland_, see Volume I., pages 19‒25, _et seq._; Volume
II., Appendix to Prefix, pages 22‒24; Leslie’s _Early Races
of Scotland_, Volume I., page 209.
In other quarters of the country similar results have been obtained
in the areas of the stone circles, wherever thorough investigation has
been made. And it appears, so far, that the same conclusion may be
deduced with reference to another class of monumental stone-settings,
consisting of groups of upright stones which are not arranged in a
circular form. These are not nearly so common as the circular classes,
and, so far as yet ascertained, their occurrence in Scotland is limited
to the counties of Caithness and Sutherland; but there seems reason to
believe that they also occur in Wales. The evidence, so far as it has
yet gone, is distinct in indicating their sepulchral association.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 125‒126. “From
these facts it appears that, while a certain uniformity in
the phenomena of the burials exists in smaller areas, there
is a wide diversity exhibited in more extended areas. As our
knowledge of the facts increases in its range and speciality,
as the nature of these variations is gradually ascertained,
and their limits defined with precision, the time will come
when their significance, with relation to the areas in which
they are manifested, may be determined. At present we are
unable to define, with any degree of accuracy, the limits
of the area over which stone circles are found, and equally
unable to say within what limits they are found to contain
burials assignable to the Ages of Bronze or Iron. But this
we are in a position to say, from existing evidence, that,
so far as they have yet been investigated in Scotland,
their nature and purpose has been clearly determined to be
sepulchral.” _Ibid._
Thus, by the recognition of the result of careful investigation, the
stone circles of Scotland have been divested of much of their mystery,
and the mass of quasi-historical relations which had so long shrouded
them in a haze of misty notions.
It seems necessary to supplement the two preceding sections by a brief
expository statement, and a summary of the results of our information
about the people to the opening of the Christian Era. As to the length
of the stone period in Scotland there is no very definite data, still
we are not altogether in the dark concerning its probable duration:――1,
Considering the length of time which it must have taken the people of
the Stone Age to spread over Scotland after they had crossed the Tweed
and the Cheviot Hills. 2, Then the evidence of a lengthened occupation
implied in the great structural monuments which they erected in honour
of the dead; and also the earth-houses which they built for their
self-preservation and protection from the storm and frost of a northern
climate. Further, it may be reasonably presumed that for a considerable
length of time after they had spread over the country, they would have
been fully engaged in providing the necessary means to preserve and
sustain their own lives, and consequently could not have had leisure to
construct elaborate monuments to the departed; for it is not when men
are striving and struggling to the utmost to preserve their existence
that they betake themselves to raise monuments to the dead. So it
may be fairly assumed that the chambered cairns of Caithness, Argyle,
Inverness-shire, and Orkney, were not erected until the people had
attained a certain measure of comfort, organisation, and leisure. All
this must have required a long period for its realisation, making due
allowance for the natural conditions and the circumstances under which
the people lived. 3, It has been indicated that probably the floor
of a single chambered cairn served as the burial-ground of a family or
tribe for several generations before the chamber was covered and the
structure completed. Thus, when two or three chambered cairns occur
near to each other, which is frequently the case, they may represent
in that locality the successive interments of several centuries. 4,
The evidence deducible from the traces of other remains――stone weapons
and tools and the sites of their manufacture, and primitive boats
discovered in positions which indicate that they were deposited in
such spots at a far distant period. 5, The analogy of other Northern
countries, such as Jutland and the Danish Islands, in which it has been
shown on reasonable grounds that the Stone Age commenced 3000 years
before the Christian era.
Taking into account these considerations and indications, it will
appear highly probable that Scotland was inhabited at least 2,800 years
before the Christian era, and that the southern parts of the island
were inhabited several centuries earlier. Indeed, it is doubtful if
this limited period will be sufficient to meet all the conditions and
circumstances of the case, and it must be distinctly understood that
I have advanced this statement as approximate only, and subject to
revision on the attainment of more reliable data.
Touching the probable date of the introduction of the use of bronze
weapons and implements into Scotland, it is impossible to speak with
any approach to certainty. As already pointed out, there was no rapid
introduction of metal weapons and tools; on the contrary, the change
from the use of stone tools to those of bronze was a slow transitorial
process, and in some districts of the country longer or shorter than in
others. From such available indications as we have, it seems probable
that bronze weapons and implements began to be introduced in the
southern and south-western districts of Scotland between 1200 and
1000 B.C., and that at first they came from the south of the island,
and from Ireland, and at a later stage they were manufactured within
the country. The introduction of bronze in the southern region of the
island has been placed at some 1200 or 1400 years B.C., and in Denmark
about 1000 years B.C.¹ My view would give a duration of the bronze
period in Scotland of eight or nine centuries, which at least is not
too long when the distinctive and characteristic development of many of
the bronze weapons and implements produced within the country is taken
into account.
¹ Evans’ _Ancient Bronze Implements, etc., of Britain_, pages
473, 479; J. J. A. Worsaae’s _Pre-history of the North_,
page 205, _et seq._, 1886. Greenwell calculates that a
period of 700 years may be allowed during which bronze was
the metal used for making cutting tools and implements in
Britain.――_British Barrows._
It is probable that iron was known and used in the south of the island
in the third or fourth century B.C., and in Scotland about the second
or third century B.C. But no rapid change took place from the use
of bronze to that of iron in the manufacture of weapons and tools,
the transition was extremely slow and gradual. Indeed, comparatively
little iron was produced in Britain till quite recent times. In all
probability the first manufactured iron articles used in Scotland were
imported, still there are some indications that the process of smelting
iron was known in the country at a pretty early period.
Having thus briefly indicated the probable length of the period since
Scotland has been continuously inhabited, and the stages which the
people have passed through in prehistoric times, I will next attempt to
indicate concisely the social state of the people and their religion,
but this effort must be incomplete from the lack of available
information and evidence.
It has already been incidentally mentioned that the Stone Age people,
while alone in possession of the country, had attained a certain degree
of social organisation. As they were of one race it is unlikely that
there was much war amongst them. That they lived in families or tribes
composed of a large number of individuals may be deduced from the
monuments erected over their dead; and that the heads of tribes could
command the service of a number of men to execute work is obvious.
Whether they were polygamists or monogamists seems uncertain, but
some writers have supposed that polyandry was practised amongst them.
Whatever form of family relations prevailed among them, there can be
no doubt that they were organised in pretty large communities. Besides
possessing cattle and horses, it seems probable that they knew the
use of some of the cereals, and had begun to sow small patches on
the elevated grounds. The earliest indications of agriculture in this
country occurs on some of the hilly ridges.
There seems to have been a strong element of animal worship associated
with their religion. From the constant occurrence of animal remains
in large quantities in the chambered cairns both in England and in
Scotland, this appears to be a reasonable inference; as the slaughter
of the animals at the funeral feasts merely for the purposes of eating
and ceremonial does not sufficiently account for the way in which the
animal remains are mingled with the human remains. It may be that some
notions of a relationship between the spirits of animals and those
of men existed in the minds of these people; if so, they may have
reasoned thus:――Seeing that animals were exceedingly useful to man, and
believing that animals had spirits or souls as well as men, the spirits
of these animals might be assumed to be useful and agreeable companions
for the spirits of the dead. These people simply looked at the death
of an individual as the passing out of his spirit from the body, which
spirit might wander about and return to the body or hover around its
remains. Thus it appears that their religion would practically consist
of a worship of ancestors associated with the spirits of animals. The
occurrence of the remains of dogs in the chambered cairns seems to lend
support to this view. That this religion, when it came into contact
with that of the Celts, would leave some traces of such contact on the
Celtic tribes of Scotland is more than probable.
Concerning the social state of the Bronze Age people, during which
the Aryan Celts had completed their dominion over the earlier race, we
have rather more reliable evidence. The Celtic tribes were monogamists
in their family relations and domestic arrangements; but the sexual
relations, the family customs, and organisations of the earlier race,
seem to have influenced the social relations of the Celtic tribes in
Scotland, more or less, for a long period. In the Bronze Period the
people were living in a well organised condition, under the tribal
forms of government. Owing to causes already indicated, historic
conditions had arisen which had the effect of consolidating a number
of the smaller units of families into one strong tribe, under a common
head; and in this way the tribes had attained a considerable degree of
social and political organisation. Thus within each large tribe there
was a sort of federation which embraced a considerable number of the
smaller tribal divisions, and such a tribe could act with decision and
effect. But when it became necessary for a number of these large tribes
to unite and act in concert for their mutual defence against a common
enemy, they appear politically not to have been sufficiently advanced
to take the full advantage of this means of united action when the day
of peril and of battle came. Hence the Romans explicitly state that if
the British tribes had been thoroughly united amongst themselves, the
task of conquering them would have been much more difficult, if not
impossible. As it was, it took the Romans, with all their combined
resources and disciplined legions, forty years to fight their way from
the Thames to the Firth of Forth.
Regarding their material resources, in relation to their social
condition, the evidence is pretty ample. They possessed herds of
domesticated animals, oxen, sheep, horses, and swine, and they
cultivated grain to some extent. They manufactured some kind of woollen
cloth, and made pottery. Their food consisted largely of the flesh
of the domestic animals and of the milk thence derived, and to a less
extent of fish, the products of grain, and wild animals. Their dress
consisted partly of animals skins prepared for the purpose, and partly
of the cloth above mentioned. That some at least of the people of the
Bronze Period were occasionally magnificently attired, is amply proved
from the numbers of massive gold ornaments, and armlets and necklaces,
which have been found in every quarter of Scotland, and numerous
ornaments of other materials, pins of various patterns and styles,
♦beads, and buttons. Thus far, the material and social condition of the
people appears to have been well advanced, and it is quite conceivable
that they may have lived in a state of comparative comfort and
enjoyment.
♦ “beds” replaced with “beads”
As to the religion of the early Celtic tribes of prehistoric Scotland,
no evidence of an organised priesthood has as yet been discovered.
Little importance can be attached to Cæsar’s literary account of the
Druids and the druidical worship, at least in their relation to the
tribes of Scotland, for there is no evidence that such a class of
religious teachers ever existed in any part of it. Our ground is thus
at once cleared of a mass of apocryphal notions and doctrines which too
long obtained currency. Such religion as the Celtic tribes actually had,
differed but little from that of the other branches of the Aryan race,
even from that of Rome herself, excepting that in our cold and cloudy
region it was not so elaborate as at the centre of the civilised world.
Their religion was polytheistic, with a strong element of ancestor
worship in it. Just as Cæsar himself was worshipped as a god in Rome,
so in Scotland the Celts often worshipped the souls of their departed
heroes. They sometimes worshipped many gods, which represented in more
or less mythological forms the personified powers of nature; and one of
the oldest and favourite epithets of the Deity in Gaelic is, “the King
of the elements” of nature. They had some five or six great gods, and a
number of minor ones.
The Celts had a vivid belief in the existence of the human soul
after death. Ancestor worship was undoubtedly the mainspring of their
creed. This was the leading characteristic of the religion of the
Northern Aryan people long after it ceased to be entertained in Rome
and Greece.¹ So intense and realistic was the Celts’ belief in the
future existence of the human soul, that it was said money loans were
sometimes granted on the understanding that they were to be repaid
beyond the grave. This may be an exaggeration, still there is no doubt
that the Celt’s realisation of a future life was from a very early
period intensely firm, as it is to this day among the same race.
¹ “Cæsar, as supreme pontiff of Rome, declared, in his place
in the Senate, his utter disbelief in another life, and
the stern Cato but mildly replied that their ancestors, men
perhaps as wise as Cæsar, believed that the guilty after
death were sent to the noisome abodes full of horrors and
terrors. But the classical belief, even at its best――in
the poems of Homer――gives but a poor, shadowy, comfortless
existence to the spirits of the dead.... The ghost of
Achilles says to Ulysses: ‘Rather would I live on earth as a
poor man’s hireling than reign among all the dead.’ The gods
lived on the heights of Olympus, aloft in Heaven, and far
apart from the hated abode of the dead, which lay under the
earth and ocean. Mortals were all consigned to the grisly
realm of Pluto.... Among the Romans ancestor worship had
a stronger force than in Greece. Their feast of the dead
was duly celebrated in the later half of February, when
chaplets were laid on their tombs, and fruit, salt, and corn
soaked in wine, were the least costly offerings presented to
them. The deification of the Emperors was merely a farther
development of this ancestor worship.” _Celtic Mythology_,
by Alexander Macbain, M.A.
There were three Gaelic festivals of a distinctively characteristic
kind:――1, Beltane, held on the first of May; 2, Lammas, on the first
of August; 3, Samhnirm or “summerend,” in modern Scotch, Halloween.
Originally they were all associated with fire and sun worship, sacred
to the gods of fire, of light, and of earth. The great festival of
Beltane on May-day was associated with rites relating to fire-worship,
divination, and incantation.¹ The Lammas-day feast seems to have been
connected with the rites of the sun-god; and the festival of Hallowe’en
was sacred to the gods of fire, of fruits, and of death. Traces of
survivals of this worship in a more or less disguised form may still be
observed in Scotland, though every year they are becoming less frequent.
¹ In relation to the Beltane festival I have an experience of
my own to record. Forty-three years ago, when I was a boy in
the service of a large farmer in the Valley of the Deveron,
in Aberdeenshire, our master ordered my elder brother and
I to make a bonfire on the first of May. I asked my brother
what was the meaning of it. He smiled, and said “it was to
burn the witches.” At the same time we were ordered to cut
branches of rowan tree and to place pieces of it above every
door about the farm――“to keep out the witches.” This was
done every year in the first of May at the farm in question.
It is a good example of the survival of a rite, in the form
of an incantation, transmitted from the prehistoric period,
and the very festival of which I have spoken above.
Having touched on the social condition and the religion of the
prehistoric peoples, in conclusion, I will recapitulate the leading
points of the two preceding sections.
I. Opening with a detailed description of the indispensable weapons and
tools of the Stone Age race, it was shown that these people manifested
remarkable skill, taste, and industry in the manufacture of their
weapons and implements. In some points of the manufacture of flint
tools and weapons they attained to a degree of skill and perfection in
the art which modern science cannot surpass with all its resources and
appliances. This side of their culture presents a striking illustration
of the great result which persistent human efforts can produce, even
with the most imperfect means.
1, Coming to the remarkable series of chambered and horned cairns
of the Stone Age, it was remarked that in the phenomena and remains
disclosed in these cairns, we reached the representative of primeval
man in Scotland. After presenting a concise account of the external and
internal structure of the cairns, and of the deposits contained within
their chambers, I then touched on the resemblances of the chambered
cairns of Caithness and the Long Barrows of England, as indicating
that one homogeneous race inhabited the whole island. Other groups of
chambered cairns were described. Reference was then made to certain
inferences drawn from the state of the human remains found in these
cairns, such as that this race were addicted to cannibalism and other
horrible practices; but it was shown that the evidence on which it had
been attempted to prove the prevalence of these practices was totally
inconclusive. Explanation of a novel character was then advanced, to
account for the condition in which the remains were found in the cairns.
2, The question of whether any trace of the dwellings of the Stone
Age people now existed in Scotland was discussed. It was shown that in
all probability the earth-houses were originated and a number of them
constructed by the Stone Age people. A description of these curious
structures followed; and it was pointed out that they had probably been
associated with overground huts. After noticing the primitive boats, it
was observed that the monuments of the Stone Age had long survived the
wreck of many empires.
II. The Bronze period was next treated. The question of the
introduction of bronze was touched on, and the transitional stage from
the use of stone weapons and implements to the use of those of bronze,
was briefly handled.
3, A reference was made to some of the hoards of bronze weapons,
tools, and articles found in Scotland. A description of the various
bronze weapons, tools, and ornaments, including many gold ornaments,
was presented; and in which it was indicated that many of these were
manufactured in Scotland. The variety and numbers of the gold ornaments
was specially noticed, and their significance as a feature of the
period indicated.
4, A question was then raised touching the traces of the dwellings of
the people in the Bronze period; and the sites of early settlements
were indicated. The structures called crannogs were then treated; their
probable origin and the period of their construction was discussed; a
brief description of the method of their construction, and the articles
discovered in them, was given. The several classes of hill-forts,
designed like the crannogs for protection and security, were next dealt
with; and their characteristics and peculiarities concisely described.
5, The burials of the Bronze period were handled, and the various modes
of disposing of the dead noticed: such as cairn interments; stone cist
interments; urn interments in collective groups; and the underground
phenomena associated with them. Bronze Age burials within circular
areas of standing stones were also treated; and it was observed that
many of the stone circles were now divested of the mystery which had
been so long ascribed to them.
6, Finally, a brief explanation of the social state and the religion
of the prehistoric peoples was given. Reviewing the whole series of
objects and subjects noticed in the preceding pages, we cannot fail to
be struck by the manifestation which they present of the intelligence,
the skill, the industry, and the determined and persistent efforts
of these men of the Stone and Bronze periods. They have exhibited a
degree of united action for common ends and mutual protection, a power
of designing and a concentration of the faculties of mind steadily
directed to the accomplishment of definite results, which is truly
surprising. They had attained to a stage of culture and of civilisation
which places them far in advance of what is often loosely termed
the savage and barbarian stages of human society. And, once for all,
let it be said in accordance with truth and reality, that our brave
and heroic ancestors, who have struggled through so many centuries and
difficulties to preserve intact their liberty and independence, were
not mere barbarians at the date of the Roman Invasion.¹ Placed as they
were in the last recess of liberty, they preserved it to succeeding
generations.
¹ If the term barbarian means a want of humanity, then the
Romans themselves were as much barbarians as the Celtic
tribes of Britain, for witness what Cicero himself said: “It
is the greatest pleasure in life to see a brave enemy led
off to torture and to death.”
SECTION VI.
_The Roman Period._
After the attempt of Julius Cæsar in B.C. 55 to conquer Britain, nearly
a century elapsed before another invasion of the island was essayed.
In the year A.D. 43, the conquest of Britain was begun; but proceeded
at a slow pace. The tribes in the southern division of the island
faced the Roman legions and fought bravely; and for many years little
advance was made. A number of tribes collectively called by the Romans
the Brigantes, occupied the extensive region now known as Yorkshire,
Lancaster, Westmoreland, Cumberland, and Northumberland, and extended
into the border counties of modern Scotland; and the tribes to the
north of this and inwards were called by the Romans the Caledonians.
The Brigantes contested the advance of the Roman legions and fought
bravely. By the year 77 the Roman province had been extended nearly to
the Solway Firth, and the legions were making great efforts to subdue
the inhabitants.
In the year 78 Agricola was appointed to the chief command in Britain.
He was an able and experienced general, and immediately engaged in
the work before him. In the summer of 79, he probably marched north by
the west coast of Cumberland, and advanced through the border counties
of Scotland. In that region his advance was contested at every step
by warlike tribes, habituated to strife and battle; but they were
unable to stem the progress of the disciplined legions. During the
winter Agricola was engaged in taking hostages from the tribes, whose
territories the Roman troops had overrun, and in making arrangements
to secure the subjection of the natives. The following year Agricola
determined to advance farther northward and attack the Caledonians in
their stronghold; but ♦the tribes made a vigorous resistance. He seems
to have penetrated through Stirlingshire and passed the Forth, but
it is doubtful if he advanced much farther; and he carefully secured
some portions of the territories through which his army had passed,
by erecting forts and forming camps as outposts in the most commanding
positions. After Agricola had discovered the natural features of the
country so far, and the spirit of the inhabitants, he fixed on the
ground lying between the Firths of Forth and Clyde for his main line
of defence; and the summer of 81 was spent in erecting a chain of forts
along this line.¹
♦ duplicate word “the” removed
¹ _Mon. Hist. Brit._ pages 44‒45; _Caledonia_, Volume I., pages
103‒104; _History of Cumberland_, by R. S. Ferguson, M.A.,
pages 21‒22.
Afterwards the Roman General was engaged for several years in subduing
the country between the Firths of Forth and Tay. He seems to have
penetrated into some parts of Fifeshire, while his fleet sailed round
the coasts; but the Romans failed to conquer the district between
Kinross and Muckross. Afterwards he formed his army in three divisions,
not far apart from each other, in order to meet the contingency of a
surprise; and then, with the assistance of the Roman fleet, Agricola
slowly advanced towards the Tay. The Caledonians, having ascertained
the disposition of Agricola’s army, resolved to attack one of his
divisions, the Ninth Legion. At midnight they assailed it, and fought
their way through the gate and into the heart of the Roman camp; but
Agricola himself, with the fleetest of the horse and foot came to the
rescue. When day dawned the Caledonians had to fight the Ninth Legion
on the one hand, and the reinforcement on the other; and the brunt of
the struggle was at the gate of the camp, where the intruders had to
fight their way out. The Legions were victorious, and the Caledonians
retired under cover of the marshes; but they were not disheartened.
Agricola learned, as the season passed, that the tribes were combining
to strike a blow, and were removing their wives and children to places
of safety. Both combatants were preparing for the struggle, which was
to determine whether the Romans were to obtain dominion over the whole
Island.¹
¹ _Mon. Hist. Brit._, page 45.
In the beginning of summer 86, Agricola sent his fleet round the coasts
to ravage the seaboard, and alarm and intimidate the inhabitants.
He then advanced with his army to Mons Grampius,¹ and there the
Caledonians were posted for battle. The native troops numbered 30,000,
men under the command of a leader called Galgacus; and as it was the
custom for the leaders of armies to address their troops on the eve
of a battle, so Tacitus, the historian, puts a speech into the mouth
of the leader of the Caledonians, which is too important to be passed
over:――“When I reflect on the causes of the war, and the circumstances
of our position, I feel a strong persuasion that our united efforts
this day will prove the beginning of universal liberty to Britain. For
we are all undebased by slavery, and there is no land behind us; nor
does even the sea afford a refuge, whilst the Roman fleet hovers around.
Thus the use of arms, at all times honourable to the brave, now offers
the only safety even to cowards. In all the battles yet fought against
the Romans, our countrymen have reposed their final hopes in us; for we,
the noblest sons in Britain, and therefore placed in its last recesses,
far from the view of servile shores, have preserved even our eyes
unpolluted by the contact of subjection.... The extremity of Britain is
now disclosed, and whatever is unknown becomes an object of magnitude.
But there is no nation behind us, nothing but waves and rocks, and the
still more hostile Romans, whose arrogance we cannot escape by cringing
and submission. Those plunderers of the world, after exhausting the
land by their devastations, are rifling the ocean, stimulated by
avarice if their enemy be rich, by ambition if poor, unsatiated by the
east and by the west, the only people who behold wealth and indigence
with equal avidity. To range, to slaughter, to usurp, they call empire,
and where they make a desert, they call it peace.
¹ There has been much conflict of views as to the locality
where this battle was fought. Chalmers placed it at the
camp at Ardoch; Professor John Stuart, of Aberdeen, placed
the locality of the battle above the town of Stonehaven,
Kincardineshire. He maintained that the Roman army was
posted upon the extended plain, exactly above Stonehaven,
and the Caledonians upon the face of the hills above Urie
House, directly opposite to the Romans. _Archæologica
Scotica_, Volume II., page 300. Dr. Burton abandoned the
attempt to fix the site of the battle as hopeless. Dr. Skene
has placed it:――“On the peninsula, formed by the junction
of the Isla with the Tay, are the remains of a strong and
massive vallum, extending from the one river to the other,
with a small Roman fort at one end, and enclosing a large
triangular space, capable of containing Agricola’s whole
troops, guarded by the rampart in front, and by a river on
each side.... On the heights above the plain are the remains
of a large native encampment, capable of containing upwards
of 30,000 men.” _Celtic Scotland_, Volume I., pages 52,
53. Dr. Skene thinks that this site agrees with Tacitus’
description better than any other locality in Scotland.
“Our children and kindred, by the decree of nature, are rendered the
dearest of all things to us, and these are torn away by levies to serve
in foreign lands. Our wives and sisters, though they should escape the
violation of hostile force, are polluted under the names of friendship
and hospitality. Our estates and possessions are consumed in tributes,
our grain in contributions, and even our bodies are worn down, amidst
stripes and insults, in clearing woods and draining marshes.... Since
then all hopes of mercy are vain; let those at last assume courage to
whom safety, as well as to whom glory, is dear. The Trinobantes, even
under a female leader, had force enough to burn a colony and storm
camps, and if success had not damped their vigour, would have been
able to throw off the yoke; and shall not we, untouched, unsubdued,
and struggling not for the acquisition but for the security of liberty,
show at the first onset what men Caledonia has reserved for her
defence? Can you imagine that the Romans are as brave in war as they
are licentious in peace? Acquiring renown from our dissensions, they
convert the faults of their enemies to the glory of their own army――an
army composed of the most different nations, which, as success alone
has kept together, misfortune will certainly dissipate, unless you
suppose that Gauls and Germans and Britons, who, though they expend
their blood to establish a foreign dominion, have been longer its
foes than its subjects, will be retained by loyalty and affection? No!
terror and dread alone are their weak bonds of attachment, which once
broken, they who cease to fear will begin to hate. Every incitement to
victory is on our side. The Romans have no wives to animate them, no
parents to upbraid their flight; most of them have either no home or a
distant one. Few in number, ignorant of the country, looking around in
silent horror at woods, seas, and a haven itself unknown to them, they
are delivered by the gods, as it were, imprisoned and bound into our
hands. Be not terrified by an idle show, and the glitter of silver and
gold, which can neither protect nor wound. The Britons will recognise
their own cause, the Gauls will recollect their former liberty, the
rest of the Germans will desert them, as the Usipii have lately done.
Nor is there anything formidable behind them――ungarrisoned towns,
colonies of old men, municipal towns――distempered and distracted
between unjust masters and ill-obeying subjects. There is a General,
here an army; there tributes, mines, and all the train of punishments
inflicted upon slaves, which, whether to bear eternally or instantly to
revenge, this field must determine. March then to battle, and think of
your ancestors and of your posterity!”
When Agricola saw the lines of his enemy he was afraid of being
outflanked, and extended his own line to the utmost. His front
consisted of 8000 auxiliaries and 3000 cavalry on the wings; the
Legions or Roman soldiers were held in reserve, and placed behind the
centre. The native army was well posted on the heights, their front
line stretched along the border of the plains, the second line on the
side of the hill, and the reserve behind it and farther up the hill. On
the plain the native charioteers and horsemen were moving and rapidly
manœuvring, as if to provoke attack. The battle began and raged with
great fury. While the fighting was with missiles at a distance the
native troops held their ground, and the charioteers drove back the
Roman cavalry and threw them into confusion; but Agricola sent forward
five cohorts to charge the native footmen with swords. For this weapon
they were not prepared, and their first line fell back; the whole
Roman line then advanced to the charge. Still, Galgacus tried a
flank movement with his reserve, but it failed; the chariots at last
became entangled amongst the broken ground, and a defeat ensued. The
Caledonians retired in order, and repeatedly attempted to check the
pursuit of the Romans, but many of the natives were slain; and 350
of the Romans fell. The Roman General did not pursue the Caledonians
far; and from various circumstances it seems evident that he had not
achieved a decisive victory. After taking hostages from some of the
tribes between the Tay and the Forth to prevent them from joining the
native army, he returned to his winter quarters, south of the Firths of
Forth and Clyde, with his army. Shortly after he was recalled to Rome.¹
¹ _Mon. Hist. Brit._, pages 46, 47, 48; _Caledonia_, Volume I.,
page 113.
It appears from the brief and vague notices of Roman writers, that the
Imperial troops had to maintain an incessant struggle with the northern
tribes in Britain. In short, the whole of the country which Agricola
had overrun, in a few years resumed its independent state, and the
Roman province on the north was limited to the same boundary as when
he first commenced his campaigns. The northern tribes even between
the Tweed and the Firths of Forth and Clyde seem to have been little
effected by Agricola’s conquests. Between the years 120 and 138, the
Romans built a wall from the river Tyne to Bowness on the Solway Firth,
which is usually called Hadrian’s wall. It is about seventy-three
miles in length, and consisted of a stone wall strengthened by a great
ditch on its northern side, and an earthen rampart to the south of the
stone wall; and military stations, forts, watch-towers, and roads for
the accommodation of the legions, who manned the bulwarks, and the
transmission of military stores. The stone wall and the earthen wall
were generally within sixty or seventy yards of each other, but the
distance between them varied with the nature of the ground. The stone
wall was about eight feet in thickness and about twenty in height;
and it consisted of a facing on each side of dressed stones, the core
was of concrete filled in between the facing stones; the whole forming
a solid mass which depended for its strength on the quality of the
concrete. Connected with this great barrier there were a number of
very large stations, fortified barracks with guard-houses, and upwards
of 300 watch-towers at about a quarter of a mile from each other, with
much stronger forts between every fourth or fifth watch-tower.¹ In
short it appears to have been one of the most complete and massive
lines of defensive works ever constructed by the Romans.
¹ Bruce’s _The Roman Wall_; _History of Cumberland_, by R. S.
Ferguson, M.A., pages 78‒97; 1890.
About twenty years later the Romans constructed another wall, which
commenced at Bridgeness on the Firth of Forth and crossed the country
to near West Kilpatrick on the Clyde, a distance of twenty-seven miles,
and probably on the line of Agricola’s frontier; it ran along the ridge
of the southern rising grounds. This wall consisted of earth and stone
works, forming a rampart of about twenty-four feet in breadth at the
base and some twenty feet in height; and a very wide and deep ditch
ran in front of the wall along its whole course, which faced the region
of the Caledonians. There was a paved way five feet broad close to
the foot of the wall, and a series of watch-towers within call of each
other in which sentinels watched day and night; and eighteen great
forts placed on the most commanding positions at intervals of about
two miles. A paved military road followed the line of the wall on the
southward side.¹ This was the barrier especially intended to keep the
Celtic tribes of Caledonia at bay; and from this time until the Romans
left the island it was the northern boundary of the province.
¹ Roy’s _Military Antiquities; Caledonia_, Volume I., pages
116‒119.
So it was the strip of territory between these two walls that the
Romans occupied in Scotland, and even there they were never long
permitted to hold undisputed possession. In 182 the tribes of the
north broke through the wall, slew the commander and a number of the
soldiers who guarded it, and wasted a portion of the province. About
the beginning of the third century the tribes of the north had overcome
the legions, and were overrunning the province, laying it waste, and
driving off booty. So in the year 208 the Emperor Severus arrived in
Britain, and at once proceeded to take steps to restore order, and
retaliate on the independent tribes. He concentrated all the available
troops in the island; and advanced into Scotland with a great force,
passed the wall which guarded the frontier, and marched forward and
attempted to penetrate into the heart of Caledonia. Severus tried by
throwing bridges over the rivers, cutting down the woods, and making
roads in every direction, to render the country passable for troops.
But this was more difficult than he had imagined. He may have advanced
some distance northward of the Tay, along the east coast, but it is
extremely doubtful if Severus ever reached the river Dee, far less the
Spey or the shores of the Moray Firth. Let the circumstantial evidence
be fairly considered, and it will appear highly improbable that Severus
penetrated to the Spey.
Severus only arrived in Britain in the year 208, and his campaign
beyond the frontier of the province in Caledonia could hardly have
commenced before 209. It is stated, that after he concluded a peace
with the native tribes, he returned southward and superintended the
reconstruction, or at least the repair, of the wall between the Forth
and Clyde. Having thus completed his work and settled everything, he
then returned to York. After he had been some time in York, tidings
that the Caledonians were again in revolt reached him, and we are told
that he was only prevented from recommencing a war of extermination
by his death, which occurred at York in 211.¹ Thus it appears that the
duration of Severus’ campaign north of the Forth must have been very
limited indeed, and at the utmost it could not have lasted much longer
than one year. It is said that he lost 50,000 men during the campaign,
although he fought no battle. If his army numbered 100,000 men, it is
extremely difficult to conceive how such a number of men could have
been supplied with food in the heart of a hostile country, especially
without the co-operation of a fleet. If, within the limited period
of one year, Severus and his army erected bridges over the principal
rivers from the Firth of Forth to the Spey, constructed one great
military road to secure his line of communication between the same
points――through marshes, woods, and rocks――and made other roads in
all directions, besides forming great camps here and there between the
supposed points of the commencement and the termination of the campaign.
In reality it seems most probable that the scene of Severus’ campaign
did not pass beyond the limits of Perthshire; for if he had left this
region unconquered behind him, the advance through the eastern Lowlands
to the Spey would have been a military and political blunder which
no Roman General was likely to commit. The only thing certain about
Severus’ campaign is that it produced no permanent result whatever.
¹ Skene’s _Celtic Scotland_, Volume I., pages 82‒90.
After the death of Severus, his son Antoninus became Emperor, who
made peace with the native tribes, and left the frontier, of which
he had been in charge. A long period of silence as to the state of
North Britain followed. Toward the end of the third century Caransius,
a native of Belgium, who had risen to high rank in the Roman army,
assumed the purple himself, and ruled Britain independently for
a period of seven years. In the early part of the fourth century
the Emperor Constantine seems to have been at war with the northern
tribes; and by the middle of the same century the relative positions
and the historic conditions had entirely changed, for Rome herself
was fast verging towards dissolution. Toward the end of this century
the northern tribes were sometimes called Picts, and at the same time
the Scots and Saxons were mentioned among the assailants of the Roman
province in Britain; the attacks of these tribes had become incessant,
while the Romanised Britons were beginning to be left to their own
resources. Disorder was rapidly spreading in all quarters of the empire.
At this time the generals in command in Britain frequently assumed the
title of Emperor, and always fought to obtain the purple and universal
sway; owing to this the Roman province in Britain was completely
drained of troops. The tribes outside the walls were constantly
harassing the Romanised population, and in 407 Constantine advised the
Britons to abandon the districts between the walls and to concentrate
their efforts to protect the remainder of the province by manning the
southern wall to the utmost of their power. He then passed over to Gaul,
withdrawing all the available troops in Britain, and henceforth the
imperial sway ceased in Scotland.¹
¹ _Mon. Hist. Brit._, pages 53, 62, 63, 66, 68, 70, 75, 79,
80, 82, 83. In the early years of the fifth century the
local army in Britain set up three Roman Emperors――Marcus,
Gratianus, and Constantine――and the latter, as stated in the
text, crossed the Channel to Gaul with his army, and left
Britain utterly undefended. Long before this time, however,
several of the generals in Britain usurped the authority of
Emperors, as recorded in the passages cited above.
SECTION VII.
_Chief Tribes of the Country from the Fifth Century
to the Foundation of the Monarchy._
In the preceding section we have seen that the Roman occupation of a
portion of the country must have in some degree affected the Celtic
inhabitants within the walls. In fact, the tribes from the southern
borders of modern Scotland to the wall between the Forth and Clyde were
greatly affected by their subjection to the Romans; but whether they
were improved as men is another matter. A little Roman blood may have
been infused into the veins of the natives during the two centuries and
a half of contact with their masters; but it seems that they retained
their own language, and were not in that relation Latinised. In short,
it is certain that they soon ceased to have any Roman institutions, and
that when the legions departed and left them to their own resources,
they were comparatively helpless. They struggled, however, to preserve
themselves from destruction though not with much success, for the
independent tribes tormented and robbed them, in spite of the great
advantage which the walls should have afforded to them for defence
against their outside enemies. But new historic conditions then came
rapidly into operation, though unfortunately we have no detailed
records of them, and must interpret partly by the light of prior and
subsequent results.
In the third section the affinities of the tribes inhabiting Britain
prior to the Roman occupation were clearly indicated. It was then
apparent that the tribes in the south of Scotland and those in the
north of England were of one race――Celtic people speaking Aryan
dialects. But long before the Romans left the island, another race,
the Saxons, had appeared upon the coasts of Britain, and repeatedly
attacked the Roman province.¹ After the final departure of the Imperial
troops, the Saxons and Angles invaded the southern parts of Britain
in force, and commenced a fierce and ruthless war with the Britons to
obtain the possession and dominion of the country. But only confused,
incomplete and traditional accounts of this struggle have been
preserved, which were subsequently coloured according to the view
considered necessary to justify existing conditions from time to time.
In the circumstances it was natural that the Britons in the south of
Scotland should assist their kindred in the north of England. As many
of the Britons in the southern and south-eastern parts of the island
were either massacred or driven northward by the invaders; at last the
cruelly oppressed Britons made a stand for life or death in the north.
The result, however, as far as can be seen, was that the Britons in the
north of England were cut off from their kindred in the south-west of
Scotland by the advance and success of the Angles.
¹ Dr. W. F. Skene has stated that tribes of Frisians, people
akin to the Saxons, had made settlements on the shores
of the Firth of Forth, and extended along the shore of
Forfarshire, and perhaps as far as Stonehaven in the fourth
century, and also in Dumfriesshire. But such evidence as
he adduces, is indeed far from conclusive. See _Celtic
Scotland_, Volume I., pages 145‒146, 191‒192, 231; and also,
_Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume IV., pages 174‒175, 179, where he discusses the
matter at length.
The Britons who occupied the portion of the country subdued by the
Romans in Scotland, formed the small kingdom of Strathclyde, which
comprised the counties of Ayr, Lanark, Renfrew, Peebles, Dumbarton,
portions of Stirling and Dumfries. Their chief stronghold was the
fortified rock on the right bank of the Clyde, now known as Dumbarton
Castle. Their kingdom was exposed to the attacks of the Angles or
Saxons from the south, and to those of the Scots from the west and
the Picts from the north. The Angles of Northumbria at times reduced
the Britons to the position of a tributary people, and for centuries
portions of Strathclyde were often plundered and wasted by the other
tribes. Still the Britons of Strathclyde struggled hard and long to
preserve their kingdom, it passed through many vicissitudes, and it
finally became absorbed in the rest of Scotland early in the eleventh
century. The body of the people, however, long retained their Celtic
speech, and as late as the twelfth century were sometimes called
Welsh.¹
¹ _Chronicles_; Robertson’s _Scotland under her Early Kings_,
Volume I., pages 16‒19, 54‒55, 70‒72.
The Picts were of the same race of tribes as those whom the Romans
called Caledonians, simply Celtic tribes. They were first called Picts
by a Roman orator, Eumenius, in a panegyric on Constantine in the
year 296, and in the succeeding century the term Picts was frequently
applied to the tribes beyond the wall by Roman writers. The name
Picts, as used by the Romans, is thus an external one, and there is no
evidence whatever that these Celtic tribes themselves then knew that
they were called Picts, so entirely is the name an outside one, in
the sense in which it was applied to them by the Romans. The earliest
native record relating to the Picts is the Pictish Chronicle, which
seems to have been composed about the end of the tenth century. Two
separate editions of it are preserved, one of which is supposed to
have been compiled in Abernethy and the other in Brechin, and it is
plain that the opening sentences about the Picts in this chronicle were
drawn from Roman sources. There is no evidence that these tribes called
themselves Picts, and consequently there never was a Pictish language
in Scotland, for these tribes which were first called Picts by the
Romans simply spoke Celtic dialects; and this is all that we are ever
likely to discover about their language.
For a century after the departure of the Romans there is little
definite information about the northern tribes of Britain. It has been
conjectured that the Pictish monarchy was founded in the fifth century;
but it is extremely doubtful if their political organisation can in
any sense be called a monarchy. So far as can be ascertained, the
Picts seem rather to have been living under a rude and half-developed
confederacy than a settled hereditary monarchy. They had no settled
form of succession to the kingship. In short, it is more than probable
that the king or chief was elective, and dependent on his followers for
his position. The Picts were never united as one organised political
society, they were always divided into tribes, for we read of the
southern Picts, the Picts of Galloway, and the northern Picts. The
truth seems to be that they were merely a number of strong but separate
Celtic tribes.
In the sixth century these Celtic tribes, called Picts, occupied
the whole of Scotland on the north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde,
excepting the district of Argyle, then called Dalriada, which was held
by the Scots. The Pictish and Scottish tribes were separated from each
other by the Drumalban range of mountains, which separates the modern
counties of Argyle and Perth. To the north of the mountain range,
called in early times the “Monuth,” which extends from Ben Nevis
to near the east coast between Stonehaven and Aberdeen, the country
northward of this, from sea to sea, was occupied by the northern
Picts, while the region thence extending southward to the Forth, was
occupied by the southern Picts; but beyond the Forth, in the district
of Galloway, the inhabitants, Celtic tribes, were called Picts. Thus
it appears that the tribes which were called Picts were not living
under a monarchy or one king. There is no evidence whatever to show
that Galloway had not been continuously occupied by Celtic tribes from
prehistoric times down to the Middle Ages. It is said that St. Ninian,
who began his mission in Galloway and founded a church there, converted
the southern Picts to Christianity.¹
¹ _Historians_, Volume VI., pages 25, 58, 71, 77, 87, 258;
Volume V., pages 14, 274‒281; Dr. Skene’s _Celtic Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 131, 238. Professor John Rhys, in his
course of Rhind Lectures, has recently treated at length
of the ancient peoples of Scotland, with much learning
and discrimination. So far as he touches on the Picts, his
remarks and suggestions are interesting and instructive,
though mainly based on philological grounds.
The Saxons (or the Angles as they were sometimes named) reached the
southern parts of Scotland in force about the middle of the sixth
century, and before the end of it they had established themselves
in Lothian. They pressed severely on the Britons of Strathclyde, as
already mentioned, and extended their conquests on every side, and at
last ventured into the territories of the Picts. In 685, Egfrid their
King attempted a bold stroke, advanced with his followers and crossed
the Forth at Stirling, and penetrated into the heart of the Pictish
territory; continuing his advance, he crossed the Tay and marched
fearlessly onward. But on the 20th of May, in a narrow pass of the
Sidlaw Hills at Dunnichen, the Picts faced him, and a great battle
ensued, in which Egfrid himself was slain, and few of his army escaped
from the fatal field. The victory was complete; and it had the effect
of severing the district between the Tay and the Forth from the
influence which would have tended to make it a part of England. The
Saxon clergy fled from their chief seat at Abercorn and thence removed
to Yorkshire; from this date the power of the Northumbrian state began
to wane.¹
¹ Bede, B. IV., Chapter 26; _Chronicles_, pages 72, 351.
But the body of the people south of the Forth in Lothian remained
essentially Saxon throughout all the subsequent conflicts and changes,
perhaps even more Saxon than in any part of England, in speech and
custom. It is certain that they absorbed and superseded the Celtic
Britons in this region at a comparatively early period, and ample
evidence of this will appear as the narration proceeds.
The Scots whom we know came from Ireland, appear to have come and gone
at different times. They were mentioned among the assailants of the
Roman province in Britain in 360; and it may be presumed that a pretty
close intercourse between them and the Celtic tribes of the west of
Scotland had prevailed for long before this date. There may have been
several migrations from Ireland to Scotland at different periods,
but their final settlement in Argyleshire occurred about the end
of the fifth century. When the three sons of Erc, Lorn, Fergus, and
Angus, with their followers, obtained possession of Argyle, which they
called Dalriada. They sometimes came into conflict with the Britons
of Strathclyde, and with the Picts. It seems highly probable that the
language of the Scots was more developed than the cognate speech of
the Picts, seeing that Ireland had not prior to this time been invaded
and harassed by external enemies as the Pictish tribes had been. If
this was the case, it would partly account for the disappearance of
the dialects spoken by the Celtic tribes called the Picts.¹ These Irish
settlers were already Christians. The kings of the small state were
all descended from the race of Erc, and there is in the Chronicles and
Irish Annals a long list of them; but such details as exist concerning
their reigns yields comparatively little real historic results.²
¹ Although I believe there is no satisfactory evidence
of writings in native Irish before the introduction
of Christianity, still the Irish branch of the Celtic
language had no doubt reached a considerably higher stage
of development than the Celtic dialects then current among
the Pictish tribes in northern Britain. On a matter of this
nature, however, it must always be remembered that prior to
the introduction of printing, there were only an extremely
small fraction of people who could read or write, or
appreciate the difference between a literary language and
the dialect of their own local district. To imagine anything
else, is simply to throw back the ideas and appliances of
a latter age into periods when the known conditions and
circumstances of society exclude the possibility of their
existence or application. See Dr. Todd’s _St. Patrick_,
pages 346‒351, 391‒399, 506‒513; _Ancient Laws of Ireland_,
Preface to Volhne I., pages 8‒12, _et seq._, and the general
Preface to Volume III., pages 148‒163.
² An elaborate “Genealogical Table of the Dalriadic Kings,
and of the principal Highland families in Scotland descended
from them,” will be found in Dr. Wm. Reeves’ edition of
Adamnan’s _Life of St. Columba_; and in a note to the table,
he says, “The authorities here followed are:――The Tract
on the Men of Alba, in the Book of Ballymote, and the
Genealogical manuscript of MacFirbis; and the Duan Albanach;
all manuscripts in the library of the Royal Irish Academy.
Some supplemental matter is borrowed from the Pedigrees
printed in the Collectanea de Rebus Albanicis; and the
chronology is chiefly based on the Annals of Tighernach and
Ulster.” According to this Table the Marmaers of Moray, the
clans Maclean, Mackenzie, and Mackinnon, were descended from
the Kings of Dalriada.
Aidan was the first of the Dalriadian rulers who manifested real
ability and character. He was solemnly inaugurated as King of Dalriada
by St. Columba in the Island of Iona. It appeared that the Scots
in Dalriada (Argyle) had as yet been merely considered as a colony
dependent on the King of Ireland; but the newly crowned Aidan and St.
Columba attended a convention held at Drumnceat in 575, and in which
the King of Ireland agreed to recognise the independence of Scotch
Dalriada and its princes; so Aidan was the first independent king of
the Irish-Scottish kingdom in Argyle and the neighbouring Isles. Aidan
became associated with the Britons of Strathclyde, and in 603 the Scots
and Britons united their forces and resolved to try issues with the
advancing Angles, who were led by their king, Aedilfrid. Aidan advanced
and entered the territory of the Angles by the vale of the Liddel; and
at a place called Dawstane the opposing armies encountered each other.
After a severe battle, Aidan was completely defeated, and many of his
followers slain, but he retreated with the remainder of his army. He
died in 606, after a reign of thirty-one years, and was succeeded by
his younger son, Eocha Buide.¹
¹ Reeves’ _Adamnan_, edited 1857, pages 197‒203, 436;
_Chronicles_, page 17. “The house of Lorn furnished a few
provincial kings, produced a powerful race of Thanes (among
whom was the ever-famous Macbeth), and finally became
represented by a group of great Highland chieftains, whose
descendants still abound in those isles, the historical
vestiges of thirteen hundred years’ succession.” _Ibid._,
page 438.
Another new historic condition came into operation which had an
important influence on the subsequent history of the island. This was
the appearance of the bold and vigorous race variously described as
Danes, Norwegians, Norsemen, Scandinavians, and Vikings. These names
all refer to one kindred race, but in the subsequent pages I will in
general follow the common collective name of Norsemen when referring to
them. They were not only exceedingly brave in attack and in battle, but
also very skilful in constructing small vessels, and in steering them
through the raging seas, running them up the inlets and through the
narrow channels, and into the firths and estuaries, and out again, with
a mastery of seamanship unapproached by any other people of that period.
Thus they attained to a power and influence in Europe for several
centuries which their mere numbers otherwise could never have commanded.
At first their inroads and expeditions were usually undertaken for
plunder, but by-and-bye, when they came upon a locality which seemed a
desirable possession, their instinct prompted them to occupy it if they
thought themselves able to hold it. Thus their views of conquest and
of empire developed with their success, and they established themselves
in several parts of Europe as the ruling power for a time, and in some
places permanently. They began to infest the Northern and Western Isles
and the coasts of Scotland toward the close of the eighth century,
and persistently continued not only to subdue and occupy many of the
islands but also to make attacks upon the mainland at many points along
the coasts.
While the Norsemen were feeling their way amongst the Isles, and
eagerly casting their eyes on Scotland as they steered round it in
their vessels at no great distance from the shores, and occasionally
landing whenever they found an opportunity, the chief tribes in the
country――the Picts, the Scots, the Britons, and the Saxons――were
intently engaged in an intermittent warfare with one another, which
seemed to be producing little result. In the seventh and eighth
centuries these tribes often met in conflict, on debatable territory,
between the Tay and the Forth, and between the Forth and the water of
Almond, in the counties of Stirling and Linlithgow; in these districts
many of their battles were fought. In short, it had become apparent
in the seventh century that the banks of the Tay would be the original
centre of the historic kingdom. This was mainly owing to a series of
causes, which may be briefly indicated thus:――1. The unsubdued Celtic
tribes still occupied Perthshire and Fife and Kinross, and the natural
advantages which arose from the possession of this extensive region
were very great, from every point of view. 2. To the northward and
the eastward of the Tay the whole country was in the possession of the
Celtic tribes. 3. While the region to the south of the Forth had been
subdued and occupied by the Romans, and since their departure from the
island the advance and success of the Angles on the south of the Forth,
and their firm settlement in the Lothians, even though Pictish tribes
still held Galloway, the existing conditions and circumstances clearly
pointed out the banks of the Tay as the original centre of the historic
kingdom. Accordingly Scone had become the chief seat or the capital of
the Pictish tribes at the beginning of the eighth century. While Perth,
in its immediate vicinity, became an important town, and Dunkeld,
fourteen miles farther up the Tay, the ancient stronghold of the
Caledonians, and the very gate to the central Highlands, became for
a time the chief religious centre of the kingdom. Farther down below
Scone, on the estuary of the Tay, there had long before this been an
important settlement where the city of Dundee now stands. There can be
no reasonable doubt that the famous Coronation Stone was in Scone, at
the beginning of the eighth century, on which the kings were installed
to the throne.
But the struggle between the different tribes continued till a pretty
complete nationality was evolved. In reality the formation of a nation
is often a much longer process than the creation of an empire, for mere
force can never produce it, or a single great man, as it must have time
to grow and form affinities, assimilate adverse elements and features,
and subdue opposite interests and influences, till at length that
unity on which combined action and organisation for common ends and the
safety of the whole community comes into being, and then national life
begins to operate. It took more than two thousand years to form the
Scottish nation, and we have yet to note the most important stages of
the process.
Angus, son of Fergus, appears to have fought his way and mounted the
Pictish throne about the year 731. He attacked the territory of the
Scots in Argyle and wasted the whole country in the year 736. It is
said that he founded the monastery of St. Andrews. After a reign of
thirty years he died in 761; and he was succeeded by his brother,
Bruide, who reigned two years, and died in 763. A number of Pictish
kings follow, but the events of their reigns are of little historic
value. Constantine, who fought his way and ascended the throne of
the Picts in 790, founded the church of Dunkeld; and after a reign of
thirty years died in 820. His brother Angus, son of Fergus, succeeded
him, and for five years he ruled over the kingdoms both of the Picts
and Scots, and he died in 834. This was followed by a contest for the
throne of the Picts, in which Alpin the Scot, who attacked the Picts,
was slain.¹
¹ _Chronicles_, 138, 201, 209; Dr. Skene’s _Celtic Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 288, 296, 299; _A Sketch of the History of
Fife and Kinross_, by Sheriff Æ. J. G. Mackay, pages 8‒9.
But Kenneth, son of Alpin the Scot, succeeded his father in the small
kingdom of Argyle in the year 839. The same year the Norsemen invaded
the territories of the Picts and inflicted a crushing defeat upon them.
This may have afforded the opportunity to Kenneth M‘Alpin to make a
supreme effort to obtain the Pictish throne. Bred appears as the last
of the line of Pictish kings, and Kenneth M‘Alpin placed himself upon
the Coronation Stone at Scone in 844, thus becoming the real founder
of the historic kingdom of Scotland. This great event, however, must
be interpreted as the result of the long struggle of the chief tribes,
as the accumulating force of circumstances and the necessities of
life, and the new influence of a common religion, naturally tended to
a greater concentration of power under some one of the leading tribes.
Thus the foundation of the monarchy marked two distinct stages: 1, it
concentrated more power in the original centre, whence the historic
kingdom was gradually extended outward; 2, it supplied a continuous
influence which operated effectively, though slowly, in developing
the loose elements of separate tribal communities into a nationality.
Henceforth the internal and external causes and agencies which have
contributed to the formation of the kingdom, the development of the
nation, and the progress of civilisation, may be continuously traced.
The actual kingdom which Kenneth M‘Alpin obtained, only comprised a
limited portion of modern Scotland. It consisted of the district of
Argyle, the counties of Perth, Fife, and parts of Forfar, Dumbarton
and Stirling, with Scone as its chief seat of royalty, and Dunkeld as
its centre of religious influence. The districts beyond this centre on
the north-east, the west, and the south, were only gradually, and with
extreme difficulty subdued, as the nation developed to its ultimate
limits. After the establishment of the monarchy, under M‘Alpin, the
reigning rulers were called Kings of the Picts, then Kings of Alban,
and not till the tenth century was any part of the country called
Scotland, but from the opening of the eleventh century this name
gradually came to be applied to the whole country.
Kenneth M‘Alpin was a brave and able prince; but the circumstances
in which he was placed needed all his energy, as the newly acquired
territories were surrounded by bold and hostile foes; but he heroically
faced all his enemies, and stifled in the bud any questions of his
right to the kingdom, throttled the claims of all competitors, and
asserted his supremacy. After a brilliant reign, according to the
ideas of his time, having governed the Picts and the Scots jointly
for sixteen years, he died in his dun at Forteviot, on the river Earn,
in 860. It appears he had two sons, Constantine and Aed, and three
daughters.¹
¹ _Chronicles_, pages 9, 21, 64, 65, 84, 135, 154, 361, 362.
SECTION VIII.
_Introduction of Christianity._
The advent and spread of Christianity produced a great revolution in
many parts of the globe. The Christian religion was a prime factor in
the development of Scotland, as it became closely associated with the
government, the institutions, the education, the music, the literature,
the amusements, and the life of the people; indeed, its influence
operated from the cradle to the grave.
It has been said that Christianity was early introduced into
Britain. Although with the utmost effort to reach the truth, the
mass of legends are difficult to digest. It is almost impossible to
extract any definite historic information from such statements as
these:――“Meanwhile the most blessed man, St. Ninian, being pained
that the devil, driven forth from the earth within the ocean, should
find rest for himself in a corner of this island in the heart of the
Picts, girding himself as a strong wrestler to cast out his tyranny;
taking moreover, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, the
breast-plate of charity, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the
Word. Fortified by such arms, and surrounded by the society of his holy
brethren as by a heavenly host, he invaded the empire of the strong man
armed with the purpose of securing from his power innumerable victims
of his captivity, whereupon, attacking the Southern Picts, whom still
the Gentile error which clung to them induced to reverence and worship
deaf and dumb idols, he taught them the truth of the Gospel and the
purity of the Christian faith, God working with him, and confirming
the Word with signs following.”¹
¹ _Historians_, Volume V.; _Life of St. Ninian_, pages 14, 15,
274‒281.
This worthy man was amongst the first teachers of the new faith in
Scotland. He was the son of a British prince, and was educated in the
Christian faith at Rome, and visited St. Martin at Tours, in France.
His life was written by Ailred, a monk of the twelfth century, but it
contains little reliable information; he rather presented a picture
of the Church of his own time than an account of the life and labours
of St. Ninian. Bede lived nearer to the saint’s time, and records that
Ninian converted the Southern Picts, and built a church of stone, which
was unusual among them. This church was in Galloway, at a spot called
Whithern, and it developed into a monastery.¹
¹ _Mon. Hist. Brit._, pages 175, 176.
A few incidents will indicate the character of the matter embodied
in the life of St. Ninian. One day, when the saint and his brethren
assembled to dinner, there were no pot herbs or vegetables on the table.
Ninian asked the reason of this, and was told that all that remained of
the leeks had that day been committed to the ground, and the garden had
not yet produced anything fit for eating. Then the saint ordered the
brother to whom the keeping of the garden was entrusted to go and bring
to him whatever he could find. The man, knowing that Ninian would order
nothing in vain, entered the garden, and behold! leeks and other kinds
of herbs not only grown but also bearing seed. He was much astonished,
and thought that he saw a vision, but on returning to himself, and
recollecting the power of the holy man, he thanked God, and then
culled as much herbs as seemed sufficient, and placed them on the table
before the saint. The brethren looked at one another, and magnified God
working in his saints.¹
¹ _Historians_, Volume V. _Life of St. Ninian_, page 16.
St. Ninian restored the sight of a king of Strathclyde on whom God had
inflicted the punishment of blindness for his pride and opposition to
the saint, and when thus subdued and healed the king became friendly,
and a ready supporter of the servants of Christ. Ninian died in 432,
and was interred in his own church at Whithern. His biographer affirmed
that the relics of the saint worked many miracles. “That at his tomb
the sick were cured, the lepers cleansed, the wicked terrified, and the
blind restored to sight; by all which our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth
and reigneth with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, world
without end. Amen.”¹ We know, from later sources of evidence, that the
relics of St. Ninian were objects of intense veneration down to the
period of the Reformation.
¹ _Historians_, Volume V. _Life of St. Ninian_, pages 11, 12,
23‒26.
But the best evidence of the mission of St. Ninian in Scotland, and
his place in the grateful remembrance of the people, is shown in the
number of churches dedicated to his name. Churches were dedicated to
him in twenty-five counties, stretching from Wigton to Sutherland, but
his churches were most numerous in Ayrshire and Forfarshire; in all,
upwards of sixty churches were dedicated to him.¹
¹ _Ibid._ Introduction, pages 13‒19. The late Bishop of Brechin,
in his valuable _Calendar of the Scottish Saints_, gave a
detailed list of St. Ninian’s churches.
It appears that the southern tribes of the Picts and the Strathclyde
Britons had been only slightly touched by St. Ninian’s mission. This
is not surprising; although it is clear that the early teachers of
Christianity in Britain and in Ireland adopted an easier mode of
proceeding than the modern missionaries in heathen lands. The early
saints allowed many of the old and existing notions of the people
to remain intact, and simply turning, or professing to turn them, to
beneficial ends. This is the natural and reasonable way of accounting
for the many miracles attributed to the saints, which were merely the
counterparts of ideas and notions then floating among the tribes and
in the minds of the inhabitants. To suppose, as has sometimes been
done that these miracles were invented for the purpose of enhancing
the power and importance of the clergy, only evinces an imperfect
perception of the essential characteristics of the condition of the
people and the period, and a defective appreciation of the operations
of the human mind. No doubt the early teachers of Christianity in
Scotland and elsewhere firmly believed in their power of working
miracles, for this belief was in their minds, or something very similar
to it, before they became Christians. Thus it was only a continuation
and a higher development of their former notions and feelings, not
at all a newly invented belief, as something very like it had existed
in the country many centuries before this period. We will meet with
curious and amusing illustrations of it almost to the end of our
history.
About the middle of the sixth century St. Kentigern, better known as
St. Mungo, began his work amongst the Britons of Strathclyde, where
he encountered many and great difficulties. The people were nearly all
heathens, and all the energy of the saint and his working of miracles
produced little impression upon them. When King Morken ascended the
throne, he scorned and despised the life and doctrine of the saint,
openly resisted him, and attributed his miraculous powers to magical
illusion. Then they came face to face, and the saint asked for some
supplies of food to the brethren of the monastery; but the king
spurned his petition and inflicted new injuries on him. He said to the
saint――“Cast thy care upon the Lord and He will sustain thee, as thou
hast often taught others, that they who fear God shall lack nothing,
and that those who seek the Lord shall have everything which is good.
Thus, though thou fearest God and keepest His commandments, thou art in
want of everything, even thy necessary food; while to me, who neither
seek the kingdom of God nor the righteousness thereof, all prosperous
things are added, and plenty of all sorts smileth upon me. Thy faith,
therefore, is vain, and thy teaching false.” The saint pleaded that it
was part of the inscrutable ways of God to afflict just and holy men
in this life, while the wicked were exalted by wealth; and yet the poor
were the real patrons of the rich, seeing that the labour of the poor
sustained the rich as the vines were supported by the elm. The king
rose in a passion, and said――“What more desirest thou? If trusting in
thy God, without human hands, thou canst transfer to thy mansion all
the corn in my barns, I yield with a glad mind and gift, and for the
future will be devoutly obedient to thy requests.”
When evening came the saint prayed earnestly to the Lord. Then, behold!
the rain poured down in torrents, the waters of the Clyde rapidly rose
into a flood and overflowed its banks where the king’s barns were,
and carried them down the stream, and landed the whole at the saint’s
dwelling, beside the Molendinar burn, which then flowed near the place
now called the Salt Market in Glasgow. But the miracle only enraged
the king, who uttered many reproaches against the saint, and when he
approached the king rushed on him and struck him with his heel and
smote him to the ground upon his back. The time had come to manifest
the divine power on behalf of the saint. As Cathen, the king’s adviser,
had instigated the whole matter, so after mounting his horse to ride
off, and laughing at the saint’s discomfiture, his prancing steed
stumbled, and the rider falling backward broke his neck and expired
before the king’s gate. The king also was smitten with a swelling in
his feet, which ended in his death, and the same disease afflicted his
family till it became extinct.¹
¹ _Historians_, Volume V. _Life of St. Kentigern_, pages 69‒72,
348.
But the saint was forced to leave Strathclyde, and went to Wales,
where he laboured many years. Afterwards, when King Riderch reigned in
Strathclyde, the saint returned and spent the remaining years of his
life amongst the Britons. This king seems to have favoured the saint,
and promoted his labours among the people. After an active and earnest
life spent in the service of humanity, St. Kentigern died about the
beginning of the seventh century. Besides attaining to the rank of
local saint of Glasgow, under the name of St. Mungo, his memory became
widely and greatly revered in Scotland. He also left the impress of
his energy on the people of Wales and of Cumberland, as in the latter
district eight churches were dedicated to his name. His tomb and relics
at Glasgow were objects of extreme veneration down to the period of the
Reformation.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 73, 88‒95, 118, 119, 348‒370; _History of
Cumberland_, by ♦R. S. Ferguson, M.A., page 114, 1890.
♦ “R. T.” replaced with “R. S.”
Before passing to the northern part of the country, the important
labours of St. Cuthbert must be noticed. He was born on the southern
side of the Lammermoor Hills, and when a boy followed a shepherd’s
life. But Nature had gifted him with fine sensibilities and a glowing
imagination, united in a vigorous physical frame, and the inner
cravings of his mind led him to Melrose and to adopt a religious life.
He became the apostle of the border counties. From his retreat at
Melrose he carried his teaching of the Gospel to the people in the
glens and the hillsides of the Cheviots and the Lammermoors, Ettrick,
Teviotdale, Yarrow, and Annan Water. In his missionary efforts among
the inhabitants of these localities he often spent several weeks at
a time, and then returned to his monastery, like the bird to the ark.
His energy was very great, and he faced toil and hardship bravely and
cheerfully in the service of God and humanity. Afterwards St. Cuthbert
was elected Bishop of Lindisfarne. Thus he became a conspicuous and
worthy saint in the annals of the English Church.¹ He died in 687.
¹ _Mon. Hist. Brit._, pages 242‒243. The materials for the life
and career of St. Cuthbert, and the many interesting incidents
associated with him, are exceedingly voluminous, but the
following are the main sources:――1, An Anonymous Life; 2,
the Prose Life by Bede; 3, the Metrical Life by Bede; 4,
the History of the Translation of his Body; 5, the Libellus
of Reginald; 6, a number of Miscellanies. See T. D. Hardy’s
Catalogue of the Materials relating to the History of Britain,
Volume I., pages 297‒317.
The most renowned of the early saints who introduced Christianity among
the northern tribes of Scotland was St. Columba, as all have recognised
in him the features of a veritable hero. He was very fortunate in
having two of his successors as biographers, who were near enough to
his own time to give their accounts of him a special value. Though
we may regret that Adamnan’s _Life of St. Columba_ affords so little
information about the state of society in his time, still we should
recollect that it was intended for the instruction of his own age
and contemporaries, not for the enlightenment of a remote posterity.
Thus, in full harmony with the spirit of his time, and the notions and
feelings of his own class, Adamnan makes “the Prophetic Revelations,
the Miraculous Powers, and the Apparitions of Angels,” the main themes
of his life of Columba. Assuredly these were the matters of interest to
the monks, so it is only incidentally that facts relating to the real
world were introduced. Meagre as the work is of facts, it does contain
notices of customs and references to notions then floating in the minds
of the inhabitants which are nowhere else to be found.
St. Columba was born on the 7th of December, 521, at Gartan, in the
county of Donegal, in Ireland. He was closely related to the royal
families of his native country, which gave him a great advantage from
the outset of his career. He was carefully educated in Ireland, and
when a youth became a pupil of the famous bishop, St. Finnian. About
the year 553 he founded the monastery of Durrow, his chief institution
in Ireland. It appears he was connected with some of the political
disputes of his countrymen, and in 561 the battle of Cooldrevny was
fought, and it was suspected that Columba had instigated it. A synod
was assembled to excommunicate Columba, but the assembly was not
unanimous, and protests were entered. What effect, if any, this may
have had on his future course cannot be ascertained, as he left Ireland
without any stigma on his character, repeatedly revisited it, and was
received with the highest respect.¹
¹ Reeves’ _Adamnan_, Appendix Preface, pages 68‒75. Columba――“a
member of the reigning family in Ireland, and closely allied
to that of Dalriada in Scotland; he was eligible to the
sovereignty of his own country. His half-uncle, Muircertach,
was on the throne when he was born, and he lived during the
successive reigns of his cousins, Domhnall and Fergus, and
Eochaidh; of his first cousins, Ainmire and Baedan; and of
Aedh, son of Ainmire. To this circumstance, as much as to
his piety or abilities, was owing the immense influence
which he possessed, and the consequent celebrity of his
conventual establishments; in fact, he enjoyed a kind of
spiritual monarchy collectively with the secular dominion of
his relatives, being sufficiently distant in Iona to avoid
collision, yet near enough to exercise an authority made up
of the patriarchal and monastic.” _Ibid._, page 8, Note _u_.
In 563 Columba, with twelve companions, embarked in a wicker-boat,
covered with hides, and after touching at Islay, landed and settled on
the small isle of Iona. It lay on the confines of the territories of
the Scottish and Pictish tribes, and Connal, the ruler of the former,
gifted it to Columba, and shortly after its possession was confirmed
to him by Brude, the King of the Picts. As Iona lay on the outskirts of
the dominions of the two chief tribes, it afforded a convenient centre
for intercourse, and there St. Columba founded his chief monastery,
and thence sent forth missionaries to convert the rude tribes of the
north of Scotland. The Scots of Argyle were then nominally Christians,
but the Picts were not, and it was amongst the latter that Columba
mostly laboured. He often visited the mainland, and gained a remarkable
influence over its chiefs. He at first encountered many difficulties,
but the native energy and spirit of the missionary overcame all
obstacles. In the year 565 Columba sought out the Pictish king’s
seat, which was on the south-side of the river Ness, on or near the
old Castle Hill of Inverness. Brude, in his pride, had shut the gate
against the holy man, but the saint, by the sign of the cross, and
knocking at it, caused it to fly open. Columba and his companions then
entered, the King advanced and met them, and received the saint with
due respect, and ever after honoured him.¹
¹ _Historians_, Volume VI., pages 62, 276; _Mon. Hist. Brit._,
page 176; Reeves’ _Adamnan_, pages 130‒153.
Columba and his disciples then proceeded with their work, and preached
the Gospel among the Picts, and baptised them; sometimes whole families
were baptised at once and recognised as Christians. It may be observed
that Columba occasionally employed the aid of an interpreter when
engaged in instructing the Picts in the doctrines of Christianity.
This was quite a natural occurrence, for though Columba himself, no
doubt, understood the Pictish dialect, it was, however, a different
and a difficult matter to intelligibly explain the doctrines of
Christianity to the Picts in their own local dialect. Columba founded
many monasteries on the mainland and in the Western Isles in his own
lifetime, and subsequently the monasteries and churches dedicated to
him were very numerous. Every monastery consisted of a body of clergy,
who from these centres went out in circuits amongst the surrounding
tribes to teach and to convert them, and returned to the monastery as
their common home for shelter and support. In this way, as monasteries
were gradually established and spread over the country, the inhabitants
were converted.¹
¹ _Historians_, Volume VI., pages 2, 25, 55, 58, 71, 77;
Reeves’ _Adamnan_, pages 289‒298; _Book of Deer_, Preface,
pages 1, 2.
A few incidents connected with Columba’s action and labour among
the people may be narrated. When on one of his visits in the land of
the Picts, he heard of a famous well which the heathen people, being
blinded by the devil, worshipped as a god. The well had many evil
qualities, and those who drank of it, or washed in it, were struck by
demoniacal art, smitten with leprosy or some severe infirmity. Thus the
people were seduced, and paid divine honour to the fountain. Columba
having learned the state of the case, went boldly up to the well, and
then the Magi rejoiced, as they thought that he too would suffer from
the touch of the baneful water; but the saint raised his hands and
invoked the name of Christ, then washed his hands and feet, and with
his disciples drank of the water which he had blessed. Henceforth the
demons departed from the well, and it never after injured anyone; but,
on the contrary, it became famous for curing diseases.¹
¹ Reeves’ _Adamnan_, page 119.
St. Columba by the sign of the cross banished the demons which lurked
in the bottom of the milking pail; and he also confounded the devilish
art of a sorcerer who pretended to take milk from a bull. There is
no evidence in the _Life of St. Columba_ of any organised heathen
priesthood in Scotland, or in the Isles around it. There is, however,
evidence that the kings or great chiefs kept an adviser, one of which
we have already met in the person of Cathen, the adviser of the King
of Strathclyde, who tried issues with St. Mungo; and no doubt these
advisers, who associated with the kings, were a sort of half-magicians
and half-priests. The magi that Columba met with, professed to have
power over winds and waters; but the saint easily outdid them. There
was a certain Broichan who attended King Brude, and this man ventured
to measure his powers with St. Columba; but the saint swiftly and
utterly defeated him.¹
¹ _Ibid._, _Adamnan_, pages 146‒150; _Historians_, Volume VI.,
pages 59‒61.
St. Columba was more engaged in fighting demons than heathen priests.
He went out one day to a sequestered spot in the woods to pray, and
when he began a host of black demons suddenly attacked him with iron
darts:――“But he, single-handed, against innumerable foes of such a
nature, fought with the utmost bravery, having received the armour of
the Apostle Paul. Thus the contest was maintained on both sides for the
greater part of the day, nor could the demons, countless though they
were, vanquish him, nor was he able by himself to drive them from the
island, till the angels of God, as the saint afterwards told certain
persons, and they, few in number, came to his aid, when the demons in
terror gave way.” He was represented as being frequently engaged in
encounters with demons.¹
¹ Reeves’ _Adamnan_, page 205. The greatest of Columba’s
encounters with demons was related thus:――“Brandubh was
killed on the morrow, and the demons carried off his soul
into the air. And Maedhog (abbot of Ferns) heard the wail
of his soul as it was undergoing pain, while he was with
the reapers. And he went into the air, and began to battle
with the demons. And they passed over Iona; and Columba
heard them while he was writing; and he stuck the style into
his cloak, and went to the battle to the aid of Maedhog,
in defence of Brandubh’s soul. And the battle passed over
Rome, and the style fell out of Columba’s cloak, and dropped
in front of Gregory, who took it up in his hand. Columba
followed the soul of Brandubh to heaven. When he reached
it the congregation of heaven were at Celebration, namely,
Te decet hymnus, and Benedic anima mea, and Laudate pueri
Dominum; and this is the beginning of the Celebration
of heaven. Columba did the same as the people of heaven.
And they brought Brandubh’s soul back to his body again.
Columba tarried with Gregory, and brought away Gregory’s
brooch with him; and it is the hereditary brooch, being an
heirloom in Iona, as the testamentary bell was in Armagh, of
the coarb of Columba to this day. And he left his style with
Gregory.” _Ibid._, _note_.
The form of Christianity introduced was essentially monastic, both
in the north and the south. As Columba’s institution of Iona was the
first in importance, and the chief religious centre in Scotland for a
century and a half, it presents the best example. The island of Iona
lies north-east and south-west, separated from the island of Mull by
a channel about a mile broad; it is about three miles in length, and
about a mile and a half in breadth. Its surface is very uneven, and
mostly consists of small green patches and rocky projections; the
best part of the cultivable land lies along its eastern shore. The
original monastery consisted of a church, with its altar and recesses,
a refectory, the cells and huts of the monks, and Columba’s house or
cell, in which he read and wrote, having several attendants awaiting
his orders; and one or more houses for the reception of strangers and
visitors not belonging to the monastic family. All these erections were
surrounded by a rampart and a ditch called a wall, which was probably
intended as much for the restraint of the monks as for security. So far
as ascertained, it appears that originally the whole of these buildings
were formed of wood and wattles, which perhaps rested upon stone
foundations. Outside the wall there were the cow-house and the stable,
the barn, the kiln and the mill, the smithy and the carpenters’
workshop. Many of the monks themselves engaged in the labours of the
field, among the corn and grass.
Those who entered into the conventual community were considered as
specially devoted to the service of God. The Abbot of Iona was the head
of the community, and his authority extended over all the monasteries
and churches founded by St. Columba. The bishops in Iona and in
Scotland in the lifetime of Columba, and for about a century after,
were subject to the Abbots of Iona. St. Columba named his own successor,
and afterwards a preference was given to the founder’s kin in the
election of the Abbots. Thus the notions and feelings of clanship
entered into the very constitution of the Columban monasteries; and the
kin relation of many of the Abbots of Iona have been traced. In Ireland
the feelings of clanship were even more marked in the succession of the
Abbots or Coarbs than in Scotland. Dioceses and parishes were unknown
in the early Scottish Church. The Celtic form of society was unsuited
to such arrangements, as the state of intermittent warfare in which the
people lived, often resulted in the extension of the territory of one
tribe and the curtailment of another, which rendered even the area of
the jurisdiction of clan monasteries exceedingly fluctuating.¹
¹ _Historians of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages 104, 105,
Introduction; Todd’s _St. Patrick_, pages 154‒161, 172,
504, 505; _Ancient Laws of Ireland_, Volumes I., II., III.;
Reeves’ _Adamnan_, pages 339‒341; _Book of Deer_, pages 102,
126‒128.
It seems probable that celibacy was enjoined by Columba on the members
of his community in Iona, but marriage was common in his time among
the secular clergy, and celibacy was not established in Christendom for
long after his day. Women held a high position in the early Church of
Ireland and Scotland, as they have always done in the organisation of
Celtic society. Columba himself was much revered by the female sex, and
there were convents for women even in his time, and female saints of
great renown. In the Irish Church some of the coarbs were females, and
St. Bridget attained a wide fame and influence not only in Ireland but
also in England and in Scotland. This female saint was born about the
middle of the fifth century and died about the beginning of the sixth,
and the histories of her life are numerous and full of narratives about
miracles.¹
¹ Todd’s _St. Patrick_, pages 11‒14, 171; _Historians_, Volume
VI., pages 41, 42, 69, 71, 85.
Touching divine service, the members of the monastery of Iona were
summoned to the church by the ringing of a bell, and at night they
carried lanterns. The chief service was the solemn mass, when the
offices were chanted, and in which certain saints were commemorated
by name. On special occasions the abbot summoned the monks by the toll
of the bell to the church in the dead of night, addressed them, asked
their prayers, and then kneeled himself at the altar and prayed. Every
Wednesday and Friday during the year, excepting the time between Easter
and Whitsunday, were kept as fast days, and Lent was strictly observed.
The chief festival was the Paschal solemnities, on which occasion the
Eucharist was celebrated. Baptism was administered to adult converts,
after being duly instructed in the faith, sometimes by the abbot in his
travels through the country, and sometimes to an individual a little
before his death.
Young men were admitted to the diaconate while students, and part
of their duty was to attend the ministers of the altar. Priests’
orders were conferred by the bishop, but the previous imposition of
the abbot’s right hand was required as the warrant for the bishop’s
interference. Persons retiring from the world to live as associates
or probationers in the monastery were admitted. When any one desired
admission to the order, the application was submitted to the abbot,
who could receive into communion at once or extend the probation over
a period of years. The abbot exercised a discretionary power in the
regulation of penance, and generally over the whole organisation of
the community.
The interment of the dead was a religious office, which implied
consideration of the future as well as the present. The faith in the
Resurrection rendered it desirable to be buried among the honoured
members of the society. The body of the deceased was laid out in the
church, wrapped in linen clothes, where it remained for three days
and nights, during which the praises of God were sung. Then the body
was borne to the grave in solemn procession, and interred with due
reverence.
The sign of the cross was much employed. It was customary to cross
the pail before milking the cows, to cross tools and implements before
using them, and so on. The sign of the cross was highly esteemed, and
it was deemed effectual to banish demons, to restrain and prostrate
wild animals, unlock doors, and endow pebbles with healing virtues.
In St. Columba’s time charms were much used, which were produced by
his blessing on a great variety of objects; but it is unnecessary to
particularise further, as such notions and practices were not peculiar
to St. Columba or his country, for they have been found prevailing
among many other peoples widely separated from each other.
The members of the monastery had all things in common. Personal
property was entirely disclaimed, according to Columba’s injunction.
Hospitality was a leading characteristic of the early monasteries. When
a stranger arrived, sometimes he was at once introduced to the abbot,
by whom he was kissed; at other times the interview was deferred. When
an expected guest arrived, the abbot and brethren went to meet and
welcome him, and he was then led to the oratory and thanks returned for
his safety. From this he was led to a lodging, and water prepared to
wash his feet. If a visitor happened to arrive on an ordinary fast-day,
the fast was relaxed in his favour. Almsgiving was held in high esteem,
and Columba often befriended the poor, but beggars who went about with
wallets, were not held in such esteem, and grevious transgressors were
excluded.
The ordinary food of the community of Iona was very simple. It
consisted of bread, sometimes made of barley, milk, eggs, fish,
occasionally mutton and beef, and some vegetables. Their clothing
consisted of a coarse woollen cloth in its natural colour, and they
wore sandals on their feet, which were removed before sitting down to
meat.
Besides the religious services the regular employment of the Columban
community consisted in reading, writing, and manual labour, according
to the example of the saint himself, who allowed no time to pass
unoccupied. The primary subject of study was the Scriptures, which all
the members of the community had to prosecute, and to commit to memory
the Book of Psalms. The Greek and Latin languages, and ecclesiastical
writings were also included in their studies. Writing formed an
important part of the monastic occupations, and Columba himself was
much devoted to it, and many of his books were preserved, especially
a volume containing hymns for the various services of each day in
the week, which is mentioned by Adamnan. The stated manual labour
was agriculture in its various branches, and there is evidence that
the monks of Iona were the best agriculturists of the period in North
Britain. As the monastery of Iona developed, and the number of its
members increased, the work connected with the institution called into
being new offices, agents, and servants, whose various duties were
defined. In Iona we find the abbot, prior, bishop, scribe, anchorite,
butler, baker, smith, attendant, and messengers, and at a later date
the president of the Culdees; while the position of Iona necessitated
a supply of boats and nautical appliances, and men accustomed with the
sea, and several kinds of small vessels were used in connection with
the monastery. Small portable boats were used for cruising, crossing
rivers, and inland lochs; larger wicker-work boats covered with hides,
which were furnished with masts and sails as well as oars, were used
for carrying on communication with the mainland and with Ireland.¹
¹ Reeves’ _Adamnan_, pages 339‒369; _Sculptured Stones of
Scotland_, Volume II., Preface, pages 14‒16, 17, 19‒21.
Columba had a severe sickness in the year 593, and he died on the
morning of the 9th of June, 597, while kneeling at the altar; without
a struggle his spirit gently departed. His remains were wrapped in fine
linen clothes and interred in Iona.¹ Columba was a man of great energy
and ability, and left behind him an imperishable name associated with
the introduction of Christianity in Scotland.
¹ Reeves’ _Adamnan_, pages 227, 235‒240.
He was succeeded by his first cousin, Baithene, son of Brendan. He
was nominated by St. Columba as his successor to the abbacy of Iona,
and, having enjoyed it three years, he died in 600. He was succeeded by
another first-cousin of St. Columba, Laisren, son of Feradhach; he held
the abbacy five years, and died in 605.¹ Iona continued to prosper,
and occasionally sent forth men who spread the light and established
monasteries and churches beyond the bounds of Scotland. The institution
of Iona performed good service in its day, and contributed several
important elements to the civilisation of Scotland, which have operated
in various ways along the roll of ages down to the present time. In
spite of its solitary position, evil days came upon it; for in 801,
the monastery was burned to the ground by the Norsemen. Again in 806
they landed on the island, and slew sixty-eight of the inhabitants; and
they returned in 815 and killed a number of the monks. Such were the
results of the early visits of these heathen Norsemen to our shores. By
this time the influence of Iona had from other causes begun to decline,
and before the end of the ninth century Dunkeld had become the chief
religious centre in Scotland.
¹ _Ibid._, page 372.
It was already stated that Constantine, who ascended the throne
of the Picts at Scone in 790, founded a church at Dunkeld; and it
appears that the remains of St. Columba were enshrined sometime in the
latter half of the eighth century, conveyed to Ireland and preserved
there. Kenneth M‘Alpin in 850 removed the relics of St. Columba to the
Church of Dunkeld, or at least some of them. Thus Kenneth, as it were,
constituted Dunkeld――the mother church over the Columbans in Scotland;
and hence the Abbots of Dunkeld assumed an important position.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 312, 318; Skene’s _Celtic Scotland_, Volume
II., pages 291‒319.
The influence of these early saints, and especially of St. Columba,
and their immediate successors, upon the subsequent religious feelings
and sentiments of the people was great and abiding, and to us indeed,
unrealisable in its natal vigour and glowing energy. For till the
Reformation their deaths and miracles were continually commemorated as
part of the belief and worship of the people. Their tombs, relics, and
shrines, became objects of extreme veneration. Many of their relics
were believed to possess marvellous powers, such as the Crosiers, and
the Brecbennoch of St. Columba, which were often carried into battles
to secure victory to the people who possessed them. These saints also
took a firm and extensive hold upon the local history and nomenclature
of the country, which is still discernible after thirteen centuries.
The wells and springs among the valleys, the deep and winding glens,
and in the cliffs of rugged mountains, often bear the names of these
early saints; and, moreover, many of the wells had been blessed by
them, and thus rendered famous for curing diseases.¹ The caves and
rocks retain traces of the early teachers of the Gospel of peace, and
the old markets all over the country were named after them; indeed,
there were few places of any note that were not associated with the
name of some early saint. Looking fairly at these results and assigning
to them due importance, we may easily perceive the social influence
which the new religion must have had upon the people; and seeing
that the action of these saints had one common origin, the general
effect was a tendency to draw the separate tribes slowly towards
a union amongst themselves. Thus Christianity became an influence
which contributed much indirectly to the development of the Scotch
nationality, as well as to the civilisation of the people.
¹ There were few if any parishes in Scotland that had not
one or more holy wells which were famed for their healing
virtues, and many of them were resorted to till quite recent
times. See Anderson’s _Scotland in Early Christian Times_,
page 193, 1881.
SECTION IX.
_Gradual Extension of the Kingdom to the End
of the Eleventh Century._
After the historic kingdom was founded, and while its development was
proceeding from the centre outward, it was persistently attacked by
external enemies. The Danes and Norwegians, under the name of Norsemen,
threatened its total overthrow. The racial movement of the Saxons
had been proceeding onward, since their settlement in the Lothians,
slowly but effectively. The powerful tribes occupying the parts of
the country not yet included in the kingdom were still warring against
it. Thus there were external and internal conflicts going on at the
same time; yet the natural vigour and energy of the people enabled
them to struggle for centuries with these difficulties and adverse
circumstances, and finally to attain success.
Kenneth M‘Alpin was succeeded by his brother Donald, who reigned four
years. Constantine I., a son of Kenneth M‘Alpin, then ascended the
throne, and soon found himself face to face with the Norsemen. In the
middle of the ninth century these ruthless warriors extended their
destructive ravages along the east and west coasts of Scotland; they
entered by the firths and inlets, and penetrated far into the interior
of the country, ransacked it on every side, inflicted much suffering
and privation on the people, and prolonged the reign of confusion.
They slew many of the inhabitants, and carried numbers of them off
as captives, and at length they obtained a footing in Caithness,
Sutherlandshire, and other parts along the coasts, where they
established lasting memorials of their prowess in the memory of
succeeding generations.
In 877 the Norsemen invaded the country in force, and entered Fife,
attacked and defeated the Scots, and pursued them through the county.
The Scots made a stand at Inverdovet, in the parish of Forgan, but they
were completely defeated, and Constantine and many of his followers
slain.¹ He was succeeded by his brother, Aed, who reigned one year.
Eocha, a Briton, was then placed on the throne, but being too young
to reign alone, another king called Giric was associated with him,
and they both disappeared about 889. Donald, a son of Constantine I.
ascended the throne in 889, and during his reign the Norsemen had
obtained possession of Caithness, Sutherland, and Ross. Afterwards
they invaded the southern districts; and the king, when fighting
against them, was slain at Dunnotter, in Kincardineshire, in 900. He
was succeeded by Constantine II., who soon found himself engaged in
the struggle with the fierce and implacable Norsemen. They plundered
Dunkeld and the surrounding country, but in 904 Constantine invoked the
aid of St. Columba, and with the saint’s crozier carried at the head
of his army, he attacked the Norsemen in Strathern, and completely
defeated them and slew their leader.²
¹ _Chronicles of the Picts and Scots_, pages 9, 21.
² _Ibid._, pages 9, 21, 362; Robertson’s _Early Kings_, Volume
I., pages 44, 45, _et seq._
In 906 Constantine II. directed his attention to the affairs of the
Church, and held an assembly on the Mote Hill of Scone. There the king
and Cellach, the bishop of St. Andrews, and the people, all solemnly
vowed to observe the laws and the discipline of the faith, and preserve
the rights of the Church, and the record adds, “from this day the hill
merited its name, the ‘Mount of Belief.’”¹ The stone on which the kings
were installed to the throne had long been in Scone, many important
meetings had been held there, and henceforth this sacred spot became
inseparably associated with the sovereignty and the freedom of the
kingdom.
¹ _Chronicles of the Picts and Scots_, page 9.
Distinct indications now appear of attempts to extend the dominion of
the kingdom to the south-west, as when Constantine II. contrived to
obtain the election of his own brother Donald as king of Strathclyde
in 908, and thenceforth a branch of the Scottish line gave princes to
Strathclyde, and thus facilitated its complete annexation in the near
future.¹
¹ _Ibid._
Constantine II., wearied with the struggle and the difficulties
connected with his position, retired to the monastery of St. Andrews
in 942, and resigned the throne to Malcolm, a son of his predecessor,
Donald. Constantine lived ten years after his retirement, and died
in 952. Malcolm I. was a bold man, and attempted to extend his power
beyond the river Spey, but he failed. He seems to have obtained some
footing in the region to the south of the Forth, sometimes called the
Cumbrian kingdom, which was then in a state approaching disintegration.
Malcolm reigned eleven years, and was slain at Fetteresso, in
Kincardineshire. The struggle between the tribes in the northern and
the southern districts of the county still continued to rage, and on
the death of Malcolm, Indulf, the son of Constantine II., mounted the
throne at Scone in the year 954. He extended the kingdom southward
by taking advantage of the distracted and confused state of Cumbria;
he seized possession of Edinburgh and added it to the kingdom. Indulf
also repelled an attack of the Norsemen in Buchan, Aberdeenshire, and
after a reign of eight years he died in 962. A contest for the throne
then ensued between Duff, the son of Malcolm I., and Colin, the son
of Indulf, and a battle was fought at Drumcrub, in Strathern, in which
Duff defeated Colin; but two years later Colin expelled Duff, who died
shortly after, and Colin was slain by the Britons in 971.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 10, 151, 171, 288, 302, ♦363, 364.
♦ Numeric misprint in original;
“63” replaced with “363” as probable
The same year Kenneth II., a son of Malcolm I., ascended the throne
at Scone; and immediately proceeded to throw up entrenchments at the
fordable points of the Forth, and attempted to extend the limits of
the kingdom southward. He attacked the Britons of Strathclyde and
wasted a portion of their territory; and then turned his attention
to Northumbria, which he invaded twice, and seems to have subdued
and taken possession of some portions of it. Kenneth gave Brechin
to the Lord, and thus endeavoured to strengthen his hold on the
district around it by securing the influence of the Church. A gradual
encroachment upon the local kings and chiefs was effectively proceeding
from Scone, the centre of the monarchy; the kingdom was slowly
extending in every direction, and the people under the influence of
the Church and other attracting affinities were silently becoming a
nation. Kenneth II. did much to consolidate the power of the Scots,
and after reigning twenty-four years he was slain at Fettercairn, in
Kincardineshire in 995.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 10, 152, 289, 365; _Chartulary of Brechin_,
Preface, page 4.
Constantine III., a son of Colin, then succeeded to the throne, but
his right was contested by Kenneth M‘Duff. After a severe struggle
Constantine was slain in the second year of his reign. M‘Duff reigned
eight years, and was killed in Strathern. He was succeeded by Malcolm
II., a son of Kenneth II., who ascended the throne in 1005. Malcolm II.
began his reign by an invasion of Northumberland, but was defeated, and
many of his followers slain. He next attempted to extend his influence
over the northern region of the country by the marriage of his daughter
with Sigurd, the ruler of the Orkney Islands, and they had a son,
Thorfinn, who after his father’s death was confirmed by Malcolm in the
possession of Caithness and Sutherland. Having established his grandson
in the northern extremity of the country, Malcolm again turned his
attention towards the south. In the year 1018, twelve years after his
former defeat, he took advantage of the distracted state of Northumbria,
mustered all his followers, and marched southward to the Tweed, where
he found the Northumbrian army. At Carham a great battle was fought,
and Malcolm completely defeated his enemies, many of whom perished
in the rout. The result of this battle was the cession of Lothian and
the whole of the territory north of the Tweed, and thus Malcolm II.
obtained a more important success than any of his predecessors had
ever achieved. During his reign the kingdom of Strathclyde became
incorporated into Scotland without any serious conflict.¹ The country
then began to be called Scotia, and it had reached its permanent
frontier on the south side, as it stood when the great struggle with
England began, toward the end of the thirteenth century. But in the
outlying districts of the north and the west there were still a number
of small local powers not under the authority of the monarchy, and it
was long ere the King of Scots overmastered them.
¹ _Mon. Hist. Brit._, page 594; _Chronicles of the Picts and
Scots_, 131; Robertson’s _Early Kings_, Volume I., pages
92‒96.
The great Dane, Canute, had subdued England, and was at this time
reigning as king of that country. It is stated in the Saxon Chronicle
that in 1031 Canute marched with an army to the north and met Malcolm
II. upon the borders of their dominions, that Malcolm submitted to
him and became his man, but “retained his allegiance for a very short
time.” Canute and his army returned to the south, and the result of the
meeting disappeared with them. Malcolm reigned twenty-nine years, and
died on the 25th of November, 1034.¹
¹ _Saxon Chronicle_; Skene’s _Celtic Scotland_, Volume I.,
page 398.
Upon the death of Malcolm the lineal descendants in the male line
of Kenneth M‘Alpin, the founder of the Scottish dynasty, became
extinct, and he was succeeded by his grandson Duncan, the son of one
of Malcolm’s daughters. But other aspirants to the throne disputed
Duncan’s right, and he soon became involved in a desperate struggle
with the local chiefs beyond the Spey, and Earl Thorfinn, his own
cousin, who was ruler of the Orkney Isles, of Caithness and of
Sutherland. Duncan seems to have been a very able man; but when he
ventured beyond the Spey, Thorfinn and Macbeth joined their forces and
proved too strong for him, and after a severe struggle Duncan was slain
by Macbeth, near Elgin.¹
¹ _Chronicles of the Picts and Scots_, pages 63, 65, 152, 175,
206; _Historians_, Fordun, pages 179, 180, 419.
Macbeth, the Mormaer of Moray, then marched southward and mounted the
throne in 1040, and for five years reigned undisturbed. According to
some authorities he was descended from Ferchar, the fifteenth King of
Dalriada, and his wife, Gruoch, was a daughter of Bode, son of Kenneth,
and thus related to the royal line; and, no doubt, Macbeth advanced
his claim on these grounds to secure the allegiance of the people. In
1045 Crinan, father of the late King Duncan, and lay Abbot of Dunkeld,
mustered all his followers and the opponents of Macbeth, and attempted
to drive him from the throne; a severe battle ensued, in which Crinan
was slain, and Macbeth gained a complete victory. Macbeth seems to
have sent money to Rome, while he was liberal to the Church at home,
as it is recorded that ‘Macbeth and his wife Gruoch, King and Queen of
Scotland, confirmed to the monks of Lochleven the lands of Kirkness,
with freedom from the king, or the king’s son, or the sheriff.’¹ He
proved himself an able and vigorous ruler, and the kingdom seems to
have enjoyed unusual tranquillity and prosperity under his sway.
¹ Reeves’ _Adamnan_, page 437; _Register of the Priory of St.
Andrews_, page 114. Dr. Skene thinks that Macbeth visited
Rome, but this is not likely, as he could hardly have
ventured to leave Scotland so long.
But the late King Duncan left two sons――mere children at the time
of his death, their mother being related to Siward, the Earl of
Northumberland. This Earl was of Danish descent, and became connected
with the Earls of Northumberland through marriage. In 1054 he mustered
a large and well-equipped army, and a naval force to co-operate with
it, and invaded Scotland to drive Macbeth from the throne. This army
marched northward in quest of Macbeth, crossed the Forth at Stirling,
and proceeded towards the Tay; the advance was opposed by the people
at several points. Macbeth took up his position around the Hill-Fort
of Dunsinnane, a great battle ensued, in which many were slain on both
sides. But the result was not decisive, as Siward retired southward,
and returned home to Northumberland; and he died in 1055. It seems,
however, that Siward’s expedition had enabled Malcolm, son of Duncan,
to obtain possession of the country between the Forth and the Tweed;
but Macbeth was still king of the country beyond the Forth, and young
Malcolm had to depend on his own resources to recover the kingdom
from the grasp of his opponent. Malcolm was a prince of much energy,
and after feeling his way, and gaining the support of a portion of
the people; in 1057 he resolved to try issues with Macbeth. The war
was carried beyond the river Dee, and on the 15th of August, 1057,
Malcolm overtook Macbeth, and defeated and slew him at Lumphanan, in
Aberdeenshire. But the struggle for the throne was continued by Lulach,
who, on the death of Macbeth, became Mormaer of Moray; he was defeated
and slain at Essy, in Strathbogie, on the 17th of March, 1058.¹
¹ _Mon. Hist. Brit._, page 453; _Chronicles of Picts and
Scots_, pages 65, 78, 175, 206, 210, 309; _Saxon Chronicle_.
Having thus subdued his opponents, Malcolm III., son of Duncan, usually
called Canmore, mounted the throne at Scone in March 1058. As a King
of Scotland he had many advantages. He represented the powerful lay
abbots of Dunkeld in the male line, and thus inherited their influence
associated with the religious foundations dependent upon this monastery;
in the female line he represented the royal family who had ruled over
the kingdom for a hundred and fifty years; and he married the widow
of Thorfinn, the late ruler of Orkney and the Northern district of
Scotland, by whom he had a son Duncan. Malcolm’s dominions included the
whole of modern Scotland on the south side; but to the northward his
actual power terminated at the river Spey, his authority beyond this
point was merely nominal. He was too much engaged in attending to the
other portions of the kingdom, to find time to subject the northern
region.
One effect of the Norman Conquest of England was to drive a number of
the Saxon people northward into Scotland. In the summer of 1068, Edgar,
a representative of the Saxon line of kings, his mother, and his two
sisters, came to Scotland, and were warmly received by Malcolm. One of
these distinguished visitors, Margaret, especially attracted Malcolm’s
attention, and she became his wife; hence he had a strong motive to
interest himself in the Saxon claims. Queen Margaret seems to have
been an excellent wife, and she had a large family by the King. Her
influence over her husband and the people of Scotland was reported to
have been very great; it has been said that she softened and polished
the King’s manners and taught him many important things, and that the
Scots owe to her a deep debt of gratitude. No doubt she was a good wife,
and an accomplished princess, and a very religious woman; still it is
just possible that the compass of Queen Margaret’s influence over the
people of Scotland may have been a little overdrawn. Dunfermline was
her favourite place of residence, and doubtless the inhabitants of that
town, and the people of Fife, were greatly benefitted by the Queen and
her court in their midst.¹
¹ Turgot’s _Life of Queen Margaret_. “Her court was a model of
purity. In it no wicked or scandalous word was spoken, and
more civilised customs were introduced in dress and for the
table, the use of linen more probably than tartan, though
both have claimed her as their earliest patron. Charity
was taught by example. The Queen fed the poor with food
she prepared herself; at her cost were erected the first
Scottish inns, resting-places on the roads and guest-houses
on either side of the Forth for the pilgrims who came to
Dunfermline by the ferry, called after her the Queen’s ferry,
as that near Wemyss was called the Earl’s ferry, after the
Earl of Fife. Her prayers were constant; and the little
cave on the Linn, just below the present Drill Hall of the
Volunteers, enabled her to practise them in secret. Such are
some of the traits in the life by her confessor Turgot. It
is the portrait of a friendly and courtly hand, but it bears
marks of truth. Only one miracle is recorded.” _A Sketch of
the History of Fife and Kinross_, by Sheriff Æ. J. G. Mackay,
page 16, 1890.
Malcolm III. naturally lent his support to the cause of Edgar, and
the disaffected chiefs of Northumbria, who were opposed to William
the Conqueror. In 1070 Malcolm entered Cumberland with a large army,
marched through it, and turning to the east ravaged Teesdale and the
North Riding of Yorkshire; and drove a number of the inhabitants into
Scotland as captives. These proceedings seem to have aroused the wrath
of the Norman Conqueror, and he prepared to meet the Scottish King. In
1072 he mustered an army and a naval force to co-operate with it, and
marched northward. The army crossed the ford and advanced into Scotland,
while his ships lay in shore: but the record adds that “there they
found nothing for their pains.” Malcolm and King William met and agreed
to make peace on the conditions that the Scotch King was to receive
a grant of certain fiefs in England, with the promise of an annual
payment of twenty marks of gold, performing the usual homage in respect
of these lands, and giving Duncan, his son by his first wife as a
hostage, and promised to become William’s man or friend. Then King
William returned home with all his forces.¹ Such are the facts recorded
concerning what passed between the two Kings at this meeting, although
groundless assumptions and futile inferences have often been founded
upon it.
¹ _Saxon Chronicle_, Volume II., page 177; _Simon of Durham,
de Gestis Regum_; _Historians_, Fordun, pages 203‒204.
In 1078 Malcolm appears to have penetrated into the province of Moray
beyond the Spey. There is only an imperfect notice in the _Saxon
Chronicle_ of his proceedings, but so far he seems to have been
successful in asserting his authority for a time. The following year
Malcolm marched with his army into Northumberland, advanced to the
river Tyne and wasted the country, slew some of those who offered
resistance, and returned with a number of prisoners and much spoil. In
the autumn of the following year, King William sent his brother Robert
with an army to punish Malcolm. This army seems to have advanced some
distance into Scotland; but Robert effected nothing of importance, and
soon returned south to the Tyne, where he built a new castle. William
the Conqueror died in 1087, and after this event a number of State
prisoners and others kept under restraint in England, were then set
at liberty. Malcolm’s son Duncan thus obtained his liberty, received
the honour of knighthood, and was dismissed with marks of honour and
presents. Still Duncan appears to have remained in England. Four years
after the death of the Conqueror, Malcolm III. again advanced into
Northumberland with an army, but on learning that a hostile force was
mustering to oppose him, he returned home. The English king sent a
fleet northward, and prepared to follow it with a land force, but the
greater part of the fleet was destroyed by a storm before the land
army reached Scotland. When the opposing armies approached each other,
Malcolm who knew the condition and strength of the enemy, resolved to
risk a battle. So Count Robert the leader of the English army offered
to parley, and a peace was patched up, which King William shortly after
declined to fulfil. So in the autumn of 1093 Malcolm once more mustered
his army, and advanced into Northumberland. When attacking the castle
of Alnwick he was slain along with his eldest son and the greater
part of his army on the 13th of November;¹ and thus ended his reign of
thirty-five years and seven months.
¹ _Saxon Chronicle_, Volume II. page 198; _Hexham Priory: Its
Chronicles, etc._, Volume I. pages 177‒181, 207, 208, 216;
Appendix pages 14‒16; _Simon of Durham, de Gestis Regum_.
Malcolm Canmore was a man of great natural energy and ability. He
acted his part well in the rude and tumultuous times in which his lot
was cast. The different races and tribes of the country acquiesced
pretty generally in his government, and in his long reign the existing
elements of nationality received a considerable turn in the lines
of development, to which his personal characteristics, bravery and
judgment, contributed their share. Four days after his death, Queen
Margaret, his beloved wife, succumbed to the intense grief caused by
the unexpected blow, and died. Malcolm III. left six sons, Duncan,
the eldest, by his first wife; by Margaret, his second wife, Edmund;
Ethelred, who was Lay Abbot of Dunkeld and Earl of Fife; Edgar,
Alexander, and David. Then there occurred a political phenomena similar
to that which had frequently happened in preceding times, and also in
subsequent times, namely, a contest amongst different claimants of the
throne.
On the death of Malcolm Canmore, his brother, Donald Bane, at once
mounted the throne, and a conflict ensued between him and Malcolm’s
sons. Donald Bane appears to have been well supported by the people
between the Spey and the Forth, and he held his ground for six months.
But when Duncan returned from England, where he had been retained
as a hostage for his father, he brought with him a band of Norman
adventurers and others, who expelled Donald Bane from the throne. The
struggle, however, was continued. After a reign of six months, Duncan
was slain at Mondynes in Kincardineshire. Then Donald Bane again
ascended the throne at Scone, and reigned three and a half years. In
1097, Queen Margaret’s brother Edgar resolved to make an effort to
place his nephew on the throne. He gathered a force in England, and
with the sanction of the English King, advanced into Scotland. After
a severe struggle, Donald Bane was defeated, and Edgar placed on the
throne, and his uncle then returned to England. In 1099 Donald Bane was
captured, and condemned to imprisonment for life at Rescobie, where he
died, and was interred in Dunfermline. Edgar reigned eight years, died
at Edinburgh in January 1107, and was buried at Dunfermline. The most
important event of his reign was his surrender of the whole of the
Western Isles to Magnus, the King of Norway.¹
¹ _Saxon Chronicle_, Volume II., pages 196, 197, 202;
_Chronicles of the Picts and Scots_, page 175; Chalmers’
_Caledonia_, Volume I. page 618; Skene’s _Celtic Scotland_,
Volume I., page 442.
The close of the eleventh century marks the beginning of a most
important period in the history of Scotland, as new historic conditions
then arose which operated upon the people and the organisation of
society externally and internally. Seeing that I have found it
necessary to render an interpretation of these new historic conditions,
which differs somewhat from the current views of Scottish historians,
this seems to be the most appropriate place for presenting an account
of the social state of the people, their organisation, art, and culture,
prior to the end of the eleventh century. At the end of that period
the Celtic race still occupied the greater part of Scotland, and their
language was spoken over a much wider area than that of any of the
other races, although there were many Angles or Saxons in the southern
portion of Scotland, where Celt and Saxon had been in contact for five
centuries and had partly commingled, still the Saxons retained their
own speech and, in some measure, their distinctive customs. In this
region Celtic speech ceased and was superseded by Saxon, and latterly
English.
SECTION X.
_State of Society from the Seventh Century
to the end of the Eleventh._
In the preceding parts of the introduction little direct information as
to the condition of the inhabitants could be found, and what was stated
on this point had to be derived from a process of inference. From
about the end of the seventh century onward social facts and incidents
become more or less available, and increase in number and variety as
we proceed towards the period of regular record. In this section I will
present some of the features associated with kinship, early traces of
tribal organisation, and its relation to the land, marriage customs,
and other matters of a social and material character.
It has often been said that a common feeling of brotherhood, even among
a small community, is a comparative late development; be this as it may,
ample evidence has already been adduced in the fourth section to prove
that the early tribes in Scotland had attained a considerable degree
of organisation long before the arrival of the Aryan Celts in the
island. So if we were to look for the earliest form of society in this
country, we would require to go back to the prehistoric ages, which
have been already treated, and without obtaining a more definite result,
except by making a free use of conjecture and supposed analogies from
primitive society in India and the ends of the earth.¹
¹ Maine’s _Village Community_, pages 21‒41. 1890.
The early form of Celtic society was the tribal community, which was
based on actual consanguinity. Even in its most primitive form this is
its natural base; although the tribe was the social unit and descent
traced through females, still the natural associative elements led to
the same result. Thus actual blood-relationship, kin, and kindred, was
the original bond of union between the members of the Celtic tribe in
its early form; whether kinship was traced through males or females did
not affect the original associative bond of the tribe.
It has never been proved that society did not originate from single
families, and indeed the point is not susceptible of proof on either
view. But it is quite conceivable thus:――Following the instincts of
human nature and the thinking faculty of the mind, the simple fact of
blood-relationship or kinship is everywhere the first natural tie of
social union which emerges; so this simple fact of kinship originating
in single families may have become the recognised bond, as it is the
natural associative factor, which in process of time linked the single
families as they successively arose into the greater social unit of
the tribe, and thus issuing in an organised community. In short, it is
not only conceivable but even probable, that single families may have
originally developed into tribal communities, and also into mighty
nations.
I have already referred to the origin of historic conditions in
Britain which affected the organisation of the early inhabitants of
Scotland. One result of the operation of these conditions appears in
the foundation of the historic monarchy at Scone in 844; external and
internal causes were constantly modifying the tribal organisations
throughout the four centuries under review. It seems evident that the
independent tribes during these centuries were much larger and stronger
than the clans in the north and west as we know them in more modern
times. During the period under consideration the tribal organisations
had arrived at the stage in which a number of tribes, not necessarily
of one kin, were living under the rule of a local chief. In the pages
of the chronicles these local rulers were sometimes called kings, but
to the people over whom they ruled they were known as Mormaers and
Toshachs. The prerogatives of the heads and all the officials of the
tribe were strictly limited by custom. After the eleventh century the
title of Mormaer began to fluctuate, and finally became represented
by the Earl. Before the end of this period the central government had
obtained a certain control over the heads of the local tribes in the
districts between the Forth and the Spey.
Originally, under the tribal organisation, there was no private
property in land. The land was the common heritage of every tribal
community, and as such it was occupied and used in England, in Scotland,
in Ireland, and in other quarters of the globe. But internal and
external causes both, in process of time begin to operate and to modify
this relation of the tribal community to the land. The long struggle of
the chief tribes among themselves was touched on in the preceding pages,
and this was one of the causes which affected changes in the original
relation of the tribal community to the land. When one tribe conquered
another, the spoil of the war usually was the common land of the
defeated tribe; and then either the conquerors seized and colonised a
part of this land or, as often happened, they restored the whole land
to the conquered tribe to be held in dependence and under certain
burdens to the tribe which had subjected them. On the other hand,
when the victor tribe colonised and appropriated the common land of
the conquered tribe, the land was not equally divided, seeing that a
preference would be claimed and granted to those members of the tribe
who had contributed most to the victory by which the land had been
gained. Further, in cases where the land was restored to a subjected
tribe, the superiority over it remained with the chief who had
conquered it, and thus the chief of a conquering tribe acquired claims
and rights over such lands as well as over the subject tribes which
occupied them. But chiefs and leaders of tribes had other ways of
acquiring rights in land; thus, when a tribe was in possession of an
extensive tract of common land, colonies of families were sent out
and each received a new patch of it, but whatever portion of this land
remained unappropriated it was still the common land of the head of
the tribe――that is to say, the chief or the king claimed a right of
superiority over it. There is unimpeachable evidence that whatever
rights the Kings of Scotland possessed in land were originally acquired
by the means and proceedings indicated in the above sentences.¹ Again,
the chief of a tribe often found means to aggrandise his own family,
and whenever he became able or an opportunity occurred, he severed his
own plot of land from the land of the tribe by enclosing it. In these
ways the chiefs and officials of tribes and the kings acquired personal
claims upon the lands of the tribal communities, and gradually personal
rights connected with land were acquired; then step by step private
property in land became established.
¹ “In the dreams of lawyers, as there has been an hereditary
king from all eternity, so there has been an hereditary lord
of the manor from a time only so far short of eternity as to
give the king time to make him a grant. In the realities of
history the king and the lord――that is, the lord on a great
scale and the lord on a small one――are each something which
has crept in unawares, something which has grown up at the
expense of rights more ancient than its own. Each alike,
king and lord, grew to its full dimensions by a series
of gradual and stealthy encroachments on the rights of
the people. As the king swallowed up the powers and the
possessions of the nation, so the lord swallowed up the
rights and the possessions of the mark.” Freeman’s _History
of the Norman Conquest of England_, Volume V., page 460.
Socially and politically this period was essentially transitional and
progressive. In the first part of it the leading tribes were struggling
hard to create a central authority, and the foundation of the Monarchy
was the result of this struggle. Though the land still belonged to
the tribal community, the chiefs and the kings had acquired rights and
claims in connection with it. In the seventh century the local chief
of Buchan, Aberdeenshire, granted lands to the monks of the monastery
of Deer. In the eighth century Angus, King of the Picts, granted a
territory to the Church of St. Andrews free from all secular burdens.
This grant was transferred by the ceremonial of the ‘altar sod’ as
the mark of its genuineness. Thus St. Regulus, with the relics of St.
Andrew the Apostle on his head, followed by the king and the chiefs of
his country on foot, marched in solemn procession seven times round the
land so bestowed on the Church. Brude, a King of the Picts, founded the
monastery on the island of Lochleven, and several early grants of land
to this monastery have been recorded. There were other early grants of
lands to monasteries by Macbeth and his Queen, Malcolm Canmore, Duncan,
and Edgar, Kings of Scotland. It thus appears that grants of land and
land rights were common, and sanctioned by the usual customs of the
country many centuries before formal charters were introduced.¹
¹ _Chronicles_, pages 186, 187; _Register of the Priory of St.
Andrews_, pages 113, 114; _Register of Dunfermline_, page 3.
A number of entries of gifts and grants of lands to the monastery of
Deer recorded in Gaelic belong to this period, and may be taken to
stretch from the beginning of the eighth century to the early part of
the twelfth. The names of eighteen granters of lands are recorded in
the Book of Deer, which concludes with a charter in Latin, granted at
Aberdeen by David I., in which the King declares that the clerics of
Deer are free from all service of laymen and undue exaction, as it is
written in their book, on which they had pleaded at Banff and sworn at
Aberdeen. This shows that the Gaelic memoranda of these early grants of
lands had been admitted in the regular courts as evidence of the tenure
of the lands. The first grant was made by Bede, the Pictish Mormaer of
Buchan, who gave to St. Columba and to Drostan “the town of Aberdour
in freedom for ever from mormaer and toshach.” The next grant of land
was by ♦Comgell, son of Aeda, after him Mordach, son of Morcunn, made
a grant to Columba and Drostan. Then Matan gave the mormaer’s share of
the land in Alteri, and Cuil, son of Baten, gave the toshach’s share
of the same piece of land. Malcolm II. gave the King’s share in the
lands of Bidbin, Pett meic Gobroig, and two davachs of Upper Rosabard.
♠Domnall and Cathal gave the land of Etanin to God and to Drostan; and
then Carmech, Domnall, and Cathal immolated all these offerings from
beginning to end to God and to Drostan, “in freedom from mormaer and
toshach to the day of judgment.” Comgell, son of Cainnech, toshach of
Clan Canan, gave certain lands, both mountain and field, to Christ,
Drostan, and Columba, “free from chief for ever.” The names of seven
of the old mormaers of the province of Buchan occur in connection with
grants in the book.¹
♦ “Comgall” replaced with “Comgell”
♠ “Domnal” replaced with “Domnall”
¹ _Book of Deer_, pages 91‒95, and also the late Dr. Stuart’s
very able and valuable preface to the volume.
We learn from the record of grants in the Book of Deer that the mormaer,
the local ruler of the province, the toshach, and the King of Scotland,
each had separate or divisible rights in the same piece of land,
which either of them could convey to another party. This indicates an
organisation and gradation of landed rights which is rather surprising,
and seems to show a pretty advanced stage of society. The brief
descriptions, too, which accompany some of these grants, such as “the
field of the clerics,” the number of davochs is stated――a well-known
measure of land in the north-east of Scotland, or “both mountain and
field,” which seems to imply a townland of varying extent, and which
probably included rights of commonage. The clauses of freedom from
mormaer and toshach meant the exemption of the lands of the monastery
from taxes of various kinds, which were exacted by the local officials
from the people over whom they ruled in the form of land rent: as it
was from this source that the polity and organisation of the tribe were
kept up. Further, the development of the Central Government, and the
extension of the kingdom, had then reached the stage when a tax upon
all land was exacted. In spite of all the explicit declarations that
the lands of the monastery were free from mormaer and toshach, these
lands were still liable for their proportion of the national tax. As
this was a tax from which no land in early times was ever relieved,
although it might be paid in various ways, such as a portion of the
produce of the soil, or in military service; still, in some form, it
was everywhere exacted. The rents paid by the people, the occupiers and
toilers of the land, was a customary rent due to the local chiefs and
headmen of the tribe, and consisted of a part of the produce,――cattle,
sheep, pigs, horses, corn, and the like. There is evidence that the
people lived under this form of local organisation in comparative
comfort.¹
¹ _Book of Deer_, Preface, pages 82‒89, 91‒95; _Sculptured
Stones of Scotland_, Volume II., Preface, page 11. Those who
desire to make a special study of the early Celtic tribal
organisations in Britain and in Ireland, will find the
original sources of information in:――1, _Ancient Laws of
Ireland_, 4 Volumes; 2, _Ancient Laws and Institutes of
Wales_; 3, some fragments in the first volume of the _Acts
of Parliament of Scotland_. These have all been published by
the Royal Commission.
The names of two local clans were mentioned in the Book of Deer, the
Clan Canan, and the Clan Morgan; and in each the toshach appears as the
head and leader of the clan; and he also possessed rights in connection
with the land, which rights, as we have seen, could be transferred
to another party. It further appears that the Toshach at this period
performed fiscal duties in connection with the taxes on land, and the
local organisation of the tribe. We may then reasonably assume that
similar tribal organisations prevailed in other parts of the country,
at least from the Firth of Forth to Inverness; and also in Galloway and
Argyle throughout this period. In the ancient laws of Ireland there was
much care and humanity shown for all the members of the tribe who were
unable to support themselves from old age or any other cause. On this
matter the early law will compare favourably with that of the present
day.¹
¹ _Ancient Laws of Ireland_, Volume II., pages 194, 341.
The culture of cereals was introduced in prehistoric times. Probably
the earliest attempts at agriculture were made on the heights in
association with the early settlements in similar positions. This seems
probable from the fact that many of the chief towns of Scotland were
originally erected on heights of moderate elevation. Agriculture was
earnestly practised by the monks, who showed a noble example to the
people. In this period the tillage of the soil was gradually advancing
and spreading among the people, though the method of cultivation and
the implements in use were still somewhat primitive. The staple food
of the people consisted of oatmeal and some barley, milk, flesh, fish,
venison, kail, and other vegetables, and small quantities of fruit.
Cattle, sheep, and horses, formed the chief wealth of the people; and
taxes and fines were paid in cows. There was as yet little manufacture,
as most families had their own weavers, tailors, shoemakers, and
carpenters, within themselves. The minute division of labour only
arises after a comparatively advanced stage of civilisation has been
reached, when a more complex and artificial state of society causes
a greater multiplicity of wants and luxuries. The clothing of the
people mostly consisted of woollen stuffs and furs of home manufacture.
Their dwellings were mostly formed of wood, clay, and turf, sometimes
raised on stone foundations. One class of houses were formed by a wall
of upright stakes with twigs interlaced between them, and a second
wall of the same kind placed at a short distance apart, and then the
intervening space was filled with turf or clay, making a pretty solid
wall, which was then roofed.¹
¹ _Historians of Scotland_, Volume V., pages 16, 17, 57, 66,
67, 68; Volume VI., pages 39, 50, 63, 97; _Proceedings of
the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_, Volume X., pages
616‒618; _Book of Deer_, pages 147‒154.
Shipbuilding had not made much progress. But they had vessels on which
sails and oars were used, and these were then sufficient to carry on
the intercourse and trade between the different quarters of the country.
The centres of population were nowhere very dense. Scone, Dunkeld,
Perth, Dundee, St. Andrews, Dumbarton, Stirling, Edinburgh, Glasgow,
and Paisley, and northward Brechin, Aberdeen, Burghead and Inverness,
were centres of some trade and commerce, and having regular market-days
at which business of all kinds was transacted. Markets arise at a
comparatively early stage of social organisation and must have been
quite common in every quarter of Scotland during this period.¹ Our
towns and cities do not owe their origin to any king or chief in
particular, as it was the intelligence and sagacity of the inhabitants
which selected their sites in far gone ages, and their ♦descendants
in succeeding ages who have extended and developed them by prolonged
energy and industry.
¹ “In order to understand what a market originally was, you
must try to picture to yourself a territory occupied by
village communities, self-acting, and as yet ♠autonomous,
each cultivating its arable land in the middle of its waste,
and each, I fear I must add, at perpetual war with his
neighbour. But at several points, points probably where the
domains of two or three villages converged, there appears to
have been spaces of what we should now call neutral ground.
These were the markets. They were probably the only places
at which the members of the different primitive groups met
for any purpose except warfare, and the persons who came to
them at first were persons specially employed to exchange
the produce and manufactures of one little village for those
of another.” Maine’s _Village Communities_, page 192.
♦ “descendents” replaced with “descendants”
♠ “automatous” replaced with “autonomous”
Touching the department of crime and punishment, among the old laws
of Scotland, some fragments appear to embody customs which prevailed
in this period, though perhaps they were only in operation in certain
quarters of the country. One of these fragments is called “Laws of the
Britons and Scots,” it is preserved in Latin, in Norman-French, and
in the vernacular Scotch, and has by some been attributed to David I.;
and, as I said, it can only be assumed to embody the customs of certain
localities, one of which was Strathclyde, the province of the Britons;
but its application to the Scots is not so clear. The code contains
the fines paid in compensation for crimes, and its peculiar feature
is that it was the injured party or his kin who received the fines.
The scale of fines was regulated by the rank of the injured party and
the nature of the crime committed, thus:――The fine for the slaughter
of the King of Scotland is stated to be one thousand cows or three
thousand shillings; for the King’s son, one hundred and fifty cows
or four hundred and fifty shillings; the fine for slaying an Earl of
Scotland is the same as for the King’s son; and for an Earl’s son,
one hundred cows. For slaying a Thane one hundred cows; for a Thane’s
son, sixty-six and two-thirds of a cow; for the nephew of a Thane,
forty-four cows and twenty-one pence and two parts of a penny. All
those of lower rank were called carls, rustics, and villains, or serfs;
the fine for slaying a carl, is said to be sixteen cows; but there
is no other fine specified for any other injury which might happen to
be inflicted upon this class. The lives of the unmarried women were
estimated at the same value as their brothers, but the lives of the
married females at one-third less than that of their husbands.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., page 299;
and also _Laws of David I._, pages 6‒8. On the same subject
there is a vast mass of information in the _Ancient Laws of
Ireland_, and the _Early Laws of the Saxons_, published by
the Royal Commission.
The mulcts for smaller crimes and assaults were stated with equal
minuteness. If any one drew blood from the head of the King’s son,
or the head of an Earl, the fine was nine cows; in the case of an
Earl’s son, or a Thane, six cows; of a Thane’s son three cows; and of
a carl one cow. The women as before were placed on equality with their
brothers. The fine for a blow without drawing blood was tenpence. As a
matter of course, compensation was taken for theft and all other crimes,
as well as murder and personal assaults. Another old fragment of Scotch
law presents the following exposition of the system: “All laws are
either man’s laws or God’s laws. By the law of God, a head for a head,
a hand for a hand, an eye for an eye, a foot for a foot. By the law of
man, for the life of a man, one hundred and fifty cows; for a foot, a
mark; for a hand, as much; for an eye, half a mark; for an eir, as much;
for a tooth, twelvepence; for each inch of the breadth of the wound,
twelvepence; for a stroke under the eir, sixteenpence; for a stroke
with a staff, eightpence, and if he fall, sixteenpence; for a wound in
the face he shall give an image of gold,” and so on.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 300,
301, ♦53, 72, 375, 376.
♦ probably “353” and “372”
Regarding social morality, much might be said on the relations of the
different sexes. Marriage, like every social institution, has passed
through many modifications.¹ It was not till after many thousands of
years during which the lower passions sought gratification in various
forms and degrees of intensity; not till long after the introduction
of Christianity that marriage obtained its present position among the
most civilised nations of Europe. The custom of capture seems to have
been followed by that of purchase, and the custom of purchasing wives
long prevailed in Europe, among the Jews, and many other communities.
A sum of money, or something equivalent, was paid by the husband or
his family to the family of the woman whom he desired to make his wife.
Thus in early times a woman was supposed to be always under tutelage,
in the position of a subordinate member of the family; and hence
when married, she was still regarded as being under the protection of
her own kindred. In the earliest of the Saxon Laws in England, which
probably belong to the seventh century, the mode of purchasing a wife
was stated thus:――“If a man buy a maiden with cattle, let the bargain
stand, if it be without guile; but if there be guile, let him bring her
home again, and let his property be restored to him. If she bear a live
child, let her have half the property, if the husband die first. If she
wish to go away with her children, let her have half the property. If
the husband wish to have them, let her portion be as one child.”² From
the same ancient code it appears that the Saxon was in the habit of
carrying off young women by force.³ Even in the statutes of the first
Christian King of Kent, ample provisions were made for the transfer of
money or cattle as the price of the bride.⁴
¹ “The lowest races have no institution of marriage; true
love is almost unknown among them, and marriage, in its
lowest forms, is by no means a matter of affection and
companionship.” Sir J. Lubbock’s _Origin of Civilisation_,
page 50. Sir John thinks “that communal marriages, where
every man and woman in a small community were equally
regarded as married to one another,” was the first form
of it, page 67. Again, he says, “I believe that communal
marriage was gradually superseded by individual marriage
founded on capture,” page 70. He illustrates the capture
theory at great length, and with considerable force. But he
has not proved that communal marriage was the original form;
indeed individual marriage is as conceivable and far more
natural than communal marriage.
² _Ancient Laws and Institutes of England_, page 9.
³ “If a man carry off a maiden by force, let him pay fifty
shillings to the owner, and afterwards buy the object of his
will of the owner.” _Ibid._ page 10.
⁴ _Ibid._, pages 45, 53. “The principle was carried out with
the utmost consistency when the wife proved unfaithful to
her owner, nothing was then considered but the market value
of the woman; and the adulterer was compelled to spend the
equivalent of her original price in the purchase of a new
bride, whom he formally delivered to the injured husband.
The Church was compelled to accept this with many other
discreditable institutions, when it first made converts in
England. In the laws of a king of Wessex, who lived at the
end of the seventh and the beginning of the eighth century,
the purchase of wives is deliberately sanctioned; and it
is stated in the preface that the compilation was drawn up
with the assistance of the Bishop of Winchester, and a large
assembly of God’s servants.” Pike’s _History of Crime in
England_, Volume I., page 91.
In the tenth century there was some improvement; though the essence
of purchase was still recognised, it was more elaborately worked out,
thus: “If a man desires to betroth a maiden or a woman, and if it so be
agreeable to her and her friends, then it is right that the bridegroom,
according to the law of God, and according to the customs of the world,
first promise and give a pledge to those who are her forspeakers that
he desires her in such ways that he will keep her, according to God’s
law, as a husband should his wife, and let his friends guarantee that.
After that, it is to be known to whom the fortesban belongs; let the
bridegroom again give a pledge for this and let his friends guarantee
it. Then, after that let the bridegroom declare what he will give her,
in case she choose his will, and what he will grant her if she lives
longer than he. If it be so agreed, then it is right that she be
entitled to half the property, and to all if they have children in
common, except she again choose a husband. Let him confirm all that
which he has promised with a pledge, and let his friends guarantee
that. If they then are agreed in everything, then let the kinsmen
take it in hand, and betroth their kinsman to wife, and to a righteous
life, to him who desires her, and let him take possession of the borh
who has control of the pledge. At the nuptials there shall be a mass
priest by law, who shall, with God’s blessing, bind their union to
all prosperity.”¹ These minute arrangements embodied the feature of
purchase, though it makes provisions to secure fair rights in the
interest of the wife and children. The Saxons introduced slavery into
Britain in some of its worst forms, but the custom of purchasing and
endowing a wife involved the conditions that the husband must have had
property and freedom, or the permission of his lord, and consequently
marriage could not be contracted amongst the servile classes, who
were simply regarded as cattle or stock, and joined or separated as
it suited the interest and convenience of their masters. Indeed, for
these unfortunate classes there was no law but their master’s will
and caprice.² This social phenomena was a fatal and degrading weakness
in the constitution and organisation of all the ancient empires and
nations, and yet these empires and nations have often been held up as
endowed with all the characteristics of humanity and all the emblems of
true glory!
¹ _Ancient Laws and Institutes of England_, pages 108,
109. “With slavery in its worst form, the barbarians, who
became masters of Britain after the Roman power was broken,
introduced the custom of wife-buying. An unmarried woman was,
among them, in the position of a chattel, for the sale of
which the owner was entitled to make as good a bargain as
possible. It was only natural that, in a community in which
it was necessary to pay for taking a man’s life, it should
be considered equally necessary to pay for the permanent
possession of a woman’s person. The payment represented in
each case a rude attempt to supersede a primitive condition
of universal violence.” Pike’s _History of Crime in England_,
Volume I., pages 90, 91.
² _Ancient Laws and Institutes of England_, pages 282, 337,
353. These statutes belong to the legislation of the Church,
and probably attempted to make the condition of the serfs as
endurable as possible.
“In short, as amongst the strictly servile classes marriage
was scarcely a permanent bond until after the lapse of
many generations of Christianity, so amongst the dependent
freemen it could only be contracted with the permission of
their lord.” Robertson’s _Early Kings_, Volume II., pages
127, 328.
In Scotland the institution of marriage was far from being on a proper
footing among the people, or even amongst the clergy. The custom of
selling and purchasing wives was not as yet extinct in Scotland, and
marriages were contracted within the forbidden degrees of relationship.
Indeed, long after this period the ties of wedlock were rather lax.
The Church often attempted to regulate and enforce marriage as a public
and solemn institution, but she came into contact with habits connected
with the intercourse of the different sexes which were extremely
difficult to overcome, and her efforts were only partly successful.
The people did not observe the Lord’s Day, but followed their usual
occupations as on other days. Queen Margaret is represented by her
biographer as holding a council for the reform of the Church from its
strange customs, and the people from their evil habits, and with the
Sword of the Spirit she contended with the ecclesiastics for three days.
Touching the observance of the Lord’s Day Margaret said: “Let us keep
the Lord’s Day in reverence on account of the resurrection of our Lord
from the dead on that day, and let us do no servile work on that day
on which, as we know, we were redeemed from the slavery of the devil.
The blessed Pope Gregory lays this down, saying that we must cease
from earthly labour on the Lord’s Day, and continue instant in prayer,
so that, if aught has been done amiss during the six days, it may be
expiated by our prayers on the day of our Lord’s resurrection.” We are
further told that “Many other practices which were contrary to the rule
of faith and the observances of the Church she persuaded the council
to condemn and to drive out of the bounds of her kingdom.” There is,
however, nothing said about the marriage of the clergy themselves, nor
about many of the high offices in the Church which were then filled by
laymen, nor about the appropriation of benefices by certain parties,
which were becoming hereditary in their own families.¹
¹ _Statuta Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ_, Volume I., pages 24, 309,
310; Volume II., pages 36, 37, 42, 59, 60, 68; Turgot’s
_Life of Queen Margaret_.
Many of the monasteries in the Western Isles and in other parts of
the country had suffered severely from the ravages of the Norsemen,
but their fierce warfare was moderated after they obtained a right to
these isles: and the monastery of Iona, which they had destroyed, was
restored by Queen Margaret, re-endowed, and filled with monks; and it
seems probable that some fragments of the ruins which still exist on
the island belong to her time. The Abbey Church of Dunfermline was
founded by Malcolm Canmore shortly after his marriage with the Princess
Margaret, in honour of that important event. The discipline of the
monasteries had somewhat declined, and their usefulness had become
impaired; the lands which had been granted for religious uses had
become partly secularised and diverted from their original end. Still
there were many earnest and religious men connected with the Christian
institutions of Scotland; there were communities of anchorites,
sometimes called Culdees. Queen Margaret gives her testimony as to the
purity and devotion of this class of clerics, for her biographer says
that “There were many in Scotland, in different places, who, enclosed
in separate cells, lived even on earth the life of angels.” Through
them the Queen did her utmost to love and venerate Christ, often
visited them, and commended herself to their prayers; as she could not
induce them to accept any earthly gift from her, she implored them to
prescribe for her some work of charity or mercy. Whatever they desired
she devoutly fulfilled, either relieving the wants of the poor or
comforting the sick and afflicted. As the religious devotion of the
people brought many from all quarters to the church of St. Andrews,
she erected dwellings on both sides of the Firth of Forth, so that
the pilgrims and the poor might find everything ready there which
was required for the refreshment and rest of the body. Servants were
appointed there to minister to them, and vessels were provided to ferry
them across without payment.”¹
¹ _Book of Deer_, Preface, pages 105‒106; _Register of
Dunfermline_, page 3; Turgot’s _Life of Queen Margaret_,
Chapter 9.
In the preceding pages of this section it appeared that in the tribal
organisations personal rights in connection with the land had arisen.
The local ruler of the tribe and other officials associated with the
polity of the tribe had obtained personal rights in the land; in so
far, at least, as they could dispose of such rights to other parties.
It further appeared that the King of Scotland had acquired rights in
tribal lands which he could dispose of, and also that all the lands
within the kingdom were, in the eleventh century, subject to a national
tax. The custom of commuting all forms of crime by a scale of fines,
fixed according to personal rank, was noticed, and various customs and
practices associated with the institution of marriage, were stated.
A brief reference to the state of religion, and to Queen Margaret in
relation to it, concluded the section. Taking a view of the entire
movement since the foundation of the monarchy, its advance was
remarkable; and nothing had, as yet, occurred to arrest the progressive
development of the kingdom and the civilisation of the people.
SECTION XI.
_Early Architecture. Sculptured Stones._
In preceding sections various early structures have been noticed,
some of which were of a characteristic type, but the singular and
curious structures now to be briefly described have occasioned much
discussion. This class of erections are called Brochs. The area of
their local distribution has been stated thus: Only three specimens
are known south of Glenmore――1 in Berwickshire, 1 in Stirlingshire,
and 1 in Perthshire:¹ in Inverness-shire, 47; in Ross-shire, 38;
Sutherlandshire, 60; Caithness, 79; Orkney, 70; and in Shetland 75,
making a total for the five northern counties of 369. But the greater
part of those in Ross-shire and Inverness-shire are in the islands
attached to these two counties.
¹ In the month of May, 1891, the members of the Galashiels
Ramblers’ Club discovered what appeared to be a Broch on
Crosslee Hill in the vicinity of that town. My friend, Mr.
George Desson, gave an account of it which appeared in the
_North British Daily Mail_ of the 15th May. He says: “All
that remains of the structure is the foundation of the walls,
which measure 17 feet 6 inches thick, and about 2½ feet high.
The walls are of circular form, and enclose a central area
of 39 feet 6 inches in diameter; from the central court
there are openings to three passages, which apparently led
to chambers, two of which have not yet been cleared of the
debris, but in the one that has been dug out there is a
passage 6 feet long and 3 feet 8 inches wide, while the
interior of the chamber is 14 feet long by 4 feet wide.”
The Brochs are all constructed on one typical form, so unvarying that
they afford no indications for tracing the development of their special
form through a series of stages. “I once heard an eminent Scotch
antiquary, very familiar personally with their appearance, gravely
maintaining that they were all erected at one time, and from one plan
and specification. Though this is, of course, absurd enough, there
is not, so far as I know, any example in any part of the world of so
numerous a class of buildings which show so little difference in design
and dimensions.”¹ The leading features of the Broch may be described
as consisting of a circular tower of dry-built masonry, pretty wide
and high, and enclosing a central area open to the sky, having all
its apartments looking into the enclosed inner court, excepting the
entrance to the central area, and having its chambers, stairs, and
galleries, formed within the thickness of the enclosing wall. None of
the existing specimens are complete, and their original height has not
been precisely ascertained, but from the remains and indications of
structure it has been inferred that they were from thirty to upwards of
fifty feet in height. The only varying point is in their dimensions; as
the external diameter of the Brochs varies from forty to seventy feet,
so the inner court varies from about twenty to forty-five feet, owing
partly to the thickness of the walls, which also vary from about nine
to twenty feet. The wall is built solid for about ten feet, excepting
the ♦entrance, and where it is partially hollowed by the construction
within its thickness of oblong apartments with vaulted roofs. Above
this the wall is built with a vacancy of about three feet wide between
the inner and outer portions. Upwards, at every five or six feet,
this vacancy is crossed by horizontal ranges of slabs inserted as ties
between the outer and inner shells of the walls, and thus their upper
surfaces form a floor to the space above and their under surfaces a
roof to the space below. These spaces form galleries of some six feet
high and three feet wide, separated from each other by the slabs of
their floors and roofs, and they run round the tower, except where they
are crossed in succession by the stair which gives access to them, and
their dimensions contract as they approach the top of the tower. The
galleries were lighted by ranges of windows above each other, which
all looked into the central court enclosed by the wall of the tower.
At various points of the inner court are placed the entrances to the
apartments on the ground floor, within the thickness of the wall, and
to the stair which ascends to the galleries. On the outside of the
Broch there is only one entrance, a doorway opening off the tunnel-like
passage leading into the central court; it is always on the ground
level, from five to seven feet in height, and about three feet wide,
passing direct through the thickness of the wall, and so varies from
nine to twenty feet in length; at about four feet inward there is a
rebute of the masonry faced with slabs, inserted edgeways in the wall,
and forming cheeks for the door, behind which are the bar-holes, and
behind them the opening to a guard-room built in the thickness of the
wall.²
¹ _The Brochs_, etc. J. Fergusson; page 8.
♦ “extrance” replaced with “entrance”
² Anderson’s _Scotland_, pages 168, 200‒202; _Proceedings of
the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_, Volume III., page
189, 191‒193; Volume VII., pages 290‒292, 296‒300.
On the ground floor there are usually three or four apartments, in
which the people who possessed the Brochs lived. In the central courts
of several of them there were drains for conveying the surface water
outside the building; and in many of them there were walls which
secured a water-supply within the enclosed area of the building. In
short, the Brochs clearly indicate a very definite intention in the
minds of their constructors, for the design of the structure and the
whole arrangements of its separate parts evince a most careful and
elaborate adaptation of means and materials to attain the desired
ends――shelter and defence. “The clever constructive idea of turning
the house outside, as it were, placing its rooms within its walls, and
turning all their windows towards the interior of the edifice, implies
boldness of conception and fertility of resource. The height of the
wall, which secured the inmates against projectiles, also removed its
essentially weak upper part beyond the reach of assault, while the
pressure of its mass knit the masonry of the lower part firmly together,
and its thickness made it difficult to force an entrance by digging
through it――if such a wall could be approached for this purpose when
the whole of its upper materials were deadly missiles ready to the
hands of the defenders.” The door, secured by its great bar, was too
strong to be carried by a rush; and, placed four or five feet within
the passage, it could only be reached by one man at a time, and the
narrowness of the passage prevented the use of long levers. Even if it
had been forced, and the entrance to the inner court gained, the enemy
would have found himself, as it were, in the bottom of a well thirty
to forty feet in diameter, with walls fifty feet high, pierced on all
sides with ranges of loopholes commanding every foot of the space below.
“In short, the concentration of effort towards the two main objects
of space for shelter and complete security was never more strikingly
exhibited, and no more admirable adaptation of materials so simple and
common as undressed and uncemented stone for this double purpose has
ever been discovered or suggested.”¹
¹ Anderson’s _Scotland, Iron Age_, pages 203‒4.
No doubt the origin of the Brochs is assignable to the circumstances
and the conditions under which the people lived. As we have seen in
the preceding pages the Norsemen commenced their inroads in these
localities where the Brochs were erected, and these structures were the
most suitable and effective defences against the attacks of marauding
enemies, which could then have been devised. The hordes of Norsemen
infested the northern and western districts of the country for several
centuries before they conquered the people and settled down in any part
of the mainland of Scotland. Thus we can easily realise the reasons
and the motives which originated the Brochs, and induced the people to
make the great and laborious efforts evinced in the remains of these
constructions. Further, we know that the inhabitants of the localities
where the Brochs are found, had long before the age of these structures
learned to labour and to wait, as the chambered cairns of the Stone Age
witness. The manifestation of the constructive faculty, a concentration
of thought, of energy, and of labour, directed to the accomplishment of
a common object, was no new thing which had suddenly started up in this
ancient region. But new historic conditions had arisen, new enemies had
appeared upon the scene, which changed the surrounding circumstances,
and the genius and intelligence of the people rose to the occasion,
and they made the best use of the means at their command to protect and
defend themselves.
It has been stated that the Brochs are peculiar to Scotland. Though
there are many round towers in Ireland and elsewhere, their type is
not similar to the Scotch type. “Out of Scotland the type is totally
unknown. It is a type possessing features so distinct and peculiar, so
numerous and well-marked, so pronounced in their absolute individuality,
that if it exists anywhere it is capable of being instantly recognised.
But no single instance occurs in Ireland or Wales or Cornwall; no trace
of it is found in England, France, or Scandinavia. It is absolutely
confined to Scotland alone.”¹
¹ Anderson’s _Scotland, Iron Age_.
Attempts have been made, however, to show that the Scotch Brochs were
erected by the Norsemen. The main ground on which it has been sought to
assign these peculiar structures to this people is, because the Brochs
are nearly all found in the localities which were at one time more or
less occupied by them. This circumstance does afford a presumption in
favour of assigning the erection of the Brochs to them, and if it were
supported by other circumstances, and clear traces of Norse products
associated with these structures, the presumption might be rendered
decisive. No trace of this special type of building has been discovered
in the Norsemen’s own lands, and further, it has been shown that the
implements, tools, and objects associated with the occupation of the
Brochs are not Scandinavian in their forms and characteristics, but
on the contrary are characteristic of the groups of implements and
objects of the Celtic area of Scotland in post-Roman times.¹ Thus the
presumption founded on locality completely falls to the ground, and no
other tangible trace of the Norsemen’s connection with the erection of
the Brochs has, as yet, been discovered.
¹ _Ibid._, page 259. Dr. James Ferguson contends, with much
determination, that the Brochs were erected by the Norsemen.
Except the geographical presumption, which he uses with
great ingenuity, he adduces no valid evidence whatever to
establish his contention. See _The Brochs, etc., of the
Orkney Islands and the North of Scotland_.
The traces of the life of the people who occupied the Brochs, disclosed
by excavations and investigations in connection with their contents,
are of considerable historic value, and may be briefly noticed.
The objects found in and around the sites of the Brochs consist of
manufactured implements, tools, and ornaments, of stone, bronze, and
iron. Many stone querns――small hand mills for grinding grain,――stone
pounders of various sizes, stone mortars, drinking-cups, hammer-stones,
stone vessels of large size, stone spindle-whorles, and other tools;
many articles in bone, such as combs of various kinds, long-handed
ones, short round-backed, single-edged ones, and double-edged, some
of which were ornamented; bone-buttons, pins in a variety of forms,
and some of them ornamented, bone needles neatly made, and other bone
objects. Bronze tweezers, pins, armlets, and other objects; several
iron implements――spear-heads, daggers, knives, and chisels. Clay moulds
for casting bronze pins, a large number of spindle-whorles for spinning
with the distaff and spindle, many fragments of home-made pottery, and
other articles of domestic use.
Amongst the refuse of the food of the Broch occupiers, the following
were found:――Remains of animals, consisting of the ox, sheep of small
size, the goat, the pig, the horse, dogs of various sizes, the reindeer,
red-deer, and the roe; birds and fowls not in great numbers, but
some of large size. Among the marine remains were a species of whale,
the porpoise, the dog-fish, the cod, and haddock, and such edible
shell-fish as the oyster, the mussel, the cockle, the periwinkle, and
the limpet, were abundant.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Scotland, Iron Age_, pages 211‒258; _Proceedings
of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_, Volume VII.,
pages 43‒46, 56‒79, 426‒436; Volume VIII., pages 188‒204;
Volume X., pages 5‒23; _Orkneyinga Saga_, Introduction,
pages 109, 110.
From the above statement of facts taken in connection with the
characteristics of the Brochs themselves, it appears that the people
who possessed and inhabited them were cultivators of the ground. They
grew grain, kept flocks and herds, hunted the woods, and fished the
sea for their food. They practised industries and arts which demanded
intelligence and technical skill, and it seems almost certain that they
manufactured all the weapons and implements which they used; and we
know that they made their own ornaments, as the clay moulds, crucibles,
and the cakes of rough metal, have been found in several of the Brochs.
The women practised the arts of spinning and weaving, while the men
made the implements of stone and bone and the ornaments. They had
attained to a stage of considerable culture and civilisation, and it
is clear that they were the people of the soil, and that they had been
long settled on it. Indeed, there is not a shred of evidence, either
circumstantial or recorded, that they were a horde of strangers who had
newly effected a lodgment in a hostile country.
It was mentioned in a preceding section that the earlier religious
erections in Scotland were usually formed of wood, which possibly
rested upon a stone foundation. Fragments and remains of a number of
examples of rude stone chapels and cells which were erected before
the twelfth century still exist. They mostly occur in the Isles; and,
beginning with those which appear to be the earliest, I will proceed
to notice briefly the others in succession.¹
¹ There were also a number of caves associated with the names
of the early saints and missionaries who were engaged, from
the fifth century to the ninth, in spreading the Gospel
among the tribes of Scotland, and the walls of these caves
are covered with memorials of their devotion in the form
of small crosses sculptured on the rocks. See _Sculptured
Stones of Scotland_, Volume II., Appendix to Preface, pages
87, 88, _et seq._
Loch Columcille, in Skye, was drained about seventy years ago by Lord
Macdonald, and what was once an island in the centre of the loch is
now an elevated spot in marshy ground. This patch of ground extends
to about three acres, and on its northern side are the remains of an
irregular circular enclosure of rude and uncemented masonry, measuring
about sixteen yards in diameter from east to west, and eleven from
north to south; within the enclosure there are traces of three cells
and other erections, which were probably covered with beehive vaulting.
One of the ruins, called St. Columba’s Church, measured internally
twenty-two feet in length and twelve feet in width. On the small island
of Eilean na Naoimh, which lies between Scarba and Mull, there are the
remains of a number of beehive cells with dry-built walls, which were
associated with a small church, also built of undressed stones without
mortar of any kind. This church had only one small window placed
in its east end, and the cells connected with it were very small. A
considerable number of these small churches and cells have been found
in the Western Isles and even in Orkney. Amongst the ruins of the
monastery in the Isle of Inchcolm, there is a very early specimen of
a stone roofed cell. It is irregular in form, and internally sixteen
feet in length, six feet three inches wide at the east end, and four
feet nine inches at the west end. The walls are three feet thick. The
doorway was placed in the south wall near the west end, and it was five
feet high and four feet wide, with inclining jambs and roughly arched
externally by a radiating arch, but internally the arch was formed in
the older overlapping principle. It had only one small window, placed
in the east end. The roof was vaulted with stones in the form of a
radiating arch, and the centring stones roughly wedge-shaped, and the
space between the upper surface of the vaulting and the stone-roof was
filled with small stones and a grouting of lime, in which were bedded
the oblong roofing stones.¹ Such were the primitive forms of the
earliest stone churches in Scotland.
¹ Muir’s _Characteristics of Old Church Architecture_, pages
2, 56, 141, 143, 205, 206; _Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland_, Volume II., page 489, _et seq._;
Reeves’ _Adamnan_, page 138.
The next stage showed an approach towards the form of the chancelled
church, passing through various types, which may be briefly indicated
thus:――A church with a chancel added on to the nave but not banded
into it, which showed a transition from the single chambered structure
to the double chambered form. In some specimens of this variety the
opening from the nave to the chancel is flat-headed and formed with
inclined jambs, and in others the end of the barrel-vault of the
chancel roof opened directly into the nave. Then came the developed
chancel arch, associated with other features which passed into the
current architecture of the twelfth century. There are examples of
the Celtic chancelled churches in the Isles, while the church of St.
Regulus at St. Andrews presents a fine specimen of the fully developed
form of this style.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Scotland in Early Christian Times_, pages 32‒37;
_Lectures on Mediæval Architecture_, by Sir Gilbert Scott,
page 24.
There are two characteristic round towers of ecclesiastical origin in
Scotland, one at Brechin in Forfarshire, and the other at Abernethy
in Perthshire. They are not now connected with the remains of an early
Celtic church; but the Tower of Brechin stands in the churchyard, and
the Abernethy one stands partly within and partly beyond the churchyard.
They resemble the round towers of Ireland, and belong to that class of
structures.
The round Tower of Brechin stands at the south-west angle of the
Cathedral, which now embraces nearly one-fourth of its circumference.
At the base its external diameter is fifteen feet three inches, and
its internal diameter seven feet eleven inches, and the walls are three
feet eight inches thick; at the top its external diameter is thirteen
feet, and the internal eight feet one inch, and the walls two feet
five inches thick. The height of the Tower from the base to the spring
of the modern spirelet, which now crowns it, is eighty-six feet nine
inches; it is perfectly circular and tapers regularly from base to
summit. Internally it is divided into seven stories by string courses.
It is built of a hard reddish sandstone, and the masonry is massive;
the stones are cut and fitted to each other with remarkable neatness;
the courses are mostly horizontal with some irregularity, and the
joints are not uniformly vertical. There are six windows, one in the
third story, another in the fourth, and four in the upper story, which
show certain peculiarities of structure. The doorway, however, is the
most interesting feature of the Tower. Its dimensions are these:――The
breadth at the spring of the arch is one foot seven and a half inches,
and at the sill one foot eleven inches; the height of the entrance to
the centre of the arch is six feet one and a half inch; and its entire
height from the base of the external ornament to the summit of the
crucifix, which surmounts the centre of the arch, is eight feet eleven
inches. This doorway is formed of four stones, with jambs inclined
towards each other. The jambs have a raised band, and rows of pellets
run all round the doorway between two narrow fillets, while about the
middle of the jambs on each side there are raised panels with figures
of ecclesiastics in relief; and on the lower part of the jambs on each
side there are crouching figures of beasts, bearing a close resemblance
to some of those carved on the early sculptured stones. From various
structural relations and associated circumstances, it seems highly
probable that this Tower was erected in the eleventh century.
The Abernethy Round Tower is built of stones dressed to the curve,
laid in horizontal courses with the joints vertical, and thus it
differs somewhat in its masonry from the Brechin Tower. But the general
features of form and construction of the two towers are remarkably
similar. The Abernethy Tower is seventy-two feet in height, and it
is divided into six stories by string courses, and it originally had
seven windows. It appears that the original purpose of these towers was
to afford an asylum for the ecclesiastics, and especially a place of
security in times of war for the precious relics of the famous saints,
such as shrines, crosiers, books, and bells, which were regarded
with extreme and almost incredible veneration both in Ireland and in
Scotland.
Stone monuments of various kinds associated with the memory of the dead,
have already been treated in the prehistoric sections; and once more
attention must be directed to a somewhat analogous, but a later and
more artistic series of monumental stones. This series class is known
as the Sculptured Stones of Scotland. For various reasons it will be
necessary to deal with them at some length. The transition from the
rough and undressed standing-stones and circles which were treated in
connection with interments, to those now to be handled, was not abrupt,
the progress from the earlier classes of monuments to the later classes
proceeded gradually. Points of much historic interest and importance,
both of an ethnic and artistic character, are inseparably associated
with the Sculptured Stones.
The earliest class of sculptured stones are generally of granite or
whinstone, and undressed, with peculiar symbols and figures incised on
one face of the stone only, and with no Christian symbol of the cross.
Nearly one hundred of this class have been figured or described. The
area in which they have been found stretches from the Firth of Forth
to Caithness, or over the eastern half of the country. But they are
most common in the region between the Tay and the Spey; scarcely a
single example occurs south of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, nor in
the Western Isles nor Argyle. They are mainly distributed thus,――three
between the Forth and Tay, six between the Tay and the Dee, thirty-six
between the Dee and Spey, and twenty-one to the northward of the Spey.
In the same districts there are (or were) forty-three standing slabs
more or less dressed, and with both faces sculptured; and on these
the peculiar symbols of the rough stones appear carved along with
crosses of various design and degrees of ornamentation. As to the local
distribution of this class, twenty-seven were found between the Forth
and the Dee; six between the Dee and the Spey; and ten to the north of
the Spey.¹ A large number of such monuments have doubtless disappeared
through the action of various causes and agencies, long before an
intelligent historic interest was directed to them in this country.
¹ _Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, Volume I., Prefix, pages
6‒8; Volume II., Appendix to Preface, pages 74, 75. The
symbols occur on a fragment of a stone at Edinburgh, and on
a rock in Galloway.
Within the above area, and in other quarters of the kingdom, there are
other sculptured monuments which differ from both of the types just
indicated, and which are also Celtic in their leading characteristics.
In the West of Scotland two types of monumental stones occur: 1, The
free-standing crosses, ornamented in a fine Celtic style, but differing
from the eastern monuments in the absence of the peculiar symbols.
2, At a much later period the stone cross of the West Coasts and
Islands became characterised by a style of art which differed from the
distinctive forms of the pure Celtic art. The distinguishing features
of this latter style, consisted in the elaboration of graceful forms
of foliage, and a freer development of the knot and scroll work than
appears on the earlier stone cross of the eastern division of Scotland.
A number of erect undressed stones, with incised crosses simply, and
all of archaic character, have been observed here and there throughout
the country, and this group seems to present the earliest examples of
the unornamented series of crosses. A more complete classification of
the early incised crosses without the figured and peculiar symbols,
and the other series having these peculiar symbols incised on them
but without any cross, may hereafter be attained by carefully tracing
the indications of development, and then showing that both classes
passed into the decorated type, which presents the curious symbols
and the cross, and also combined them with other subjects and scroll
ornamentation.
Although it cannot be proved by direct evidence that the rough upright
stones with the peculiar symbols incised on them succeeded the rough
unsculptured standing stones, found singly and in circles throughout
Scotland, still there are many facts and associated phenomena which
point to this conclusion. For that circles of rough pillar stones were
placed around the graves of our ancestors ages before the introduction
of Christianity into this country cannot be questioned. When, therefore,
similar undressed stones have been found standing with peculiar figures
incised on one of their faces, which figures cannot be proved to have
any reference to Christianity, why should it be assumed that these
figures were Christian in their origin? Let us try the point in this
way. Is the Cross an essential symbol of Christianity or not? If the
sign of the Cross was believed to be so full of virtue and power as it
is represented to have been in this country in early Christian times,
is it conceivable that Christians would have cut figures and symbols on
stone monuments without a cross on them? We are told that it was then
a custom to cross tools and implements before using them, and if these
rough monuments be of Christian origin, we must suppose that, though
the very tools with which the figures were cut had been crossed and
blessed, yet the men who used these tools so far forgot themselves
that they never thought of cutting a cross――the chief symbol of their
religion――on any of these stones.¹ Instead of advancing a view which
involves such unwarranted assumptions, it seems more in accordance with
ascertained facts and associated circumstances, to infer that these
rude sculptured stones existed in Scotland with the peculiar symbols
cut on them before the great emblem of the Christian Cross had become
known in this quarter of the globe. Upwards of a hundred examples of
these rough pillar stones with the symbols but no cross have been found,
and doubtless a much greater number existed in earlier times. The
curious symbols were continued, like many other things, into Christian
times, as they frequently re-appear in monuments wherein the main
idea and leading feature is the Christian cross. The monuments of the
Christian period were mostly formed of dressed slabs with sculptures on
both sides. On one face a cross in the centre covered with ornamental
work of intricate and varied patterns, and with the peculiar symbols
still retaining their original outline as on the rough stones, although
usually overwarped by ornaments appropriate to the Christian cross
style. On the reverse of the same stone different objects or scenes
were frequently depicted.
¹ _Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, Volume I., Preface, 2, 3;
Volume II., Preface, 5‒7. Dr. Anderson deemed it unnecessary
to discuss at any length the question of the pagan origin
of these peculiar symbols which first appear on the
rough unhewed stones; yet he makes a somewhat sweeping
generalisation to the following effect:――“And now I sum up
the whole bearings of the evidence, whether derived from the
general features or from the special art characteristics of
these monuments in one generalisation. They are monuments
of Christian character and Christian time. There is no
evidence to show that there was among our forefathers any
pre-existing or Pagan custom of erecting such sculptured
monuments in honour of the dead.... We may find the cover of
cist, a rude unshapely block, sculptured on its under side
with cups and circles, or with triangles and rudely formed
spirals. But we have never found in Scotland any monuments
erected over a Pagan grave which exhibits the least approach
to a truly artistic decoration. The custom of erecting
such monuments is Christian and Christian alone, so far
as Scotland is concerned, and the art they exhibit and the
letters they bear were brought into this country with the
copies of the Gospels from which Christianity was taught
to the people.” _Scotland in Early Christian Times_, pages
132‒133, 1881. Dr. Anderson’s one generalisation is far too
dogmatic, and hardly in accordance with ascertained facts,
or even consistent with some of his own conclusions in other
parts of his writings.
The peculiar symbols may be briefly described. One of those which often
occurs is a crescent combined with a rod, resembling the letter V, and
terminating in ornamented extremities; the body of it is occasionally
plain, but oftener filled with ornaments. Another symbol of frequent
occurrence consists of two circles connected by two slightly curved
lines; sometimes it appears alone, and more frequently associated with
a bent figure terminating in ornamented extremities. The circles are
sometimes plain, but usually filled with concentric circles, forms of
spirals, of interlaced work, or bosses in relief. A symbol of frequent
occurrence somewhat resembles the shape of a horse-shoe; it usually
appears alone, but sometimes in combination with a bent rod. Amongst
the more common figures used as symbols on these stone crosses, are the
head of an animal which appears in a variety of combinations; a figure
formed of three circles, a large one in the centre with a smaller one
attached at each side; a smith’s anvil, a hammer and tongs, and the
shears along with the mirror and comb.¹
¹ _Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 22‒23;
Appendix to Preface, 1‒12, 19‒21; _Proceedings of the
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_, Volume X., pages
333‒347, 637‒640.
A number of the representations on these stones have been explained as
scenes from the Bible.¹ But I have limited myself to a plain statement
of what appears on the stones, without attempting to load them with far
off interpretations. Although the primary purposes of these monuments
was sepulchral and memorial; there can be no reasonable doubt that many
of the accessories which appear upon them, such as the costume, the
weapons, and many other distinctive objects, were those of the country
and the period. In this relation as illustrative materials of unwritten
history they have a considerable value. They afford illustrations of
human life in Scotland, and show it in its common, as well as in its
ecclesiastical and military characteristics. The scenes on these stones
depict the dress of the warrior, the huntsman, the ecclesiastic, and
the pilgrim. Such important tools and weapons of the period, as the
knife, the axe, the dirk, the spear, the sword, the shield, and the
bow, are all admirably represented. We learn from these representations
that the horsemen of the age rode without spurs or stirrups, sat upon
peaked saddle-cloths, and used snaffle-bridles with check rings and
ornamental rosettes; that they travelled on horseback, and wore peaked
hoods and cloaks; that when hunting, or on horseback armed, they wore
a kilted dress falling a little below the knees, and a plaid across
the shoulders. When travelling on foot they wore tight-fitting under
garments, and a plaid loosely wrapped round the body, and sometimes a
tight jerkin with sleeves and belt round the waist. They ♦wore their
hair long, flowing, and curly, sometimes with peaked beards, at other
times with moustaches on the upper lip, and shaven cheeks and chin.²
They used long bows in war, and cross-bows in hunting. Their swords
were long, broad-bladed, and double-edged, with triangular pommels and
straight guards; their spears had long heads, and their shields were
rounded and furnished with bosses. On horseback they fought with sword,
spear, and shield; and on foot with sword and buckler. They used two
wheeled carriages with poles for draught by two horses, the driver
sitting on a seat over the pole, and the wheels had ornamented spokes.
They used high chairs with side-arms, carved backs, and sometimes
ornamented with heads of animals. Their boats had high prows and
stern-posts. They used trumpets, and played beautifully on the harp.
The ecclesiastics of the period wore long dresses, which were richly
and elaborately embroidered; they walked about in loose short boots,
and carried crosiers, and book sachels in their hands.³ Such are a few
of the many historic and interesting facts which are portrayed with
striking distinctness on these monuments.
¹ Dr. Anderson in his _Scotland in Early Christian Times_, has
given Scriptural interpretations of certain scenes of some
of the stones. See pages 144‒173.
♦ “were” replaced with “wore”
² “Long and flowing hair was at first evidence that the
wearer was a noble, and always that he possessed unforfeited
and unimpeached all the rights of a freeman. It conferred
dignity on the wearer, and the highest and most illustrious
were proud of it. It was the distinction in which the
Carlovingian Kings of France most glorified; and Harold,
Fairhair, and Canute the Great, considered that the length
and beauty of their hair added to their lawful claims to
popular admiration. In the earliest periods, beards and
moustaches were worn of immense size, and were especially
esteemed by such of the population as were of British
descent. The want of them was considered by the laity as
a mark of weakness and vulgarity, and by the clergy as
evidence of effeminacy and dissolute life. The Anglo-Saxon
priesthood persisted in wearing them, in defiance of
canonical prohibition, till Dunstan compelled them to
shave in an orthodox manner.
“If the right of wearing long hair was important to men,
it was doubly so to women; for with them it was not only a
mark of rank, but of chastity. Every young freewoman, while
unmarried, was said to be in her hair, which she wore long
and loose; and when she married, she was required to dress
it in a different manner. If she misconducted herself, it
was cut off altogether.” _Sculptured Stones of Scotland_,
Volume II., Appendix to Preface, pages 6‒8, and Volume I.,
plates 61, 77, Volume II., plate 103. There is some very
curious information touching the subject in the _Ancient
Laws of Ireland_. It is worth mentioning that cropping
the hair and beard is to this day a part of military and
criminal punishment.
³ _Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, especially in Volume I.
throughout, plates 26, 16, 29, 46, 52, 69, 76, 25, 43, 47,
58, 64, 70, 80, 82, 49, 93, 77, 61, 74, 126, Volume II.
plates 16, 2, 4, 12, 129.
Touching the art of these monuments, the earliest type, the undressed
pillars without the cross, exhibit little art. The peculiar symbols,
already described, are simply formed by incised lines, with little
ornamentation. The floriated ends of the sceptre appears in various
forms, the divergent spiral, and attempts to represent the feathers
of a bird by angular lines and long flowing lines. But the range of
decoration is very limited in this class of monuments, although it is
essentially and characteristically Celtic, and this was its earliest
stage on stone.
When we come to examine the stones with crosses on them, we find that
the art becomes developed to a high degree of perfection. It is clear
that the leading ideal and aim of the art manifested on these monuments
was decoration; and its prevailing characteristic is a decoration
of panels separated from each other by borders and then treated as
surfaces. These surfaces often result from the divisions of the general
surface by the main design, which may be a cross embracing the entire
length of the stone. At other times the cross is divided into panels,
or the spaces on each side of the shaft. Again, there is sometimes a
border of decoration round the chief subject, which is divided into
panels. The general surface is always decorated in spaces which balance
each other exactly. The greatest elaboration on the surface of the
finest monuments is attained by the use of interlaced work. The designs
are not very numerous; but the divisions and the variations of the
decorative and the symbolic ornaments appear to be almost infinite,
the combinations endless, and yet beautiful, balanced, symmetrical,
and perfect specimens of art.¹
¹ Dr. Anderson has treated the art of these monuments at
great length, and with much care and precision. See his
_Scotland Early Christian Times_, pages 97‒135, 1881. The
late Dr. John Stuart, the editor of the two volumes of the
_Sculptured Stones_, has also, in his two prefaces and notes,
presented much valuable information.
No other monuments show a greater profusion of ornament, or a style
of decoration more striking and effective in its result. The art
exhibits originality and individuality, always like itself in its
distinctive characteristics. In short, these ancient monuments clearly
indicate that the men who produced them were gifted with imaginative,
reproductive, and elaborative faculties of a high order, associated
with an intensity of feeling and a concentration of attention directed
to the attainment of a definite end, rarely manifested anywhere.
It is probable that the more ornate and decorative features of this art
were not originated and continuously developed as sculptures on stone.
Although there is no reason whatever to doubt that the art of the rough
incised stones bearing the symbols only, with no cross, did originate
in Scotland, but its special characteristic consisted in incised work,
which showed little decoration of any kind. The decorative and ornate
characteristics of the art, no doubt, were first developed in the
pages of the illuminated manuscripts; and this art of illuminating
manuscripts was developed to a high degree of perfection at an early
period in Ireland. The same art was practised in Scotland, though only
a few specimens of it remain, which do not approach the perfection
of the Irish examples. “It is interesting to compare these Irish
illuminations with those of the Book of Deer, which may be presumed
to be a work of Scotch art of a period not later than the volume of
MacDuran, who died in 927, so the age of his work is the early part
of the tenth century; and it will be remarked in the specimens here
given, that the ornamented patterns composing the surrounding borders
are identical with those on many of the crosses, and the design of the
latter is, in many cases, the same as that of a page of the manuscripts,
showing a rich border round the margin of the stone, with pictorial
representations inside. The peculiar art of the Irish illuminations
and the Scotch crosses is found on many bronze relics of the Christian
period, as well as on those of an earlier age.”¹
¹ _Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, Volume II., Appendix to
Preface, page 81. “The peculiarities of the Irish style
consists,――1, in the entire absence of foliage or other
vegetable ornament, the classical acanthus being entirely
ignored; and 2, in the extreme intricacy and excessive
minuteness and elaboration of the various patterns,
mostly geometrical, consisting of interlaced ribbon work,
diagonal or spiral lines, and strange monstrous animals
and birds, with long top-knots, tongues, and tails
intertwined in almost endless knots. The most sumptuous of
the manuscripts――such, for instance, as the Book of ♦Kells,
the Gospels of Lindisfarne and St. Chad, and some of the
manuscripts of St. Gall――have entire pages covered with
the most elaborate patterns in compartments, the whole
forming beautiful cruciform designs, one of these facing
the commencement of each of the four Gospels. The labour
employed in such a mass of work must have been very great,
the care infinite, since the most scrutinising examination
with a magnifying glass will not detect an error in the
truth of the lines or the regularity of the interlacing;
and yet, with all this minuteness, the harmonious effect
of colouring has been introduced.” O. Jones’s Grammar of
Ornament, page 3, quoted in _Sculptured Stones of Scotland_.
Mr. Westwood says――“The principles of these most elaborate
ornaments are, however, but few in number, and may be
reduced to the four following:――1st, One or more narrow
ribbons diagonally but symmetrically interlaced, forming an
endless variety of patterns. 2nd, One, two, or three slender
spiral lines, coiling one within another till they meet in
the centre of the circle, their opposite ends going off to
other circles. 3rd, A vast variety of lacerative animals and
birds, hideously attenuated and coiled within one another,
with their tails, tongues, and top-knots forming long narrow
ribbons irregularly interlaced. 4th, A series of diagonal
lines, forming various kinds of Chinese-like patterns. These
ornaments are generally introduced into small compartments,
a number of which are arranged so as to form the large
initial letters and borders or tesselated pages with which
the first manuscripts were decorated.” _Sculptured Stones of
Scotland_, Volume II., Appendix to Preface, page 77.
♦ “Keels” replaced with “Kells”
It thus appears that it was only after the decorative elements of
the art had attained a high degree of elaboration on parchment, that
it began to be generally applied to stone in Scotland. It seems also
probable that, looking to the profusion and quality of the ornament
and decoration on the early stone monuments of Scotland, that there
would have been something like a proportionate quantity on the pages
of books which have perished. Some of the elements of this art are
common, however, to a wider area than that of Celtic Scotland, Ireland,
or Europe, being found, to a greater or less extent, in the art
of many nations. Still the Celtic art of Scotland has distinctive
characteristics of its own; in like manner as the art of other nations
have special peculiarities which distinguishes each from that of others:
for there is nothing in the world which stands absolutely alone and out
of all relation. The essence of art belongs to the human mind and to
humanity. But different nations have embodied their art in a variety
of forms, differing in degrees of perfection and development, or in
the elaboration given to certain elements of art, and special forms and
characteristics.
The ethnic implications connected with these monuments remain to be
considered, and may be shortly stated thus:――The region in which the
greater number of these ancient monuments have been found, and those
of the most distinctive and characteristic type, embraced the whole of
eastern Scotland, from the Firths of Forth and Clyde to Caithness. This
is the region where both the undressed stones bearing incised symbols
on one side, but no cross, and the dressed stones bearing crosses and
symbols; and here Celtic art attained the highest development which
it ever reached in Scotland. It will be remembered that this was the
country occupied by the people called the Picts. It is, therefore, a
fair inference that these monuments were the work of the Pictish people.
Further, it has been amply proved that the art of these monuments is
essentially and intensely Celtic; and so the ethnic conclusion is, that
the people also were intensely Celtic in spirit and race.
Touching the probable period of these monuments, taking them as a whole,
it would be vain to fix on precise dates. But, excepting the rough
stones with incised symbols on one side, the entire class of those with
crosses probably range from about the middle of the ninth century to
the end of the eleventh. Some of the incised stones may be a century
or two earlier.
Having indicated the origin and the art of the sculptured stones,
the early monuments with inscriptions on them comes in succession.
Inscribed monuments of this period are rare in Scotland. Amongst
the Celtic people of Britain and Ireland the earliest form of giving
visible expression to a fact or event in writing was by using Ogham
characters. The Ogham alphabet consisted of numbers of digit-like
characters, which were arranged upon a stem line in groups when
used on stone monuments, but it was sometimes used on metal work, in
manuscripts, and on the wooden staves of the Irish poets. There are
upwards of a hundred Ogham inscriptions in Ireland, and twenty-five
in Wales, but there are only five examples known on the mainland of
Scotland. One on a cross found at Scoonie, in Fifeshire; another on a
fragment of a sculptured stone discovered in the churchyard of Aboyne,
Aberdeenshire; one at Logie, in the Garioch; one on a stone found at
Golspie, in Sutherlandshire, and another on the famous stone at Newton
of Insch, Aberdeenshire. In the Orkney and Shetland Islands seven
examples have been found, which together gives a total of upwards
of one hundred and fifty characters. But the deciphering and reading
of these Ogham inscriptions seems to be still beset with great
difficulties, mainly owing to the uncertain value of the letters and
the extremely archaic forms of the Celtic language in which they were
written, and the remote circumstances associated with them.¹
¹ _Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, Volume II. Notices of the
plates, page 6; _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland_, Volume X., pages 133‒141, 602; Brash’s _Ogham
Inscribed Monuments of the Gaedhil in the British Islands_,
1879.
In Iona there are a few monuments with Gaelic inscriptions, but
undated. Another Gaelic inscription occurs on a finely decorated
cross at St. Vigean’s, in Forfarshire. There are a few early monuments
with inscriptions in partially debased Roman letters. One, called the
Catstone, at Kirkliston, stands on the south bank of the Almond, in
an area which, on examination, was found to be the site of an ancient
cemetery. No other monument of this early period is known in Scotland
still standing in the midst of its graves. Another inscription of
the same class occurs on a rough slab at a spot called Yarrow Kirk in
Selkirkshire. In the parish of Stoneykirk, Wigtonshire, there are early
monuments with inscriptions in Latin, one of which has been translated
thus:――
“Here lies the holy
and excellent priests,
to wit, Viventius
and Maiorius.”¹
¹ Anderson’s _Scotland in Early Christian Times_, pages
247‒255; Reeves’ _♦Adamnan_, page 418.
♦ “Adamnam” replaced with “Adamnan”
As the Ogham was the earliest form of writing among the Celtic people
of Ireland and Britain, Runic was the earliest form of writing amongst
the Teutonic race of Northern Britain. Thus monuments with Runic
inscriptions occur in Scotland only in the districts which were
colonised by the Norsemen. A few fragments have been found in the
Northern Isles, and one complete monument only is known in the Hebrides,
which once stood in the church of Kilbar, in the Island of Barra, and
is now in the National Museum. It has a cross of Celtic form, and the
Runic inscription states that――“Ur and Thur erected this stone after
Raskur, Christ rest his soul.” Though the inscription is Norse, it
appears that Celtic art held its ground even when the language failed.
The same phenomena has been observed in a group of monuments in the
Island of Man, which was the chief site of the Norse kingdom of Man and
the Isles from 976 to 1266, and called in the sagas the kingdom of the
Sudreys. On a cross at Ruthwell, in Annandale, there are inscriptions
in two languages and two alphabets, the one set carved in Runes and the
other in Roman capitals.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Scotland in Early Christian Times_, pages
227‒233; _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland_, Volume XII., page 143, _et seq._; _The Chronicle
of Man and the Sudreys_, by Prof. Munch, Christiania, 1860.
Having in this section touched on the architecture of the Brochs, and
the indications of culture among the people who erected and occupied
them, the remains of early church structures were briefly noticed; and,
after describing the round towers of Brechin and Abernethy, I proceeded
to treat the Sculptured Stone monuments historically. Indicated the
area in which they were found, touched on the origin of the rough
stones with the incised symbols, the relative sources of Celtic
art, and the special characteristics of the art of the Scotch stone
monuments; and indicated the ethnic inference deducible from them,
concluding with a reference to Celtic Ogham inscriptions and Runic
inscriptions. In order to render the characteristics of early Celtic
art in other forms more clear, the opening part of the next section
will be devoted to the illustration of it.
SECTION XII.
_Characteristics of Early Celtic Art.
Fragments of Early Literature._
The period of native Celtic art stretches back beyond the Christian era,
as we have already seen in the prehistoric age; and it seems necessary
to indicate the characteristics of this art as exhibited on metal work
and other forms, as the culture and civilisation of ♦a people can only
be traced and disclosed in its continuity by the historic treatment of
the products of the mind and feeling as manifested in the whole circle
of their action. Beginning with such objects as reach back to the
Bronze Age culture, we may observe the continuous development of this
form of decorative art.
♦ duplicate word “a” removed
A bronze mirror, along with other articles, was found in draining a bog
in the parish of Balmaclellan, Kirkcudbrightshire. Its form resembles
the mirrors which appear on the sculptured monuments, and the part
where the handle is joined to the body of the mirror is concealed by
a finely ornamented plate. A massive collar of cast bronze was found
in digging a well at Stitchell, Roxburghshire, in 1747; it is jointed,
and opens on a hinge in the centre, and fastening in front by a pin and
socket. Its ornamentation resembles the double escaping and divergent
spirals of the later Celtic art. Closely similar in ornament to this
collar is an armlet of thin bronze, found in 1826 in the parish of
Borgue, Kirkcudbrightshire. It is ornamented by three raised mouldings,
beaten up from the back, and run round it, but concealed on each side
of the hinges by two thin plates of bronze, which are ornamented in
repoussè trumpet-like ornaments connected by curves. In 1806 a herd
boy unearthed a hoard of gold objects on the side of the Shaw Hill in
the parish of Kirkurd, Peeblesshire, which consisted of two twisted
arm-rings, each weighing eight ounces, a broken ring of a similar form,
forty small studs, and a hollow ornament weighing over four ounces.
The bullion value of the whole amounted to about £110. The armlets
are spirally twisted rods of gold, with flat extremities bent round
to encircle the arm. The studs are spiral in form, and marked on the
surface with a cruciform ornament in relief. These are a few examples
selected out of many others which belong to the early Celtic school of
art.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Scotland, Iron Age_, pages 126, 137, 138.
As the art developed, its leading characteristic was exhibited in metal
work with striking effect and beauty. In 1826 a shepherd, when passing
along the hillside of Hunterston, six miles from Largs, observed a
flattened-like ring of metal partially protruding from the soil, which
he picked up. It turned out to be a silver brooch, and a specimen
of artistic work in metal which has rarely been surpassed. It is
large, measuring about four and a half inches in diameter, and it
is elaborately decorated in the Celtic style, and in many of its
features resembles the illuminated decorations of the manuscripts of
the Gospels. It thus belongs to the art of the early Christian period,
and the beauty of its design and decoration is almost equal to that of
the best manuscripts. “The skill of its workmanship is such that it is
questionable whether it could be greatly surpassed by the most skilful
workmanship of the present day. It is only when its details are
examined with a magnifying glass that the fitness and beauty of their
minutest rendering becomes fully apparent.”¹ A point of much interest
connected with this brooch is that it bears on the plain portion of
the back the autographs of two of its former owners scratched with a
point in the surface of the silver; both the inscriptions belong to the
later and more local variety of the Runic alphabet. The inscriptions
are simple, mere markings of ownership, and have been read thus: 1,
“Maelbritha owns this brooch; 2, Olfriti owns this brooch.”² The first
name is Celtic, and both names were common among the mixed population
of the Norwegian province of the Western Isles. The forms of the Runes
indicate a date about the tenth century, which would agree with the
period when Celtic art-workmanship was approaching the point of its
highest expression.³
¹ _Ibid._ _Scotland in Early Christian Times_, page 3, 1881.
² Various readings of these scratched inscriptions have been
given. Their decipherment has been made the subject of
several papers――Finn Magnusen in the _Annaler for Nordisk
Oldkindyghed og Historie_, 1846, pages 323, 399; P. A. Munch
in the _Memoires de la Sociéte des Antiquaires du Nord_,
page 202, 1845‒49; Dr. Wilson’s _Prehistoric Annals of
Scotland_, Volume II., pages 267‒277; Professor Dr. George
Stephens, in his great work, _The Old Northern Runic
Monuments of Scandinavia and England_, has given details of
the inscriptions along with a critical discussion. Volume
II., pages 589‒599.
³ “The art of the brooch, as I have shown, is Celtic, and the
inscriptions are such as would be carved by natives of the
restricted area, whose population was partly of Norwegian
and partly of Celtic origin.” _Scotland in Early Christian
Times_, page 6.
In 1868, when the Sutherland railway was making through the parish of
Rogart, a large earthfast stone was blasted, and in clearing away the
rubbish one of the workmen found in the soil underneath the stone a
hoard of brooches; and he at once left his work and disappeared. The
number of the brooches found, was never ascertained, but two of them
subsequently came into the possession of Mr. Macleod of Cadboll, and
these two were known as the Cadboll brooches; and in 1888 they were
purchased for the National Museum. A third one passed into the hands of
the Duke of Sutherland, and is preserved in the museum at Dunrobin. The
two now in the National Museum are penannular brooches of silver. The
largest one is plated with gold, and measures four and a half inches in
diameter, and the pin seven and three-fourth inches in length. The body
of the brooch consists of a flattened band of silver, three quarters
of an inch in width, and nearly a quarter of an inch in thickness, bent
into a circular form and terminating at each extremity in an ornamental
expansion of quarterfoil form, and an amber setting fills the centre of
the terminal ornaments. Round this setting there is a circular space,
enclosed by a plain raised border and quartered by similar partitions,
each of which is filled with an interlacing pattern. The four
semi-circular spaces surrounding the central circle, and forming the
quarterfoils, are also enclosed by plain raised borders, and from each
of these spaces there rises, to the height of half an inch, part of the
body and neck of a large billed bird. Its eyes are set with green glass,
the neck bends gracefully, and the long bill dips into the interior of
the enclosed circle. In the middle of the bend of the circular part of
the brooch, there is a circular space divided into four segments with
a central setting of amber, and segments filled in with interlacing
patterns. On each side of the circle there are two birds’ heads
similarly placed, and ornamented as those at the extremities of the
brooch. The surface of that portion of the ring of the brooch between
the central group of the two, and the terminal groups of the four
birds’ heads, is divided on each side into four panels filled with
interlaced patterns. The pin is loosely attached to the brooch by a
large loop open at the back, and the head is an oval expansion covered
with interlaced patterns, continued down the front of the pin. The
whole of these ornamental details are worked out with great delicacy
and the utmost precision. “The brooch presents twenty-one different
panels of interlaced work in gold, ten panels occupied by bird’s heads,
and twenty-four settings of amber and glass.” The other brooch is
smaller and simpler, though of the same class. These brooches present
a striking speciality of form and decoration; they exhibit a class of
ornamental metal-work not necessarily ecclesiastical in origin or use,
but showing designs and patterns similar to the decorative art of the
Celtic manuscripts.¹
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume VIII., page 305; Volume XXII., pages 271‒273.
Anderson’s _Scotland in Early Christian Times_, pages 9, 11.
A considerable number of these early Celtic brooches in silver and
other metal have been found in Scotland; and many of them are fine
specimens of decorative art. There are other articles in silver and
bronze which present this art, such as the massive silver chains of
double circular links, which show upon their penannular terminal links
symbols of a peculiar character, and are sometimes filled with enamel.
Five of these chains, belonging to Scotland, are in the National Museum.
One found in making the Caledonian Canal in Inverness-shire, consists
of sixteen pairs of circular links, and a single link at one end. The
links are solid bars of silver, each hammered round and bent circularly
till the ends meet. It measured eighteen inches in length, and weighed
ninety-two ounces. Another chain of a similar character, formed
of rather smaller links, was found at Parkhill, Aberdeenshire. It
consisted of twenty-three pairs of circular links, with a terminal link
of a peculiar shape; and on the surface of this link there were dots
on each side of a curved symbol, which sometimes appears incised on the
sculptured monuments. On the opposite side there were triangular sunk
spaces and three dots, and the sunk spaces had been filled with red
enamel. A chain found at Whitecleuch in the parish of Crawfordjohn, in
Lanarkshire, was formed of twenty-two pairs of circular links, with a
penannular terminal link, on which there appeared two symbols, often
found associated with the decoration of the sculptured monuments.¹
¹ Anderson’s _Scotland in Early Christian Times_, pages 42‒44.
The Crosier of St. Fillan is an interesting relic of ornamented
art, and it has also an exceedingly interesting history.¹ There are
many other relics and objects which might be used to illustrate the
characteristics of Celtic art; but its central principle and leading
features, which were essentially decoration and ornamentation, have now
been sufficiently explicated for the purpose and scale of this history.
¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume XII., pages 122, 134. Dr. Anderson has treated the
relics of St. Fillan in several publications. From the
latest of these the following may be quoted:――“Putting
together the several indications gathered from these
documents, we find that before the Reformation there were
in Glendochart five different relics of St. Fillan, and
that in the case of each separate relic the authority of the
Church had been unable to prevail against the Celtic usage
which had up to that time preserved the lay succession of
hereditary Dewars, and which, in the case of the Quigrich,
succeeded in preserving it, not only till the Reformation,
but down to the time when the Society of Antiquaries
succeeded to the keepership of that relic.
“The five relics of St. Fillan, in the possession of their
hereditary Dewars, each with a croft of land held by the
tenure of the keepership, were as follows:――1, The Quigrich
or Crosier, in the keeping of the Dewar of the Quigrich,
who held the lands of Cryetindewer in Eyich. 2, The Bernane,
in the keeping of the Dewar Bhernane, who held the lands
of Dewar Bhernane’s croft in Suy. 3, The Ferg, in the
keeping of the Dewar-na-Ferg, who had Dewar-na-Ferg’s
croft in Auchlyne. 4, The Man, or Mayne, in the keeping of
Dewar-na-Mayne, who had the Dewar-na-Mayne’s croft at Killin.
5, The Meser, in the keeping of the Dewar de Meser, who had
lands, including Coreheynan. The next question that arises
is, how far the relics are now capable of being identified.
“The Quigrich is the ornamented head of the Crosier, now
in the National Museum.... The Bernane, I think, may be
identified as another relic of St. Fillan, also now in the
possession of the Society.... The Ferg is quite unknown to
me, and I am not prepared to hazard even a guess as to its
identity.... The Mayne, according to the analogy of the
word, ought to mean the hand, and we can readily conceive
the application of this name to a very interesting and highly
venerated relic of St. Fillan, viz., the miraculous left
hand which he was wont to hold up when writing in the dark,
as the servant, who looked through the chink in the door,
saw that the left hand afforded a clear and steady light to
the right hand.... In all probability the arm of St. Fillan
was enshrined, at least as early as the Crosier or the bell;
that it was preserved in a case or shrine in the early part
of the fourteenth century, we learn from Boece’s account of
the miracle which took place in the tent of King Robert the
Bruce on the night before the Battle of Bannockburn. There
can be no doubt that the relic of St. Fillan, which was at
Bannockburn, was not the Crosier or the Bell, but the Mayne
or enshrined arm and hand which used to give the miraculous
light.... The Meser is not known, except from the single
notice of its Dewar in 1468.” _Proceedings of the Society
of Antiquaries of Scotland_, Volume XXIII., pages 115‒118.
Turning to the earliest fragments of literature still preserved, it
appears that they issued from Iona. Owing to the position and fame of
St. Columba in his own lifetime, some of his many disciples would be
ready to record those events of his life calculated to interest his
followers and enhance the veneration of his memory. Cummene, son of
Ernan, was the seventh Abbot of Iona, and succeeded to the abbacy in
657; and according to the standard of his time, he was a learned and
accomplished man. One of his letters in Latin touching the Easter
festival is extant; and he also composed in Latin a life of St. Columba.
His life of Columba consists of twenty-seven short chapters, which
chiefly deal with the miracles performed by Columba or on his account.
Several manuscripts of Cummene’s life of Columba exist, and it has been
repeatedly printed.¹ After presiding over the community of Iona, and
the Columban Church for twelve years, he died in 669.
¹ Mabillon’s _Acta Sanctorum ordinis Sancti Benedicti_, i. ♦342,
from the Compiegne MS.; in _Acta Sanctorum_, ii. 180, mainly
from the Belfort MS; and by Pinkerton in _Vitæ Sanctorum
Scotiæ_.
♦ “242, from the Compeigne” replaced with
“342, from the Compiegne”
Adamnan, son of Ronan, was born in Ireland in the year 624; and,
in virtue of his birth, claimed kin to St. Columba. On the death of
Failbhe in 679, he was elected as ninth Abbot of Iona. Adamnan was the
most accomplished of all St. Columba’s successors. He took an active
part in all matters relating to the Church in his time. He went to
Ireland in 697, where he was engaged in efforts to effect social reform
among the people and the clergy; and probably it was at this time,
from ♦697 till his return to Iona in 704, that he wrote his Life of
Columba. His information for this work was derived partly from written
and partly from oral sources. His written materials were Cummene’s
Life of St. Columba which he cites by name; he had also another memoir,
to which he refers thus――“Hanc prædictam visionem, non solum, paginis
inscriptam reperimus, sed et ab aliquibus expertis senioribus, quibus
ipse Virgnous retulerat, sine ullo didicimus cunctamine.” He also
refers to poems on the praises of Columba written in the native
language, “Scoticæ linguæ” (Gaelic); and other metrical compositions by
St. Mura, who died about 645.¹ The narrative of Cummene was transferred
almost verbatim, by Adamnan, into his own Life of Columba. The oral
source of information available to Adamnan would have consisted of the
recollections and reminiscences about Columba then current among his
brethren in Iona and in Ireland. Thus he produced a work in complete
harmony with the feeling, the spirit, and the thought of his age.
He returned from Ireland to Iona in the summer of 704, and died
on the 23rd of September, the same year, at the advanced age of
seventy-eight.²
♦ “397” replaced with “697”
¹ Reeves’ _Adamnan_, pages 17, 237, 318, and Preface pages
5‒7. Among the poems in praise of Columba written in the
native tongue, the celebrated Amhra was ascribed to St.
Baithene Mor, a contemporary of Columba.
² Reeves’ _Adamnan_, Appendix to Preface pages 53, 56, 57.
Adamnan’s Life of Columba is somewhat prolix, and its main themes
throughout are associated with supposed miraculous and supernatural
events and circumstances. Still, incidentally it contains a
considerable number of facts of more or less historic value. His
account of the last scenes of St. Columba’s life is natural, beautiful,
and pathetic. Seeing that the work was written in the latter years
of the seventh century or the opening years of the eighth, it has a
special value, as being the earliest writing of any length directly
connected with Scotland. He was the author of a tract entitled _De
Locis Sanctis_, which is written in a more flowing style than his Life
of Columba. Besides these two works, Adamnan is said to have written
a Life of St. Patrick; Poems; and some other works. These have not,
however, been authoritatively recognised as his productions.
From the number of manuscripts of his life of St. Columba which were
spread over the Continent, it appears that the work was highly esteemed,
and a considerable number of his writings still exist in various
libraries. His Life of Columba has also often been printed.¹ Adamnan
was held in great respect while living, and after his death his memory
was widely venerated both in Ireland and in Scotland. A number of
churches were dedicated to St. Adamnan in Ireland, and in Scotland nine
or ten churches were dedicated to his name, among which were Forglen,
in the beautiful valley of the Deveron, lying in the lower division
of Banffshire; Dalmeny, a parish in Linlithgow, and in Inchkeith;
and several wells were called after him. His shrine and relics became
objects of extreme veneration, and were latterly preserved in his
church of Skreen in Ireland.
¹ _Ibid._, Preface, pages 8‒10, 12‒30. Adamnan’s _Life of
Columba_ was first printed by ♦Canisius in his Antiquæ
Lectiones, from a MS. preserved in the monastery of Windberg,
in Bavaria, Volume V., pages 559‒621, 1604. This was
reprinted in 1624, by Thomas Messingham, an Irish priest,
who added titles to the chapters, and a few marginal glosses,
together with testimonies of Adamnan and of St. Columba.
In 1647, Colgan published it in his great work entitled,
_Triadis Thaumaturgæ, seu Divorum Patricii Columbæ et
Brigidæ, trium ♦Veteris et Majoris Scotiæ seu Hiberniæ
sanctorum Insulæ, communium Patronorum Acta, etc._ It
is inserted in the Bollandists’ _Acta Sanctorum_; in
Pinkerton’s _Vitæ Antiquæ Sanctorum, etc._; and Dr.
Reeves’ very valuable edition, so often referred to in
the preceding pages, contains a vast number of facts and
interesting particulars.
♦ “Canisiu” replaced with “Canisius”
“Veberis” replaced with “Veteris”
A few fragments of writings in Latin have been preserved: such as the
Pictish Chronicle, which was compiled about the close of the tenth
century, probably by the scribe or _ferleiginn_ of the monastery of
Brechin. This short chronicle has been preserved in Latin, which,
however, seems to have been translated from a Gaelic original, as
Celtic words here and there were left untranslated. It is known that
a number of ancient writings existed, which have perished amid the
internal and external struggles which subsequently ensued. As already
indicated, references to writings in the native language of the people
occur, which appear to have consisted of legends and lives of the
saints.¹
¹ _Chronicles_, Preface pages 19‒23; _Register of the Priory
of St. Andrews_; _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland_, Volume III., page 264.
The earliest specimen of Gaelic writing on parchment in Scotland
occurs in the Book of Deer, a MS. which originally belonged to one of
St. Columba’s monasteries in Buchan, Aberdeenshire. This book contains
portions of the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and the
whole of the Gospel of St. John, and the Apostles’ Creed, all in Latin.
It is written in one uniform hand, and in a character which has been
assigned by the most skilful experts to the ninth century. After the
Apostles’ Creed, the scribe who wrote the Gospels adds a colophon in
Gaelic which has been translated thus: “Be it on the conscience of
every one in whom shall be for grace the booklet with splendour; that
he give a blessing on the soul of the wretchock who wrote it.”¹ For two
centuries it appears that nothing was added to the original book. The
fragment of an office for the visitation of the sick is in a different
and a later handwriting. The memoranda written in Gaelic on the blank
pages and the margins of the original manuscript belong to a period
not later than the eleventh century and the early part of the twelfth.
Thus, these memoranda afford a specimen of the written Celtic language
of the period, which has been found in its main features to resemble
the written Irish of the same age. Although this is the only example of
vernacular Celtic now known to exist, still we cannot infer that this
was all that Scotland had produced down to the twelfth century; in fact
there can be little doubt that in many of the other monasteries similar
writings in the vernacular were in use from an early period.
¹ _Book of Deer_, page 89.
The _ferleiginn_ or man of learning was a prominent official in the
monasteries of Ireland, and of those of the west and north-eastern
regions of Scotland. The function of this official at first seems to
have been mainly limited to the practice and teaching of penmanship;
but from about the middle of the tenth century instruction in
literature was added to his functions: so that _ferleiginn_ lecturer,
meant literally man of learning. This official appears as a member
of the monastic community at Turriff, which stands on a fine
commanding site near the river Deveron at the northern extremity of
Aberdeenshire. It was thus one of the schools of the period. In some
other parts of Scotland, the same functionary appears under the name of
Scolofthes――Scolocs; in somewhat later times they appear in connection
with several churches which belonged to St. Andrews. Touching the
range of the learning of these functionaries there is little definite
information.¹
¹ Reeves’ _Adamnan_, pages 365, 62‒63; _Miscellany of the Old
Spalding Club_, Volume V., Preface, pages 56‒67, _et seq._;
_Book of Deer_, Preface, pages 185‒189.
The monasteries of Scotland, however, considered as schools in relation
to the people, were not very efficient. Although in certain directions
they had an educational influence upon the people which produced
results, such as the introduction of letters and a standard of written
Gaelic amongst themselves; and what education existed was supplied
through the monasteries and the monks; but it does not appear that this
written Gaelic was widely or generally taught to the young and rising
generations during the period in question. The far greater part of
the people were not taught to read at all, and whatever they received
as education was imparted orally and retained through the memory. In
connection with religious worship and the service of the church the
people were fully informed about the lives, the works, and the miracles
of the saints, and in this relation their religion still resembled the
ancient worship of ancestors. But in relation to industry and art, the
teaching and the example of the monastic communities had a marked and
beneficial educational influence upon the people.
Legends, stories, and rhymes were common among the people. When writing
was little practised and printing unknown, people depended far more
upon their memories, and in these circumstances the retention of a
few thousands of lines would imply no great stretch of memory. Homer
was simply a reciter; he never wrote the immortal work which has been
stamped with his name for more than two thousand years. As thought
must precede articulate speech and written composition and connected
expression in the natural order of development, so oral composition
in rhyme and tale have everywhere preceded the forms of written
composition. As a matter of fact, there have been several instances
in Scotland, in quite recent times, of men who could neither read nor
write, and yet they have composed many songs and poems of recognised
merit, which, of course, were written down from their diction.
Indeed, the greater part of the ballad literature of Scotland has been
collected by a somewhat similar process, and also to a large extent
the tales and ballad literature of other nations. We may then conclude,
that the people of this period had an ample store of oral rhymes, tales,
and traditions――the accumulated accretions of the preceding ages――which
still continue to be orally learned and transmitted from generation
to generation, with such additional variations as imagination and
circumstances suggested to their minds.
At the close of the eleventh century the Celtic race possessed the
whole of Scotland except the Lothians, in the south-east, which was
occupied by the Angles. Caithness in the north, the Orkney and Shetland
Islands, and the Western Islands, which had been colonised by the
Norsemen. But the original heat of the Norse movement had begun to cool,
and the Celtic race retained their own language in the Western Isles:
a considerable number of Norse words, however, occur in these islands.
Throughout the regions occupied by the Celtic race there were, no
doubt, dialectical variations in the speech of the people in different
districts, but they all essentially belonged to one language. In short,
the people from the Firth of Forth to Caithness were still essentially
of the same race as the tribes who contended with the Roman Legions at
Mons Grampius in the year 86 A.D.
I. In conclusion the main points of the seven preceding sections of
this Introduction may be recapitulated. New historic conditions arose
through the Roman invasion, and their occupation of a portion of
the country on the south of the Firths of Forth and Clyde. But the
tribes on the north side of the Roman barrier remained unconquered and
independent, and the Roman occupation produced no permanent impression
upon them. After the departure of the Romans from the island, other
migrations and external invasions by different races ensued which
created new historic conditions. This resulted in a series of conflicts
amongst the different races and tribes which was continued for several
centuries.
1. But during this period a new moral power, Christianity, was
gradually introduced into the territories of the contending races
and tribes, and it affected their subsequent movements in various
directions. The new religion tended to draw the tribes more together,
and in the direction of greater unity of action and organisation.
2. The natural result of the internal struggle of the different tribes
appeared in the foundation of the historic monarchy in 844. The centre
and chief seat of the monarchy was on the banks of the Tay at Scone.
The gradual extension of the kingdom outward from its centre, and its
development, and the affinities and elements of the future nationality,
were noted and explained.
II. The social state of the people from the seventh century to the
end of the eleventh was treated in detail. After some remarks on the
more primitive forms of tribal organisation, and the relation of the
tribe to the land, which in very early stages of society was the common
property of the tribe alone, the causes which tended to change and
modify this condition of society, were then explained. It was shown
how individual rights in land had arisen, the tribal organisation in
relation to the land, the rights of the heads of tribes to impose taxes
on land, and the right of the king to impose a national tax upon all
land within his kingdom. The state of agriculture, the herds of cattle,
the food, the clothing, and the dwellings of the people, and the origin
of markets, were noticed. The custom of paying for all classes of
crime, by a scale of fines fixed according to the rank of the injured
party, was noticed and explained. Social morality, the relations of the
different sexes, customs and forms associated with the institution of
marriage, and the efforts of the Church to place marriage on a proper
footing, were noticed; the state of the Church, the observance of the
Lord’s day, and the efforts of Queen Margaret to reform abuses and
minister to the poor.
3. Early architecture was historically treated in relation to the
civilisation of the people. The local area in which the remains of the
Brochs are found, was pointed out, the structure and characteristics of
these singularly peculiar erections were then described, their origin
and purpose was touched on, and it was observed that they exhibited
a type of structure which was confined to Scotland alone. The traces
of the daily life of the occupiers of the Brochs, their culture and
civilisation as disclosed by the tools, implements, ornaments, articles,
and remains found in and around these structures, were considered; and
it was inferred, on sufficient evidence, that they cultivated the land,
grew grain, and possessed herds of cattle and sheep, practised the arts
of spinning and weaving, and made pottery. From this and other evidence
and associated circumstances, it was concluded that the occupiers of
the Brochs were the people of the soil, who had been long settled on it,
and that they were not a horde who had suddenly effected a lodgment in
a hostile country.
4. The early types of church architecture were briefly treated. It
was indicated that these types passed through a series of changes and
became merged in the architecture of the twelfth century. The round
towers of Brechin and Abernethy were described, and their original
purpose indicated.
5. The early sculptured stone monuments were treated at some length.
Beginning with the undressed stones which present the peculiar symbols
incised on them, the local area in which they occur, was pointed
out; and it was observed that there was no Christian cross on any of
them. From many associated circumstances and other considerations it
was inferred that this class of stone monuments existed prior to the
introduction of Christianity. After a brief description of some of
the symbols, many of the scenes and articles depicted on the elaborate
class of the sculptured monuments were treated historically in relation
to the life of the people, the weapons, the dress, and the civilisation
of the period. The art of the monuments was then briefly handled, and
its relation to the art of the illuminated manuscripts, which attained
its highest development in Ireland. The ethnic implication associated
with the monuments was indicated, and a reference to Ogham and Runic
inscriptions on monuments concluded the section.
6. The characteristics of early Celtic art, as exhibited in decorative
metal work, was touched on, and the aim and principle of this art shown
to consist in elaborate decoration. The literature of the period was
then treated, the educational relation of the monasteries to the people,
and the oral tales and rhymes current among them. Viewing the condition
of the kingdom at the close of the eleventh century, it had reached
a stage of political organisation and development which appeared in
every way quite vigorous and capable of further progress. The diverse
elements of race within the kingdom had long been slowly amalgamating,
and barring foreign interference and encroachment these elements only
required more time to develop into a complete nationality. The social
organisation of the people of this kingdom, their culture, art, and
civilisation, had attained to a stage of progress at least equal to
anything as yet achieved by the people in the southern division of the
island.
CHAPTER II.
_Critical Estimate of the Result of Norman Feudalism
on the Civilisation of Scotland._
THIS important question demands a careful examination, inasmuch as it
has usually been treated from one exclusive standpoint. It has been
repeatedly stated in the preceding pages that the Angles or Saxons had
occupied a portion of the country in the south-east since the middle
of the sixth century, and that they had partly mingled with the Celtic
inhabitants in that region. But it has been often averred that from
about the beginning of the twelfth century onward into the thirteenth,
there was a great influx of Normans and Saxons from England into
Scotland. The real historic question is,――how far and in what form was
the subsequent civilisation of Scotland indebted to this latter class
of settlers? Several historians have boldly asserted that Scotland owes
all her civilisation to these Norman and Saxon nobles, adding by way
of evidence, that the Celts never showed any disposition to follow an
industrious occupation or to congregate in towns; but that these Norman
and Saxon nobles were men of exalted virtue and marked ability, and
therefore the veritable originators of Scottish civilisation.¹ Before
accepting this view, let us test its historic truth.
¹ _Chalmers’ Caledonia_, Volume I., pages 460, 495‒614, 775;
Burton’s _History of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 85, 86;
C. Innes’ _Sketches of Early Scotch History_, pages 10, 11;
_Origines Parochiales Scotiæ_, Volume I., Preface, page 27;
_Registrum Episcopatus Moraviensis_, Preface, pages 9, 10.
Seeing that the Saxons had occupied an important and extensive district
of Scotland for upwards of four centuries, whatever customs and
essential characteristics of political and social organisation which
specially belonged to them, must have been in full operation in the
south-east of Scotland centuries before the Norman conquest. Thus, at
the outset, the real question becomes limited to the Normans alone, and
without entering into unnecessary details, I will present the requisite
historic facts and the real issue, in so far as Scotland is concerned.
The Normans were originally of the same race as the people noticed
in the preceding pages under the name of Norsemen. Commencing their
plundering raids about the end of the eighth century, they first
seized the Shetland islands and then the Orkneys. Afterwards hordes
of them proceeded to the Western Islands, plundered and destroyed the
monastery of Iona, slew the monks and the inhabitants of the island.
They occupied themselves in work of this description for many years,
infesting and desolating the coasts of Scotland. Afterwards they
effected a lodgment in Caithness and in other parts of the north,
and in the Western Isles. Ultimately, however, except in the Shetland
and Orkney Islands, and a portion of Caithness, they have left
comparatively few traces of their civilisation on the mainland of
Scotland, save the traditions associated with their heathen customs
and their extreme cruelty.
Many other hordes swarmed off from the original hives in Scandinavia,
which proceeded on plundering expeditions in different directions
and to different countries, where they engaged in work similar to
that indicated in the above paragraph. They made many raids into Gaul
(France), plundered the country, and with ruthless cruelty slew all the
people who offered any resistance to them. At first entering the mouths
of the rivers with their vessels, they landed and spread devastation
and suffering on every hand. Then, encouraged by their success and
prompted by their savage propensities, they extended the range of their
operations. They entered the mouth of the Seine with their vessels,
proceeded inland and ravished the country on every side, and constantly
threatened Paris. Under the leadership of their great hero Rollo,
their raids and devastations had become so fierce and unbearable that
King Charles of France granted to Rollo by treaty a tract of territory
to be held as a feudal fief. After some natural demur on the part of
the conquering hero, at last Rollo rendered due homage to his Lord
Superior by kissing King Charles’ great toe. Rollo then gave the name
of Normandy to the territory thus ceded to him, and he became the first
Duke of Normandy.
Concerning the internal condition of this province after Rollo obtained
possession of it, there is very little reliable information. It is
said that the land was sold by auction amongst Rollo’s followers; and
no doubt the Normans soon became the only land-owners. Rollo added
the district of Bessin to his province, and in 927 he resigned the
government in favour of his son. Five years later, the hero who founded
the Dukedom of Normandy, expired at an advanced age. His son, who
succeeded, was called William Longsword, but he was not a strong ruler.
He was basely assassinated in December 942, on the Flemish side of the
river Somme. Longsword was succeeded by his natural son, Richard the
Fearless, his mother being Esprota, a Breton woman of great attractions,
but of unknown lineage. His enemies made the fact of his illegitimate
birth a ground for disputing his right of inheritance, and Richard was
soon in the midst of trying difficulties. He was sometimes hard pressed
in his struggles with the neighbouring princes, but he ultimately
succeeded in holding his ground. Richard’s wife Emma had no children,
but he had natural children by Gnenora, a woman of unknown lineage;
her children were declared illegitimate by the Church, and Richard then
married her according to the form of the Church, and thus his children
became legitimised. Richard the Fearless died in 996, and was succeeded
by his son, who was called Richard the Good.
Richard the Good was not long seated on the ducal throne when he had to
face a threatening movement of the peasants under his sway. This class
mainly consisted of the ancient Gaulish or Celtic inhabitants, who had
since the fall of the Roman Empire, and the successive invasions of
the Franks and the Normans, suffered grievous oppression. The Normans
had begun in earnest to assume and to exercise all the functions of a
military and ruling class. They had begun to erect baronial castles,
and the swarms of illegitimate children of the successive Dukes, which
required to be provided with lands, continually increased the number
of petty and despotic lords. At last their oppression of the poor
peasantry passed the limits of human endurance, and the sons of toil
then thought of trying issues with their ruthless oppressors. As might
have been expected, only an imperfect notice of the rising has been
preserved, from which it appears that the grievances of the peasants
were these: “The nobles do us naught but ill, and we gain no profit
from our labours. Our days are spent in toil and fatigue, our cattle
and horses are seized for dues and services, and our goods wasted by
continual suits. We have no safety against our lords, and no oath is
binding on them. Why should we not shake off all this evil? Are we
not men as they? Dare we to do and dare again; a good heart is all
we want. Let us then unite, and if they should make war upon us, have
we not thirty or forty hardy peasants ready to fight with club and
flail to each knight? Let us only learn to resist, and we shall be
free to cut our own firewood, to fish and to hunt, and to do our will,
in river, field, and wood.” They resolved to form a commune to discuss
their common wrongs and the means of resistance.¹ As far as can be
ascertained from imperfect indications and circumstances, it seems that
the peasants obtained some slight relief.
¹ _Roman ♦de Rou._
♦ “de ea Rose” replaced with “de Rou”
Under the government of Richard the Good the Norman power increased,
and he died in 1026. He was succeeded by his son Richard; but he
soon became involved in a dispute with his brother Robert, about the
latter’s share of the Dukedom, and the possession of the castle of
Falaise. At last they came to an agreement and met on friendly terms,
but immediately after Richard died. It was reported that his brother
Robert had poisoned him;¹ be that as it may, Robert then mounted the
ducal throne. He became known as Robert the “Magnificent.” One day
when looking around him from the cliffs of Falaise Robert observed an
exceedingly attractive young woman washing clothes in the neighbouring
brook, and he fixed his eyes and his heart on her. She was Harlotta,
daughter of a tanner of Falaise, and in due time she gave birth to
William the Conqueror. Of course he was an illegitimate child, and was
sometimes called “the bastard;” but no one is accountable for his own
birth, as no one was ever consulted on that point. It may, however,
be observed that two of William’s lineal progenitors were the sons of
women of humble and unknown lineage; and it is more than probable that
these two women, and also the graceful and attractive Harlotta herself,
were all of Celtic descent. It therefore follows according to the law
of natural descent, and the well known law of sexual selection, that
William the Conqueror was three-fourths Celtic and only one fourth
Norman. This phenomena, if carefully examined, might perhaps explain
why the Normans so soon disappeared from the world as a distinct race.
¹ Crowe’s _History of France_, Volume I. pages 87, 88. 1858.
Robert the Magnificent attempted to invade England when the great
Canute was on the throne, but he completely failed. He went on a
pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and died when returning home in 1035. His
natural son, William, then ascended the ducal throne; but the nobles
of Normandy rebelled against him, and for many years he only held
a wavering and perilous sway. At last, with the assistance of his
Lord Superior, Henry I. of France, the conspiracy of his nobles was
overthrown. But then the men of Alençon revolted, and William marched
towards their town to subdue them: as he approached, they spread skins
over the walls and beat upon them, shouting, “Hides for the tanner,
plenty of work for the tanner.” This insult stung William to the core,
and he swore by “the splendour of God, that he would deal with them
as with a tree whose branches were cut off with a pollarding axe.”
The town shortly after fell, and William then ordered that thirty-two
of the citizens should be brought before him; and by his orders their
hands and feet were cut off, and the dismembered limbs were thrown
over the castle walls as emblems of his vengeance. The garrison were
terrified, craved mercy, and at once surrendered.¹
¹ Crowe’s _History of France_, Volume I., page 91.
The character of the feudal government of Normandy may be indicated
thus:――The Duke assumed all the functions of a King and ruled with
the advice of a few of his nobles selected by himself. The nobles in
possession of land were under feudal obligations to him, which they
took every opportunity to cast off. Their rank was derived partly from
Norse descent, and partly from relations with the ducal family; and
thus they were kept in a sort of subordination by self-interest and by
the strong arm of the Duke. It was mainly the energy and the decision
of the Duke which kept the province from dismemberment; the attempts of
his nobles to obtain independence led to continual quarrels, which were
only checked by ruthless bloodshed. There was also the wild love of
excitement inseparably associated with the life of idle and uncultured
men, which often manifested itself in deeds and scenes of the utmost
ferocity, and continually issuing in outbursts of anarchy at home, or
in expeditions to foreign lands in search of plunder and new excitement.
The people who lived and toiled under this military aristocracy were
kept in absolute dependence on their lords, though possibly some
of them may have still retained a faint remembrance of their former
freedom.¹
¹ Freeman’s _Norman Conquest_, Volume V., page 482; _The
Normans in Europe_, by A. H. Johnson, M.A., pages 103, 104.
1884.
War was the fundamental principle of Norman Feudalism and the essential
condition of Norman organisation and life. William the Conqueror
understood this very well, and looked out for a field to give it scope.
He had fixed his eye on England long before he actually invaded it; and
he prepared for the grand effort with a caution and deliberation, and
an astuteness and craft which were truly amazing. He either obtained
a promise from Edward the Confessor, his cousin, that he should succeed
to the English throne on Edward’s death, or he pretended that he
received it; and in 1064, an accident caused by the weather enabled
William to meet Harold under the most favourable circumstances for
himself; and it was reported that Harold became his man, promised to
marry his daughter, to place Dover in his hands, and to support his
claim to the English throne on Edward’s death. Edward died in 1066, and
the Witan elected Harold King of England. William was enjoying himself
hunting in the forest of Rouen when tidings of Harold’s election
reached him. He then affected the utmost astonishment, and at once
vehemently denounced Harold as a perjured man, planned a very plausible
claim for himself, and appealed to Christendom. He was especially
careful to obtain the sanction of the Pope; and he informed his
holiness that he was undertaking a great missionary work, “which should
purify the corrupted Anglo-Saxon State and Church, and bring England
more closely under the sway of Rome.” All the turbulent Normans, needy
and landless nobles, petty knights and adventurers, hastened to join
his army, which consisted of a motley assemblage.¹
¹ Few of the higher nobles of Europe joined William’s invading
army; indeed, it has been stated that a number of his
own Norman nobles did not join his army, but remained in
Normandy.
He defeated and slew Harold the English king, and if there had been
no more resistance, then in that case, the Conqueror might have been
merciful, but he never hesitated to sacrifice any number of human lives
if they stood between him and his end; possibly he would have slain
every man in England rather than relinquish his hold of the country.
He gave some examples of the length to which he was prepared to go,
as when he reduced the whole of the territory between the Tees and the
Humber to a waste, and it remained for many years untilled. Toward the
close of his career difficulties and failures thickened around him. In
1079 his own son, Robert, fought against him, and wounded and unhorsed
his father. In 1087 William engaged in a war with the King of France,
and after burning the town of Hantes he was riding over the ruins
when his horse stumbled and he fell fatally injured. He was carried
to Rouen, and declared his wishes before he expired. To his eldest son,
Robert, Normandy was given; William Rufus, his second son, he named as
his successor to the throne of England; and to Henry, his third son,
he left 5,000 pounds of silver. Whenever his sons heard what their
respective shares were, they all immediately departed before their
father expired――Robert to Normandy, Rufus to England, and Henry to
grasp his treasure. More inhumane and disgraceful conduct of sons
toward their dying father it would be difficult to conceive. The
remains of the Conqueror were stripped and disgracefully dispoiled,
and hurried without decent burial into the grave, while the owner of
the soil exacted his price for it before he allowed the remains to be
interred.¹ Thus ended the career of William the Conqueror, the greatest
of all the Normans. His intellectual powers were excellent, his natural
sagacity and strength of will were striking features of his character;
he had also the faculty of commanding and of organising; but morally
and humanely he stood on an extremely low level. Indeed, this lack of
humanity was the black and the degrading characteristic of the Normans
from the beginning to the close of their career in Europe.
¹ _Saxon Chronicle_, Volume II., pages 183, 184; _The Normans
in Europe_, by A. H. Johnson, pages 155, 180.
It has often been stated, and is still occasionally repeated, that the
Normans had attained to a higher stage of civilisation than the people
whom they conquered and subjugated in England. There is no difficulty
in understanding how this view originated, or how it continued to
be favourably received and strongly maintained. The first and most
important result of the Conquest was the transference of the ownership
of the greater part of the land of England to the Normans, who were a
military and ruling aristocracy. Thus they almost at once became the
absolute masters of the people, assumed the functions of government,
and constantly endeavoured to maintain their position as the hereditary
owners of the land, the hereditary legislators, and rulers of the
people. The Normans introduced the claim of the divine right of kings,
and exercised it themselves to an enormous extent in every direction.
They covered England with castles, not for the protection of the people
and their property, as in former times, but to enable each individual
noble to oppress the people in his own district with impunity. They
depopulated large tracts of the country to make forests for mere sport
to themselves.
I have stated in preceding pages that war was the fundamental principle
of Norman feudalism, and that morally and humanely the Conqueror
himself stood on an extremely low level; the circumstantial evidence
of this will now be adduced. What are the chief distinctions between
civilised and uncivilised life? 1, So far as yet ascertained the
pursuit and slaughter of wild animals is one of the most primitive
and characteristic traits of savage life; 2, Extreme cruelty and a
disregard of human life are features usually associated with tribes
living in a savage state; 3, An utter disregard of the rights and of
the lives of other men, whether this be exhibited by the head of a
dukedom or the aristocracy under him, or by both acting together, must
afford unimpeachable evidence that such a community is still in a low
stage of civilisation.
Let us carefully examine if any of the above characteristics of
life befit William the Conqueror and his Norman aristocracy as they
exhibited themselves in Normandy and in England in the eleventh century.
The Conqueror himself was so destitute of human culture that when he
was not engaged in war or in scheming the overthrow of his enemies,
no other form of amusement was brutal enough to satisfy his rude
propensities but the pursuit and slaughter of wild animals. After he
had subdued the people of England, and had leisure to enjoy himself,
he then discovered that the natural and existing ranges were not
sufficient for his favourite amusement. What was he to do? Did the
Conqueror think that the rights and the homes of the people of England
should be considered in preference to the gratification of his own
extreme passion for sport? No, he never did. On the contrary, he
ordered that in Hampshire thirty-six parishes should be destroyed,
thirty-six churches pulled down, the whole of the inhabitants evicted
from their homes, and the country utterly depopulated for thirty miles
round, and all this was merely to make space for the Conqueror’s New
Forest, in which he might satisfy his appetence for sport in full
measure. The Conqueror’s son, King Rufus, greatly increased the forests,
and in the early part of the twelfth century there were sixty-seven
forests, thirty chases, and seven hundred and eighty-one parks, which
were full of wild animals, specially and carefully preserved, and to be
pursued and slaughtered only by the Normans.
It is unnecessary to detail the many acts of ruthless cruelty inflicted
under the direction of the Conqueror himself. The cutting off of the
hands and feet of thirty-two men for a ♦trivial offence, a mere joke,
affords a characteristic example of his cold and revengeful nature.
It is recorded that, on his death-bed, he said――“No tongue can tell
the deeds of wickedness I have perpetrated in my weary pilgrimage
of toil and care.” He was unquestionably an irresponsible and cruel
despot, and in the words of a contemporary record I close my remarks
on him:――“Alas! that any man should be so proud, so raise himself up,
and account himself above all men! May the Almighty God show mercy to
his soul, and grant him forgiveness of his sins.”¹
♦ “trival” replaced with “trivial”
¹ _Saxon Chronicle_, Volume II., pages 188‒190; Freeman’s
_History of the Norman Conquest_, Volume IV. toward the end;
Volume V., pages 6‒52, Note C., pages 747‒759.
In the preceding pages the internal government of Normandy under
the Normans was twice referred to, and it appeared that the people
under this military aristocracy were sorely afflicted by the continual
recurrence of internal war and bloodshed among the local nobles.
Indeed, war was the breath of life and the bread of life to the Normans,
insomuch that they could not exist anywhere without it. They understood
the requisite conditions of their own existence very well; and if at
any time there was no war for them, then in that case, they had ample
and carefully prepared substitutes in their great forests and preserves,
and to these they returned, like the primitive savages, to the pursuit
and slaughter of wild animals.
Thus it inevitably appears on every side that the Norman aristocracy
were morally and socially in a comparatively low stage of culture and
civilisation. That the ruder propensities and the lower passions were
still rampant amongst them to an enormous degree, that they had not
yet learned to respect the very rudiments of the rights of mankind, and
consequently they were utterly callous to the people under them. They
had no adequate conception of justice whatever, apart from the special
interest of their own class, nor of truth, “for no oath was binding
on them.” Hence Norman feudalism instead of being an advanced stage of
society, shows an almost total absence of the fundamental and essential
elements upon which progress and civilisation proceed.
Still it is quite true that the Norman Conquest produced great
effects upon the English people, and in many directions influenced
the subsequent history and progress of England. This, however, was not
a consequence of any superiority of Norman civilisation at the time
of the Conquest, but the very reverse. Very briefly the historic and
social phenomena may be indicated thus:――The Norman Conquest created
new historic conditions and relations in Britain. But owing to the
uncivilised and ruthless character of the chief agents engaged in
the military and the political processes of the creation of these
new historic conditions, an enormous amount of cruel suffering was
inflicted upon the great body of the English people. After two or
three generations, which were strikingly marked by fierce outbursts
of internal anarchy and bloodshed, and excessive oppression of the
people, the new historic conditions, slightly modified, assumed what
may be called their normal equilibrium. These new conditions were
in some directions favourable to progress and civilisation, and in
other directions an opposite tendency was often manifested. Considered
externally, the Conquest created new historic relations between England
and France, and it would require a long and careful discussion to
determine whether these new relations were favourable or unfavourable
to the internal development and the civilisation of England. This
historic phase of the Conquest is of great interest, and much could be
said on both sides of the subject. Considered internally, I can only
notice one or two points which were permanent in their operation. The
Conqueror introduced arrangements admirably calculated to strengthen
the hands of the King. His aim was to limit the power of the feudal
nobles and render them dependent upon the Crown; and in this he
succeeded. He concentrated the ends of the threads of the local powers
in the supreme power of the King; and the Kings of England soon became
strong enough to hold the feudal nobles well under the control of
the executive. Thus England was saved from many of the worst features
of Norman Feudalism; although in succeeding ages the great power
concentrated in the hands of the Kings of England, was sometimes used
for mischievous purposes. Touching the effect of the Conquest on the
body of the English people, its tendency was no doubt oppressive for
many generations. “That the result of the Norman Conquest was the
social thrusting down of the great mass of Englishmen, there can be
no doubt.”¹ In fact, they were partly thrust down by the transference
of the land to the Norman aristocracy, and the introduction of feudal
forms of land tenure.
¹ Freeman’s _History of the Norman Conquest_, Volume V., page
476.
But it is a singular historic phenomenon that Norman Feudalism, with
its worst features, was introduced into Scotland long after William
the Conqueror was in his grave. This manifested itself in anarchical
outbursts of internal war among the nobles of Scotland, similar to
those which had occurred among the Norman nobles in Normandy in the
eleventh century. Norman Feudalism was not forced upon Scotland by
invasion or open conquest; it was introduced by the Scottish kings,
partly owing to personal associations and circumstances, and partly
owing to a misapprehension of the real nature and tendency of the
system, which for several generations they fostered. The ultimate
result of their policy was this:――1, The continuity of the progressive
movement of the kingdom was in some districts dislocated by the
introduction of Norman Feudalism. 2, Then the system ran its natural
course, and the nobles reduced the power of the kings almost to a
nonentity, rendered the functions of the executive ineffective, and
sometimes totally inoperative. They frequently rebelled against the
kings, and involved the kingdom in all the miseries of civil war.
They often fought among themselves and created disorder and anarchy in
endless forms, frustrated the development of every branch of peaceful
industry, and inflicted untold suffering upon the people. Thus the
development of the natural resources of the country, and the progress
and the civilisation of the nation were greatly retarded for several
centuries.
CHAPTER III.
_Narrative――Introduction of Feudalism._
RESUMING the narrative, on the death of Edgar in 1107, his brother
Alexander succeeded to the throne, while his younger brother, David,
claimed the districts on the south of the Firths of Forth and Clyde.
This arrangement had been suggested by Edgar before his death, but
Alexander at first objected to it; after some time, however, he agreed
that his brother should rule these southern districts under the title
of Earl David. Shortly after his accession the King had to face a
rising of the men of Moray, which he boldly met and suppressed.
In the first year of his reign, Alexander appointed Turgot to the
See of St. Andrews: he was a monk of Durham, and had been confessor
to Queen Margaret, the King’s mother. A serious difficulty arose,
the Archbishop of York claimed a canonical right to perform the
ceremony of consecration; but the Scotch clergy and the King maintained
that he had no authority over St. Andrews. At last a compromise was
effected, leaving the disputed point unsettled; and in 1109, Turgot
was consecrated by the Archbishop of York. The new bishop did not
find himself happy in the See of St. Andrews. Difficulties soon arose
between him and the King; and at last the bishop threatened to go to
Rome and settle all matters of dispute, but he died in 1115.¹
¹ Dr. Grub’s _Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, Volume I.,
pages 206‒7.
The bishopric remained five years vacant, but in 1120 the King
nominated Eadmer, a monk of Canterbury, who was elected bishop by
the Scotch clergy and the people. The point of consecration was
revived, but this time the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed the right
to perform the ceremony. There was for long a great rivalry between
the Archbishops of York and Canterbury touching the limits of their
respective canonical authority, and the point associated with the
dignity of presidency. Eadmer himself thought that the rights of his
mother church extended over all the British Islands. The King rejected
this view, and declined to listen to it. The monk was as determined
as the King, and at last he declared, “Not for all Scotland will I
renounce being a monk of Canterbury.” He then handed back the ring
to the King, laid the staff on the altar, and left St. Andrews and
returned to his mother church. Shortly afterwards Eadmer showed much
anxiety to return to the See of St. Andrews, and offered to yield
to the King, but Alexander declined to receive him. About the end of
the year 1123 Alexander appointed Robert, the prior of the monastery
of Scone, to the See of St. Andrews, but the King died before he was
consecrated. In 1128, the ceremony of consecration was performed by the
Archbishop of York, and there was an express condition which reserved
the rights of both Churches. A direct claim of feudal lordship over
Scotland had not yet arisen, but it is obvious that if the dependence
of the Scotch Church on the English Church could have been established,
it would soon have affected the independence of the kingdom.¹
¹ _Chronicles_, pages 90, 91. Eadmer, though a strict monk,
was a scholar, and wrote a history of his own time in clear
Latin, and other works. He is supposed to have died at
Canterbury in 1124.
Alexander I. founded the monastery of Scone, and restored to the Church
of St. Andrews the lands called the Boars Chase. He died in 1124, and
was succeeded by his brother, David I., who, under the title of Earl,
had been ruling the districts on the south of the Forth. The kingdom
was again placed under one head, and the era of the introduction of
Norman Feudalism then commenced.
A large part of Scotland as yet hung loosely on the central authority;
the country beyond the Spey was nominally under the Scottish Crown, and
Galloway was more like a tributary province than an incorporated part
of the kingdom. David I. had perhaps come into contact with some of
the associates of the Conqueror. In his youth he frequented the Court
of the Conqueror’s sons in England, and he appears to have associated
much with the Norman nobles. These nobles were always on the outlook
for more land and power, and doubtless with an eye to business some
day, they had made themselves very agreeable companions for the young
Scottish prince. The Norman nobles became his special favourites; and
when only Earl, he seems to have surrounded himself with a company
of them, and began to grant them lands by charter. He had resolved
to introduce Feudalism and a Norman Aristocracy, so far as it was in
his power. But there can be no doubt that David I. misapprehended the
real nature and inevitable tendency of Feudalism; as his chief object
must have been to strengthen the Crown, which shows clearly that he
had misunderstood it. Possibly David I. may have imagined that he
was imitating the Conqueror on a small scale, but then he had not the
practical knowledge and the experience of the system which the great
Norman possessed. The Conqueror executed his work in such a way that
Norman Feudalism was never permitted to run its natural course in
England. So the great achievement of transplanting Norman Feudalism
into Scotland fell to the inexperienced genius of David I., and two
or three of his successors on the throne, where alone it developed and
exhibited itself in all its features and perfections for a period of
upwards of three centuries.
The local chiefs were naturally and rightly averse to the planting
of Norman nobles among them; although these adventurers and
fortune-hunters were favourites at the court of David I. It seems
that some of these Norman nobles brought their families and their
own retainers with them, and thus, with the support of the king,
they dispossessed the real owners and the occupiers of the land of
Scotland. In 1130 the people of Moray, under their local chiefs, Angus
and Malcolm, rose against the king. They advanced to Stracathro, in
Forfarshire, where the king’s forces met them, and a severe engagement
ensued. Angus was slain and his followers were overthrown; but his
brother Malcolm retreated and prolonged the contest for four years.
David I. became greatly alarmed, and called upon the Norman nobles of
Yorkshire and Northumberland to rally round his standard, and having
thus mustered an army, in 1134 the king marched with his force to the
disaffected North, and succeeded in overawing the local chiefs. The
king then proclaimed the province of Moray forfeited to the Crown. He
next parcelled out large portions of the best land of Moray among the
Normans and adventurers who had followed his banner.¹
¹ _Saxon Chronicle_, Volume II., page 227; Robertson’s
_Scotland under her Early Kings_, Volume I., pages 189‒191.
In 1135 Henry I. of England died, the last of the Conqueror’s sons, and
having left no male issue, he bequeathed his dominions to his daughter;
but Stephen, a nephew of the late king, contested her right to the
throne, and he proved successful. David I. naturally supported the
claim of his niece, the queen, and led an army across the Border. Many
of the northern castles of England opened their gates to him. When he
had advanced nearly to Durham, Stephen approached with a large army to
bar his progress. David then retired to Newcastle, and Stephen followed
him. The two armies confronted each other for fourteen days, and
finally a peace was concluded.¹
¹ _Saxon Chronicle_, Volume II., page 230.
But David I., besides his obligation to support the queen’s claim, had
a strong desire to annex the northern counties of England, and some
hope of succeeding to the throne of England himself. So early in 1138
he again led an army across the Tweed, and spent some time in attacking
castles, and in ravishing the northern counties; but the approach of
Stephen’s army caused David to concentrate his scattered forces and
prepare for battle or retreat. After some fruitless movements and delay,
David with his army advanced towards Durham; while the defenders of
England, concentrated at Northallerton, planted their standard and
prepared for battle. Before the battle began a most significant event
occurred. Robert de Bruce and Bernard de Baliol appeared before David
I., as emissaries from the English army; they had come to persuade
David to retire at once with his army, and not offer battle to the
Norman nobles, who were his greatest benefactors. Robert de Bruce held
wide territories in Yorkshire, and David himself had granted to him the
extensive and fine district of Annandale. De Bruce’s position was thus
a deplorable one; he saw that he could not ride upon two horses at
once when they were running in different directions, and accordingly he
renounced his allegiance to David I. and returned to the English camp.
This was the identical position of most of the great Norman nobles in
Scotland from this date till the battle of Bannockburn. The strange
thing is that David himself or his successors never seem to have
realised its great political significance, and its consequent evil
effect upon Scotland. Another dispute arose before the battle. David
wanted his own small body of Normans and men-at-arms to lead the attack,
but the Galloway men claimed the honour and the right to lead the
van. A long wrangle ensued on the point, and Malise, the Scotch Earl
of Strathern, said to the King: “Why trust you to these Normans?
unprotected as I am, none shall be more forward in the fight.” David
was forced to yield. The Galloway men advanced to the charge, and
♦rushed with such force on the enemy that the front ranks reeled and
were driven back in confusion. But the English, supported by their
bowmen, reformed, and the battle raged with great fury. Rank after rank
of the Scots fell under the storm of arrows from the English bowmen,
and at last the Scots were completely defeated. The battle was fought
on the 22nd of August, 1138, and is known as the Battle of the Standard.
The following year peace was concluded, on the conditions that King
David’s son, Prince Henry, should receive the Earldom of Northumberland
and his other fiefs in England, that the laws and local customs should
remain intact, and the rights of the Archbishop of York and the Bishop
of Durham.¹
♦ “rnshed” replaced with “rushed”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 2‒6;
_Saxon Chronicle_, Volume II., pages 232, 233; _Chronicles
and Annals of the Priory of Hexham_, Volume I., pages 90‒93.
The remaining years of David’s reign were mainly devoted to the changes
and the reforms which he introduced in connection with the land, the
church, and the burghal communities, but these will be treated in
another chapter.
David’s only son, Prince Henry, died on the 12th of June, 1152. By his
wife, Ada Warenne, he left three sons and three daughters; two of his
sons lived to ascend the throne of Scotland, and his third son, David,
became Earl of Huntingdon.¹ The death of his only son cast a gloom
over the hopes of David I. and the closing months of his reign; but
to smooth the way for the succession of his grandson, Malcolm, a boy
of eleven years of age, David placed him under the charge of Duncan
Earl of Fife, who then proceeded with the young prince throughout the
kingdom to obtain his recognition among the people as the heir to the
throne. Thus having, as far as the circumstances admitted, secured the
succession, David I. died on the 24th of May, 1153, after a reign of
twenty-nine years.
¹ For future reference it may be noticed that this Earl David
married a sister of Randolph, Earl of Chester, and by her
he had three sons and four daughters. His eldest daughter,
Margaret, married Alan of Galloway, and it was through her
issue that John Baliol claimed the crown of Scotland. His
second daughter, Isabella, married Robert de Bruce; Ada, his
youngest daughter, married Henry de Hastings: we will find
the representatives of the issue of these daughters of Earl
David claiming the crown.
On the death of his grandfather the young prince was crowned at Scone,
under the title of Malcolm IV. But before the end of the year his
supporters had to meet a rising of the Celtic people led by the sons
of Malcolm Mac Heth, and Somerled, the local ruler of Argyle. They
attacked the kingdom at various points, and the war continued three
years. In 1156 Donald, the eldest son of Malcolm Mac Heth, was captured
at Whithern, in Galloway, by the King’s adherents, and was imprisoned
in Roxburgh Castle along with his father, but Somerled continued the
war; and from motives of policy the King came to terms with Malcolm
Mac Heth, and liberated him from prison. In 1159 a peace was concluded
between Somerled and Malcolm IV.,¹ but other dangers surrounded the
King.
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., pages 249, 250; _Chronicles of
Melrose_.
It appears that the King was unpopular, and a number of the nobles seem
to have conspired to dethrone him, or to secure his person and then
make their own terms. They surrounded the King in Perth in 1160, but
their attempt failed; and Malcolm at once proceeded to act with vigour;
he mustered an army, and the same year he thrice invaded Galloway to
bring the inhabitants under subjection. He subdued the local chief,
Fergus, who then retired into the monastery of Holyrood, where he died
the following year. Thus Galloway was placed in feudal subjection to
the crown; but the inhabitants for long after this stoutly maintained
their own local customs and laws. About the year 1161 Malcolm invaded
Moray, drove out a number of the inhabitants, and attempted to supplant
them by the Norman nobles and their followers.¹
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., pages 251, 252, 257.
In 1164 Somerled attempted to invade the heart of the kingdom. He
mustered an army, and a fleet of one hundred and sixty vessels, and
when landing his army on the coast of Renfrew he was attacked by the
people of the district, completely defeated, and Somerled himself and
his son were slain.¹
¹ _Ibid_; _Chronicles of Melrose_.
Malcolm IV. died on the 9th of December, 1165, in the twenty-fourth
year of his age, and was succeeded by his brother, William the Lion.
The Scotch kings still desired to annex the northern counties of
England, and William was waiting for a favourable opportunity to make
an attempt, and the difficulties of Henry II. seemed to afford what
was wanted. In 1173 William led an army across the Border and wasted
the north of England, without any result except a temporary truce.
The following year the Scots again invaded England, and William the
Lion while amusing himself, was taken a prisoner by a party of English
cavalry. The capture of the King entailed a serious disaster upon
Scotland. Henry II. at once demanded that William the Lion should
acknowledge the King of England as the feudal Lord Superior over
the kingdom of Scotland, and that he should render due homage to his
lord like other vassals. All the Scotch nobles, the clergy, and all
other vassals, were to be under allegiance to the English king, and
acknowledge that they held ♦their lands from him, and many other
feudal promises and oaths to the same effect. The binding articles to
secure the observance of the treaty were that the castles of Berwick,
Roxburgh, Jedburgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling, should be placed in
the hands of Henry II. After the castles were delivered over to King
Henry’s officers, William the Lion was liberated. This treaty continued
in force for fifteen years, so far as it could be enforced. Henry II.,
to the day of his death, evinced the utmost determination to cling to
its fulfilment. King William was continually summoned to attend as a
vassal at the court of his English lord, and the Scotch nobles also
were summoned to attend the court of their Lord Superior. Licence was
granted by Henry II. to William for his expeditions into Galloway, and
in every possible form it was attempted to be shown that the king and
the kingdom were under the English crown.¹ In 1189 Richard I. ascended
the throne of England, and one of his first acts was to annul all the
concessions extorted by Henry II. from the captive William. The Scots
paid ten thousand marks of silver to ♠Richard I., all the castles were
given up to them, and the kingdom restored to its former independence.²
♦ “thir” replaced with “their”
¹ _Fœdera_, Record Ed., Volume I., pages 30, 31; Robertson’s
_Scotland Under Her Early Kings_, Volume I., pages 375, 376.
♠ “Rirchard” replaced with “Richard”
² _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 50.
While the King was in captivity the people of Galloway had risen
against the new Norman settlers, and the king’s officers, and they
were all driven out or slain. When William returned in 1175 he entered
Galloway with an army and the local chief, Gilbert, submitted. This
district was soon in revolt again, and outbursts of rebellion recurred
in it at short intervals for several generations. There is no doubt
that the real causes of the rebellions in this district was the
intrusion of the Norman nobles and their followers.
In 1179 William invaded the remote district of Ross at the head of his
Earls and Norman nobles, subdued some portions of it, and erected two
castles to support his authority; but he was not permitted to retain
possession even of his castles without a contest. From 1181 to 1188
the districts of Moray, Caithness, and other parts of the north were
in revolt. This rising was led by Mac William, who claimed to be a
lineal descendant of Duncan, the eldest son of Malcolm Canmore, and he
aspired to the throne of Scotland. It appears that there were a number
of people in the centre of the kingdom hostile to the king; and this
explains why Mac William was permitted to hold the districts beyond
the Spey for six years, and to ravage parts of the kingdom which were
under the king. The whole circumstances and position of the kingdom
looked as if the play of Macbeth was to be reacted. King William and
his adherents were greatly alarmed. In 1187 the king mustered all the
feudal force of the kingdom which he could induce to rally round his
banner, and marched to Inverness, with the intention of pursuing his
enemy into the remote parts of the Highlands. Some of the king’s nobles
had grave doubts about the fidelity of the royal army, and they advised
William to remain at Inverness, and to entrust the immediate conduct of
the war to those leaders on whom he could depend: but then some of the
chief nobles positively refused to march against Mac William without
the king; and matters looked dark and dismal. The king at Inverness
was in the heart of a hostile country, with his own army in a state
of insubordination; but one ray of hope remained, the king’s friends
fixed their eyes on Roland of Galloway, when all other means of saving
themselves from destruction had vanished. Roland then placed himself
at the head of three thousand of his own followers, and proceeded in
search of Mac William. After advancing for some time, Roland descried a
body of the enemy encamped on the moor of Mamgarvie in the upper valley
of Strathspey. The opposing armies were nearly equal in numbers on each
side, and a severe engagement ensued. But Mac William was completely
defeated, and slain on the moor. For a time peace was restored in the
north, and King William’s crown preserved.¹
¹ _Chronicles of Melrose_; Robertson’s _Scotland_, Volume I.,
pages 385, 391‒393.
But again in 1196 the king was in the north suppressing a rebellion.
The Earl of Caithness had married a daughter of Malcolm MacHeth; and
although William the Lion had been making desperate efforts to subdue
the northern regions, Earl Harold held the Earldom of Orkney under the
King of Norway, and he possessed the Earldom of Caithness at the same
time. Earl Harold invaded and seized the province of Moray, and it was
against him that King William then waged war. The Earl was in the end
defeated, and the royal power somewhat strengthened, but the region was
not subdued. ♦In 1202, Harold, the Earl of Orkney, attacked the king’s
adherents and drove them out of Caithness. William again sent an army
to Caithness, which was unable to penetrate into the country; but
Harold himself under a safe conduct met the King at Perth. Terms of
peace were agreed to, by which the Earldom of Caithness was restored to
Harold.¹ In 1211 a son of Mac William appeared in Ross and recommenced
the tactics which his father had followed. The king sent an army to
operate against him, and afterwards William himself marched towards
the north. The Earls of Athole, Buchan, and Mar, at the head of four
thousand men proceeded into the remote quarters of the Highlands
in search of Mac William. The rebel’s fastness was upon an island,
where his supplies and treasure were stored, and in it the royal army
attacked him; but he made a desperate resistance, and the engagement
was long and fiercely contested; and at last he retired and escaped
to the mountains with a number of his followers. The main body of the
royal army returned to the south, and the Earl of Fife was left in
charge of Moray. Mac William soon reappeared, attacked one of the royal
castles and burnt it to the ground. Shortly after he fell into the
hands of Comyn, Earl of Buchan, and he was executed at the king’s manor
in Kincardine.²
♦ “It” replaced with “In”
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., pages 270, 271; _Chronicles of
Melrose_; _Orkneyinga Saga_.
² _Historians_, Volume IV.; _Chronicles of Melrose_.
During the latter years of the reign of King William, there was much
disaffection among the people in the southern quarter of the kingdom
as well as in the north. William’s transactions and arrangements with
King John of England were detested by many of his own subjects; as
all the advantages of the English fiefs (if they were such) belonged
exclusively to the royal family. It was of no importance to the Scots
that the brother of their King should possess the Earldom of Huntingdon,
or that their King should be received with a show of ceremonies at
the English court whenever he thought fit to absent himself from his
own kingdom. The people looked with well-founded suspicion at the
concessions which William had made to King John, in order to avoid the
forfeiture of his English fiefs and privileges.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., pages 103, 120; _Chronicle of Melrose_;
_Historians_ Volume IV.
Feudalism made considerable progress during William’s reign, and the
difficulties of his position greatly increased toward the end of his
sway. He died at Stirling on the 4th of December 1214, having reached
the seventy-third year of his age, and reigned nearly fifty years. He
was succeeded by his son, Alexander II., a youth of seventeen years,
who was crowned at Scone on the day after his father’s death. It is
recorded that the Bishop of St. Andrews and the Earls of Scotland,
viz., Fife, Strathern, Athole, Angus, Monteith, Buchan, and Lothian
took Alexander to Scone, and there raised him to the throne in honour
and peace, with the approval of God and man, and with more grandeur
and glory than anyone till then, while all wished him joy, and none
gainsaid him. So King Alexander held his feast at Scone on that day
and the two following days.¹
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV. This is the first detailed notice
of a coronation which occurs in our records.
About a year after Alexander II. ascended the throne, a son of the
MacWilliam who had been slain in 1187, and Kenneth MacHeth, a grandson
of Malcolm MacHeth, along with a son of one of the Irish local kings,
invaded the province of Moray at the head of a large body of followers.
But Ferquhard, Earl of Ross, mustered his adherents, attacked the
insurgents, and soon completely defeated them, and captured and
executed their leaders. He was knighted by the King as a reward for
his prompt and effective action.¹
¹ _Chronicles of Melrose._
On the hope of regaining the northern counties of England, Alexander II.
in 1215 joined the disaffected English barons, who were then struggling
against King John. In October the King with an army crossed the border
and invested the castle of Norham, but failed to take it. King John was
extremely wroth, and marched toward the north at the head of a rather
mingled host of mercenaries. Alexander retired in the direction of
Edinburgh, and John vowed, “by God’s teeth that he would smoke him out
of his covert.” In his march he burned Roxburgh, Dunbar, and Haddington.
Alexander posted his army on the river Esk, and awaited the attack of
the enemy; but John was unable to advance farther than Haddington, as
his troops were perishing for want of food. They plundered the Abbey
of Coldingham, then retreated by Berwick; and King John gave the signal
for burning that town by firing with his own hands the house in which
he had slept the preceding night.¹
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., page 299; _Chronicle of Lanercost_,
pages 17, 18; Notes, page 373.
In the winter of 1216 the Scots again crossed the Tweed and took
possession of Carlisle, and the castle after a long siege surrendered
to them. King John died on the 19th of October 1216, and the following
year peace was concluded. The line of the marches between England and
Scotland had then become pretty well marked. In 1237 a more definite
arrangement was come to, and from that date the efforts to extend the
Scotch frontier southward ceased.
Alexander II. had now time to direct his attention to the internal
state of the kingdom. It appears that he assembled an army at Inverness
against Donald MacNeil in ♦1220. He mustered an army in May 1222, and
advanced into Argyle with the intention of subduing and subjecting it
to the authority of the Crown. There was no rising at the time in the
district, and no resistance was offered to the progress of the royal
army. The people were overawed; all those who were implicated in past
rebellions fled for their lives, and their lands were given to the
King’s own followers; some gave hostages for their future behaviour,
and others gave sums of money to purchase the king’s peace. The
expedition lasted from May to Christmas, and its result was that the
south division of Argyle was placed more directly under the Crown and
formed into a sheriffdom; but the lordship of Lorne remained in the
possession of the Celtic chief, while a large part of North Argyle
had been, a few years before, placed under the new Earl of Ross, who
defeated and executed the MacWilliams and MacHeths. About twenty years
before, the extensive districts lying to the west of the Drumalban
mountains, which belonged to the bishopric of Dunkeld, were separated
from it, and formed into a new bishopric called at first Argyle and
afterwards Lismore.¹ The chief object of the erection of this diocese
was to attach the inhabitants within its limits more firmly to the
Crown. The province of a bishopric, with its extensive possessions in
land held under feudal tenure, afforded a great support to the royal
authority: insomuch that it appears improbable that feudalism could
have been introduced into the kingdom without the assistance of the
Church, which in the thirteenth century had obtained possession of
about one-third of the whole land of the kingdom.
♦ “1820” replaced with “1220”
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., pages 283, 284; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I.; _Statutes of Alexander
II._; Dr. Grub’s _Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_,
Volume I., page 301.
There were still occasional risings in the North and in Galloway. About
1229 there was an insurrection in Moray, which was suppressed by Comyn,
the Earl of Buchan; and immediately after the Comyns were in possession
of the district of Badenoch. The lands of those who manifested any
disaffection were usually forfeited to the Crown, and then the kings
granted such lands to their own favourites, or to some bishopric,
monastery, or church.¹ As a matter of fact, much of the land which the
Crown gave to the Church in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was
obtained by the Crown itself in the way indicated.
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., page 288; Robertson’s _Scotland_,
Volume II., pages 19‒21.
In 1235 Alan, the son of Roland, Lord of Galloway, died, leaving one
illegitimate son, who had married the daughter of the King of Man, and
three daughters, who were married to Norman nobles. These nobles then
divided Galloway betwixt themselves. But the men of Galloway preferred
one lord rather than three; they had acquired some experience of the
rule of these Norman nobles, therefore they rightly concluded that the
government of one noble would be more bearable than the government or
tyranny of three. Accordingly they requested the King to proclaim the
fief lapsed to the Crown; but he declined to listen to their reasonable
request. Then they invited Thomas, the natural son of their late lord,
to at once assert his claim to the Lordship of Galloway. To prepare
the way for their new lord, they immediately commenced to wage war on
the neighbouring districts of Scotland, and in a short time Thomas
appeared in Galloway. In July 1235, Alexander II. mustered his army and
proceeded towards Galloway, and advanced into it; the insurgents kept
upon the heights and watched the movements of the royal army. When the
king’s forces had become entangled in marshy ground, the Galloway men
attacked them, and would have destroyed the royal army, if it had not
been for the Earl of Ross, with his body of Ross-shire men on foot,
who by a rapid movement, turned the insurgents’ flank, and forced them
to retreat. The following day, the king granted a free pardon to all
the insurgents, who appeared before him with ropes round their necks.
Alexander then retired with his army from Galloway.¹
¹ _Chronicles of Melrose_; _Historians_, Volume IV.
But Thomas and other leaders of the revolt fled to Ireland, and
prepared for a renewal of the struggle. Thomas and his associates
equipped a fleet, and along with a body of Irishmen, he landed in
Galloway and recommenced the war. But the Earl of Dunbar and his
followers, accompanied by the Bishop of Galloway and the Abbot of
Melrose, faced the insurgents, and their leaders seeing themselves
outnumbered, surrendered. Thomas was imprisoned in the Castle of
Edinburgh.¹ Thus the disaffection in Galloway was stifled for a time.
But in 1247, the oppressive tyranny of the Norman noble, Roger de
Quinci, exasperated the people to such a degree, that they rose and
besieged him in one of his own castles. He defended himself with great
determination, until his provisions began to fail; as he had no reason
to expect any mercy from the besiegers, he at last resolved to make a
desperate effort to escape. So the gates of the castle were flung open
and the noble and his men rushed through the ranks of their assailants,
and rode for their lives to the court of Alexander II. As a matter of
course, the King reinstated the Norman noble in his lordship.²
¹ _Chronicles of Melrose_; _Historians_, Volume IV. According
to one account, Thomas was liberated from imprisonment in a
short time, but the _Lanercost Chronicle_ states that he was
delivered into the hands of John Baliol as a hostage, and
confined in the dungeons of Barnard Castle for fifty years.
² Robertson’s _Scotland_, Volume II., page 28.
The policy of Alexander II. was to extend the authority of the Crown
to the utmost limits of the Highlands and the Isles. He attempted to
obtain the Western Isles by treaty with Haco, the King of Norway, but
this failed; and he then proposed to purchase the Isles, which offer
also was declined. Alexander, however, had resolved to have the Isles;
and he equipped a fleet, mustered a force, and proceeded to subdue the
Western Isles. When engaged in this undertaking, Alexander II. died in
the Isle of Kerrera, off the coast of Lorne, on the 8th of July 1249,
in the fifty-first year of his age, and the thirty-fifth year of his
reign. His remains were interred in the church of Melrose. He was a man
of great energy, an able ruler, remarkably humane, and his reign was
marked by progressive efforts.
In the reign of Alexander II. the Scotch Church began to hold regular
provincial councils; as the national clergy were empowered by a bull
from the pope in 1225, to assemble such, and to enact and promulgate
canons. The conservator of the council was elected by the bishops from
their own number; and he held office simply from one council to another,
with power to punish transgressors of the canons, and to enforce their
observance by the censures of the Church. He summoned the council
by a writ to each bishop, and when absent himself from the meeting,
the senior bishop present assumed his functions and presided. The
Scotch clergy adopted a definite code of rules for the assembling of
annual provincial councils, and diocesan synods. Before the end of
the thirteenth century, they had passed and adopted some sixty canons,
which appear to have been sufficient for the government of the Church
till the sixteenth century. From 1225 till 1478, the Scotch Church
was ruled under the Pope by her own national synods, and temporary
presidents; although the Crown often interfered, and the kings
occasionally asserted their supremacy in ecclesiastical matters.¹
¹ _Statuta Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ_, Volume I., Preface pages
49‒51.
Alexander II. was succeeded by his son Alexander, a boy in his
eighth year; and five days after the death of his father, the boy was
crowned at Scone. Walter Comyn, Earl of Menteith, and all his clergy,
accompanied by the Earls of Fife and Strathern, and many other nobles,
led Alexander up to the cross which stood in the cemetery at the east
end of the church. Here they placed him upon the famous Coronation
Stone, which was covered with cloth of gold, and the Bishop of St.
Andrews, assisted by the rest, consecrated him King. Then the King
received the homage of the feudal nobles of the kingdom. A venerable
Highland bard robed in scarlet then advanced, and kneeling before the
Stone of Destiny, hailed the boy King in the Gaelic tongue, as “Ri
Alban,” and repeated his long line of pedigree from king to king till
he reached Iber Scot.¹
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., pages 289, 290.
During the minority of Alexander III., the nobles fully entered on
the policy of faction and ambition which figured so darkly in the
subsequent history of the kingdom. The marriage of King Henry’s
daughter with the boy Alexander III., gave the English king the
opportunity of continually interfering in the internal government
of Scotland. The nobles were divided into factions, each of which in
some measure represented opposite interests, feelings, and tendencies.
One party consisted of the nobles of the north and west, which, in a
qualified sense, might be called the national party; the other party
was mostly connected with the southern quarters of Scotland, and with
England. The leader of the national party was Walter Comyn, Earl of
Monteith, and his kin were numerous and powerful. Alexander Comyn
was Earl of Buchan, and many other members of the group possessed
wide territories in different quarters of the kingdom, including the
district of Badenoch; and the Earl of Mar and the majority of the chief
men northward of the Firths of Forth and Clyde followed the Comyns.
This party, so far as appears, desired to uphold the liberty and
independence of Scotland, and consequently they were apt to resent and
to resist the continual attempts of the English king to encroach upon
the rights and liberties of Scotland. The ablest man among the other
party was Alan Durward, who held the office of Justiciary of Scotland
in the reign of Alexander II. He assumed the title of Earl of Athole
from 1233 to 1235, and he married a natural daughter of Alexander
II., by whom he had several daughters; and it was alleged in 1252 that
he was endeavouring to obtain from the Pope the legitimation of his
wife, so that in the case of the death of the boy Alexander III., Alan
Durward’s daughters would be the heiresses of the crown of Scotland.
Thus Alan was a great and aspiring personage; while most of his
supporters were men of position, including the names of the Earls of
Dunbar and Strathern, Robert de Bruce, fourth Lord of Annandale, the
Steward, and other nobles chiefly connected with the south of Scotland,
and with England.¹ This party at every turn showed a desire to forward
the interest of the kings of England, to sacrifice the liberty and
independence of Scotland, in the hope of thereby retaining their feudal
fiefs in England, and at the same time securing their hold upon the
land of Scotland. In short, they were always trying to ride upon two
horses at once, running in opposite directions.
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., pages 292, 293, _et seq._;
_Chronicles of Melrose_; _Fœdera_, Volume I., pages 272,
275, 278, 327, 329, 347, 352, 357, 358, 362.
The two parties of the nobles struggled against each other to obtain
the chief positions in the government of the kingdom, and to seize and
retain possession of the boy King and his wife, for Alexander III. was
married before he had reached eleven years of age. The struggle was
continued during the period of the King’s minority; sometimes one of
the parties and sometimes the other obtained the position of rulers
of the kingdom, while both parties tried to secure their hold by every
means in their power. Henry III. rarely failed to render the state of
affairs worse rather than better. Comyn, the Earl of Monteith died in
November 1258, and Henry III. then advanced obnoxious proposals, which
however failed in their aim, as the Scots rejected them.
The repeated attacks of the Norsemen, and their conquest of the
Islands and part of the mainland in the north, have been noticed in the
preceding pages. The islands of Orkney and Shetland were dependencies
of Norway, ruled by local chiefs called jarls; the Western Isles were
also claimed by her; and on the mainland, to the north-westward of
the Moray Firth and Glenmore, there was a region forming a kind of
debatable territory, which as we have seen, the kings of Scotland had
long been attempting to subdue. When Alexander III. attained the age of
twenty-one, he endeavoured to obtain the Western Islands by negotiation,
and sent an embassy to the King of Norway which failed in its object.
He then announced his intention to subject these Islands, and the war
was commenced by the local chiefs of Ross. But Haco, the King of Norway,
considered this attack on the Western Isles as an encroachment on his
rights and prepared for war. He was a strong-willed man, well obeyed
by his subjects, and he ordered a conscription over his dominions.
Haco made great preparations for the expedition; a ship was specially
built for himself, which mounted twenty-seven banks of oars, glittered
with gilded dragons, and was manned by picked Norwegian seamen. Many
of the ships were large and well equipped, and in all numbered upwards
of one hundred and twenty vessels. On the 10th of July 1263, Haco with
his fleet sailed for the Shetland Islands; whence he steered for the
Orkneys, and anchored in Elwick harbour, opposite Kirkwall. Haco sailed
from Orkney on the 10th of August and anchored in the Sound of Skye,
where the King of Man and other Norwegian chiefs joined the expedition.
He then sailed through the Sound of Mull to Cantyre, where the forces
from the Isles were concentrated. He sent fifty ships under the command
of the King of Man to plunder the coasts of Cantyre, and five ships to
the island of Bute. The castles of Dunaverty in Cantyre, and Rothesay
in Bute, having surrendered, Haco with the whole fleet rounded the Mull
of Cantyre, sailed up the Firth of Clyde, and anchored off the island
of Arran.¹
¹ _Expedition of Haco_, page 55, _et seq._
The Scots had made preparations for the defence of the mainland. The
castles of Inverness, Ayr, Stirling, Wigtown, and others, were repaired
and the garrisons strengthened; while the King had concentrated the
main body of his army in Ayr, where the great attack was expected to
be delivered. Negotiations were opened, and Haco claimed a right to
the whole of the Western Isles. As the object of the Scots was to gain
time, they proposed to retain the islands of Bute, Arran, and the two
Cumbraes; thus they protracted the negotiations till towards the end
of September. Then Haco discovered their intention, and proclaimed the
truce at an end. He sent sixty vessels to devastate the coasts, and
prepared to land with the main body of his force at Largs. But on the
morning of the 1st of October a hurricane arose which lasted several
days; many of Haco’s ships were wrecked, and his main fleet much
disabled. The royal flagship dragged her anchors, while the greater
part of the fleet was drifting in distress. Five vessels were driven
ashore upon the coast of Ayrshire, near Largs. The Scots had assembled
in groups along the beach, observing ship after ship drifting past; and
they began to attack the shipwrecked crews, who sheltered themselves
behind their vessels. A reinforcement from the fleet landed and
drove off the Scots. On the morrow a body of the Scots were posted
in the vicinity of the village of Largs, ready to renew the attack.
An engagement ensued, and the Norwegians fought heroically though
outnumbered, and, after a somewhat protracted contest, they gained
their boats and sailed off. By this time Haco’s fleet was greatly
diminished, and all hope of success had vanished; so he steered his
course for the Orkney islands, which he reached in November. The strain
of the expedition, and its utter failure, affected the spirit and frame
of Haco, and he died on the 15th of December, 1263. His remains lay
three months in the Church of Kirkwall, thence they were carried and
interred in the tomb of his ancestors at Bergen.¹
¹ _Expedition of Haco_, pages 77, 85, 87, 107, _et seq._;
_Historians_, Volume IV., pages 296, 297.
When the tidings of Haco’s death reached Alexander III., he resolved to
reduce the Western Isles to subjection. A force was mustered and placed
under the command of the Earls of Mar and Buchan, and Alan ♦Durward,
and the army proceeded to the isles. On its approach some of the chiefs
fled, some of them were hanged for the support which they had given
to Haco’s expedition, while others were expelled or fined. The Earls
secured much booty, and then returned to the mainland. With the view
of a final settlement, negotiations were opened with the new King of
Norway, Magnus VI. In July 1265, a treaty was concluded with Norway,
by which the Isle of Man, and all the islands off the coasts of
Scotland were ceded to Alexander III., on the condition that the Crown
of Scotland should pay four thousand marks, and an annual rent of one
hundred marks to the Crown of Norway. But the islands of Orkney and
Shetland were to remain attached to the Crown of Norway.¹ Henceforth
Scotland was freed from the ravages of the Norsemen.
♦ “Duward” replaced with “Durward”
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., page 296; _Chronicle of Man_,
page 52.
The remaining years of Alexander’s reign were peaceful and progressive
in every direction. Alexander III. had a son and a daughter, and in
1281 the latter, Margaret, was married to Eric II., King of Norway;
the same year the Prince of Scotland married Margaret of Flanders, a
daughter of Count Guy de Dampierre. The prospects of the nation then
looked exceedingly bright. But on the 9th of April, 1283, Alexander’s
daughter Margaret, died, leaving an only child, called the Maid of
Norway; and the Prince of Scotland died on the 28th of January, 1283‒4,
without issue. The great difficulty was at once seen, and the king
summoned a meeting of the Estates of Scotland, which assembled at
Scone on the 5th of February, 1284. At this meeting there were present
twelve Earls, namely, Mar, Strathern, Athole, Fife, Buchan, Angus,
Monteith, Ross, Dunbar, Lennox, Sutherland, and Carrick; ten bishops;
and twenty-five barons, all of whom bound themselves in the name of the
nation to acknowledge the king’s grand-daughter, Margaret, the Maid of
Norway, as the heir of the Crown of Scotland.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., page 82.
Alexander III. married a daughter of the Count de Dreux, on the 14th of
October, 1285, and he still hoped to leave lineal heirs to the throne.
But on the 15th of March, 1286, when he was riding in the night along
the coast of Fife, near Kinghorn, he was thrown from his horse and
killed. A sad and mournful end; the lamentation was universal, and
all the people looked forward to the future with dismay. The last
king of the Celtic race slept with his fathers, and the crown of a
far-descended line fell to a weakly infant.
A meeting of the nobles and clergy was held at Scone on the 2nd of
April, 1286, and six guardians were elected to govern the kingdom.
For the districts on the north of the Forth the bishop of St. Andrews,
and the Earls of Fife and Buchan, were appointed; and for the country
on the south of the Forth, the Bishop of Glasgow, John Comyn, Lord of
Badenoch, and the Steward of Scotland. The elements of the approaching
contest were already stirring, as several of the nobles aspired to
the throne, which they considered vacant. Robert Bruce of Annandale,
entered into a bond with a number of Scotch and English nobles with the
aim of supporting his claim to the throne of Scotland. This document is
dated the 20th September, 1286, and it contained the names of the Earl
of Dunbar and his three sons, the Earl of Monteith and his two sons,
and the Steward of Scotland; Angus, Lord of the Isles, and his two
sons; the Earl of Ulster, and Lord Thomas de Clare, two English barons.
Thus it appears that Bruce’s party was pretty strong. In this document
Bruce and his supporters ignored the infant queen, the Maid of Norway,
but they assumed that the throne would be occupied by some one of
royal blood, who should obtain it according to the ancient and approved
customs of the kingdom.¹
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_ from 1286 to 1306,
published by Royal Commission, Volume I., pages 22, 23;
Hailes’ _Annals_, Volume I., page 203.
It is uncertain whether Edward I. knew of this bond, but he had a
project of his own. He had a son, and if his son could be married to
the Maid of Norway, he imagined that all would go right. Edward I.
therefore applied to the Pope for a dispensation to sanction the
marriage; and a papal bull authorising the marriage of the two children
was issued in November 1289, although they were within the prohibited
degrees of relationship. A formal conference was held at Salisbury,
at which various matters connected with the marriage were arranged,
with the mutual concurrence of England, Norway, and Scotland. In March
1290, the Earls, barons, and clergy of Scotland, met the ambassadors
of England at Brigham, and after deliberation the articles arranged
at Salisbury, and other points, were confirmed and a treaty concluded,
which sanctioned the marriage of the royal children. This treaty
provided that the rights, the laws, and the liberties of Scotland
should continue entire and untouched. No native was to be compelled
to answer for any crime or cause at any court out of the kingdom; no
parliament was to be held beyond the boundaries of Scotland to discuss
Scotch affairs: in short, the complete independence of the nation was
recognised and strictly guarded by this treaty.¹
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 90, 91,
134, 35, 36, 111‒113, 105‒111, 129‒131; Hailes’ _Annals_,
Volume I., pages 208‒212.
It seems that Edward I. imagined that he had thus secured the kingdom.
He at once appointed the Bishop of Durham Lieutenant of Scotland, in
the name of Queen Margaret and the Prince of England, to act along
with the guardians, the bishops, and the nobles of the realm. Waxing
bolder, Edward demanded that all the royal castles in Scotland should
be immediately surrendered to him; but for once he had miscalculated
the force of his influence and dignity, as the Scots refused to deliver
the castles of the kingdom into his hands.¹
¹ Hailes’ _Annals_, Volume I., pages 212, 213.
Edward I. quickly equipped a ship to transport the young queen
from Norway. This ship was well stored with provisions and luxuries
――thirty-one hogsheads and one pipe of wine, and ten barrels of beer;
a very large quantity of salted beef, hams, dried fish, stock fish,
lampreys, sturgeon, and fifty pounds of whale, along with twenty-two
gallons of mustard, salt, pepper, vinegar, and onions. A stock of
dainties, specially prepared for the delicate, young Queen, consisted
of five hundred walnuts, two loaves of sugar, grits, oatmeal, mace,
figs, raisins, and thirty-eight pounds of gingerbread. The ship carried
the English flag, and the crew numbered forty hands. She reached her
destination all right; and in due time she sailed from Norway with
the Queen on board. Edward I. sent his agents to Orkney to meet her,
he also sent a number of precious jewels to Scotland to bedeck her;
indeed, he put himself to great trouble to secure the consummation of
this marriage. But the child died just before she reached the Orkney
Islands, in the end of September, 1290.¹ Thus perished the hopes which
Edward I. had associated with his marriage project. He subsequently
adopted a different line of procedure, still with the same end in
view――the complete subjection of Scotland. Before proceeding with the
historic narrative it is requisite to review the state of society and
the progress of the nation up to the date of the outbreak of the War of
Independence.
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 139,
140, 182, 183‒192, 178, 179, 149‒153.
CHAPTER IV.
_Social Condition of the Nation in the
Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries._
THIS chapter will present an account of the social state of the
kingdom. The government, introduction of charters, the powers granted
to the nobles, and an explication of feudalism; customary law in a
transitional stage, forms of trial and punishment, and the privileges
associated with sanctuaries, will be treated. Royal burghs, church
burghs, and burghs of regality, the coinage and the commerce of the
kingdom, the organisation and the possessions of the Church, schools,
literature, and architecture, will be dealt with. Agriculture and the
state of the occupiers and toilers of the land will be detailed.
At the end of the eleventh century the people and the government were
Celtic; although the Angles had long been settled in the south-eastern
quarter of the kingdom, the Norsemen still held sway in Caithness and
the islands. The proceedings connected with the introduction of Norman
feudalism for some time seriously interrupted the continuity of the
progressive movement of the kingdom, as the people in some quarters
of the country were bitterly opposed to it; but it was fostered and
supported by the kings, and had spread over the Lowlands before the
close of the thirteenth century.
The king stood at the head of the feudal organisation, as the leader
of the army, the fountain of honour, the dispenser of titles; and
nominally the prime administrator of justice, and the chief landholder
in the kingdom. His revenue was mainly derived from the rents of
the crown lands, the feudal casualties of ward, marriage, relief,
and non-entry, the rents of the royal burghs, and the customs on
merchandise, and the fines imposed in the king’s courts. Public taxes
were assessed on all lands, and levied according to the exigences of
the nation. From these sources the feudal kings of this period raised
a considerable revenue. The king had his Justiciary, Chamberlain,
Chancellor, Constable, Steward, and other Crown officials; and before
the end of the thirteenth century the offices of Steward and Constable
had become hereditary in the families of Stewart and Morevil. In the
thirteenth century the Chamberlain was the collector and also the
disburser of the Crown revenues, and in virtue of these functions
he was the most important of the great officers of the Crown. Out of
the revenues in his hands he had to provide for all the branches of
public expenditure, including the charges of the royal household, and
all extra military expenses. He also had a complete jurisdiction over
all the burghs. The immediate receivers of the royal revenues were
the sheriffs and bailies, who collected the rents of the crown lands,
the feudal casualties, and the fines imposed by themselves, by the
Justiciaries, and by the Chamberlain himself at his annual circuit
courts in the burghs, and by the magistrates and the custom officials,
who accounted for the burgh rents and the customs. The Chamberlain and
other officers intrusted with public money, had their accounts audited
in exchequer usually once a year; and the more important of these
audited accounts were then engrossed for preservation on parchment
rolls.¹
¹ _The Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I., A.D. 1264‒1359.
1878.
Meetings of the kings with their chief men and the clergy for the
transaction of important affairs occurred at an early period, as we
have seen in preceding pages. According to the feudal principle all the
Crown vassals should have attended the king’s great council or court;
as a matter of historic fact, only the chief officers of the Crown,
a few of the churchmen and nobles, usually attended the meetings of
the council; and further, it must be observed that the legislative
functions of the king’s council were not clearly distinguished from
the function of counselling the king in judicial proceedings: in other
words, the legislative and the executive departments of Government were
not as yet distinctly discriminated in Scotland. Alexander I. held a
council in 1107, in which Turgot was chosen Bishop of St. Andrews by
the king, the clergy, and the people; and in 1114, when he refounded
the Abbey of Scone, the council consisted of the king and queen, two
bishops, six earls, and some other persons, “witnessing and consenting.”
Sometimes the laws were enacted and issued in the name of the king
and his judges. The laws of David I. run in the form of an order or
a declaration of enacting power, thus: “The King David has statuted,”
“the King David has ordained,” “the King has decreed and delivered.”
Some of David’s charters, granted with the consent of the council,
assumed a rather imperative style, such as his foundation charter of
Holyrood:――“I David, by the grace of God, King of the Scots, of my
royal authority, and with the assent of Henry, my son, and the bishops
of my kingdom, and with the confirmation and testimony of the earls and
barons, the clergy also assenting and the people, of divine prompting,
grant all the things under written to the church of the Holyrood of
Edinburgh.” Malcolm IV., in royal grants of great importance, adopted
the style of his grandfather, David I. In 1184 William the Lion held
a council at Perth, in which the members present were described as
bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, and all the good men of the
land, and this meeting passed a number of acts. Alexander II. assembled
a council at Stirling, in 1236, in which the Bishop of St. Andrews,
the prior of Coldingham, the Earls of Fife and Buchan, the Steward
of Scotland, the Justiciary of Lothian, John de Maxwell, and others,
were present, and the record says that they passed the acts, nine in
number, with the assent of the whole community. Alexander III. held
a number of councils similar to the preceding ones, but there was
no regular Parliament in Scotland, as now understood, during this
period.¹ Although it is obvious that the kings did not assume to act
in important matters solely in virtue of their royal authority, they
usually sought and obtained the assent of the chief men of the kingdom.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I.; _National
Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Number 16.
The Justiciary was a high legal functionary, and first appeared in the
reign of Alexander I. In the reign of William the Lion there were two
Justiciaries, one for Lothian, and the other for the country on the
north of the Forth; and in the reign of Alexander III. there were four
of these functionaries――one for Lothian, another for Galloway, and two
for the country to the northward of the Forth. These judges usually
went through their districts on circuits twice a year. Sheriffs were
gradually introduced, and by the middle of the thirteenth century a
considerable part of Scotland had been divided into sheriffdoms. The
sheriff was intrusted with a wide jurisdiction, both in criminal and in
civil cases, and also in fiscal matters. William the Lion enacted that
each sheriff should hold his court at intervals of forty days, and in
the latter part of the thirteenth century there were upwards of thirty
sheriffdoms.¹ It will, however, shortly appear that there was not a
regular code of laws, and that the judicial processes then in operation
presented a curious jumble.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 55,
57, _et seq._; _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.
In connection with the introduction of feudalism, and an extraneous
aristocracy, the kings ♦adopted the expedient of granting lands by
charter to their new nobles. A specimen of one of the earliest of these
charters may be quoted:――“David, King of the Scots, to all good men of
his whole land, greeting. Know that I have given and granted to Robert
of Bruce, in fee and heritage, to him and his heirs, the valley of
Annan, in forest, on both sides of the water of Annan, as the marches
are from the forest of Selkirk as far as his land extends towards
Strandnith and towards the Clyde, freely and quietly as any other
forest of his is best and most freely held. Wherefore I forbid that
any one hunt in the aforesaid forest, unless by his authority, on pain
of forfeiture of ten pounds, or that any one go through the aforesaid
forest unless by a straight road appointed.” How is this charter to be
interpreted? Must I suppose that this fine valley of Annandale was then
uninhabited? The charter tells nothing, save that Bruce is to possess
it as a free forest exclusively for his own use. Fortunately, in this
instance, the grant was confirmed by another charter in the reign of
William the Lion, which will enable us to understand in some degree
the former grant of “free forest”:――“William, King of the Scots, to the
bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, sheriffs, and other good men
of his whole land, greeting. Be it known to all present and to come,
that I have given and granted, and by this, my charter, confirmed,
to Robert of Bruce and his heirs, all the land which his father and
himself have held in the valley of Annan, by the same marches by which
his father held it, and he after his father. To be held to himself and
his heirs of me and of my heirs in fee and heritage, in wood and plain,
in meadows and pastures, in moors and marches, in waters, stanks, and
mills, in forests and trysts, in hills and harbours, in ways and paths,
in ♦fishings, and in all other just appurtenances, as freely, quietly,
and fully as ever his father or he himself most freely held that land
of King David, my grandfather, or of King Malcolm, my brother.” Thus
the second charter renders the meaning of the first one intelligible,
as we see that under the first grant of free forest there was also
conveyed a grant of “free barony,” or the grant of “free barony” had
been conferred some time before the free forest grant, which was the
usual mode of procedure.¹
♦ “adapted” replaced with “adopted”
♦ “fistings” replaced with “fishings”
¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Numbers 20,
39, 19.
The above may be fairly taken as genuine historic example of a large
number of similar ones. The Norman nobles obtained charters granting
to them lands, and sometimes extensive tracts of territories. But
it occasionally happened that the territory granted by the charter
could not be made available to the holder of the charter, owing to
the opposition of the real owners and occupiers of the territory in
question; and there were instances of royal charters granting lands
which never became operative. In order to overcome this opposition
of the people, and to dispossess them of the land, so that the Norman
nobles might be amply accommodated, various expedients were resorted
to. David I., in reference to the rights and claims of the people in
the possession of the land, had recourse to the following expedient:
――Those who were bold enough to oppose the schemes of the king were
permitted to appear before his court, or a jury selected or controlled
by him: then every one who held land had to prove that he and his
lineal ancestors had continuously held the land in question for four
generations, and every one that failed to prove this was told that
he had no right to the land, and that the king would dispose of it
as he thought fit. In the reign of William the Lion it appears that
charters had become a requisite of the right to hold land; and in 1248,
at a council held in Stirling, it was enacted “that from this time
henceforth no oath should be taken touching the life or limb of any
man holding land, except by those men who were freeholders by charter.”
Thus the charter was made a test of freedom and of civil rights, as
well as the requisite condition of holding land: and further, the
Norman nobles in Scotland enjoyed the invidious privilege of sending
substitutes or champions to fight for them instead of appearing in
person when challenged to single combat by any Scotsman. Yet in 1230
it was enacted that every petty knight, or any man who held land by
charter, if challenged to single combat at the Bridge of Stirling or
anywhere else, could appoint substitutes to fight for them. By these
processes and the means briefly indicated, from the accession of David
I. to the throne, onward to the death of the Maid of Norway in 1290,
a period of one hundred and sixty-six years, many thousands of the
people of Scotland were deprived of their natural and just rights in
connection with the ownership and the occupancy of the land of the
kingdom. Many of them were then reduced to a state of extreme privation,
and a considerable number of them fell into the condition of serfdom.
When thus rendered landless, David I. enacted “If any man be found in
the king’s land that has not a proper lord, after the king’s writ has
been read in the courts, he shall have the space of fifteen days to
find a lord. And if within that term he does not find a lord, then the
king’s justiciary shall take from him five cows for the king’s use, and
keep his body to the king’s behalf until he get him a lord.”¹ This act
was expressly drawn with the object of compelling the people to yield
and place themselves under the Norman nobles.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 9,
51, 70, 74, _et seq._
With the support and assistance of David I., and some of his successors,
the Normans shortly obtained possession of extensive territories held
under feudal tenure. In some instances the rights and privileges of
regality were granted along with the territory, though the title of
Earl was withheld, and a right of regality meant an almost absolute
jurisdiction over the whole inhabitants of the district included in the
charter. The lower form of feudal tenure, called “free barony,” also
embraced a pretty complete jurisdiction over all the people within its
bounds. As a specimen, a portion of a Crown charter of the Earldom of
Fife may be quoted:――“Alexander, by the grace of God, King of the Scots,
to all good men of his land, greeting: Be it known to all present and
to come that we have granted, and by this our charter have confirmed
to Earl Malcolm of Fife, son of Earl Duncan, the Earldom of Fife, as
Earl Duncan, his father, held it. To hold to him and his heirs of us
and our heirs in fee and heritage, in wood and plain, in lands and
waters, in meadows and pastures, in moors and marshes, in stanks and
mills, in fish ponds and fishings, in ways and paths, with soc and sac,
with gallows and pit, with toll and them, and ♦infangthief, ... with
all things to that Earldom justly pertaining.”¹ Thus an Earl had a
right not only to the land, but also to everything else within the
borders of the Earldom. Even the natural elements, such as water, were
appropriated by the feudal lords. There was a collection of Forest
Laws, but they were not nearly so savage as the forest laws of England;
and the penalties in connection with infringement of these laws were
pecuniary fines.
♦ “infangthef” replaced with “infangthief”
¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Number 50.
The privileges of an Earldom embraced an authoritative jurisdiction
in civil and criminal cases of every description; in a word, the Earl
had the lives and the property of the people within the limits of his
territories in his hands. He had the power of executing any one of
his vassals; cases of assault, theft, and all the disputes which arose
amongst the people of the territory came under the jurisdiction of
the earl; and the fees, fines, and escheats of goods, which arose from
the numerous feudal relations of the several ranks of his vassals.
Further, an earl, or a baron, holding under free barony, was empowered
to enforce ward, relief, merchant, and many other feudal services. If
there were villages and towns in the earldom, the earl was the superior
of these also, and might treat the inhabitants as he thought fit.¹
¹ _Antiquities of the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff_, Volume
II., page 109; Volumes III. and IV., _in loc._: “All feudal
lords through feudal Europe were equally fond and proud of
the right of executing those whom they had first convicted
and sentenced to death. The Gallowhill is still an object of
interest, and, I fear, of some pride, near our old baronial
mansions; and I know somewhere the surrounding ground is
full of the remains of the poor wretches who died by the
barons’ law. Perhaps the pit was for the female thief, for
women sentenced to death, were, for the most part, drowned.”
Innes’ _Legal Antiquities_, pages 58, 59.
An earldom or a great barony presented in miniature all the
characteristics of a feudal kingdom. Like the king, the earl was
the supreme ruler within his territories; he had his own courts, and
appointed his own sheriffs and bailies, his chamberlain, constable, and
other officials. Then portions of his lands, with its castles, formed
his special personal domain for the accommodation of his family, his
officials, and his personal retinue. But the far greater portion of the
lands of the earldom were held by the vassals of the earl. These feudal
vassals were of different ranks, consisting in some earldoms of thanes,
knights, free tenants, tenants-at-will, down to bondmen and serfs.
Tenants-at-will merely held land from year to year, and they, with the
bondmen and the serfs, were the toilers of the lands of the earldom.
The ranks above the toilers of the soil, formed the military force of
the earldom, with the earl as their leader. All the ranks above the
servile classes, were under feudal allegiance to the earl and bound
to follow him in all his causes and quarrels against any person or
party in the kingdom, save the king. Then the earl, or a baron with
the rights of an earl, could grant lands to his vassals under various
conditions, and so thanes and knights were frequently the vassals of a
feudal earl. These thanes and knights in turn could re-let to the class
below them; and these also might sub-let. In this way many of the small
gentry ultimately became proprietors of land; but the greater number
of them remained as the feudal vassals of their lords till quite recent
times.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 60,
68, _et seq._; Innes’ _Legal Antiquities_; _Antiquities of
the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff_.
An important part of Feudalism as it was introduced and developed
in Scotland, was directly associated with the Church. It appears
that monks and churchmen were amongst the first who obtained regal
jurisdiction over the inhabitants of the lands which the kings granted
to them by charter. Alexander I. refounded the monastery of Scone
and empowered the abbot and monks to hold their own court, this was
confirmed by Malcolm IV. and by William the Lion, and the latter
charter ran thus――“William King of the Scots, ... know that I have
granted, and by this my charter confirm, ... to the church of Scone
and the abbot and canons serving God there, all the liberties as the
charter of King Malcolm my brother witnesses: to wit, their court to
be held with full jurisdiction, in battle, in iron, and in water, with
all the liberties pertaining to a court, with liberty of answering
to no one outside their own court. Let no one therefore of my
subjects attempt to break this liberty of theirs under the pain of my
forfeiture.” The abbots of Dunfermline, Kelso, Holyrood, Jedburgh, and
other great monasteries, had their own courts; and the Bishop of St.
Andrews had his own court. In the reign of Alexander III., at least
one third of the best land in the kingdom was held by the Church.
These lands were held under the most favourable feudal tenures, as
the numerous Crown charters to churches, monasteries, and bishoprics
amply testify. On these extensive church lands there were various
ranks of vassals and tenants, bondmen and serfs. The highest class of
church vassals were almost of equal rank with the lesser barons and
freeholders of the Crown; they usually held their lands by charter,
free of all services, and only paid a nominal rent. From an examination
of many circumstances, it seems almost certain that the greater part
of the lands which David I. and his two grandsons, Malcolm and William,
granted to the Church, were the very lands of which the real owners and
occupiers had been dispossessed. This accounts for the great numbers
of bondmen and serfs which were attached to the church lands in the
thirteenth century.¹
¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Numbers 16,
30, 36, 37, 54; _Register of Dunfermline_, pages 220‒222;
_Register of Kelso_; _Charters of Holyrood_; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I.
If none of the real owners and occupiers of the land were deprived
of it by the expedients and the processes associated with the
introduction of charters in relation to the rights of holding land,
then how is it possible that David I. and his two grandsons could
have been in possession of all these fine tracts of land which they
gave to the Church within so short a period? Is there any other
historic interpretation which will meet the known conditions and the
circumstances connected with this important social phenomena? There
is no difficulty in understanding how it occurred that David I. was
represented as a saint by certain chroniclers, who also looked upon
the Norman nobles and their Feudalism as the real originators of
civilisation in Scotland.
One striking characteristic of Norman Feudalism as manifested in
Scotland, was its tendency to assume hereditary forms. The great
officers of State; sheriffs, bailies, stewards, keepers of castles,
forests, and parks, became hereditary; and indeed all titles and
offices from the throne downward to the common occupations associated
with the brewhouse and the smithy, assumed the hereditary form.
Politically and socially, feudal organisation as developed in Scotland,
contained within itself the very elements of anarchy; associated with
extremely few of the agencies and influences which tend to promote
order and advance civilisation.
The prevailing forms of trial by custom or law, and the modes of
punishing crime, are important in all stages of society. It is
interesting to note that the earliest fragments of the statute law
of Scotland contain references to a still earlier common usage: “The
assize of the country,” “As law will and custom is,” “According to
assize of the land,” these expressions occur in the laws of David I.;
and in one of David’s statutes a direct reference was made to a law of
Malcolm Canmore, “as it was established in his father’s days.” These
phrases meant that the matters in question were to be settled according
to the local customs of the people, and present an illustration of
custom or usage in the process of passing into written law.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 8,
9, 11‒13, _et seq._
The earliest laws of Scotland were full of regulations concerning the
punishment of murder and theft. When the thief was caught with the
stolen goods in his hands, he was at once tried and punished. It was
only when the crime in question was not evident that the peculiarities
of the early laws appeared. In the reign of David I., a man accused of
theft might have attempted to clear himself in two ways, by battle, or
the purgation of twelve leal men; there was nothing adduced on either
side by witnesses who were cognisant ♦of the facts, for evidence of
that kind was not then deemed necessary. When the accused denied the
charge, he had to find twelve compurgators, men of the neighbourhood,
who knew the character of the parties, and these men swore that they
believed the accused to be innocent. But the number of the compurgators
varied from one to thirty, according to the rank of the parties and the
nature of the crime: thus, two men were considered sufficient to prove
that a person had violated the King’s peace, and accordingly punishment
followed; but twenty-four men were requisite to acquit a man for an
offence against the majesty of the King. In the reign of William the
Lion, when a habit-and-repute thief was pursued by the suit of one or
more baronies and could find no one to become bail for him, he was then
seized and hanged without any trial.
♦ duplicate word “of” removed
When there was no evidence admitted by witnesses, if the accused person
failed to bring the requisite number of compurgators, his last resource
was to appeal to the wager of battle. There were definite and minute
rules for its procedure, and during the combat the strictest silence
was observed. The judges of Galloway decreed that any one who spoke
in the place where the battle was being waged, after silence had
been proclaimed, should forfeit ten cows to the king; and if any one
interfered with his hand, or even made a signal in any way, his life
and limb should be in the king’s power.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 5‒8,
55, 56.
During this period several restrictions were introduced in the
application of the trial by battle. Churchmen were exempted from
appearing in single combat; men past sixty years of age could decline
it; and widows who could not fight, were to be protected in their just
rights. Burgesses had privileges in connection with it; as the citizens
of the royal burgh might claim combat against those who depended upon
subjects, but in turn they were not obliged to grant it unless they
thought fit; and the burgess might decline the challenge of an upland
man. The thief’s lord might fight an accuser of his own rank if he
thought proper, but the poor man could only challenge his fellow; the
barons, knights, and freeholders, could also fight by proxy, appoint
a champion to fight for them; while the body of the people were bound
to fight in person. After the order for trial by battle, by hot iron,
or by water, had been given, it was no longer open to the parties to
compromise the case for a penalty; and any lord who promoted such a
thing forfeited his court. There is ample evidence of the prevalence
of the ordeals of hot iron and water in Scotland, but no detailed
account of the forms of the process have been preserved in any of the
early records. As mentioned in a preceding page, the right of trial by
battle, iron, and water, was granted to a number of monasteries; but
it appears that this privilege was open to endless abuses. David I. in
one instance provided that his own judge should always be present at
the court of the Abbot of Dunfermline, to see if justice was rightly
administered. In 1180 William the Lion enacted: “That neither bishops,
abbots, nor yet earls, barons, nor any freeholders, should hold their
courts unless the king’s sheriff or his sergeant be there, or summoned
to be there, to see that the court be rightly led.... That no baron
have leave to hold a court of life and limb as of judgment by battle,
or water, or hot iron, unless the king’s sheriff or his sergeant be
there to see if justice be truly kept as it ought to be.” In the same
reign it was enacted, that when any one was accused of theft by the
magistrate and three leal men, he should underlie the law of water; if
in addition to these accusers, three witnesses knowing the facts were
found, he was not to be put through any of the ordeals, but immediately
to be hanged.
Toward the end of this period ordeals were falling into disrepute,
though there is no direct evidence as to when they were abolished, or
when jury trial was introduced. One form of ordeal, the battle, later
the judicial combat, afterwards called the duel, lingered on amongst
a class of madcaps until recent times. The people of Galloway retained
the modes of ordeals long after the other quarters of the kingdom had
discarded them. In the reign of Robert Bruce they still continued to be
governed by their own local laws, and had not obtained nor apparently
desired trial by jury; and even down to 1385 Douglas, Lord of Galloway,
while undertaking in Parliament to promote the execution of justice in
his territory, protested for the liberty of the law of Galloway in all
points.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
69‒71, 49, 55, 53, 122, 187; _Register of Dunfermline_, page
12; _Ancient Laws and Customs of the Burghs of Scotland_,
pages 8, 11, 163. The best account of the process of trial
by the ordeals of iron and water that I have seen is in
Pike’s _History of Crime in England_, Volume I., pages 207,
208; there is also a mass of matter touching the subject in
Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_.
In Scotland civil cases were tried by jury earlier than criminal ones.
But throughout this period there was no jury trial in the modern sense,
that is, a judge who finds the law, and a number of citizens who find
the fact from the evidence placed before them; it was long ere this
stage was reached. There were both civil and criminal cases reported as
having been tried by jury, during the thirteenth century in Scotland,
but then the jurymen were also witnesses in these cases: in England,
about the same time, this prevailed in jury trials. The later history
of trial by jury mainly consisted of the steps by which the jurors
were changed from witnesses into judges of the facts stated by others
to them. As yet the ideal of law was only dimly conceived and vaguely
comprehended. Public justice was hardly at all discriminated in the
minds of the people from the natural feeling of revenge. It seems
strange that the crime of murder could be commuted by a fine; but in an
age of fierce strife this may have been the most effective punishment.
It appears to have rested with the family of the murdered man to
abstain from prosecuting to the utmost, when their feeling of revenge
could be appeased by a fine. Indeed, there was another penalty due
to the king or the lord for the shedding of blood, if their peace
was violated, in addition to the compensation paid to the kin of the
slaughtered man.
The country for a limited distance around the king’s court and person,
and the public highways, were in the king’s peace, under his immediate
protection, and a breach of the peace within this area was severely
punished. The king further extended his peace to pilgrims during their
journeys to and from the tombs of the holy saints.
Amid all the rudeness of the society of the period there were
indications of improvement and feelings of humanity. The poor and the
weak were placed under the king’s protection; and in the ancient laws
the widow and the fatherless children were not forgotten. Women in
Scotland held a high position, a fact which was well understood and
fully appreciated by the Norman nobles. If a criminal, doomed to the
gallows, escaped with his life after the first attempt to hang him,
then he was freed from punishment for his past offence; but the party
who bungled the execution was subjected to a heavy fine. In connection
with the stealing of cattle and sheep, the chief crimes of the period,
it was enacted that no one should be hanged simply for taking as much
as he could carry, unless it amounted to the value of two sheep; thus
a distinction was drawn between the masterful rifler who drove off the
cattle and sheep, and the needy thief who merely seized what he could
carry. A severe punishment was inflicted on any one who intentionally
killed a watch-dog.¹
¹ _Ancient Laws of the Burghs of Scotland_, pages 4, 53; _Acts
of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I.
In an age when moral power was comparatively weak, the passions little
restrained, and the inflamed feeling of revenge pursued its victims,
it was a humane measure to make the church a place of refuge. By the
canon law all churches were to afford protection to the criminal for
a limited time, to allow the first burst of passion to assuage, before
the injured party could claim redress. So in the early statutes of
the Scotch Church it was enacted that every consecrated church, with
a right of baptism and burial, should have the privilege of sanctuary,
which extended for thirty paces round the graveyard. In early times the
boundaries of sanctuaries were sometimes marked off by stone crosses,
such as those at the monastery of Dull, in Athole; but the great
sanctity of some places of worship arose from the extreme veneration
for their patron saints, and the significance and virtue attached to
the relics which were preserved in them; and yet the church and even
the holy altar were not always safe from violence. The church of Wedale,
now called Stow, was one of the most famous of Scottish sanctuaries.
About the year 1166 William the Lion issued a precept to the ministers
of the church of Wedale, intimating to them not to detain the men of
the abbot of Kelso, who had taken refuge there, nor their goods, as the
abbot himself was willing to give them full justice. David I. granted
the church of Lesmahagow to the monastery of Kelso, and also confirmed
its privilege of sanctuary in the following terms:――“Whosoever for
escaping peril of life and limb flees to this church, or comes within
the four crosses that stand around it, out of reverence to God and
St. Machutus, I grant him my firm peace.” Tyninghame in Lothian, and
Inverlethan in Tweeddale, were also noted sanctuaries in their day.¹
¹ _Statuta Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ_, Volume II., pages 18,
19, 37, 46; _Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, Volume II.,
Appendix to Preface, page 66, Notices of Plates, page 11;
_Register of Kelso_, Volume I., pages 9, 10, 22, Volume II.,
page 317.
The law of sanctuary in Scotland was defined and regulated in the
reign of Alexander II. Careful rules were stated to guard against the
danger of encouraging crime by offering an easy escape and immunity to
fugitive vagabonds, thieves, and homicides.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., page 71.
In the introduction many references were made to the localities and
the positions where the people fixed their habitations, and erected
defensive dwellings and structures of various kinds for their security
and protection. Further, it was shown that there were towns and
villages from an early period. The people who lived in these towns were,
no doubt, in a limited sense the vassals of the king or of the local
chiefs, but it does not follow that these townsfolk had no proprietary
rights or customary rights of trade before the era of granting charters.
On the contrary, as there were rights of property in land centuries
before charters came into use, so the townsfolk had their recognised
customary rights in Scotland and elsewhere for ages before the period
of charters. In accordance with this, the earliest charters of the
royal burghs always implied the previous existence of an organised
community; thus the royal charter simply recognised organised
communities already existing. Dundee, Berwick, Inverness, Aberdeen,
and other towns on the coasts, were places of foreign trade before
the charter period; but the king’s charter, which placed the burgh
communities under the special protection of the Crown, and also
conferred on the burgesses privileges of trade, were great advantages,
which tended to promote order and industry, and to advance civilisation.
Although, when the kings granted charters to the burghs, they had
their own interest in view, for originally each burgess was a Crown
vassal, and paid a fixed yearly rent for his separate tenement. The
Crown appointed officers to collect these rents, who accounted for
them; the king also claimed the fines imposed in the courts of the
royal burghs, and certain customs which were collected by the Crown
officers. These arrangements continued in operation till about the end
of the thirteenth century; and subsequently another arrangement came
into practice by which the burgesses obtained short leases from the
chamberlain, on the condition of paying a specific sum to the king,
thus they acquired a right to the rents, the issues of their courts,
and the petty customs. These leases were granted on comparatively easy
terms, but sometimes a grassum was paid on their renewal. From this
practice another arrangement gradually came into operation, by which
the burgesses obtained from the Crown charters of feu-farm, converting
their lease into a perpetual right. Aberdeen and Edinburgh were the
first burghs which obtained these feu charters; the former in 1319,
for a yearly rent of £213 6s. 8d.; and the latter in 1329, for a rent
of 52 marks.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., page 118; _Charters of
Edinburgh, Burgh Records Society_, page 16.
Berwick, Edinburgh, Stirling, Perth, Aberdeen, and Roxburgh, were
among the first burghs which received royal charters, but the greater
number of the royal burghs in the kingdom were constituted before the
close of the thirteenth century. At the same period the Church had its
burghs; the nobles also had their burghs of regality and barony. The
higher nobles imitated the king, and often granted exclusive rights and
privileges to the inhabitants of the towns within their earldoms and
baronies; sometimes the Crown attempted to assert its prerogative by
extinguishing the privileges of such burghs, but it rarely succeeded.
There were associated trading communities on the north side of the
Grampians in the reign of David I. As we learn from a charter of
William the Lion, granted to the burgesses of Aberdeen and the north
in the year 1196, in these terms:――“William, by the grace of God, King
of the Scots, to all good men of his whole land, greeting. Know all
men present and to come, that I have granted, and by this my charter
have confirmed to my burgesses of Aberdeen, and to all the burgesses
of Moray, and to all my burgesses dwelling to the north of the Munth
(the Grampian mountains) their free hanse, to be held where they will
and when they will, as freely and peacefully, fully and honourably,
as their ancestors, in the time of King David, my grandfather, had
their hanse freely and honourably. Wherefore I strictly forbid anyone
to trouble or disturb them therein, on pain of my full forfeiture.”¹
The hanse meant the privilege of trade and association, but to what
importance these burgesses of the north attained cannot be ascertained,
further than that the hanse did not survive the War of Independence.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., Appendix
to Preface, page 77.
In the south of the kingdom the burgh communities had reached the stage
of united action at the opening of the twelfth century; their union
consisted of the towns of Berwick, Roxburgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling.
Their meetings were held under the presidency of the king’s chamberlain,
and called the “Court of the Four Burghs.” Like other early assemblies,
the proceedings of this body of burgesses presented a commingle of
the legislative and judicial functions, and their court occasionally
extended its operation beyond municipal organisation, and established
rules on matters of private right and obligation. The members of this
burghal court framed the code called “The Laws and Constitutions of
the Four Burghs,” which is the earliest body of Scotch laws extant.
This code was sanctioned by the Government in the reign of David I.,
and many of the early charters of the royal burghs contain internal
evidence of having been drawn from it. These burgh laws have sometimes
been attributed to the wisdom of David I., but they embodied the
practical experience of several generations before his time, and some
additions were made to them after his day. A portion of these laws were
drawn from the customary usage of the Saxons in the south of Scotland.
The Burgh Laws are the most complete of the early fragments of Scotch
legislation, and their last editor declared that no such ancient and
well-authenticated code of burgh laws exists in the world.¹
¹ _Ancient Laws and Customs of the Burghs of Scotland._
Edited by C. Innes. Preface page 21; _Report on Municipal
Corporations of Scotland_, page 15. 1835.
The union of the Four Burghs gradually developed, and in 1405 delegates
from all the royal burghs on the south of the river Spey were ordered
to assemble once a year to deliberate upon their common affairs; and
in 1454 its place of meeting was fixed at Edinburgh by royal charter.
Under the name of the Convention of Royal Burghs it continued its
annual meetings, and treated on matters relating to the burghs; and,
although the Convention still meets, since 1835 most of its powers and
functions have departed.¹
¹ “The towns of England, neither by themselves nor in
conjunction with the shires, ever attempted before the
seventeenth century to act alone in convention like the
Scotch burghs, nor in confederation like the German League.”
Stubb’s _Constitutional History of England_, Volume II.,
page 220.
The local rulers of the burgh community were elected by the whole
body of the burgesses once a year. The newly elected alderman (chief
magistrate) and the bailies then swore fealty to the king and to the
burgesses――“That they should not punish any man or woman except with
the sanction of the ordinary council and the judgment of the good men
of the burgh. That neither for fear, nor for love, nor for hatred,
nor for kinship, nor for loss of their silver, should they spare to
do right to all men.” It seems that the distinction between skilled
craftsmen and the men of commerce or merchants did not emerge in
an acute form for a considerable time after the institution of the
royal burghs. But the increase of trade and wealth, and a more minute
division of labour among hand-craftsmen, tended in the direction of
such a distinction. A few clauses of charters, and a statute of William
the Lion, gives a general liberty to the merchants of the realm to buy
and to sell, meaning that the merchant guild should have a ♦monopoly
of buying and selling within the limits of the burghs. A short code,
entitled the Statutes of the Guild, originated in Berwick about the
middle of the thirteenth century, and was at first intended for the
government of the guild merchants of that town. This code contains
fifty-one statutes, all of which were framed before the end of the
thirteenth century.
♦ “monoply” replaced with “monopoly”
The preamble of these statutes suppresses all other trading
associations. The first statute enacted that all particular guilds
previously acting in any burgh, should be extinguished, and that their
goods and chattels ought and should be given to this guild, except the
members form a union and come to an understanding to act together in
all good deeds in fellowship, secure and faithful friendship without
deceit. The regulations and binding clauses of these statutes are very
definite and minute; and they were soon generally adopted in all the
royal burghs of Scotland. The payment for entrants into the merchant
guild was fixed at forty shillings, unless they were sons or daughters
of the guild brethren. No one was permitted to deal in hides, wool,
wool skins, nor cut cloth within the burgh, unless he was a guild
brother. It was enacted “that no butcher, so long as he choose to
practise his trade, should buy wool or hides, unless he will abjure his
axe and swear that he will not lay his hand upon beasts.” In the Laws
of the Burghs, an earlier code already noticed, it was enacted “that
no dyer, flesher, shoemaker, or fisherman, can be allowed to entre
the guild till he swear not to exercise his craft with his own hands,
but only by ♦servants under him.”¹ At a later period a severe and long
struggle ensued between the merchant guilds and the craftsmen, touching
the privilege of trading and other municipal rights.
♦ “servands” replaced with “servants”
¹ _Ancient Laws of the Burghs of Scotland_, pages 34, 35, 60,
64, 69, _et seq._
It has sometimes been stated that there was no trace of thraldom in the
Scotch royal burghs. This, however, is not historically accurate, for
in the burgh laws the following occurs:――“If any wool-comber leaves the
burgh to dwell with upland men, while he had sufficient work to occupy
him within the burgh, then he ought to be taken and imprisoned.” There
is another law in the same code which has often been misinterpreted:
it runs thus:――“If any man’s thrall, baron’s or knight’s, comes to a
burgh and buys a burgage, and dwells in his burgage for a twelvemonth
and a day without challenge of his lord or his bailie, he shall be
for evermore free as a burgess within that royal burgh, and enjoy the
freedom of that burgh.”¹ Thus we see that before a serf could become
free, he had to purchase a house――a burgage tenement in the burgh, and
dwell in it for a year. But in those times wherewithal could a serf
purchase a house? At the present time, how many day-labourers could
purchase a house in a town?
¹ _Ibid._, page 9; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 23, 41.
Every royal burgh had right to hold markets. The market day was an
occasion of unusual freedom, only the traitor, the outlaw, and the
malefactor, could be arrested in the open market. Runaway serfs,
debtors, and small offenders of every description, were at liberty
unless they broke the peace of the market, and those who were guilty of
this, were tried by a special court, known under the name of Dustyfeet.
In this court the peace-breakers were tried by their peers――the
community of the market. The Dustyfeet were the travelling pedlars,
the real forerunners of the modern haberdashers; and these and other
extraneous traders, who sold their goods from a stall, could claim
cut and lot, that is, share and share of the market ground with the
burgesses. Thus, in the market, all were placed on an equality, a
characteristic which accords well with the origin of markets, indicated
in a preceding page.¹
¹ _Ancient Laws of the Burghs of Scotland._
Although the government and organisation of the royal burgh communities
seemed to be democratic, the guild brethren manifested strong
aristocratic leanings. For instance, they enacted――“that every burgess
having ten pounds worth of goods shall have in his stable a seemly
horse, worth at least forty shillings. And if he be deprived of his
horse by any chance, death, sale, gift, or in any other way, he shall
within forty days provide another. If not, he shall be fined eight
shillings to the guild.” Still these burgh communities were the only
classes among the people, who possessed wealth and a measure of freedom,
associated with some culture and intelligence. They were usually loyal
and faithful supporters of the king, and contributed a considerable
part of the gross revenue of the kingdom. Their organisations
encouraged habits of industry, tended to promote order and security,
and to advance civilisation.
In a preceding page reference was made to burghs under earls and barons,
and church burghs. Thus there were three classes of burghs besides the
royal ones. A burgh of regality held its privileges of some earl or
lord; a burgh of barony was of lower rank, and also held its rights
from its local lord; and from the earliest times the constitutions
of both these classes of towns varied. In some burghs of regality the
inhabitants had the right of electing the magistrates and officers of
the town; in others, the superior or lord of the regality retained all
these appointments in his own hands. Usually the superior of a burgh of
regality took special care to hold the control of its inhabitants well
within his own grasp. The rights and privileges of such burghs were――a
right to hold markets, and the exclusive right of trade and manufacture
within the town; and some burghs of regality had power to form bodies
of craftsmen somewhat analogous to those of the royal burghs. Among
burghs of regality may be mentioned Dunbar, which belonged to the Earl
of Dunbar; Wick, to the Earl of Caithness; Inveraray and Campbeltown to
the Argyle family. Burghs of barony became numerous, but at this period
most of them were villages and small hamlets. The principal church
burghs were St. Andrews, Glasgow, Brechin, Dunkeld, and Dunblane, which
belonged respectively to the bishops of these sees; and Dunfermline,
Paisley, Jedburgh, Kelso, the Canongate, Selkirk, and Arbroath,
belonged to the abbots and canons of the respective monasteries of
these towns. These religious corporations seemed as eager to obtain
trading rights and exclusive privileges as any other organised class
in the kingdom.
The early records of the Scottish mints were lost, and little
information of the coinage of this period can be obtained, except what
may be drawn from the coins which still remain. The earliest of these
are the silver pennies of Alexander I.; there was no gold coinage in
this period. From the reign of Alexander I. to the War of Independence
there was a regular coinage of silver coins; and throughout this period
the standard of fineness was at least equal to the current money of
England. The money was then coined in many different burghs, in Berwick,
Roxburgh, Edinburgh, Stirling, Perth, Aberdeen, Inverness, Dunbar, and
in other towns. The workmanship of these coins is rather rough, but not
much inferior to the English coins of the same period.
It was already mentioned, that gold and silver were found in Scotland,
plenty of iron and coal, and some lead. Few or no materials exist
for tracing the rise and development of the use of iron and coal
in Scotland. It was reported that iron was worked in the forests of
Moray in the thirteenth century; and in 1265 sea coal was mentioned in
connection with the castle of Berwick. The monks of Newbottle digged
coal from rude surface pits about the middle of the thirteenth century;
the Abbey of Dunfermline had a special grant from David I. of the gold
produced in Fife; and it was reported that David had a silver mine in
Cumberland.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 45, 48; Innes’
_Legal Antiquities_, page 168.
The weights and measures in use were various; the old Scotch pound
consisted of fifteen ounces. David I. enacted that the Caithness pound
should be the standard weight throughout the kingdom. The people of
the Orkney and the Shetland islands used the Norwegian weights and
measures till a recent period. Grain was measured by the chalder,
which contained sixteen bolls, the boll four firlots or six bushels;
this Scotch firlot was equal to a bushel and a half of English standard
measure. A skep of meal was a measure which appeared early in the
records of the monasteries, and it contained twelve bolls. The ♦lagon
was an old measure of wine, ale, and oil, which was well-known among
the religious houses of the period. Wool was sold by the sack of
twenty-six stones; and hides by the last = twelve dozen.
♦ “lagen” replaced with “lagon”
The internal trade and the external commerce of the kingdom had
developed considerably during this period. Fish was a staple article
of commerce from very early times, stretching back beyond the period
of the national records. The herring fishing was extensively engaged in
during the twelfth century and succeeding centuries. There were customs
payable on the export of herrings, keeling, ling, haddocks, whitings,
cod, and oysters. In the reign of William the Lion, the Abbot of
Holyrood sent his own men to fish for him off the Isle of May. The
charters and the laws of the period clearly show that the fishing
formed an important part of the economy and trade of the kingdom.¹ The
rich religious houses entered freely into commerce, and the Abbot of
Scone had a ship of his own; and Alexander I. granted to this monastery
the custom of all the ships which landed their cargoes there. Scone had
some foreign trade from an early period; but it was soon outstripped
by Dundee and Perth, as the latter burgh obtained the exclusive right
of trading over the whole of Perthshire. Stirling, St. Andrews, and
Aberdeen, had commercial relations with the Continent; but Berwick
appears to have been the great mart of traffic in Scotland throughout
this period.
¹ _Ibid._
The exports mostly consisted of the raw products of the country. The
furs entered for export duty, were fox, cat, marten, beaver, otter,
and hare; and wool skins, deer and hog skins, lamb and goat skins;
oxen, cows, and horse hides; salt, corn, meal, and malt, were among the
articles taxed for export. The imports consisted of iron, lead, pots,
pans, locks, knives, and other hardware articles; wax, pepper, alum,
ginger, almonds, figs, raisins, rice, and very large quantities of
wines. Attention had been directed to shipbuilding at a very early
period, and the herring fishing trade must have employed a large number
of small vessels. Ships were built at Inverness and other ports, and
Alexander III. had a number of ships built at Ayr. Shortly before the
outbreak of the long war, the merchants of Berwick were numerous, rich,
and enterprising. Letters of safe conduct were granted to many of them
by the king of England, to pass and re-pass through his dominions in
pursuit of their commercial business; a burgess of Perth also received
a passport to trade in England, and by its coasts. This friendly
state of relations was by the subsequent current of events suddenly
changed, and then we hear of the arrest of the ships which belonged
to the merchants of Berwick by the English Government, and the keen
remonstrances of the enterprising traders.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 6, 34,
_et seq._; _Book of Scone_; _Historical Documents of
Scotland_, Volume I., pages 216‒221, 423‒426.
In 1293, the Court of Flanders granted letters of protection to the
people of Scotland to trade in that country, upon the condition of
their rendering and paying the usual customs and duties. As documents
of a commercial and peaceful character were rare at this period, the
main points of these letters may be quoted:――“Be it known to all that
we, of our own good will and for our own pleasure, by the advice of the
good men and wise people, grant and promise to all those persons of the
realm of Scotland, who are alive at present, and who shall be hereafter,
that they may visit and come to tarry in, and return from, our country
of Flanders, frankly and freely, upon payment and rendering of the
rights, customs and taxes of our country of Flanders: and that we will
not arrest nor cause to be arrested, by ourselves or others, them or
any of them, nor their goods of any description, nor their households,
for debt, nor in consequence or through the actions of another person,
in which they shall not be indebted, nor security, nor answerable;
unless it so be that the present King of Scotland, or those who shall
be kings hereafter, or who have been previously, was or were bound or
under security to us, or our heirs, or our people therein; then we and
our heirs shall be able to arrest, or cause to be arrested, the people
of Scotland, their goods and households, and to detain them until
justice be done therein to us, our heirs, and our people.
“And in like manner, as is above said, we promise to observe this
well and faithfully for ourselves and our heirs, Counts of Flanders,
in regard to the most excellent Lord John, by the grace of God, King
of Scotland, and to all his countrymen, in such manner and on such
conditions as that the most high lord the King above named, shall
observe such similar arrangements to my people of Flanders, and to my
country. And this agreement shall continue from the Feast of St. Peter
at the beginning of August next for three years.”¹ There is some scant
indications that a few emigrants from Flanders occasionally settled in
the Scotch royal burghs; and there appears to have been a number of
them in Berwick.
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 399‒401.
The chief home manufacture in the textile department was a rough
woollen cloth made of native wool, which afforded apparel for the
people. Other branches of manufactures were not as yet in an advanced
stage, though handcraft arts had made some progress. There were
goldsmiths, armourers, smiths, tanners, shoemakers, weavers, fullers,
dyers, tailors, carpenters, and other craftsmen in every royal burgh.
The monasteries had craftsmen of their own connected with their great
organisations; and a charter of Alexander I. authorised the Abbot of
Scone to have one tanner, a smith, and a shoemaker. In relation to
these matters, and, as illustrative of the armour and dress of the
period, something may be learned from the Seals then used in Scotland.
The seal of Alexander I. represents the king on horseback, wearing
a hauberk of flat rings fitted close to the body with a skirt, below
which the quilted tunic appears. The hood was attached to the hauberk,
and thrown back from the face; the sleeves were wide and left the hands
uncovered; and the legs and feet were protected by ring mail, and from
the heel the simple prick-spur projected. The breast-leather which
secured the saddle was more ornamented than that on the seal of King
Duncan. On the counter seal the king was sitting on a chair of state,
and vested in royal robes. A richly embroidered cloak was thrown over
his shoulders and fastened on the breast; both arms were extended, his
right hand holding a sword, and the left a globe surmounted by a cross:
he does not appear to have a crown upon his head. Only fragments of the
seal of David I. remain, but the design seems to be similar to that of
Alexander’s, and the seal of Malcolm IV. was also of the same design.
The seal of William the Lion remains intact, but its design and
execution shows no advance in art. He was represented on horseback
at gallop, with a lance and pennon of three points in his right hand,
and in his left a shield. The shield was heater-shaped and plain;
the sheath of the sword appears hanging from the left side of the
saddle, but the breast-leather and saddle have no ornament. The seal
of Alexander II. showed a marked advance in art. He was represented on
horseback with a drawn sword in his right hand, and a shield suspended
in front of the body, on which was boldly depicted the lion rampant;
and he was armed in mail armour, with surcoat, a helmet square at the
top, and with the aventaile for protecting the face. The breast-leather
of the horse was decorated with tassels, and on the back part of the
saddle the lion rampant was emblazoned. Some of the seals of Alexander
III. were richly designed, and executed with spirit and taste in all
their details. On one of them the King was represented on horseback at
full speed, completely armed in chain mail which encircled the limbs
and feet, and over it a surcoat; on his head a square-topped helmet
with horizontal opening; in his right hand a sword, and in front a
shield suspended by the guige, and ornamented with the arms of Scotland,
which were repeated on the long flowing caparison of the horse. The
girths which secure the saddle first appeared on this seal, and the
horse’s head was decorated with a plume of feathers. The background was
enlivened with trefoils. On the counter seal Alexander was represented
after a design resembling those of the preceding kings, but much
improved in style and enriched with ornament.¹
¹ H. Laing’s _Ancient Scottish Seals_, pages 2‒4.
The seals of the nobles were circular in form; and those of
ecclesiastics were usually oval shaped. The most common design of the
former class was a man on horseback, associated with the figures of
animals and other objects. The lion rampant, one, two, or three were
frequently depicted on their seals. The boar’s head, and the stag’s
head, the boar’s head coupled, the fox, and the dog, often appeared;
the hunter on horseback with spear, horn, and dog, and the falconer
also on horseback, with his arm extended and holding a falcon by the
jess, were represented. The eagle seems to have been the favourite bird,
and he was displayed in various attitudes, sometimes his breast was
charged with barbs, under his head an ornament, and at the back of his
head a cross; or he was represented as alighting. The cock crowing,
the raven, and other birds occur; and serpents, lizards, and fish,
were figured on these ancient seals. In 1292, on the seal of the Earl
of Caithness, there were two figures sitting in a galley without sails,
the mast terminated in a cross, and the prow and the stern in the
heads of dragons, and the whole within a double tressure, flowered
and counter-flowered; there was a hare above the shield, and on each
side of it a lizard. At the same period Alexander of Argyle had a
representation of a galley on his seal, somewhat resembling the above.
On a seal bearing the date of 1176, there was a full-length figure of
a female dressed in long and flowing drapery, with both arms extended,
and a falcon resting on her left hand. On an oval shaped seal of 1181
there was a figure of a monkey, clothed and kneeling on one knee upon
the back of an animal resembling a lion, and there seemed to be the
head of an animal in front of the lion; the background of the seal
consisted of a series of crosses.
On the seals of the bishops and the monasteries the figures and objects
were usually of a religious character. On those of the higher churchmen
the most common figure was a bishop in pontifical vestments. In 1203,
on a seal of the bishop of Glasgow there was the figure of a young man
seated before a lectern, on which there was a book; in his left hand he
held a rod of office, while his right hand was a little raised and the
forefinger extended, as if he were discoursing from the volume before
him.¹
¹ Laing’s _Ancient Scottish Seals_, pages 28, 29, _et seq._
Many of the symbols and figures on the seals of the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries were similar to those which appear on the
sculptured stones of Scotland. Thus a relation between the symbols
and the art of the stone crosses and those exhibited on the seals may
be considered as established; and this relation shows the continuity
of the art.¹
¹ _Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, II., page 31, and Appendix
to Preface pages 14‒18.
In the early part of this period the Church of Scotland was brought
into accord with the prevailing form of Christendom. David I. refounded
or organised most of the bishoprics and the monasteries, and endowed
them very liberally. He was the first king in Scotland who enforced the
payment of tithes. David and his successors introduced various orders
of regular monks to supersede the Culdees; and in a comparatively short
time most of the reorganised monasteries became very rich. The division
of parishes and the parochial system began to assume form; but the
monastic ideal and spirit was still strong, and cramped the development
of the parochial organisation from its birth.¹ Many churches were
conferred upon the great monasteries as property, and in this way it
became the right and the function of the abbots of the monasteries
to appoint many of the vicars of the parish churches; the result was
that parochial duties and work were much neglected, and rarely became
effectual in any quarter of the kingdom as a means of religious and
moral instruction.
¹ “The term parish, meaning any district, was at first
appropriated to the diocese of a bishop. In 1179 it is used
as synonymous with diocese, and applied to the bishopric
of Glasgow. In some instances it would seem to mean the
jurisdiction rather than the district. The word shire, so
common in our old records, is often equivalent to parish,
but sometimes applied to other divisions of church territory,
which cannot now be defined.” _Origines Parochiales Scotiæ_,
Volume I., Preface, page 20.
The diocesan form of church polity, which scarcely existed at the close
of the eleventh century, was almost completed before the end of David’s
reign. He restored nunneries, and founded one at Berwick-on-Tweed; this
nunnery was richly endowed, and had several small dependencies. It has
been stated that “the principle of celibacy was effectively established
among the Scotch clergy by David, along with his other reforms;”¹
but this seems doubtful. For there is ample evidence that celibacy
never was effectually established among the clergy in Scotland, as
their own records testify. Thus, “one great evil, it will be seen,
the incontinence of the priesthood, stands confessed, deplored, and
condemned through all the three centuries of Scottish ecclesiastical
legislation. Here, as elsewhere throughout Christendom, every code of
provincial, every code of synodical canons, calls, but calls in vain,
upon the clergy to ♦separate themselves from their concubines as they
were styled――their wives, rather, as we may charitably hope that in
most cases they should have been, but for the law which forbade the
churchman to marry.”² Listen to another great writer, well entitled
to speak on the subject.――“The historian must not shrink from the
truth, however repulsive. Celibacy, which was the vital energy of the
clergy, was at the same time their fatal irremediable weakness. The
universal voice, which arraigns the state of morals, as regards sexual
intercourse among the clergy, is not that of their enemies only――it is
their own. Century after century we have heard throughout our history
the eternal protest of the severer churchmen, of popes, of legates, and
of councils.”³
¹ Innes, _Sketches of Early Scotch History_, page 187.
♦ “seperate” replaced with “separate”
² _Statuta Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ_, Volume I., Preface, page 205;
_Register of Kelso_, Volume I., pages 77, 131, 132, 136,
_et seq._
³ Dean Milman’s _History of Latin Christianity_, Volume VI.,
Book XIV., Chapter I. 1855.
Thus, though the clergy were a support to the Crown, their functions
and duties as the teachers of morality and the national instructors
of the people, were only very imperfectly performed. Still, any
learning and education which existed in the kingdom was in their hands,
for the chancellor of each diocese was entrusted with the general
supervision of all the schools within the bounds of the bishopric.
The rector or master of schools appears in record in the twelfth
century in connection with the schools of Abernethy; and in that and
the succeeding century many notices of the schools and schoolmasters
of St. Andrews, Roxburgh, Berwick, Ayr, Perth, Stirling, Aberdeen, and
of other places, occur in several records. Touching the character of
the education imparted in these schools no details have been preserved;
but probably the greater part of it consisted of the studies associated
with the qualifications then necessary for admission to the offices and
functions of the Church. There were also schools for teaching singing
in the cathedral cities in the thirteenth century. It was enacted in
the constitution of the Cathedral of Aberdeen, in 1279, that the master
of the schools should see to the attendance of four singing boys at
matins and high mass, and at all the great festivals: two to carry
tapers and two to bear incense. Indeed, the services of the Church were
accompanied with all the harmonic sound and ceremonial display which
the resources of the kingdom could command.¹
¹ _Register of the Priory of St. Andrews_; _Register of
Dunfermline_; _Register of Paisley_; _Old Spalding Club
Miscellany_, Volume V.
Anything in the form of literature composed in Scotland during this
period was usually written in Latin; Norman-French was not used either
for literary purposes or official acts and State documents. Although,
when Edward I. entered on his scheme of conquest, many writs and papers
emanated from him in Norman-French relating to the affairs of Scotland.
In the Introduction reference was made to the writings in Latin,
fragments of chronicles, and Gaelic memoranda and rhymes; and the
following paragraphs present all the information of the writings of
the period under review, which I could obtain. Robert, Bishop of St.
Andrews, who died about the year 1159, was reported to have written
_Statuta Ecclesiastica_, but it is not known to be extant. Gualterus,
a prior of Kelso, who lived in the twelfth century, composed a tract
entitled _Pro Ecclesiæ Scoticæ Immunitate Contra Rogerum Eboracensem_;
and one under the title of _Appellatio ad Curiam Romanam_; and also
letters _Epistolæ Diversos_. I have seen none of these writings, and
am not aware that any of them have been preserved. Adam, an abbot of
Melrose, afterwards elected Bishop of Caithness in 1213, and slain by
the inhabitants in 1222, wrote a _History of Scotland_, in three books;
also _Epistolæ ad regem contra comitem de Caithness_; _Epistolæ ad
Alexandrum Papam_, in one book; _Insularum Descriptiones_, in one book;
and _Excerpta Bibliæ_: but none of these works are known to be extant.
William Kilconcath was rector of the Friar preachers of Perth, and
afterwards became Bishop of Brechin; he died at Rome in the year 1274.
He wrote a tract, entitled _Contra Ottobonum Papam_, and another on _De
Scoticæ Ecclesiæ Dignitate_. Robert Kildelith was a monk of Newbottle,
then Abbot of Dunfermline, afterwards Abbot of Melrose, and at last he
attained the position of High Chancellor of Scotland. He produced _De
Successione Abbatum de Melrose_. William Fraser was for seven years
Chancellor of Scotland, and was elected Bishop of St. Andrews in 1279.
After the death of Alexander III. he was elected one of the regents of
the kingdom, and for a time he played an active and rather questionable
part in the affairs of Scotland. Fraser wrote _De Jure Successionis
Regni Scotiæ_; and a work entitled _Concordantia in Evangelia_. He died
in France in 1297.
Another class of writings of the period have more of the historic
character, such as the _Chronicle of Melrose_, which begins with the
year 735 and comes down to 1270. The early part of this chronicle seems
to have been written about the end of the eleventh century, and it was
afterwards continued by several scribes till it assumed its present
form, probably about the close of the thirteenth century; and for
the later part of the twelfth and the greater part of the thirteenth
centuries it is of considerable historic value. The _Chronicle of St.
Crucis_ is in its early part chiefly drawn from _Bede’s History_; it
then leaps to the year 1065, and follows _Simon of Durham_, with some
slight variations and additions to 1129; from that year it is mainly
filled with notices relating to Scotland, ending abruptly in the year
1153. Throughout the manuscript the handwriting is nearly similar. A
few other short and slight chronicles of the period are still extant,
but they contain little more than the names and succession of the kings,
besides a few fragments of lost chronicles, the whole of which have
been carefully edited and published by the authority of the Record
Commissioners.
A few of the Chartularies of the monasteries, and parts of the
Registers of the dioceses of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and others, were
written in the thirteenth century; and, although these cannot be called
literature, yet such records contain invaluable historical materials.
Long lists exist of the Records of Scotland which were removed
from Edinburgh by Edward I. pending the settlement of the disputed
succession, and which were restored to John Baliol, King of Scotland,
in December 1292; but of their subsequent fate nothing is known. All
that now remains is the titles and headings of the numerous rolls given
in the Indenture, which testifies that the whole of them were returned
to King John. From the lists in this document we obtain an idea of
the great historical loss which the nation has sustained from the
disappearance of the records. These were of the most varied character,
and many hundreds of rolls contained the very matter which would have
enabled us to explain clearly the difficult problem connected with the
lands of the kingdom in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.¹
¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Number 74. The
document containing the lists of these lost Records was also
printed in the first Volume of the _Acts of Parliament of
Scotland_.
In preceding pages the defensive structures which the people erected
for their self-preservation and security in the earlier periods, such
as the hill-forts, crannogs, and brochs, were described. During the
period under consideration a new form of defensive work was gradually
introduced, usually called the Norman type of castle. The earliest
remains of castles of this style in Scotland belong to the thirteenth
century, and the best examples of them were the castles of Hermitage,
Lochindorb, Bothwell, Kildrummy, Caerlaverock, and Dirleton. These
appear to have been built in the later half of the thirteenth century.
Massive walls of enormous strength were the chief features of these
structures; but they presented little distinctive art characteristics,
as strength and defence was the original idea and end contemplated by
their owners.
At the time of Haco’s invasion the royal castles on the coasts were
inspected, and their stores and defensive appliances increased. On the
eve of the outbreak of the War of Independence, the castles held by
the Crown numbered about thirty. In the southern quarter of the kingdom
there were the castles of Berwick, Roxburgh, Jedburgh, and Edinburgh;
inward and westward the castles of Kirkcudbright, Wigtown, Dumfries,
Dumbarton, Ayr, Tarbet, and the important fortress of Stirling;
northwards the castles of Dundee, Forfar, Kincardine, Aboyne, Cluny,
Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin, Nairn, Forres, Dingwall, Cromarty, and
Inverness; in the island of Bute the royal castle of Rothesay, which
was erected early in the thirteenth century, and several others. There
were also a number of castles in commanding positions in the hands
of the nobles; and besides these there were a considerable number of
partially fortified dwelling-houses.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.; _Historical
Documents of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 241, 263, _et seq._
The greater part of the houses in the burghs and the villages were
built of wood, or other materials which could easily be procured. Being
built of such combustible materials, they were very liable to catch
fire, and, as might be expected, great fires frequently occurred; in
the year 1244 several of the burghs were almost entirely consumed by
the flames.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I.; _Ancient
Laws of the Burghs of Scotland_, pages 14, 24, 40.
Reference was made in the Introduction to the early types of churches.
These primitive structures were succeeded by the regular church
architecture of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The chief
characteristic of the churches of the twelfth century was massive
masonry, short round pillars, semi-circular arches in windows and doors,
which sometimes inclined to the horse-shoe form; at first the style was
simple and comparatively plain, but it became excessively ornamented.
A number of specimens and fragments of this style remain, such as the
nave of the Abbey of Dunfermline, which was dedicated in 1150; the
Cathedral of Kirkwall founded in 1138, which was many years in process
of building, and the structure of which exhibits the characteristics of
the earlier and later styles. A part of the abbey church of Jedburgh,
and the church of Leuchars, in Fifeshire, belong to the early style;
the monastery of Kelso, some portions of a few rural churches in
the district of the Merse, and parts of the monasteries of Holyrood,
Arbroath, and the small chapel of St. Margaret in the Castle of
Edinburgh.¹
¹ Muir’s _Characteristics_; Walcott’s _Ancient Church of
Scotland_, 1874.
In the thirteenth century the prevailing style of church architecture
in Scotland was that which has usually been termed the early English
or the first pointed period. This was the great church building era
in Scotland; it was then that the fine old churches were erected, the
very ruins of which attest the skill and the excellent workmanship of
their builders. To this period the cathedrals of St. Andrews, Glasgow,
Brechin, Dunblane, Whithorn, Dornoch, and a portion of the cathedral
of Elgin, belong; the abbey churches of Paisley, Arbroath, Coldingham,
Kilwinning, Restennot, Dundrennan, Ferne, Cambuskenneth, Inchmahome,
Sweetheart, and Pluscardine, were either erected or begun to be built
in the thirteenth century, for it must be observed that these fine
structures were not rapidly built, as some of them were fifty years,
and even much longer, in building from the date of their foundation
till their completion.
The distinctive characteristics of the style of these churches were
the pointed arch, tall pillars clustered round a circular pier, often
divided by one or more bands, and with capitals, sometimes plain
or usually worked in profuse variety; long and narrow lancet-headed
windows, bold buttresses――in some examples unbroken, and in others
divided into stages; the roofs were high pitched, and, when of stone,
groined, and the crossings richly ornamented with bosses, but wooden
roofs were common; in the later specimens of the style high steeples
appeared. But a clear and just conception of the architectural features,
the symmetry, and the beauty, of these buildings can only be obtained
by actual observation of the structures themselves. For instance, the
Cathedral of Glasgow externally is not a very striking building, but if
a person enters and looks through its interior he will see one of the
finest sights even yet to be seen in that great city. The massive ruins
of the monastic buildings in Arbroath, and in other places mentioned
above, the parts of the walls of the Cathedral of Elgin, still
standing; and the Abbey Church of Paisley, with its sounding aisle,
amply attest the architectural skill and taste, and the excellence of
the workmanship of the period; and withal, they remain as the visible
emblems of the veneration and devotion of many generations of our
ancestors, and recall the memory of the departed worth and greatness of
the mighty dead.
As yet the internal means of communication were extremely defective. In
most parts of the country the roads were little better than mere tracks
for cattle, and pack-horses and packmen were employed to carry goods
through the kingdom. The bridges were mostly all built of wood. There
was a bridge over the Forth at Stirling, frequently mentioned in the
laws of the period; one over the Tay at Perth, one over the South Esk
at Brechin, and another over the North Esk. There were three bridges
over the Dee, one near Aberdeen and two farther up the river, and one
over the rapid Spey in 1224.
A considerable part of the land was under tillage, but the system of
agriculture was primitive and rude. Large herds of cattle, sheep, goats,
and swine, were reared, and some attention seems to have been given
to the breeding of horses. Dairy produce became a staple article of
domestic economy, and upon the Crown lands large quantities of cheese
were annually produced. David I. granted to the monks of Kelso the
tenth of the cheese which the Crown drew from Tweeddale, and to the
monks of Scone he gave the tenth of the can of his cheese from the
Crown lands of Gowrie, Scone, Cupar, and Forgrund, and similar grants
were made to other religious houses. It appears from the records of
the monasteries that poultry formed a branch of the farm economy of
the period. In the reign of Malcolm IV., on the feast of All-Saints
the monks of Scone received ten hens from each ploughland within their
territories, and the abbot of Kelso one hen from every house on the
lands of the monastery, for which he paid a halfpenny.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.; Registers of Scone,
Kelso, and the Priory of St. Andrews.
The principal grain crop was oats, though barley and wheat, pease
and beans, were also grown. Wheat was chiefly raised in the southern
counties and the lowlands of Morayshire. Large quantities of oats
were ground into meal. Mills were numerous, and driven both by water
and wind, although the hand mill was still used. The royal burgh
communities placed restrictions on hand-mill grinding, and they enacted
that no one should presume to grind wheat, mixed grain, or rye, with
hand-mills, unless compelled by a storm or a scarcity of mills; and
if any one dared to contravene this he was deprived of his hand-mills
for ever, “and shall grind his malt at mills paying the 24th measure.”
The mill was one of the oldest rights of a barony, and it was amplified
by the addition of the multure dues and the sucken. Subsequently the
people were thirled to the mill, which meant that all the inhabitants
of the barony must send their corn to be ground at the barony mills.
The people of the barony often fought with each other as to their round
and order of service. One part of the service connected with the sucken
was the bringing home of the mill-stones. “Considering that there were
few or no roads, the simplest arrangement was to thrust a beam through
the hole, and then for the whole multitude to wheel it along upon its
edge――an operation of some difficulty and danger in a rough district.”
The barons’ mills, with their multure and dues, became one of the most
grievous forms of feudal oppression.¹
¹ _Ancient Laws of the Burghs of Scotland_, pages 74, 85;
Innes’ _Legal Antiquities_, pages 47, 48.
A large quantity of grain was malted to make ale. The brew-houses
were numerous, and have continued to be so. Every barony and every
monastery had their brew-houses attached to them, and malt-ale held a
primary place in the domestic economy of the community. The burghs were
extremely jealous of the rights of brewing, and sometimes attempted to
restrict the number of brew-houses. They enacted “that no one without
the burghs shall have a brew-house unless he have a pit and gallows,
and then one brew-house only.”
In the reign of Alexander III. the crown lands were extensive and
valuable, especially in the north-eastern district of the kingdom. Of
these lands a portion was forest, another portion was domain directly
in the king’s hands, and cultivated by his bondmen, who seem to have
been yearly tenants. These bondmen, according to my interpretation,
were the descendants of the real owners of these lands, who were
dispossessed in the reigns of David I. and his two grandsons by the
feudal processes and expedients indicated in preceding pages. The free
tenants held the land on lease for a stipulated number of years or as
life renters at a fixed annual rent. A large portion of the Crown lands
was held under thanage; the thane of the thirteenth century in Scotland
was a Crown vassal, and held his land under a tenure called feu-farm.¹
At a later period thanages were converted into feudal holdings for
knight or military service. The bondmen were the actual tillers of
the soil, and the class above them――the free farmers on the Crown
lands――probably lived in easy and comfortable circumstances.
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 8, 10, 11,
_et seq._
The organisation in feudal earldoms and baronies has been already
explained. So far as ascertained, it appears that there was no class of
free tenants or farmers holding land by a lease for a term of years at
a fixed annual rent on the territories of the real feudal barons. Under
them as on the Crown lands, the actual cultivators of the soil were
bondmen or serfs――the descendants of the real owners and occupiers of
the land, who were dispossessed by the feudal processes and expedients
resorted to in the reigns of David I. and his two grandsons. Some of
the class of bondmen may have held land from year to year under the
feudal barons, but then they were merely tenants at the will of their
masters. There seems to have been at least two grades of bondmen:
one being attached to the land and transferred along with it when the
ownership of the land was changed: the other grade were actual slaves,
inasmuch as they could be bought and sold individually apart from
the land, like any other article of merchandise; and instances of
such sales of slaves frequently appear in the records. If they escaped
and ran away, then there were minute legal processes for retaking and
reclaiming them in any quarter of the kingdom, and replacing them in
the hands of their owners.¹
¹ _National Manuscripts_, Part I., Numbers 30, 37, 54, 58, 59;
_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I. _Charters
of Holyrood Abbey_; _Register of Dunfermline_. I entirely
dissent from Dr. Skene’s unwarranted inference to the effect
that these feudal bondmen and serfs were merely similar in
position and characteristics to the servile class in Celtic
times in Scotland. One would wish to see some evidence
adduced that such bondmen and serfs existed in Scotland
before the twelfth century. These serfs and bondmen were
created by the processes of feudalism in connection with the
land and in no other way; thus the land of Scotland belonged
to the Celtic people at the close of the eleventh century,
but ere the end of the succeeding century the Celtic people
were dispossessed of the greater and best part of the land,
which was given to Norman nobles, to the Church, and retained
in the hands of the kings. What else could have resulted
but the reduction of the original owners to serfdom? _Celtic
Scotland_, Volume III., pages 220‒223.
The fullest account of the agriculture of the period occurs in
connection with the church lands, where perhaps the most favourable
side of the rural people appear. According to a rent roll of the lands
belonging to the monastery of Kelso, about the year 1290, the monks
had extensive territories which were mostly held in their own hands
and cultivated from their granges. Their arable land was measured
in ploughgates, husbandlands, and oxgates; and pasture was measured
by the number of sheep which it sustained. An oxgate was thirteen
acres; and the husbandman who kept two oxen for the common plough, had
thus twenty-six acres, which was called a husbandland; four of these
neighbours joined in working their common plough, and their whole land
made a ploughgate, which meant the extent of land tilled by eight oxen,
or one hundred and four acres. A davoch of land in the eastern counties
was four hundred and sixteen acres, or four ploughgates. On the western
coast of the Highlands and in the islands, the lands were designated
as mark lands, half-mark lands, and penny lands; a mark land contained
thirty acres and two-thirds of an acre, and so in descending ratio to
half-mark, and penny lands.
At the grange or farmstead of the abbey, the chief home on each estate,
the cattle, the implements, the stores, and all the requisites for
the cultivation of the land were housed, the bondmen and the serfs who
tilled it, and their families. The serfs were the lowest class of the
community of the grange, and they were transferable like the land which
they laboured, and could be caught when they attempted to escape like
runaway sheep or oxen. The cottars were the next class above the serfs;
and each cottar had from one to nine acres of land along with his house,
for which he paid a small sum in money, and services in seedtime and
in harvest; some of the cottars had no land, but this seems to have
been an exception to the general system. Beyond the cottar’s huts stood
the establishments of the husbandmen, each of whom lived in his own
separate farmstead. The husbandmen held a definite portion of land for
which they paid a fixed rent, and specified services, which consisted
of work in harvest and sheep-shearing times, and carrying the wool
and the peats of the monastery. Another and higher class of tenant
held his lands by charter, and could not be ejected; his holding was
usually small, for fifty-two acres of land he paid eight shillings
of annual rent, and specified services in ploughing and in harvest
work. As already mentioned, the next and highest class of church feudal
vassals were almost equal in rank and wealth to the lesser barons and
freeholders of the Crown.¹
¹ _Register of Kelso_, pages 460‒463; Innes’ _Legal
Antiquities_, page 243. In Northumberland the farming of the
monastery was similar to that of Tweeddale. The monks of
Hexham had numerous and large estates mostly in Tindale-ward.
Among the benefactors of this monastery we find King David
of Scotland, his son, prince Henry, and his grandson William
the Lion, granting lands to it in Northumberland. At Hexham
as at Kelso, the monks farmed a portion of their lands
themselves; under them there were the husbandmen, who held
a varying extent of land; the cottars who held a portion
of land, usually under five acres, some had only one, others
two or three. The annual rent of these lands belonging
to the priory in Northumberland, ran from a sixpence to
a shilling per acre. The annual rent of a cottage was
from eighteenpence to two shillings; but in addition to
this there were services which the tenants had to perform,
such as a few days’ work at the mill or at hedging, in no
case, however, were the services burdensome. _Black Book of
Hexham_, Preface, pages 15‒20, 86.
In the thirteenth century the monks of Kelso had very large flocks
of sheep, more than 6,600, and considerable numbers of oxen, cows,
and swine. The monks of Melrose also had pretty large herds of cattle,
sheep, and swine, and it may be reasonably inferred that the other
great monasteries were equally rich and powerful in relation to the
desirable things of this world.¹
¹ _Register of Kelso._
In concluding this chapter let us recapitulate. The government, the
introduction of charters, the powers and privileges granted to the
Norman nobles in connection with the land and the people, and the
organisation of feudalism, have been explained. The customary law
of the country appeared to be passing into crude written forms. The
prevailing forms of trial, the modes of punishment, and the privileges
associated with sanctuaries, have been treated; and it was pointed out
that the conception of justice was not as yet distinctly discriminated
from the feeling of revenge. The incorporation of the burghs, their
internal organisation and characteristics, have been explained, and
burghs of regality and church burghs were noticed. The coinage and
the commerce of the kingdom, the progress of industry and of art have
been indicated. The re-organisation of the Church, the introduction
of regular orders of monks into the monasteries, the literature and
schools of the period, and the castles and church architecture have
been briefly treated. Finally, the state of agriculture, and the social
condition of the occupiers and tillers of the soil came under review,
different ranks of holders and occupiers of land were indicated, and
it appeared that in the processes associated with the introduction
of feudalism a great number of the people had been reduced to an abject
state of bondage and serfdom. Although material wealth, commerce,
and internal organisation, had progressed considerably during this
period, still the condition of society was unsatisfactory; the people
were vigorous, and if external oppression had not been so severe,
civilisation would have advanced at a more rapid pace.
CHAPTER V.
_Disputed Succession. War of Independence._
ON the death of the Maid of Norway the nation found itself without an
heir to the throne in the direct line of succession, and the signs of
a contest soon appeared. As soon as the tidings of the Queen’s death
became known, the Earls of Mar and Athole began to muster their army,
while Robert Bruce had surrounded himself with a body of his followers
and was moving through the kingdom and intently looking for more
supporters. At this crisis of the nation’s destiny William Fraser,
Bishop of St. Andrews, thought fit to counsel Edward I., and distinctly
suggested that he should interfere in the affairs of Scotland, and
at once advance towards the Border. Fraser may have wished to prevent
the shedding of blood in Scotland, as he said, but it is obvious that
the bishop had utterly misunderstood the character of the man whom
he assumed to advise.¹ Indeed, Edward I. needed no invitation; he had
already resolved to decide the fate of Scotland, formed his scheme,
chosen his own path, and directed his energy to its accomplishment
with great deliberation, while the current of events seemed exceedingly
favourable to him.
¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Number 70.
Edward I. issued writs commanding his barons to attend him with horse
and arms at Norham on the 3rd of June, 1291; thus he prepared for
any emergency which might arise; while he invited the Scotch nobles
and clergy to a conference at Norham on the 10th of May, to which
they agreed. As yet Edward was proceeding with well studied policy,
smoothing his way, and the documents then sent into Scotland were
couched in the most courteous terms. The conference assembled at the
appointed time, and the business was opened by an address from the
Chief Justice of England. His Lordship strongly asserted that Edward I.
was the overlord of the kingdom of Scotland, and therefore he earnestly
appealed to the Scots to acknowledge this, that the settlement of the
great matter before them might be facilitated. The Scots replied that
they were not aware if such a right of feudal superiority belonged to
him, and requested time to consult with the absent nobles, the clergy,
and the community of the kingdom, before giving an answer. Three weeks
were allowed to them, and then all were to reassemble at Norham. A
clear answer was to be given on the question of the superiority of
Edward I., and all those demurring to it or in any way opposing it,
were requested to produce the documents or other evidence on which they
founded their objections. The adjournment was favourable to Edward,
as it tended to bring into prominence the real difficulties associated
with the case.
At the appointed time the meeting assembled on a green plain opposite
the Castle of Norham, and eight claimants for the crown of Scotland
appeared, namely, John Baliol, Lord of Galloway; Robert Bruce, Lord of
Annandale; Lord John Hastings; John Comyn, Lord of Badenoch; Patrick
of Dunbar; Earl of March; Florence Count of Holland; John Vesy for his
father, Nicholas Soulis; and William Ross, and they were accompanied
by many of the nobles and clergy. None of these claimants were very
near in relationship to the royal line of the Scottish kings; the three
first names in the list stood nearest and their claims were almost
equal. Thus David, Earl of Huntingdon, was a grandson of David I.,
and a younger brother of Malcolm IV. and William the Lion. This Earl
David, as stated in a preceding note,¹ had three daughters, Margaret,
Isabella, and Ada, and John Baliol claimed as a grandson of Margaret,
the eldest daughter; Robert Bruce claimed as a son of Isabella, the
second daughter; and John Hastings claimed as a grandson of Ada, the
youngest daughter. So it was seen, at an early stage of the proceedings,
that the real contest for the crown would lie between these three
claimants. An interesting and peculiar characteristic of the whole
of these claims for the crown was that they had all originated from
marriages with females, who were related to the royal family of
Scotland, and it must be admitted that in the art of contracting
marriages the Norman nobles were really great men.
¹ Under page 204.
The Bishop of Bath began the business of the meeting by reading the
King’s speech, which, after referring to the unhappy state of Scotland,
proceeded in a fine flowing style to characterise the benignity of
the illustrious prince who had come to her rescue. He then said that
his royal master had allowed three weeks to the nobles and clergy of
Scotland to bring forward whatever they could to impugn King Edward’s
right of superiority over that kingdom, and they had adduced nothing
to invalidate it. But, in connection with this emphatic statement, one
important fact has recently been brought to light, for a contemporary
record proves that the community of Scotland lodged an answer in
writing against Edward’s claim and demand of feudal superiority;
although it was not deemed relevant by Edward, as it was more
convenient for him and the claimants of the Crown to ignore the people.
The claimants, in their feverish heat to reach the throne, seem to
have utterly forgotten that there was a community in the kingdom. When
all disturbing questions were brushed aside, Edward announced that
his title of Lord Superior was indisputed, and therefore he intended
to act in that character. Robert Bruce was then asked whether he was
willing to prosecute his claim to the Crown of Scotland in the Court of
the Lord Superior; and Bruce, in the presence of the meeting, expressly
recognised Edward as Lord Superior, and agreed to abide by his decision.
The same question was put to each of the claimants, and they all
consented without reserve to the demand of Edward, and immediately
sealed their consent by letters patent.¹
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 227,
228; Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, pages 240‒245, 250.
None of the Scotch nobles or clergy entered any protest, and they
appear to have acquiesced in the proceedings and the result of this
meeting. The claimants then proceeded a step further in the pursuit
of their object, and in order that justice might be done to their
claims, they at once made Edward Lord Superior of Scotland in reality.
Thus:――“Inasmuch as the aforesaid King of England, cannot such manner
of cognisance make and accomplish with judgment, and that judgment
ought not to pass without execution, and that execution he cannot do in
due manner without possession and seisin of the same lands and castles;
we will, concede, and grant that he, as Sovereign Lord to perform the
things aforesaid, have seisin of all the lands and castles of Scotland
till right be done and performed to the claimants.”¹ It appears that
the claimants of the Crown, and the nobles and clergy present at the
meeting, actually transferred, or rather sold, the kingdom to Edward I.
¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Number 71.
The new Lord Superior did not let his powers lie dormant. He
immediately commanded that all the castles in the kingdom should be
surrendered into his hands; he reconstituted the government of the
country, and appointed an Englishman to advise it; and the old seal of
Scotland was broken into four pieces, and a new one made, more suited
to the changed circumstances. A herald then proclaimed the peace of
King Edward, as Lord Paramount of the Realm.
He next commanded the guardians of Scotland to exact from the Scots
the oath of allegiance to him as Lord Superior of the kingdom. Stations
were fixed where attendance should be given, and the swearing-in
process began on the 23rd of July, 1291, and was continued for fifteen
days. Edward himself visited many of the stations, proceeding by
Edinburgh, Linlithgow, Stirling, Perth, ♦Dunfermline, Kinghorn, and
St. Andrews, and called upon all ranks to sign the rolls of homages
as the vassals of their illustrious Lord Superior. All those who were
refractory, were coerced by imprisonment and other punishments;¹ and
Edward was silently rejoicing over the great victory which he had so
easily gained.
♦ “Dumfermline” replaced with “Dunfermline”
¹ Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, pages 250, 252; Hailes’ _Annals_,
Volume I., pages 226‒229.
In 1291 eleven meetings were held, the first one in May and the last
in August; and the places of meeting and all the proceedings were
stated in the records with the greatest minuteness, so that everything
connected with the cause, and especially the supreme position and the
functions of the Lord Superior, should be placed beyond question. At
the meeting held on the 3rd of August, Edward intimated that Bruce and
Baliol should each select forty men as commissioners, while he should
choose twenty-four or more if he thought fit; and these commissioners
were directed to meet in a body and consider the claims of the
candidates for the Crown, and report to the king. At this meeting
twelve candidates for the Crown appeared and entered their claims; and
Edward requested the commissioners to consider them all attentively,
and render their report to the next meeting, to be held on the 2nd of
June, 1292.¹
¹ Palgrave’s _Documents_.
This long adjournment was a fine politic move. As its apparent object
was to give the commissioners ample time to consider the claims of the
candidates in relation to the cause, while it answered the important
purpose of accustoming the Scotch nobles and clergy to look to Edward
as their great Lord Paramount. For similar reasons Edward welcomed all
grades of claimants, and consequently several of those who came forward
and claimed the Crown were illegitimate descendants of the kings of
Scotland. But seeing that every claimant had a body of feudal followers,
and as the first step of each claimant was to recognise Edward as his
Lord Superior, and render homage to him as such, every new claimant
thus strengthened Edward’s position.
When the commissioners re-assembled on the 2nd of June, 1292, a new
claim was entered by Eric, King of Norway, the father of the deceased
Maid of Norway; but his claim was not pressed, and judgment passed
against him by default. Indeed, it was then well known that the real
struggle was virtually between Bruce and Baliol, with a possible chance
for Hastings. The proceedings of this meeting assumed the form of an
admirable piece of acting planned by Edward I., and well performed by
the Scotch commissioners. The king first asked the Scotch commissioners
to inform the Court by what laws and customs judgment should be
given. They answered that, owing to difference of opinion among
themselves, and the importance of the cause, they were unable to come
to a conclusion without deliberation, and therefore they sought the
opinion of the English commissioners, but they also declined to commit
themselves till enlightened by an English parliament. Edward then
adjourned the meeting to the 15th of October, 1292, and declared that
meanwhile he would consult the learned all over the world.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 777; Hailes’ _Annals_, Volume I.,
page 235.
The assembly which met at Berwick on the 15th of October settled some
preliminary points, one of which was that the succession to the Crown
of Scotland ought to be decided in the same manner as the succession
to earldoms, baronies, and other indivisible inheritances. Bruce and
Baliol were then heard in turn at great length in support of their
claims. Bruce determinedly insisted that his right to the Crown had
been recognised in the reigns of Alexander II. and Alexander III., and
urged that his claim was supported by the custom of succession to the
Crown of Scotland. Baliol’s claim was well and adroitly argued, and a
touching reference made to the supremacy of the Lord Paramount’s court.
After the two claimants were heard, Edward requested his council and
the commissioners to answer this question:――“By the laws and customs
of both kingdoms, ought the issue of an elder sister, but more remote
by one degree, to exclude the issue of the younger sister, although
one degree nearer.” The council answered in the affirmative, which was
in favour of Baliol’s claim. Other meetings were held before the final
decision was given, and at one held on the 6th of November, Edward
announced that Bruce was out of the contest as a claimant against
Baliol. John Hastings immediately advanced his claim for one-third of
the kingdom, on the reasonable ground that it was divisible like any
other feudal fief. Bruce then presented a second claim for a third of
the kingdom of Scotland. Hastings and Bruce in turn pleaded against
Baliol that the kingdom ought to be divided into three parts, the same
as other feudal fiefs and baronies, and on this ground they argued
their claims to an equal division of the kingdom amongst them at
great length: and according to feudalism they were right. But the most
peculiar feature of the proceedings was the complete elimination of any
reference to the people of Scotland. It seems never to have occurred
to the grasping claimants that there lived amongst the valleys and
mountains of Scotland a strong-willed race, habituated to independence
and freedom, whose spirit must be broken ere even the decision of the
great Lord Superior could be of much avail.¹
¹ Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, pages 309‒356.
On the 17th of November 1292, in the castle of Berwick, and in the
presence of a large assemblage, Edward delivered judgment in favour of
Baliol. The vassal King then rendered homage to his Lord Superior, and
orders were issued to invest him in his feudal fief. These points and
formalities were performed and recorded with great care and minuteness,
that the process and the rights of the Superior of the fief might be
placed beyond question. Baliol then proceeded to Scone to be crowned,
with a warrant from his Lord Superior authorising the ceremony, which
was accordingly performed on the 30th of November. Shortly after he
passed into England, and there concluded the last act of the drama by
rendering homage to Edward I. as the invested vassal King of Scotland.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 357, 358; also _Ragman Rolls_.
When Baliol returned to his kingdom he found himself among a people
little disposed to submit to him or his Lord Paramount. If at any
moment he had fancied himself fortunate in attaining to the throne
of Scotland, he was speedily and rudely disabused. It does not appear
that he was gifted with much talent, while he was thwarted at every
turn as an unwelcome master. Indeed, it was rumoured that the poor man
was in terror of his life, as he was now far away from his great lord
and benefactor; yet he seems to have begun his reign with proceedings
intended to benefit the kingdom. He passed an Act in February 1293,
which divided the district of Argyle for administrative purposes,
and re-arranged the sheriffdoms thus:――The sheriffdom of Skye was to
include the western portion of Ross (then north Argyle), the lands
of Glenelg, the lands of Garmoran, and the isles of Eig and Rum. The
sheriffship of Lorne was to include the lands of Ardnamurchan and
Morven, the lands of the Lord of Lorne, and other lands; the sheriffdom
of Cantyre was to include the lands of Cantyre and the island of Bute.¹
But Baliol’s prospects of a successful reign were soon blasted.
¹ Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, page 371; _Acts of the Parliaments
of Scotland_, Volume I., page 91.
The Lord Superior shortly had an opportunity of exhibiting his power,
and he placed the vassal King in a most humiliating position. It had
become known that the king’s courts were no longer supreme, as there
was a higher authority which might reverse their decisions. A citizen
of Berwick appealed to the Court of Edward I. against a judgment of
the late administrators of Scotland; it was simply a dispute about
money, and Baliol remonstrated and maintained that the appeal should
not be entertained. But Edward returned a crushing reply to his vassal,
and, in effect, told Baliol that he had determined to exercise direct
dominion over the kingdom of Scotland whenever and wherever he thought
fit. Edward was prepared to try all appeals from Scotland, and it was
made a condition that Baliol should appear in person before the English
courts. Macduff appealed to Edward against a judgment of the Scotch
Parliament, touching lands of the Earl of Fife, and Baliol was summoned
to appear and answer the statements of Macduff. The appeal came before
the English Parliament on the 15th of October, 1293, and Baliol was
then asked what defence he had to offer; but he declined to answer.
“What means this,” said Edward I. “You are my vassal, you have done
homage to me, you are here in consequence of my summons.” Still Baliol
declined to make any answer to the appeal; so the Parliament declared
that he was a contumacious offender, who had not shown due respect to
this august assembly. Accordingly it was proposed to deprive him of the
means of wrong-doing by taking three of the chief castles of Scotland
into the hands of the Lord Superior, until his vassal, King John,
should render proper satisfaction.¹ The hapless king crouched and
returned to Scotland, where other stirring events soon followed.
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume I. pages 377, 389;
_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I. page 89.
In 1294 a quarrel arose between the King of France and Edward I.,
touching their feudal relations. Philip IV. of France was then
exerting all his energy to extend and consolidate his kingdom, and the
occurrence of an opportunity to insult his feudal vassal, the King of
England, was simply the first step towards the annexation of Edward’s
possessions on the opposite side of the Channel to the Crown of France.
Edward knew this very well, and summoned his army and prepared for
war to the knife.¹ He also summoned his own vassal, King John, and the
Scotch nobles, to assist him in the French war; but instead of obeying
and joining his army, they held a Parliament at Scone. They dismissed
all the Englishmen from the court, and appointed a committee of twelve
members, consisting of four bishops, four earls, and four barons, by
whose counsel the King was to conduct the government.
¹ Crowe’s _History of France_, Volume I., pages 306‒308.
The kingdom was rapidly drifting into a perilous position. Negotiations
were opened with France, and in October 1295, a treaty between France
and Scotland was concluded. A clause of the treaty provided for the
marriage of Baliol’s son to a niece of Philip IV., and the King of
France engaged to assist Scotland in the event of an English invasion
by sending a French force or by making a diversion; while the Scotch
King undertook to send an army across the border whenever England
was at war with France. This was the commencement of a line of policy
which had a considerable influence on Scotland for the three succeeding
centuries.
The Scotch nobles by their disobedience and overt acts had broken their
allegiance to their Lord Superior; and that clause of the new treaty
touching the invasion of England was quickly put into operation. They
mustered an army, which, under the command of Comyn, Earl of Buchan,
invaded Cumberland in March 1296, and wasted the country; and shortly
after they made another raid into Northumberland.¹ These raids in
the circumstances of the kingdom were extremely unwise, as the Scots
were thus placed in the position of aggressors. To wantonly provoke a
contest with England, which under any circumstances must have been an
unequal one, but specially so as the nation then stood, with a vassal
king and a divided and disorganised nobility, was most deplorable
policy. At the outset many of the feudal leaders of the people deserted,
and thus left the people in a helpless and hopeless position; while
Edward I. had not only a numerical superiority of fighting men, but
also acted with great energy and decision.
¹ _The Chronicles of the Priory of Hexham_ contains an account
of these Scotch raids, accompanied with the usual
lamentation about the cruelty of the Scots.
In the spring of 1296, Edward I. marched northward with a large and
well-equipped army; but he was anxious still further to increase
its ranks, and on the 11th of April he issued a writ inviting all
grades of men to join his army against Scotland. Criminals of every
♦description, homicides, murderers, and robbers, all were requested
to place themselves under his banner. He had determined to pounce upon
Berwick, then the richest town in Scotland. The citizens naturally
resisted his attack, but they were soon overpowered, and without
distinction of age or sex were put to the sword, eight thousand of the
inhabitants being ruthlessly massacred. The town was utterly ruined.
A party of thirty Flemings posted themselves in their factory, a
strong building which the resident merchants of that nation were under
obligation by their charter to defend against the English: and faithful
to their contract these heroic men held out till evening against the
English army, when their assailants, enraged by the determined defence,
set the building on fire, and every one of its brave defenders perished
amid the flames.¹
♦ “descripcription” replaced with “description”
¹ Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, pages 373, 374; Hailes’ _Annals_,
Volume I., page 258, _et seq._
Edward formed a ditch, and threw up defensive works round Berwick.
On the 5th of April he received from the Abbot of Arbroath Baliol’s
renunciation of his allegiance to his Lord Superior. This document
enumerated the outrages and robberies inflicted on the subjects of
Scotland on sea and land, and concluded with a declaration that Baliol
had resolved to fight against Edward I. in defence of his kingdom.
But John Baliol had little ability or energy, and he was placed in
trying circumstances. Accordingly no effective resistance against the
invader was offered at any point. From Berwick Edward proceeded towards
Dunbar, the key of the eastern marches. A Scotch force had mustered
to defend it, but on the 26th of April they were attacked, dispersed,
and defeated, and many of them slain or taken prisoners. The castle of
Dunbar then fell into the hands of the English, and the Earls of Athole,
Monteith, and Ross, and a number of barons, submitted to Edward, and
all the prisoners of rank were conveyed to England and imprisoned.¹
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 26, 27;
Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, page 375.
Edward I. having destroyed Berwick, scattered the Scottish army, and
taken the castle of Dunbar, now proceeded rapidly with his work. The
castles of Roxburgh, Jedburgh, and others on the line of his march
were surrendered to him. He reached Edinburgh on the 6th of June, and
attacked the castle with all the appliances at his command, pelting
it day and night for a week; after this it capitulated. He continued
his triumphal progress to Linlithgow and onward to Stirling, crossed
the Forth unopposed, and, proceeding by Perth, passed the Tay and
entered Forfarshire. Baliol had fled northward before the advance
of the conquering hero, and at the castle of Brechin, on the 10th of
July, 1296, the vassal king came to his lord, like a criminal suing
for mercy, and submitted to Edward’s pleasure. Then the documents
considered necessary to degrade and dispossess him were drawn up and
signed, and Baliol and his son were sent into England as prisoners.
Edward continued his progress advancing northward by Aberdeen and Banff,
till he reached Elgin on the 26th of July; thence he returned by a
higher route, calling at Rothes, Kildrummy Castle, and on to Brechin.
Throughout this progress Edward and his army were actively employed in
taking the personal oaths of allegiance from all classes of the people,
the barons, knights, and churchmen of all grades, being specially
called upon to record their allegiance and render homage to the Lord
Paramount. There was then no evasion of this exaction, and all those
who wished to escape imprisonment or death had no alternative but to
render their allegiance to Edward I.¹
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 27,
59‒61; _Ragman Rolls_.
When returning south Edward took away the Coronation Stone――the
venerated Stone of Destiny――from Scone as he was extremely anxious to
efface every vestige of the national and patriotic feeling of the Scots.
He then proceeded through Fife, along the northern banks of the Forth,
and reached Berwick on the 22nd of August. A few days later he held
a council at Berwick, in which a number of Scotch nobles and clergy
submitted to him, and their estates were restored to them. He then
made arrangements for the government of the kingdom, and appointed
John Warrene, Earl of Surrey, guardian of Scotland, Hugh Cressingham,
treasurer, and William Ormesby, justiciary. The chief castles of
the kingdom were committed to the custody of English captains and
garrisoned by English troops. Having thus settled everything, Edward
proceeded home with the Stone of Destiny as a memorial of his conquest
of Scotland, and a suitable offering to Edward the Confessor.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 30, 31; _Rotuli Scotiæ_, Volume I., pages
29‒35.
The seemingly complete subjection and depression of the Scots under the
heel of the invader was the result of easily understood circumstances,
which have already been indicated. Edward I. obtained a footing in
the kingdom through the disputed succession, and thereby gained a
commanding influence over the chief Scotch nobles. Thus it occurred
that many of those nobles who should have come determinedly to the
front at this national crisis, as the natural leaders of the people,
had joined the enemy, and left the people helpless and forlorn. But the
native race of Scotland keenly felt their position, and the demeanour
of the English soldiers aroused their ire. Hatred sprung up between
them, and bitter strife reigned in the land. Edward I. instructed his
chief officials to make the utmost efforts to extinguish the rising
spirit of rebellion, and not to be sparing in the distribution of the
King’s favours and money. But Edward had misunderstood the character of
those men whose spirit he wished to crush or corrupt; for his treasurer,
Cressingham, replied to the King thus:――“Sir, you have told me not
to be sparing of your favours. Sir, I neither am nor shall be, if God
pleases, for few have asked for them, in consequence of the times,
which have been troublesome.”¹ It appears that Edward’s favours and
money would not answer the conditions which had arisen amongst the
Scots.
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
170‒172, 227.
At this perilous moment a hero arose to fight the battle of freedom
and national independence. Wallace was the son of a small landed
proprietor, one of those who had never sworn allegiance to Edward I.
In his early years he was under the care of his uncle, an ecclesiastic
in Stirlingshire, from whom he received the rudiments of a classical
training, afterwards attending a school in Dundee for two years. He was
gifted with rare mental faculties; tall in stature, with an athletic
frame, and a commanding presence; his personal characteristics and
sterling moral qualities won respect; while he was a military genius
of a high order, and a man of remarkable political sagacity. He soon
kindled in the heart of the nation an unquenchable spirit of resistance
to oppression.
Wallace began his public career by attacking outlying parties of the
English, and his followers increased with his success. Sir William
Douglas, who had lands in Northumberland as well as in Scotland, was
the first man of note to ally himself with the patriot. At length
Wallace resolved to assail the English Justiciary, Ormesby, in his
court at Scone. The Justiciary escaped with his life, but a rich booty,
and some prisoners fell into Wallace’s hands. Wallace and Douglas
continued their attacks on the invaders; and they were soon joined by
others, amongst whom were Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell, the Stewart of
Scotland, and Robert Wishart, Bishop of Glasgow: Robert Bruce, Earl of
Carrick, grandson of the claimant of the crown, after some hesitation,
joined the national party. Edward I. soon made Douglas feel his
displeasure, for on the 12th of June, 1297, he ordered that the lands
and goods in Northumberland belonging to Sir William Douglas should be
seized and sold for the use of the king.¹ After Edward’s government in
the centre of Scotland had been thrown into confusion, Wallace and Sir
Andrew Moray of Bothwell crossed the Tay for the purpose of recruiting
and organising an army in the north-eastern and northern counties.
¹ “The lands and tenements, the goods and chattels, in the
county of Northumberland, belonging to Sir William Douglas,
should be taken into our hands; if there be any corn or
cattle, or any other stock whatever, besides the growing
crop, to sell it without delay, and to enhance the price
thereof to our use as much as possible.” _Historical
Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 176, 177.
When Edward I. was told of the rising in Scotland he could not believe
it, because so many of the nobles were with himself or in prison; he
never even imagined that the Scots might attempt to act without nobles,
and this lack of foresight to estimate the spirit of resistance among
the people proved to be the missing link in Edward’s scheme of conquest
from its inception to its termination. He sent Beck, the Bishop of
Durham, into Scotland to extinguish the rising, but Beck soon had to
beat a retreat, and narrowly escaped with his life. When Beck returned
Edward commanded the whole military force north of the Trent to muster
and crush the rebellion. An army of forty thousand foot and three
hundred cavalry entered Scotland under Henry Percy, and marched through
Annandale and on to Irvine, where Robert Bruce and other nobles were
lying in arms. As usual, these nobles were wavering and undecided,
and sought to parley with the enemy, at last they concluded a treaty
with the English authorities, by which they preserved their estates,
promised to give hostages for their future conduct, and then dispersed,
without striking a single blow. The treaty was signed at Irvine on
the 9th of July, 1297, and those who agreed to it were Robert Bruce,
Earl of Carrick; James, the Stewart of Scotland; his brother, John;
Alexander Lindsay, Sir William Douglas, and the Bishop of Glasgow. A
copy of it was sent to Wallace and Andrew Moray but they disregarded
it.¹
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
192‒194; Palgrave’s _Documents_, page 197.
Wallace was then recruiting and instructing men in the north-eastern
counties beyond the Tay, and Andrew Moray of Bothwell was intently
engaged in similar work farther north and in Strathspey. On the 17th of
July 1297, Moray and his recruits, in a position protected by a bog and
a wood in the valley of the Spey, repulsed the attacks and the utmost
efforts of a body of Edward’s cavalry and soldiers to dislodge them.
Wallace and Moray worked with great energy in conjunction with each
other and soon organised an efficient army. Wallace then attacked the
castles, and many of them shortly fell into his hands. The castles of
Aberdeen, Forfar, Brechin, and Montrose, were successively captured.¹
He had just begun the siege of the castle of Dundee when tidings came
that the English army was marching on Stirling. Wallace at once saw his
opportunity, ordered the citizens of Dundee to continue the siege, and
hurried off with his army to guard the passage of the Forth.
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
211‒213.
Wallace posted his men on the rising ground which commanded the Bridge
of Stirling. The English army, fifty thousand strong, under the command
of John de ♦Warrene, Earl of Surrey, lay on the opposite side of the
river. When the English general observed the position of his enemy he
tried to temporise, and sent forward messengers of peace; but Wallace
knew well the advantages of his position, and told the English envoys
that he had resolved on battle,――“to set his country free.” On the 11th
of September the enemy began to pass over the narrow bridge. When one
half of the army had crossed it, Wallace, by a preconcerted movement,
attacked the English in the rear, and intercepted between them and the
bridge. When this was executed, the main body of the Scots instantly
rushed down and assailed the forming lines of the English, throwing
them into utter confusion; a panic seized the whole army, and a
headlong rout ensued. Many were drowned in the river, and many slain
in the flight. Surrey with the remnant of his army found shelter in the
castle of Berwick where he remained for some months.¹
♦ “Warrence” replaced with “Warrene”
¹ _Scotland in 1298_, by H. Gough, Introduction, page 1,
_et seq._, 1888.
This battle had the effect of clearing the country of the enemy,
and all the castles were recovered. The Battle of Stirling in other
respects was an exceedingly important event, as it raised the spirit of
the people and gave them confidence in themselves, at the most perilous
and trying crisis which had ever occurred in the history of the kingdom;
and its result continued to have an inspiriting influence upon the mind
and feeling of the nation throughout all the subsequent stages of the
struggle for national independence and liberty. Indeed, at Stirling
Bridge, Wallace clearly read a significant lesson to the English as
well as to the Scots; but unhappily the former were unwilling to learn
it or even to recognise its meaning.
Wallace was anxious to promote peaceful ♦industry, as the following
circumstance shows: A document dated 11th of October 1297, was
despatched to Lubeck and Hamburg, in the names of Andrew Moray and
William Wallace, generals of the army of the kingdom and community
of Scotland, thanking the friends of the country for their services,
which the state of the kingdom had prevented the due acknowledgment,
and informed them that commerce with the ports of Scotland would now
be restored: “As the kingdom of Scotland, thanks be to God, has been
delivered by battle from the power of the English.”¹
♦ “indnstry” replaced with “industry”
¹ _National Manuscripts_, Part I.; _Documents illustrative of
Wallace_.
Shortly after the battle, Wallace retook the town of Berwick, but
not the castle; and about the middle of October he advanced into
Northumberland and plundered the country. The Scotch army remained
in the north of England from the 18th of October to the 11th
of November; and the English chroniclers described in a piteous
strain the terror and misery which the Scots had caused amongst the
inhabitants. As plunder was the object of the raid, no doubt the people
of Northumberland and Cumberland had suffered severely. Wallace granted
a protection in name of King John to the prior and convent of Hexham,
which was to continue in force for three years; forbidding the Scots
to injure any of the members of the convent under severe penalties.
After the Scots retired, Lord Clifford led a raid into Scotland,
and plundered Annandale, burned a hundred cottages, captured a few
prisoners, and slew three hundred and eight of the Scots.¹
¹ _Chronicles and Annals of Hexham_, Preface, Volume I.,
pages 80‒85. “King Edward having gone to Flanders, and
in his absence, the rebellious Scots under the command
of the ribald William Wallace, ravaged Northumberland and
Westmoorland, ♦sparing neither age nor sex.” Hemingford’s
_Chronicles_, Volume II., pages 141‒146.
♦ “spearing” replaced with “sparing”
In the end of the year 1297 Wallace was chosen Guardian of the kingdom
of Scotland and leader of its armies, in the name of King John, and
with consent of the community. He adopted measures calculated to
secure order, to promote peaceful industry, and the commerce of the
kingdom; he also made the utmost efforts to improve the organisation
and discipline of the army. The body of the people acquiesced in his
government, and he received considerable support from the clergy:
still the condition of the kingdom was such that no individual exertion
or sagacity could have placed it in a position to meet the recurrent
exigences of the time. For the feudal organisation then prevailed in
Scotland, and it could not be changed in a day or a year; while, with
the King banished, some of the chief nobles lurking out of the way,
others in prison, and some of them actually opposing the Guardian,
the feudal system of defence itself could not be effectively worked.
Thus considering the state of the nation, and the circumstances above
indicated, it is surprising that Wallace achieved so much under such
conditions.
Since the battle of Stirling Bridge, Edward I. had been making
preparation for a great invasion of Scotland to crush the rising
under Wallace. On his return from the Continent in March 1298, his
troops, drawn from all parts of England and Wales, were mustered and
concentrated as they advanced towards the borders; and when Edward I.
reached Roxburgh on the 3rd of July, his army numbered 88,000 men, of
which 8000 were cavalry. He advanced towards the Forth and proceeded
by Lauder, but his progress was slow, as provisions were scarce and
the position of his army critical. Some of his ships, however, having
arrived in the Forth, he halted at Kirk-liston, and rested his troops
for a week. Wallace with his small army could not think of facing
Edward’s vast host in the open field: his tactics were to protract
the issue and render the advance of the enemy difficult; so he drove
off everything which could be removed, and left the country behind
him waste, in this way hoping to starve out the enemy. For a time he
seemed likely to succeed; as we have seen above, the English army was
suffering severely. At last, through treachery, Wallace was forced
to give battle near Falkirk. As Edward received intelligence of the
position of the Scots while his army was lying at Kirk-liston, he
immediately marched rapidly ♦forward by Linlithgow, and on the morning
of the 22nd of July he descried the Scots. The enemy was too near for
retreat, as his eight thousand cavalry would have pursued and cut off
the Scots, so that Wallace had no alternative but fight.
♦ “foward” replaced with “forward”
Wallace’s whole force was under thirty thousand men, not a third part
of the number of the enemy; but he drew up his men in a form admirably
fitted to resist cavalry charges. He formed his infantry into four
solid circular bodies with their weapons pointing outward and crossing
each other. His small company of archers, under the command of Sir John
Stewart, were posted in the spaces between the circular divisions, and
his one thousand cavalry were placed behind the circular bodies. After
thus disposing his troops, Wallace was reported to have said to them:
“I have brought you to the ring, do the best you can.” The English
had one hundred and eleven banners at the battle, and their army was
marshalled in four divisions. The first division was commanded by
the Earl of Lincoln, assisted by the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk;
the second division was led by the famous Beck, Bishop of Durham; the
third division was commanded by the King in person; and the fourth by
the Earl of Surrey. The Earl of March, Patrick of Dunbar, fought in
the second division of the English army; and it was March and Angus
who informed Edward of the position of the Scots before the march to
Falkirk. The Earls of Lincoln and Hereford first advanced to the attack,
Bishop Beck following. They furiously charged the Scots; but the
compact circles of the spearmen repulsed the onset of the enemy; and
the cavalry charges were many times repeated but always repelled. Sir
John Stewart, who led the Scottish archers, was thrown from his horse
and slain along with many of his men around him. The Scottish cavalry
did not come into action; still the spearmen held their ground and
presented an unbroken front to the enemy. Edward then suspended the
cavalry charges, and ordered his slingers and bowmen to the front;
and this multitude of men poured showers of stones and arrows upon
the circles of the Scottish spearmen, which at length disorganised
them. Then the cavalry charges of the enemy were recommenced, and
the spearmen, being assailed on every side, were ultimately defeated.
About ten thousand of the Scots fell on the field of Falkirk. Wallace
retreated with the remnant of his army through the wood in the
neighbourhood. Among the slain on the Scottish side, were Sir John
Stewart of Bonkill, a younger son of the seventh High Stewart of
Scotland, Sir John Graham of Dundaff, and Macduff, a grand-uncle of
the Earl of Fife.¹
¹ _Scotland in 1298_, Gough, page 131, _et seq._, and
Introduction, pages 11, 12; Hemingford’s _Chronicles_,
Volume II., pages 176‒181.
Wallace continued his retreat by Stirling, thence the English slowly
followed; and on the fourth day after the battle, they arrived and
found the town deserted. Edward’s victory was fruitless, as he was
compelled to retire with his starving host for lack of provisions; and
after visiting at Ayr, he proceeded southward to Carlisle. Immediately
after the battle, Edward I. granted presentations to upwards of thirty
benefices in Scotland, which included bishoprics and churches in the
counties of Lanark, Selkirk, Peebles, Haddington, Roxburgh, Fife,
Perth, Kincardine and Aberdeen.¹ He also gave the island of Arran
to Thomas Bisset, and promised his own barons extensive lands out of
the territories of the Scottish nobles. After making these and other
arrangements calculated to secure his hold on Scotland, Edward returned
to London in the beginning of December.
¹ _Scotland in 1298_, Gough, pages 239‒246. This volume
contains a vast quantity of interesting information, much of
which is specially valuable to the genealogist.
Shortly after the battle of Falkirk Wallace resigned the Guardianship
of Scotland. After he had rendered Stirling and Perth useless to the
enemy, he returned with a body of his followers to the Torwood, and
thence followed on Edward’s track. John Comyn of Badenoch and John
de Soulis were elected Guardians, associated with William Lamberton,
the Bishop of St. Andrews, who was a personal friend and supporter of
Wallace, and Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick. Lamberton intimated to the
King of France that Wallace’s protection at his court was requisite
to the continuance of the alliance between the two kingdoms. Wallace
proceeded to France on the service of his country, and endeavoured
in every way to free the kingdom from the yoke of the invader and
oppressor. It appears that he had intended to proceed to Rome to plead
the cause of Scotland, as the following letter shows:――“Philip by
the grace of God King of the French, to my loved and faithful agents,
appointed to the Roman Court, greeting. We command you to request the
Supreme Pontiff to hold our loved William Wallace of Scotland, Knight,
recommended to his favour in those things which he has to transact with
him;” dated on the 1st November 1298.¹ There is no direct evidence that
Wallace actually went to Rome, but circumstantial evidence render it
very probable that he had communications with the Pope touching the
affairs and the position of Scotland.
¹ _National Manuscripts_, Part I.
Although Edward I. had made peace with France, he was somewhat
embarrassed by the demands of his barons touching the great charter
and the rights which they embraced every opportunity to claim; still
he continued his attacks upon Scotland. In 1300 he invaded the country;
but Wallace, who had returned from France, anticipated him, and marched
from the Torwood into the southern counties, seized the castle of
Tibbers, and other castles in Nithsdale. Edward took several castles
in Dumfriesshire, and then besieged Caerlaverock castle, which, after
a heroic defence against the whole English army, at last surrendered.
He advanced into Galloway, but his foraging parties were often attacked
and cut off by the Scots. After a campaign of five months, Edward
returned to England without achieving any important result.
It was during this campaign that Edward I. was obliged to listen to
one of the most severe and logical attacks which had as yet been made
upon him, touching his claims of feudal superiority over the kingdom
of Scotland. In the castle of Caerlaverock, about the end of August,
the Archbishop of Canterbury acting as the Pope’s legate, placed a Bull
from Boniface VIII. in the hands of Edward I., which was read in the
presence of his assembled barons and knights. This remarkable document
affirmed that Scotland owed allegiance to no one, save the Holy See.
Boniface then charged Edward I. with violating all the liberties and
the rights of Scotland, and proceeded to state――“that neither he nor
any of his predecessors held over the kingdom any superiority; since,
when in the wars between your father Henry and Simon de Montfort,
he requested the assistance of Alexander III., King of Scotland,
acknowledged by letters patent that he received such assistance, not
as due to him, but as a special favour. Moreover, when you yourself
invited King Alexander to attend your coronation, you made the request
as a matter of favour and not of right. When the King of Scotland
rendered homage to you for his lands in Tynedale and Penrith, he
publicly protested it was rendered not for his kingdom but for these
lands only, since, as King of Scotland, he was independent. Yea,
further, when Alexander III. died, leaving an heiress to his Crown,
a grand-daughter in her minority, the wardship of this infant was not
given to you, which it would have been if you had been Lord Superior,
but was given to certain nobles of Scotland elected for the office.”
Touching the negotiations for the proposed marriage between the Prince
of Wales and the Maid of Norway, the Pope reminded Edward I. that he
had then acknowledged the independence of Scotland; and it was singular
that he submitted to negotiate if he had a right to command. Regarding
the changes lately made on the rights and the liberties of Scotland,
with the consent of a divided nobility, or the person whom Edward had
placed in charge of the kingdom, these ought not to continue, as all
had been extorted by force and intimidation. The Pope exhorted Edward,
in the name of God, to at once liberate the bishops and the clergy
whom he had imprisoned, and to remove all the officers and officials
whom he had thrust upon the Scottish nation. Finally, Boniface said,
“if Edward imagined that he had any pretensions to the whole or any
part of Scotland, let him send his proctors to me, and I will determine
according to justice.” On the conclusion of the reading of the Pope’s
letter, Edward started to his feet and exclaimed:――“I will not be
silent or at rest, either for Mount Zion or Jerusalem, but, as long as
there is breath in my nostrils, I will defend what all the world knows
to be my right.”¹ The result, however, was that Edward soon disbanded
his army, and summoned a parliament to meet in February 1301, which,
having met, framed an answer to the Pope’s letter. In October 1300, he
granted a truce to the Scots to continue till the middle of May 1301.
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I.; _Walsingham_; _Book of Wallace_, Rogers,
Volume II., pages 182‒187.
The truce was not strictly observed by either side. Edward made
arrangements to secure his hold in every place where he had any footing,
strengthened the garrisons of the castles which he held throughout the
kingdom, and instructed the English residents at Perth, Ayr, Dundee,
and Banff, to remain in these places till the termination of the truce.
He released the Bishop of Glasgow from imprisonment only after he had
renewed his allegiance. Edward I. seems to have had great faith in
oaths and homages, but he forgot that there might be circumstances in
which they were not binding.
In the summer of 1301 Edward advanced into Scotland with a great army,
but the Scots managed to avoid a battle, so that the campaign was
ineffective. He did not cross the Forth, and his army suffered severely
from the scarcity of provisions and forage. In October he concentrated
his troops at Linlithgow and Falkirk, collected stores there, and fixed
his head-quarters for the winter at Linlithgow, where he erected a
castle. He expected that his presence would overcome the Scots. Owing
to the severe winter he lost a large number of his war-horses, and he
discovered that his campaign was attended with enormous expenditure.
On the 26th of January, 1302, on the suggestion of France, Edward
promised to grant a truce to the Scots, which was to continue till
the 30th of the ensuing November; and in the beginning of February he
left Linlithgow and marched southward. Before he departed he bound Sir
Alexander Baliol to hold Selkirk forest against the Scots, and exacted
pledges from the captains of the castles of Linlithgow, Ayr, Edinburgh,
Jedburgh, Roxburgh, and Berwick, that they would continue to defend
these castles till the ensuing summer. Edward vehemently objected to
the Scots being described as the “allies” of France, and on the 30th
of April he protested against the truce.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I.; _Book of Wallace_, Rogers, Volume II.,
pages 194‒199.
Edward exerted his ingenuity to the utmost to detach the King of France
from giving any encouragement to the Scots, and he completely succeeded.
Further he covertly arranged with the King of France to name those
Scotsmen whose absence from the kingdom Edward considered to be most
convenient for the success of his scheme of conquest, and accordingly
Philip’s ambassadors named Bishop Lamberton of St. Andrews, the Bishop
of Dunkeld, the Steward of Scotland, Sir John Soulis, John Comyn, Earl
of Buchan, Sir Ingram Umfraville, and Sir William Baliol. But ere the
Scotch ambassadors arrived, a truce was arranged between England and
France, in which all reference to the Scots was excluded; and in the
final treaty of peace, ratified at Paris in May 1303, no reference
to the Scots occurred. Pope Boniface VIII. also deserted the cause
of Scotland; and in August 1302, he reprimanded Bishop Wishart for
opposing the English rule, and commanded him to desist from it. At the
same time the Pope commanded the other Scotch bishops to make peace
with Edward.¹ Having thus far succeeded, as he imagined, in debarring
the Scots from all hope of external aid in any quarter, Edward
proceeded to prepare for the complete conquest of the kingdom.
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 972; Volume II., page 929.
The Scots held Stirling castle and the country north of the Forth, and
Edward I. as yet had only a precarious hold on the southern division of
the kingdom. In February 1303, an English army was mustered at Berwick,
numbering twenty thousand men, which, under the command of Sir John
Segrave, advanced into Scotland. Segrave marched his army northward
in three divisions, not far apart from each other, in order to obtain
quartering for his men and forage for the horses. John Comyn, Wallace,
and Sir Simon Fraser, having learned the position of the enemy, on the
morning of the 24th February, 1303, rapidly advanced from Biggar to
Roslin with eight thousand men on foot, and surprised the English army.
A severe contest ensued, but the three divisions of the English were
defeated in detail, and sixteen knights and thirty esquires were taken
prisoners.
But Edward I. was then free from embarrassment abroad and at home, and
he made ample preparations for the final conquest of Scotland. Through
craft, in which he was abetted by the King of France, the Scotch
envoys were induced to remain at the French court by the most base and
false professions imaginable. On the 25th of May, 1303, these deluded
Scotsmen at the French court communicated with Sir John Comyn, the
guardian, in the following words:――“Be not alarmed that the Scots are
not mentioned in the treaty. The King of France will immediately send
ambassadors to divert Edward from war, and to procure a truce for us
until the two kings can have a personal conference in France. At that
conference a peace will be concluded beneficial to our nation: of this
the King of France has himself given us the most positive assurance....
Marvel not that none of us return home at present: we would all have
willingly returned, but the King of France will have us to remain till
we bring home intelligence of the result of this business; wherefore,
for the Lord’s sake, despair not: but if ever you acted with resolution,
do so now.... The French ambassadors will be empowered to treat of
peace, as well as to negotiate a truce.”¹ The men thus detained at
the French court were John Soulis, one of the guardians, the Steward
of Scotland, the Earl of Buchan, and Ingram de Umfraville; thus, with
these men absent, and the defection of the Earl of Carrick, there were
few persons of ability and rank left in Scotland to offer resistance to
the crafty and ruthless invader.
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 955.
In the middle of May 1303, Edward I. commenced his march, having
arranged his army in two divisions, one under himself and the other
under the Prince of Wales. Edward advanced by Morpeth and reached
Roxburgh on the 21st of May, where he was joined by the followers
of the Earl of Carrick. The Prince of Wales entered Scotland by the
western marches, but his advance was checked at several points by
Wallace; he therefore deviated from his intended route and marched
through Roxburghshire, advancing northward in the rear of his father.
Edward reached Edinburgh on the 4th of June, marched by Linlithgow and
thence to Stirling, crossed the Forth, and on the 10th of June entered
Perth. He stayed in Perth till the middle of July, then proceeded to
Dundee, and thence to Montrose. At this stage he summoned Sir Thomas
Maule to surrender the castle of Brechin, but Sir Thomas declined to
surrender it. Edward marched from Montrose to Brechin with his war
engines, and besieged the castle. Sir Thomas made a heroic defence;
but at last he was fatally wounded and expired, and the garrison then
surrendered, but not till five waggon-loads of lead had been thrown
into the castle.
At Brechin Edward was joined by the Prince of Wales, and, resuming his
progress northward, he marched by the castle of Kincardine and arrived
at Aberdeen on the 24th of August; thence he marched through Buchan
and reached Banff on the 4th of September, whence marching northward,
he crossed the Spey and advanced through Moray, reaching Kinross on
the 20th of September. Edward advanced into Badenoch and occupied the
castle of Lochindorb, one of the strongholds of the Comyns; and all
the men of note in the locality were compelled to render homage to
him. He returned by Kinross, and thence to the castle of Kildrummy.
He next marched southward by Brechin, and fixed his headquarters at
♦Dunfermline, where he remained through the winter of 1304.¹
♦ “Dumfermline” replaced with “Dunfermline”
¹ _Fœdera_; Hemingford’s _Chronicles_; _Book of Wallace_,
Rogers, Volume II., pages 206‒208.
It then seemed that all was lost, although the spirit of the people
had enabled them to struggle against fearful odds and to endure extreme
privation; still human endurance has its limits, and the stage of hope
appeared to be passed. Craft, force, and cruelty, had done their work;
but it had yet to be seen whether these would ultimately triumph.
Negotiations with Comyn, the guardian, were begun in the latter part
of December 1303, for his submission to Edward I. These negotiations
were long and tedious, and while they were proceeding Comyn remained
in his camp at Strathord, in Forfarshire. The conditions as first laid
down by Edward as the basis for treating of the submission of Comyn and
his adherents were extremely hard, and virtually implied the complete
surrender of national liberty. The terms of submission were finally
adjusted and agreed to on the 9th of February, 1304. It was stipulated
that their lives should be spared, and that they should retain their
lands, but subject to such fines as Edward might think fit to impose
upon them. The following persons were specially excluded from the
benefit of the above terms――Wishart, Bishop of Glasgow, Sir John
Soulis, the Steward of Scotland, Simon Fraser, William Wallace, David
de Graham, and Alexander de Lindsay. To all these men, except Wallace,
the chance of preserving their lives was offered on certain terms,
mostly stated periods of banishment from Scotland. “As for William
Wallace it is covenanted that he shall render himself up at the will
and mercy of the king, if it shall seem good to him.” It appears that
Edward was earnestly requested to offer reasonable terms to Wallace,
but he declined to listen to such a proposal. Shortly after the
surrender of Comyn and his adherents, Edward summoned a parliament to
meet him at St. Andrews in March; and he arrived at St. Andrews on the
11th of March and occupied the castle. In this meeting he intimated
that he had summoned to the parliament Sir William Wallace, Sir Simon
Fraser, and Sir William Oliphant, governor of Stirling Castle; and he
then announced that seeing they had not attended, therefore they should
be forfeited and outlawed. At his request parliament resolved that the
siege of Stirling should be actively prosecuted.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume II.; _Historical Documents of Scotland_,
Volume II., page 471; Palgrave’s _Documents_, pages 278‒284.
Preparations were at once begun for the siege of this fortress. Edward
appealed to his English treasurer for money, and to procure from York
the materials for producing Greek fire, namely, a horseload of cotton
thread, a load of quick sulphur, a load of saltpetre, and a load of
arrows feathered and ironed. By Edward’s orders the lead was stripped
from the refectory at St. Andrews and from the churches at Perth and
Dunblane. The Earl of Carrick, Robert Bruce, who had been serving
Edward actively for the past year or two, promised to grant for use in
the siege of Stirling Castle his great battering-ram which was lying at
Inverkip. War engines, missiles, and materials of every description for
the siege were in readiness, and Edward himself arrived at Stirling on
the 21st of April, and summoned Oliphant, the governor of the castle,
to surrender. But Oliphant declined to surrender and made a brave
defence. The siege continued from the 22nd of April to the 20th of July,
the King remaining at Stirling in order to urge on the operations. When
the governor of the castle surrendered, the garrison only numbered one
hundred and forty men, but Edward inflicted shameful indignities upon
these brave and faithful men. The governor, Oliphant, was sent to the
Tower of London, and the rest were despatched to various prisons in
England.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 966; Rogers’ _Book of Wallace_,
Volume II., pages 218‒223.
Edward directed special attention to the capture of Wallace, as he
was already proclaimed an outlaw. Immediately after the surrender of
Stirling Castle the King exhorted the men lately admitted to his peace
to exert themselves to the utmost to take Wallace, and promised that
those who secured him should receive some distinctive marks of royal
favour. Edward returned to England in December, 1304, but he continued
to issue proclamations for Wallace’s capture, with offers of a reward.
At the same time he carried on secret communications with those
whom he thought best fitted to execute his purpose. The man actually
instrumental, however, in the capture of Wallace was Sir John Menteith.
He was engaged in the Battle of Dunbar in 1296, where he was taken
prisoner, and confined in the castle of Nottingham; by consenting to
serve under Edward I. abroad he was released in 1297, and after the
Flanders campaign he returned to Scotland. He then joined the national
party, and possibly he might have fought under Wallace at the Battle
of Falkirk. At what time Menteith returned to Edward’s service has not
been ascertained, but in a commission dated at St. Andrews on the 20th
of March, 1304, he was then appointed Keeper of the Castle of Dumbarton
and Sheriff of the County. After the surrender of Stirling Castle it
appears that Wallace, with a single attendant, sought shelter in the
unfrequented spots of the counties of Stirling and Lanark. Whether
his refuge was within the sheriffdom of Dumbarton or not has not
been ascertained; and it seems that Menteith had formed the idea of
promoting his own interest by delivering Wallace into Edward’s hands.
In the district of Cadder, on the north-eastern border of Lanarkshire,
Wallace had taken shelter in a barn known as Robraystoun, and there
on the 5th of August, 1305, he was surprised by a party of English
soldiers, led by Menteith, at whose instance he was seized and
fettered.¹
¹ _Book of Wallace_, Volume II., pages 226‒229. “Among certain
memoranda in the Chapter House are these:――4. Cause to be
remembered the forty marks which should be given to a valet
who had watched William Wallace. 5. Item of the sixty marks
that ought to be given to the others; it is the king’s
will that these be divided among those persons who were
at the capture of the said William. 6. Item of land for J.
de Menteith, valued at £100.” _Ibid._, page 236. “Menteith
received from Edward on the 16th of June, 1306, the revenues
of the Earldom of Lennox, also the temporalities of the
bishopric of Glasgow, in the county of Dumbarton, of which
Bishop Wishart had been deprived. When Robert the Bruce
was, in 1306, prosecuting his patriotic labours, Menteith
undertook jointly with Sir Hugh Bisset to cut off by a
fleet his retreat from the Western Isles; and in July of
the following year he is described as, with some others,
guarding, on Edward’s behalf, the town of Ayr.” _Ibid._,
page 231.
Securely fettered Wallace was immediately conveyed to London under a
strong guard. Touching his trial and execution in London minute details
exist, which have been often printed, and it is quite unnecessary
to repeat them at length. He was tried for treason, which he never
committed, seeing that he never gave allegiance to Edward I., whom
he rightly regarded as a usurper and invader. Wallace was not allowed
to make any defence, but condemned and sentenced to be hanged and
drawn, with all the shocking and cruel formalities of the Norman law
of treason. The sentence was executed on the 23rd of August, 1305, and
that it might produce the desired effect “his body should be cut and
divided into four quarters, and the head set on the Bridge of London,
in sight of those passing both by land and water; and one quarter
suspended on the gibbet at Newcastle-on-Tyne, another quarter at
Berwick, a third quarter at Stirling, and a fourth quarter at Perth,
for the dread and chastisement of all that pass by and behold them.”
How far the intended end was served by such spectacles of extreme
barbarity subsequent history tells. Indeed, the story of the heroic
action and deeds of Wallace, heightened by his sacrifice in London,
became embalmed in the heart of the Scottish people, and his memory was
more intensely venerated as century after century passed. Recalling the
traditional incidents associated with the Cartland Crags, it has been
truly said:――
“Blest Freedom flourish’d in this wild,
When banish’d from each cultur’d spot.
Expiring Albin saw and smil’d
And all her wounds and woes forgot.”¹
Many poets have paid homage to Wallace, and the following simple lines
embody the national sentiment:――
“A fair renown, as years wear on,
Shall Scotland give her noblest son;
The course of ages shall not dim,
The love that she shall bear to him.”²
¹ Dr. Jamieson, editor of Blind Henry’s _Wallace_.
² Baillie’s _Metrical Legends_, page 78.
Edward I. was intently engaged in arranging his new form of government
for Scotland. He summoned a council of the Scotch nobles, clergy, and
the burghal communities, which met at Perth in March, 1305, and this
meeting was instructed to elect ten commissioners to represent Scotland
in the English Parliament; thus, four to be chosen by the nobles, four
by the clergy, and two by the burghal communities. These ten Scotch
commissioners attended a Parliament which met at London on the 15th
of September, 1305, and being joined by twenty-two commissioners from
the English Parliament, this body, acting in concert, framed the royal
ordinance for the government of Scotland. This document is elaborate,
and presents evidence of considerable intelligence and judgment; but
seeing that it never came into practical operation it is historically
unnecessary to expound it.¹
¹ The Ordinance for the government of Scotland was printed in
the first volume of the _Scots Acts of Parliament_.
After twelve years of incessant craft, bloodshed, and oppression,
closing with the execution of Wallace, Edward I. fancied that his
conquest of Scotland was at last complete. But a worthy successor to
Wallace immediately appeared upon the scene, and the shattered king,
worn with the toil of years, lived to see it all passing from his
grasp.
CHAPTER VI.
_War of Independence. Robert Bruce._
AS we have seen, the Earl of Carrick was assisting Edward I. in his
last campaign, and supplied him with a battering-ram for the siege of
Stirling Castle. His father, Robert Bruce of Annandale, died in the
spring of 1304, and he then succeeded to the large family estates in
England and in Scotland. Bruce was a young man, little over thirty
years, and hitherto had shown a rather vacillating character. As he was
the grandson of the Bruce who had fought out the contest in Edward’s
court for the Crown with the deposed Baliol, he had always looked
forward to the throne of Scotland. In June, 1304, he met with Bishop
Lamberton; they had a conversation together touching impending dangers,
and entered into a friendly covenant to resist their enemies. They
engaged to seek each other’s safety in their common affairs against
all persons opposed to them, both individually and by their adherents;
they also agreed that the one should not enter on any great undertaking
without consulting the other, and if the one became cognisant of
dangers impending over the other he should forewarn him, and use his
utmost efforts to avert the same. For the performance of the compact
they bind themselves to each other by oath, and under a penalty of ten
thousand pounds.¹ Considering the condition of Scotland at the time,
and the position of the two men, this compact possibly had in view some
attempt by Bruce to mount the throne and recover the kingdom. It seems
that the existence of this bond became known to Edward I., and Bruce,
when attending the English court, was questioned concerning it; he at
once saw that his life was in danger, and one morning he mounted his
horse and rode swiftly to Scotland.
¹ Palgrave’s _Documents_, Volume I., page 323‒325.
Bruce arrived at his castle of Lochmaben early in February, 1306. On
the 12th of February, as a freeholder of the county, he attended the
English judges who were then holding their courts at Dumfries, and
there he met the Red Comyn, the late guardian. Bruce and Comyn entered
the Grayfriars convent to have a private interview touching public
affairs, and their conversation waxed warm. Bruce referred to the
miserable state of Scotland, once an independent kingdom, and now
nothing but a province of England. He then proposed that Comyn should
take his lands and help him to be king; or, if he preferred it, Bruce
was to take his lands and assist him to be king. Comyn demurred, and
professed loyalty to King Edward I. Bruce charged him with betraying
important secrets of his; their talk became bitter and hot, and at last
Bruce drew his dagger and stabbed Comyn. He turned from the convent
and rushed into the street, shouting for a horse! His friends asked
if anything was amiss. “I doubt,” said Bruce, “I have slain Comyn.”
Instantly Kirkpatrick, one of his followers, ran into the convent and
slew the wounded man outright, and also killed his uncle, Sir Robert
Comyn.¹
¹ Palgrave’s _Documents_, page 322. Barbour’s _Bruce_. It
appears that in a meeting of the guardians and some of the
nobles held at Peebles, July, 1299, a scuffle occurred,
which originated in a proposal touching the property of
Wallace, who was then in France:――“And upon that, each of
these knights gave the lie to the other and they drew their
daggers; and the Earl of Buchan and Sir John Comyn thought,
because Sir David de Graham is with Master John Comyn,
and Malcolm Wallace with the Earl of Carrick, that some
quarrel was begun with intention to deceive them, and Master
John Comyn leaped on the Earl of Carrick and took him by
the throat, and the Earl of Buchan upon the Bishop of St.
Andrews, and they held them fast, until the Stewart and
others went between them and stopped the scuffle.” _National
Manuscripts_, Part II., Number 8.
Probably the murder of Comyn was unpremeditated, still it removed the
only competitor for the throne of Scotland whom Bruce had reason to
fear. Comyn had a claim to the Crown, as his mother was a sister of the
deposed John Baliol. He also claimed to be a descendant of Donald Bane,
a brother of Malcolm III., which would have given him a great advantage
among the people in any struggle between the two for the throne of
Scotland. But Bruce had rashly committed himself and could not recede;
he had assassinated the highest noble in the kingdom, stained the altar
with blood, brought down on his own head all the terrors of religion,
and the enmity of the kin and numerous followers of the dead earl.
Immediately after these tragic deeds Bruce drove the English judges and
officials out of Dumfries and beyond the Border. The news soon spread,
the people assumed a threatening attitude in Galloway, and many of
Edward’s officials fled from the kingdom. Bruce resolved on a bold step,
he mounted the throne, and was crowned at Scone on the 27th of March,
1306. But, as yet, his followers were not numerous; they consisted of
the Bishops of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Moray, and the Abbot of Scone;
his four young and stalwart brothers, his nephew, Thomas Randolph
of Strathdon, and his brother-in-law, Christopher Seton; John de
Strathbogie, Earl of Athole; and the Earls of Lennox and Menteith;
Gilbert Hay of Erroll and his brother Hugh, Nigel Campbell of Argyle,
David of Inchmarten, Robert Boyd of Kilmarnock, Sir John Somerville of
Linton, David Barclay of Cairns, Alexander Fraser, Sir James Douglas,
and Robert Fleming. Against this small party――the forlorn hope of
the Scottish nation――stood arrayed the mighty hosts of England, the
numerous followers of the Comyns, and many of the Scotch nobles.
When tidings of these events reached the ears of Edward I., he was
extremely wroth, and threatened dire vengeance. Orders with a sharp
and incisive ring were issued. It was proclaimed in all the cities and
towns of Scotland that all those in arms against the King should be
pursued by hue and cry, from city to city, from county to county, from
place to place, and taken dead or alive. All persons taken in arms
against Edward I. were to be hanged and beheaded, and all in any way
connected with the murder of Comyn were to be drawn and quartered. The
implacable rage of Edward runs through all the royal proclamations.
Another great invasion of Scotland was resolved on; the military force
of Yorkshire and Northumberland were ordered to muster immediately to
march against the rebellious Scots. He also invoked the aid of religion,
notwithstanding his former contempt of “Mount Zion and Jerusalem.”
Bruce’s estates were declared forfeited, and his execution was
determined on in the event of his capture. The advance army, under the
Earl of Pembroke, reached the doomed country in the spring of 1306, and
Edward himself, bracing up all his remaining energy, once more moved
northward; but his frailty rendered his progress very slow.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., pages 982, 995; Palgrave’s _Documents_,
pages 361‒363, 301‒318, _et seq._
Pembroke advanced on Perth, and on his way he captured Bishop Wishart
and sent him to Berwick. On reaching Perth, Pembroke occupied the town
and fortified it. Bruce and his party found that they could not face
the English army; but he encamped in the wood of Methven six miles from
Perth. On the 19th of June, Pembroke attacked Bruce, and after a severe
encounter, completely defeated him; he narrowly escaped capture, while
many of his followers were slain and others taken prisoners. Bruce with
two or three hundred of his followers retired into the forest of Athole.
Among the prisoners captured at Methven were Thomas Randolph, Sir John
Somerville, David of Inchmarten, Hugh Hay, and others; and Edward I.
ordered that the prisoners should be immediately executed, accordingly
they were hanged and quartered.¹
¹ Hemingford’s _Chronicles_, page 249; Barbour’s _Bruce_.
The desperate nature of the enterprise now appeared. Bruce and his
friends were pursued as outlaws, and they soon began to feel the
extreme miseries of their position. Bruce was forced to leave Athole
to save his followers from starvation; and with great difficulty he
moved by unfrequented tracks from Athole to Aberdeenshire. At Aberdeen
he was joined by his wife and other ladies; but on the approach of a
large body of the enemy, Bruce and his company betook themselves to
the mountains of Breadalbane. Amid these wilds they suffered extreme
privation. As food was scarce, they gathered wild berries, some of
them hunted, and others fished, in order to preserve their existence;
while their clothing was often in tatters, living day and night for
weeks and months exposed to the open air in these high altitudes. Bruce
with a number of his friends had reached the head of the Tay, and were
approaching Argyleshire, the district of the Lord of Lorne. This chief
was related through marriage to the Red Comyn, and naturally he was
eager to vent revenge on Bruce. Lorne at the head of a strong body of
his followers attacked Bruce and his small company in Strathfillan. A
severe encounter ensued; but Bruce’s company was overwhelmed by numbers
and fell back. Gilbert Hay of Erroll and Sir James Douglas were wounded,
and many of their horses were killed. To avert the total destruction of
his little band, Bruce commanded them to retreat through a narrow pass
while he brought up the rear himself, and repeatedly turned his horse
and drove back the assailants, till at last the pursuit of the enemy
ceased.¹
¹ Ibid.
Winter was approaching, and they could not then subsist in this
mountainous region. The Queen and her attendants were conveyed under
an escort of cavalry to the castle of Kildrummy. Bruce then had only
two hundred men on foot, and with these he resolved to seek refuge
in Cantyre or in some of the islands, Sir Neil Campbell being sent
forward to provide vessels and provisions for the voyage. The King
and his small company proceeded in the direction of Cantyre; but they
were reduced to the utmost extremities for want of provisions. While
wandering amongst the hills and woods in search of food, they met the
Earl of Lennox, who, since the battle of Methven, had heard nothing
of the fate of Bruce, and the King and Lennox feelingly embraced
each other. Lennox supplied his friends with provisions, and by his
assistance they reached Cantyre, where Neil Campbell rejoined them.
Angus, Lord of the Isles, welcomed Bruce and his followers, and treated
them all with great hospitality; he also gave them the castle of
Dunaverty to live in and enjoy themselves after their wanderings and
privations. So numerous were the emissaries of Edward I. and the Comyns,
and so alert in their efforts to capture Bruce, that he, with the
recent fate of Wallace before him, did not deem himself safe, even in
this castle, from the pursuit of his enemies. In the end of the year
1306, Bruce, with a few of his friends, passed over to the small isle
of Rathlin, on the northern coast of Ireland, and remained there during
the winter.
But ruin and death befell many of Bruce’s friends and supporters, as
the English troops scoured the country and seized all suspected persons.
The Bishop of Glasgow, as already mentioned, was imprisoned at an early
stage. Bishop Lamberton, of St. Andrews, and the Abbot of Scone, were
sent in fetters to England. Bruce’s wife and his daughter were captured
and imprisoned in England; the Countess of Buchan, who had dared to
assist at the coronation of Bruce, was taken to Berwick and placed
in a wooden cage, specially built for her, which hung in one of the
centre turrets of the castle. The English besieged and took the castle
of Kildrummy, and Nigel Bruce, the King’s brother, was sent in fetters
to Berwick, and there executed. The Earl of Athole and Sir Simon Fraser
were conveyed to London and executed as traitors; and their heads
were placed upon London Bridge beside that of Wallace. Sir Christopher
Seton, Sir Walter Logan, Bernard Mouat, Herbert Morham, Ralph Herries,
Thomas Bruce and Alexander Bruce, brothers of the King, these and many
others were executed with all the horrible and shocking cruelties of
the period. Further, many of the people were struck down and slain
without trial, evidence, or question, in any form; and for several
years a scene of bloodshed, enormous cruelty, and oppression, prevailed
throughout the kingdom.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 996; Hemingford’s _Chronicles_,
Volume I., page 247, _et seq._; Barbour’s _Bruce_.
In the spring of 1307, Sir James Douglas and Sir Robert Boyd, with
Bruce’s sanction, sailed from the island of Rathlin with a small band
of followers, and made a descent upon the island of Arran. They landed
during the night, and Douglas placed his men in ambush in the vicinity
of the Castle of Brodick. The following morning he attacked the escort
of a convoy which was proceeding with stores for the garrison, defeated
and scattered the escort, and thus secured a store of provisions, arms,
and clothing. The governor of the castle sent out a body of soldiers to
assist the escort, but they were repulsed by the Scots and driven back
to the castle. Douglas then retired to a prehistoric fort on a woody
spot in the neighbourhood; and soon after Bruce arrived with a company
of about two hundred men and joined Douglas. Bruce then despatched
one of his followers into the district of Carrick, to ascertain how
his own vassals were affected; but the report of this messenger was
disheartening. He informed Bruce that Lord Percy had a strong garrison
in Turnberry Castle, and many of his men stationed in the town;
that the people were dispirited, and that there was little hope of
assistance from them. Bruce seemed perplexed, and consulted with his
brother Edward, who said that he would pursue the enterprise. They
then attacked the English troops stationed in the village of Turnberry,
and defeated them. Three days after Bruce retired into the mountainous
range of Carrick; and being deprived of aid which he had expected from
Ireland, his position was perilous. His enemies and the emissaries of
Edward I. were constantly hunting him, and he had several very narrow
escapes. At Cumnock, in Ayrshire, he was joined by his friend Sir James
Douglas, who had collected a body of men in his own barony. With his
followers thus increased, Bruce determined to give a good account of
himself.
In the beginning of May 1307, Pembroke advanced into Ayrshire at the
head of three thousand cavalry, with the intention of extinguishing
Bruce. But the King in his wanderings had acquired some experience,
and he fixed on a position at Loudon Hill. After inspecting the ground,
he limited the space for the evolutions of the enemy’s cavalry, and
at the same time protected both his flanks, by three deep trenches on
each side of his position; beyond these trenches the ground was marshy.
Having thus prepared the ground, Bruce posted his six hundred spearmen,
and coolly awaited the attack of the English cavalry. On the 10th of
May, the English cavalry under Pembroke advanced in two lines; and the
first line at full gallop charged the Scotch spearmen, but they stood
firm and unhorsed many of their assailants. The cavalry reeled and
then broke, and retired in disorder upon the second line; the Scots
with their spears levelled, followed them at the double, and completely
defeated them. Pembroke fled to the castle of Ayr, and reported his
defeat. Bruce’s followers now began to have confidence in him, and from
this time he gradually gained ground. Three days after the encounter at
Loudon Hill, Bruce completely defeated a body of the English commanded
by the Earl of Gloucester. The result was that many of the Scots joined
Bruce.
The leading spirit of the conquest, Edward I., by short stages had
advanced within sight of Scotland; but the hand of the grim and
implacable enemy was upon him, and on the 7th of July 1307, he expired.
He had inflicted enormous suffering upon the Scots; and when his
feet were on the brink of the grave, the venom of his heart was not
appeased, for he then implored his son and barons to continue his
scheme of torturing the Scots. Edward II. was weak and vacillating. He
advanced to the outskirts of Ayrshire, and without effecting anything
of importance, he returned home. Shortly after he removed Pembroke from
the Guardianship of Scotland, and appointed the Earl of Richmond to the
office. Edward Bruce assailed the English in Galloway; while Sir James
Douglas expelled them from Douglasdale, and the forests of Jedburgh and
Selkirk.
Bruce crossed the Tay, and marched northward to Aberdeenshire, with the
object of reducing Comyn, the Earl of Buchan, who upheld the English
authority in this quarter of the kingdom. He was, however, attacked
by a severe illness, caused by the exposure and privation which he had
endured; and the war operations were somewhat delayed. The King’s army
proceeded by Inverurie, and in the march northward several skirmishes
took place between his troops and the followers of the Comyns. Bruce’s
army retired into Strathbogie, to obtain a supply of provisions and
to afford their leader some rest. When he had partly recovered from
his illness, they returned to Inverurie. At the same time, the Earl of
Buchan, with a force numbering upwards of a thousand men, had advanced
to Old Meldrum; and Comyn’s ally, Sir David de Brechin, with a small
party rapidly marched on Inverurie, and surprised some of Bruce’s
outposts. This was the signal for a general attack. The King instantly
rose from his bed, called for his horse, and mounting, led his army
direct to Old Meldrum. There he delivered a decisive attack upon the
Earl of Buchan, and utterly defeated his army, and slew and pursued
them for many miles. Bruce then proceeded with merciless severity to
waste and destroy the territories of the Comyns in Buchan, so that
their power was broken. The castles in the hands of the English were
attacked, and when taken they were levelled to the ground, in order to
prevent the enemy from again occupying them. The citizens of Aberdeen,
assisted by a few of Bruce’s followers, captured the castle and
expelled the English garrison. The castle of Forfar was taken and the
English garrison slain; after which the King marched southward.
The recovery of the kingdom steadily proceeded, and the Scots readily
submitted to the King; indeed the people soon recognised the abilities
of Bruce. On the 24th of February, 1309, in a general council held
at Dundee, the estates recognised Bruce’s right to the throne; at the
same time the clergy of Scotland formally proclaimed their recognition
of his title and their adherence to him as king. The document then
issued by the clergy is of great historic value, inasmuch as it boldly
asserted the constitutional rights of the people even in the choice of
the king. The main points of the document are the following:――“To all
the faithful, to whose knowledge the present writing shall come, the
bishops, abbots, priors, and the rest of the clergy of the kingdom of
Scotland.... Be it known to you all that when between the Lord John de
Baliol, long ago in fact raised to be King of Scotland by the King of
England, and the deceased Lord Robert de Bruce, grandfather of our Lord
Robert the King who now is, a ground of dispute had arisen which of
them, to wit, was nearest by right of blood to inherit and reign over
the Scotch people; the faithful people without doubt always held, as
from their predecessors and ancestors they had learned and believed to
be true, that the said Lord Robert, the grandfather, after the death
of King Alexander and his grand-daughter, the daughter of the King of
Norway, was the true heir, and ought, in preference to all others, to
be advanced to the government of the kingdom, although the enemy of
the human race sowing tares, by the various machinations and plots of
his rivals, which it would be tedious to narrate in detail, the thing
has turned contrariwise; on account of whose overthrow, and the want
of kingly authority, heavy calamities have thenceforth resulted to
the kingdom of Scotland and its inhabitants.... The people, therefore,
and the commons of the aforesaid kingdom of Scotland, worn out by the
stings of many tribulations, seeing the said Lord John, by the King
of England, on various pretexts, taken, imprisoned, stripped of his
kingdom and people, and the kingdom of Scotland by him also ruined and
reduced to slavery; laid waste by a mighty depopulation and overwhelmed
by the bitterness of frequent grief, desolated from the want of right
government, exposed to every danger, and given up to the spoiler, and
the people stripped of their goods, tortured by wars, led captive,
bound, and imprisoned; by immense massacres of the innocent, and by
continual conflagrations, oppressed, subjected and enslaved, and on
the brink of total ruin ... being no longer able to bear so many and
so great losses of things and persons more bitter than death, often
happening for want of a captain and faithful leader ... the said
Lord Robert, with the concurrence and consent of the said people, was
chosen to be king, that he might reform the deformities of the kingdom,
correct what required correction, and direct what needed direction;
and having been by their authority made King of Scots, with him the
faithful people of the kingdom will live and die ... and if any one on
the contrary claim right to the kingdom in virtue of letters in past
times, sealed and containing the consent of the people and the commons,
know ye that all this took place, in fact, by force and violence,
which could not at the time be resisted, and through multiplied fears,
bodily tortures, and various terrors, enough to confound the senses and
distract the minds of perfect men.... We, therefore, the bishops and
the rest of the clergy, acting under no compulsion, knowing that the
premises are based on truth, and cordially approving the same, have
made due fealty to our Lord Robert, the illustrious King of Scotland,
and we publicly declare that the same ought to be rendered to him and
his heirs by our successors for ever.”¹ Seeing that Bruce was then
under the excommunication of the Pope for the slaughter of Comyn, this
announcement of the Scotch clergy was a great accession of strength to
his cause.
¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part II., Number 17.
In the spring of 1309 there was an attempt to make peace, but the Scots
were not inclined for peace till the English were expelled from all
the castles and the territories of Scotland. Edward II., in September
1310, entered Scotland with a great army, but Bruce wisely avoided a
battle. After driving off their cattle and sheep into the narrow glens,
the Scots retired to the woods and mountains; while the invading army
advanced to Renfrew, looking intently for an enemy to conquer, but
in vain. The English soon began to suffer for want of provisions and
forage, and without effecting anything of the slightest moment, the
army retreated to Berwick. Several of Edward’s subsequent expeditions
came to a similar end. In the summer of 1311 Bruce thought that his
turn to invade the territories of the enemy had at last come. He
accordingly marched his army into the northern counties of England and
plundered the country, levying heavy contributions; and having remained
for eight days, he returned home laden with booty.¹
¹ _Chronicles of Hexham_, Appendix, pages 58, 59.
Bruce then resolved to besiege Perth, which still remained in the bands
of the English. The town was fortified by a strong wall, and surrounded
by a deep moat full of water. The garrison made a brave and determined
resistance, and for six weeks repelled all the efforts of the besiegers.
But Bruce having ascertained and marked the shallowest part of the
moat, marched off to a considerable distance, as if he had abandoned
the siege. Ten days after, the king, at the head of a picked party
of his men, furnished with scaling ladders, returned to Perth during
the night, and they then waded through the moat, scaled the wall, and
surprised the garrison in their beds. The town was soon taken, and
the fortifications were completely demolished in accordance with the
policy of the king. The lives of the English garrison were spared; and
the Earl of Strathern, who then served under the English, was taken
prisoner. On renewing his allegiance to Bruce, the Earl was pardoned.
Shortly after the castles of Dumfries and Linlithgow were captured;
and on the 7th of March, 1312, the castle of Roxburgh was taken by
Douglas, and by the orders of the king both the castle and the town
were levelled to the ground. The Castle of Edinburgh, which had been
for nineteen years in the possession of the English, on the 14th
of March the same year, after a desperate struggle, was captured by
Randolph. Edward Bruce had expelled the English from Galloway and
Nithsdale, and demolished the castles in these districts; he also
took the castles of Rutherglen, and Dundee, and at last besieged the
Castle of Stirling――the citadel of the kingdom. The English Governor,
Mowbray, defended the castle with great determination, but at length
his provisions were becoming exhausted, and he then made an agreement
with Edward Bruce to surrender it, unless it should be relieved, before
the 24th of June, 1314. This agreement was very favourable to England,
inasmuch as it compelled the Scots to peril the fate of the kingdom on
a pitched battle.
As we have seen, the siege of Stirling Castle had cost Edward I.
enormous labour, and he deemed its capture one of his greatest
achievements. It was then the most important stronghold in Scotland,
and if England intended to retain a hold of the country she must
relieve it within the appointed time. So another great invasion was
resolved on, and great preparations were made. The whole feudal array
of England was called out, and levies drawn from Wales and Ireland;
vast quantities of all kinds of provisions for the troops were
collected from all quarters of England, and the army was well provided
with cars and waggons for the transport of the baggage, tents, and arms.
Edward II. entered Scotland in June, 1314, at the head of the largest
and best equipped army that had ever marched from England; for in all
it numbered one hundred thousand fighting men, one half of them cavalry,
who were then considered the chief arm of strength in battle.
To face this mighty host the Scots made a supreme effort. Bruce ordered
his force to muster in the Torwood, between Falkirk and Stirling, where
he found that his fighting men only numbered thirty thousand infantry,
and five hundred cavalry. He resolved to fight on foot, and prepared
to guard and strengthen his position to the utmost. After a careful
examination of the ground he determined to dispose his army in four
divisions――three of them forming a front line, inclining to the
south-east, facing the advance of the enemy, the fourth division being
held in reserve and placed behind the centre. The formation of the
Scottish spearmen was a series of solid circles, so inclined in front
as most effectively to resist the shock of cavalry charges: it was
similar to Wallace’s circles at the Battle of Falkirk. The right flank
of Bruce’s line was well protected by the rugged ground and the broken
banks of the Bannock burn, while his left wing was admirably secured by
a series of trenches and pits, which effectively limited the space for
the movements of the enemy’s cavalry. By this limitation of the space
in front of his line, Bruce hampered the development of the cavalry
charges of the English, which gave him a great advantage. The right
wing of the Scots was commanded by Edward Bruce, the centre by Randolph,
Earl of Moray, and the left wing by Sir James Douglas and the Steward
of Scotland, the reserve or fourth division was under the command of
the King himself, and it consisted of the men of the Isles, Argyle, and
Cantyre, accompanied by Angus, the Lord of the Isles, and Bruce’s own
vassals of Carrick; and there also the five hundred cavalry, under Sir
Robert Keith, was stationed, ready to execute their special duty, when
the proper moment came.
On the 23rd of June the enemy appeared, and made a bold attempt to
throw a body of cavalry into the castle of Stirling, but they were
repulsed by Randolph, the Earl of Moray. Bruce asked his leaders
whether they thought it best to fight or to retreat, and they
unanimously declared that they were determined to fight and to abide
the issue of the conflict. The Scots then made all the necessary
arrangements for the battle, passing the night under arms on the field.
At night the Mayne of St. Fillan, that is, the enshrined arm of the
saint, was shown to the Scottish army. At daybreak, the 24th of June,
the Abbot of Inchaffary celebrated mass on an eminence in front of
the army. He then passed along the line and in a few words exhorted
the Scots to fight for their rights and liberty. After this they
breakfasted, and then placed themselves under their different banners
in battle array.
The mighty host of Edward II. was early in motion on that memorable
Monday morning, and the English began the battle by the advance of
a body of lancers under the command of the Earls of Hereford and
Gloucester. The lancers charged at full gallop on the right wing of
the Scots, but the spearmen firmly withstood the impetuous onset of
the enemy, and some of the lancers were pitched from their saddles
and slain. The main body of the enemy’s cavalry rapidly advanced
and charged the Scottish centre, which for a moment appeared to be
engulphed amid the seething mass of the English. The whole Scottish
line was soon assailed and wrestling in a hand-to-hand combat with
the enemy. The battle raged with the utmost fury, while the English
attempted by desperate charges, many times repeated, to break through
the Scottish spearmen, but in vain. At this all-important hour they
thought of the home of their fathers, and their native hearths;
and remembering, too, the many grinding injuries, galling outrages,
stinging insults, cruel and unmitigated suffering inflicted upon
them during long years of dire oppression, they repelled every attack
with steady valour and slew heaps upon heaps of their assailants. The
English bowmen and archers, who supported the cavalry charges, were
beginning to gall the ranks of the Scottish spearmen; but Bruce sent
Sir Robert Keith with five hundred cavalry to charge the left flank of
the archers, and, as they had no weapons to defend themselves at close
quarters, they were instantly broken and scattered in all directions,
and so completely cowed that they declined to return to their posts.
In front the battle continued to rage with unabated fury, but with
obvious disadvantage to the English. Seeing the enemy flagging, Bruce
encouraged his leaders to strive on, assuring them that the victory
would soon be won. He then brought up the reserve, all the four
divisions of his army being now engaged. The English fought bravely and
determinedly, making many but unavailing attempts to pierce through the
front of the spearmen, and at every successive charge losing more men
and horses, and falling into greater confusion. Then was heard afar the
clashing and crashing of armour, the commingled whooping and shouting
of the war-cries, and withal the agonising moans and groans of the
wounded and dying; many masterless horses were madly running hither and
thither, heedless of friend or foe; the ground was streaming with blood
and strewn with shreds of armour, broken spears, arrows, and pennons,
rich scarfs and armorial bearings torn and soiled with blood and clay.
The Scots continued to gain ground, and pressed with increasing energy
upon the confused and tottering mass of the enemy, rending the air with
shouts of “On them! on them! they fall!” The English gave way slowly
along the whole line. Bruce perceiving this, placed himself at the
head of the reserve, and raising his war-cry, which was repeated by the
Lord of the Isles, they pressed with redoubled and unbearable fury on
the falling ranks of the enemy. This onset, well seconded by the other
divisions of the army, decided the fate of the day. The English broke
into disjointed squadrons and began to quit the field, and in spite of
all the efforts of their leaders to rally them and restore order, they
dispersed and fled headlong in all directions. King Edward stood gazing
intently upon the fatal field till he saw that all was lost, when he
fled in utter bewilderment. The struggle was over, the enemy in flight,
and the victory complete. Glory to the heroes who fought, and bled, and
fell on Bannockburn. Peace to the ashes of Robert Bruce, who skilfully
planned, ably led, and won the field on that memorable day; while
Scotsmen’s blood runs warm and human sympathies endure, the nation’s
heart will throb over the remembrance of Bannockburn.
Thirty thousand of the English fell upon the field, and the standards
of twenty-seven barons were laid in the dust, their owners being slain.
Two hundred knights and seven hundred esquires were among the fallen.
The prisoners consisted of twenty-two barons, sixty knights, and a
multitude of the lower ranks. Although only two men of note, Sir Walter
Ross and Sir William Vipont, were slain on the Scottish side, nearly
four thousand of the rank and file fell on the field. A large number
of the English must have been trampled to death by their own cavalry,
especially after the confusion in their lines began. For though the
Scottish spearmen stood in their positions like a rock so long as the
issue of the battle was doubtful, whenever Bruce placed himself at the
head of the reserve there was then an instantaneous forward movement
of the whole line, and a series of successive charges were made upon
the confused and entangled mass of the enemy, and it seems to have been
then that the greater part of the English were killed. Edward II. fled
by Linlithgow and thence to Dunbar, escorted by five hundred cavalry,
who were pursued all the way by Douglas at the head of sixty horsemen.
There was no rallying point after the battle, and Edward escaped from
Dunbar to Berwick in a fishing-boat.
Bruce showed a noble forbearance in the hour of victory, and treated
his fallen enemies and the prisoners with much respect and humanity. In
this he exhibited a striking contrast to the cruel and rancorous policy
of the Edwards. Of course some of the prisoners who were rich, paid
large sums of money for their ransom. The enormous spoil of the English
camp fell into the hands of the Scots, amongst which was the military
chest containing the money for the payment of the troops, and the
privy seal of Edward II. Mowbray, the governor, surrendered Stirling
Castle the day after the battle, according to the agreement, and
he then entered into the service of Bruce. The Earl of Hereford had
taken refuge in the castle of Bothwell, which, after a short siege,
surrendered to Edward Bruce; he was exchanged for Bruce’s queen and
daughter, and his sister Christina, Bishop Wishart of Glasgow, and the
Earl of Mar.
The Battle of Bannockburn was not only one of the greatest events in
the history of Scotland, but it was also one of the greatest events in
the history of Britain. Its immediate effects were obvious; while its
results have been continuously felt in the internal history of Britain
to the present time, and will continue to be felt throughout all time;
as it contributed an element to human freedom which in its essence can
never be lost.
After the Battle of Bannockburn, Bruce’s chief aim was to bring the
English government to equitable terms of peace, but they refused to
treat him as a king. The result of this was a succession of invasions
and border raids which, for many years, kept both countries in a state
of turmoil; for the Scots naturally resorted to a convincing mode of
showing the advantages which they had gained, and they crossed the
Border in force and plundered and wasted the northern counties of
England. This was carried to such extremities that England became
anxious for peace, but the Scots would listen to it only on the
condition of the full acknowledgment of the independence of the kingdom.
The English were still extremely loth to recognise this; and Edward
tried the weapons of spiritual warfare and applied to the Pope for a
pacifying Bull, which was issued in the beginning of the year 1317.
This papal document was addressed to the illustrious Edward, King of
England, and the noble Robert de Bruce, conducting himself as King
of Scotland; it ordered the observance of a truce between England and
Scotland for two years. Two cardinals appeared in England as the papal
legates to enforce the observance of the truce, but Bruce declined to
observe it or to treat with the representatives of the Pope unless he
was addressed as King of Scotland. He told them that he would listen
to no Papal Bulls until he had taken Berwick. Bruce pushed on the siege
of Berwick, and it surrendered in the end of March, 1318. The Scots
then invaded Northumberland, and took the castles of Wark, Harbottle,
and Mitford. They advanced into Yorkshire, plundered the country, and
levied contributions, returning home laden with booty, driving their
prisoners before them like a flock of sheep.¹
¹ Walsingham’s _Chronicles_, Volume I., page 142, _et seq._;
_Chronicles of Hexham_, Volume I., page 59, _et seq._;
_Fœdera_, Volume II., pages 317, 340.
The two papal legates in England excommunicated Bruce and his adherents.
Owing, however, to the keen national sympathies of the Scotch clergy,
this had little effect in Scotland.
In December 1318, Robert I. assembled a parliament at Scone, in which
a number of wise laws were passed. Acts were passed touching the
administration of justice, the organisation and mustering of the army,
and the freedom of the Church. The King commanded that the old and
common law of the kingdom should be rightly administered to rich and
poor alike. Acts relating to cattle-lifting, and to the salmon-fishing
were passed. It was enacted that every man who had goods of the value
of one cow, should arm himself with a good spear, or with a bow and
a sheaf of twenty-four arrows. An act was passed, which prohibited
all persons holding fiefs in Scotland from sending money or rents out
of the kingdom, under severe penalties. This parliament settled the
succession to the throne. In the event of the King dying without a
lawful male heir, Robert, the son of the Princess Marjory, should
succeed to the crown and kingdom; and in the event of the succession
falling to a minor, Randolph, Earl of Moray, should be appointed tutor
to the heir and guardian of the kingdom, and, failing him, Sir James
Douglas. The rule of succession was then settled thus:――“The male
nearest to the King at his death, in the direct line of descent, should
succeed to the Crown, and, failing such, then the nearest female in
the same line; and, failing the direct line, then the nearest male in
the collateral line, respect always being had to the right of blood by
which the last king reigned.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
105‒114.
Edward II. attempted to retake Berwick, but failed. To divert Edward
from the siege of Berwick, the Scots marched into Yorkshire and wasted
the country. This continual warfare was ruinous to both kingdoms; and
on the 21st of December 1319, a truce was concluded for two years.
About this time the Pope renewed his excommunication of Bruce and his
adherents: many denunciatory edicts had been issued from Rome against
Bruce and Scotland since he mounted the throne, and England had done
all that she could to increase their number and to enforce them.
The immaculate Edward II. pretended that he could not treat with an
excommunicated man like Bruce without a papal dispensation. Thus
obstacles were constantly thrown in the way of peace, and the policy of
King Robert was greatly hampered. At the same time, it was keenly felt
that the attitude of the King and the nation towards the head of the
Church was unsatisfactory. Therefore it was resolved by a parliament,
which met in the Abbey of Arbroath in April 1320, to prepare an address
to the Pope, and present to him the real state of the nation. This
address is of much historic and constitutional importance, and may be
quoted at some length. After referring to the antiquity of the kingdom
and its long line of kings, the conversion of the nation by Saint
Andrew, and the many favours which preceding popes had granted to the
kingdom, it proceeds:――
“So that our nation under their protection has hitherto continued
free and peaceful, until that prince, to wit, the King of the English,
Edward, the father of him who now is, under the semblance of a
friend and ally, in a most unfriendly way harassed our kingdom, then
without a head, and our people conscious of no guilt, and at that
time unaccustomed to wars: and the injuries, slaughters and deeds of
violence, plunderings, burnings, imprisonments of bishops, spoliations
and murders of men of religion, and other outrages, which this prince
perpetrated on the people, sparing no age or sex, religion or order,
no one could describe or fully understand but he who has learned it
from experience. From these innumerable evils, by the help of Him who,
after wounding, heals and restores to health, we were freed by our most
gallant prince and king, Lord Robert, who, for the delivering of his
people and heritage from the enemies’ hands, like another Joshua, has
cheerefully endured toil, fatigue, hardship, and danger. The Divine
Providence, the laws and customs of the kingdom which we will maintain
till death, the right of succession, and the due consent and assent
of all the people, have made him our prince and king. To him we are
obliged and resolved to adhere in all things, both on account of his
right and his merits, as the person who has restored the people’s
safety, and will defend their liberty. But, if this prince should leave
those principles which he has so nobly pursued, and consent that we
or our kingdom be subjected to the King or people of England, we will
immediately endeavour to expel him as our enemy and the subverter of
his own and our rights, and make another king who would defend our
liberties; for, so long as one hundred of us remain alive, we will
never consent in any way to subject ourselves to the English. Since it
is not for glory, nor riches, nor honours, but liberty alone that we
fight and contend for, which no good man will lose but with his life.
For these reasons, Reverend Father and Lord, we earnestly beseech and
entreat your Holiness, ... to deign to admonish and exhort the King of
England to rest satisfied with his own dominions, seeing that of old
England was enough for seven kings or more, to let us live in peace
in our small kingdom of Scotland, beyond which we have no habitation,
and desire nothing but our own, ... if your Holiness do not implicitly
believe these things, but trusting too much to the reports of the
English, and thus continue to favour them to our destruction, we must
believe that the Most High will lay to your charge all the loss of life,
the ruin of souls, and other evils which they will inflict on us and we
on them.... We commit the defence of our cause to the Supreme King and
Judge, casting our care on Him and firmly trusting that He will give
courage to us and bring our enemies to nought.”¹
¹ _National Manuscripts_, Part II., Number 24.
This spirited and constitutional address had an immediate effect at the
papal court; the severe measures against Scotland were suspended for
some time. Sir Adam Gordon and another baron were sent as ambassadors
to the papal court, and the Pope consented to address Bruce by
the title of the King of Scotland. But no final settlement of the
difficulty was obtained. In September 1320, commissioners were
appointed by England, empowered to treat with Scotland for peace; but
it appeared that Edward II. and his government were not sincere, as
they shortly after announced their intention to make peace by force of
arms.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume II., pages 431, 481.
Another great invasion of Scotland was resolved on, and in August
1322, Edward II. marched into the doomed kingdom at the head of an
army numbering one hundred thousand men. Bruce adopted the tactics
of starving out the enemy, and all the cattle and provisions in the
Merse and the Lothians were removed to places beyond the reach of the
invading host. This was completely effective, as Edward II. and his
vast army, without striking a single blow, were compelled to retreat
in a state of wretchedness; many of the soldiers having died from
starvation and the effects of the fine generalship of their King.
In their retreat the English were harassed by Douglas and Randolph,
who, with a body of the Scots, hung on their rear and slew the
stragglers. When Bruce received tidings of the success of his tactics,
he immediately recrossed the Forth, marched rapidly southward, and
with a strong army advanced into England. On hearing that Edward II.
was encamped with the remnant of his army at Biland Abbey in Yorkshire,
Bruce determined to surprise him, and at once marched forward. He found
his enemies posted in a strong position on the summit of a steep hill,
accessible only on one side. But the sagacity and experience of Bruce
was equal to the occasion; and he ordered a party of the men of the
Isles and Argyle to march to a certain spot at the foot of the hill,
and then climb the rocks and attack the flank and rear of the enemy
posted on the summit. The Islemen shortly reached the ridge of the
hill and drove the English from the heights, and then the main body of
the Scots advanced and attacked the enemy. The English were completely
defeated, and fled in all directions; Edward escaped and rode to York,
hotly pursued by the Steward of Scotland. The baggage of the army, the
privy seal of England, and several prisoners of note, amongst whom were
the Earl of Richmond and Henry de Sully, fell into the hands of the
Scots. They proceeded to waste the country and advanced to the banks
of the Humber, levying contributions. In the middle of October they
returned home with their booty.¹
¹ _Walsingham_, Volume I., page 166; Barbour’s _Bruce_; Hailes’
_Annals_, Volume II., pages 216‒218.
Indeed it had become manifest that if peace was not soon concluded
with Scotland, the consequences would be disastrous to England.
The inhabitants of the border counties of England saw and felt that
Edward II. was quite unable to protect them; and if the war was to be
continued, it seemed probable that these counties would soon be annexed
to Scotland. The prospect of this induced the English government to
make proposals of peace. Still the difficulty of Edward II. and his
advisers was their extreme reluctance to recognise Bruce as the King
of an independent kingdom; a truce, however, was agreed to, on the 7th
of June 1323, which was to continue in force for thirteen years.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume II., page 510, _et seq._
Although Edward II. and his government were very anxious for a
truce with the Scots, they were loth to relinquish their ideas of
the conquest of Scotland, which they had received from the great
hammer――Edward I. Accordingly Edward II. continued his efforts to stir
up the Pope against Bruce and the Scots; and he intimated to the Pope
that the Scotch clergy encouraged the people in their rebellion to the
utmost; and by their contempt of the solemn censures of the Church,
they had certainly incurred the suspicion of heresy; and therefore he
thought that no Scotsman should be elected to the office of a bishop in
his native land. Bruce sent Randolph, the Earl of Moray, to the papal
court; and he so far succeeded as to induce the Pope to address a Bull
to Bruce with the title of King. On his way home, Randolph was joined
by other Scotch envoys, and they concluded a treaty of alliance with
France, in which it was agreed that in future wars with England, France
and Scotland were to assist each other against her.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume II., page 541.
Further attempts were made to arrange a final peace; but the English
government was still invidious, and persistently continued to instigate
the papal court to renew its denunciatory edicts against Scotland. On
the 20th of January 1327, Edward II. was dethroned. He was murdered
on the 21st of September, the same year; and his son was crowned on
the 25th of January under the title of Edward III. The new King and
government of England, however, was not inclined to recognise the
independence of Scotland, and the negotiations were broken off. The
truce was terminated, and both kingdoms prepared for a renewal of the
struggle.
The King ordered the Scots to muster, and in June 1327, an army
of twenty thousand men, under the command of Randolph and Douglas,
marched over the western border and plundered Northumberland. They
out-manœuvred the English army, and after staying three weeks in the
enemy’s country they returned home. Preparations were immediately
made for another expedition. Bruce himself at the head of a large
army invaded England; one division of the army under the King
besieged the castle of Norham; another division attacked the castle of
Alnwick; and the third division proceeded to waste the open country of
Northumberland. Thus Bruce by his energy at last compelled the English
government to sue for peace on equal terms, as commissioners came to
the Scottish camp and offered proposals of a peaceful character. One
of these was, that a marriage should be contracted between David, the
King’s son, and Joanna, the sister of Edward III.
But Bruce determinedly insisted that the independence of Scotland
should be first recognised as the basis of any treaty between the two
kingdoms. This was conceded. In a Parliament held at York, on the 1st
of March 1328, it was agreed that England should renounce for ever all
claims of superiority over Scotland; the main points of this document
were these:――“Whereas we, and others of our predecessors, Kings of
England, have endeavoured to obtain a right of dominion and superiority
over the kingdom of Scotland, and have thereby been the cause of long
and atrocious wars between the kingdoms, ... we have, by the assent
of the prelates, barons, and commons of our kingdom, in parliament
assembled, granted, and hereby do grant, for us, and our heirs and
successors, that the kingdom of Scotland shall remain for ever to
the magnificent prince and lord, Robert, by the grace of God the
illustrious King of Scots, our ally and dear friend, and to his heirs
and successors, free, entire, and separated from the kingdom of England
by its respective marches, as in the time of Alexander III., King of
Scotland, without any subjection, servitude, claim or demand whatsoever.
And we hereby renounce and convey to the said King of Scotland, his
heirs and successors, whatsoever right we or our ancestors in times
past, have laid claim to in any way over the kingdom of Scotland.
And we renounce and declare void, for ourselves and our heirs and
successors, all obligations, agreements, or treaties, touching the
subjection of the kingdom of Scotland and the inhabitants thereof,
entered into between our predecessors, and any of the Kings thereof,
or any of their subjects.”
After the adjustment of this preliminary condition, the negotiations
proceeded smoothly and rapidly; the treaty of peace was concluded
at Edinburgh on the 17th of March 1328, and formally ratified by the
English parliament at Northampton, on the 4th of May, the same year.
The stipulations of the treaty of peace may be indicated thus: The King
of England and the King of Scotland promised to be faithful allies of
each other; reserving the obligations of the King of Scots to his ally,
the King of France. If the Irish people rebelled against the King of
England, the King of Scots should not assist them; and, if any one rose
in arms against the King of Scots in the Isle of Man or in the other
islands of Scotland, the King of England should not assist them. It was
provided that a marriage should be solemnised between David, son and
heir of the King of Scots, and Joanna, sister of the King of England.
Scotland agreed to pay a sum of £20,000 sterling to England, within
three years, at three separate terms: further, it was stipulated
that Sir James Douglas should be reinstated in the lands which he had
forfeited in Northumberland; and that Henry Beaumont, Earl of Buchan,
Thomas, Lord Wake of ♦Liddel, and Henry Percy, should be restored to
their lands and lordships in Scotland. The King of England promised to
aid in obtaining the recall of all proceedings instituted by the Pope’s
authority against the King and people of Scotland.¹
♦ “Liddell” replaced with “Liddel” for consistency
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., page 126;
_National Manuscripts_, Part II., Number 26; _Fœdera_,
Volume II., pages 762, 806.
Robert I. had now secured to the people of Scotland the full
acknowledgment of their national independence and liberty. To obtain
this he had struggled hard and long against fearful odds, cheerfully
endured the utmost privation, and bore with a strength of spirit
unrivalled in the annals of the world, the successive blows of
bereavement inflicted upon him by the implacable rage of his enemies.
The justice and the glory of his culminated achievement, was amply
attested by his enemies, when they at last pleaded guilty as above,
admitted, and stated that they had been the cause of the manifold and
extreme suffering inflicted upon the people of Scotland and the people
of England.
The King’s son, David, who had been made Earl of Carrick, a boy five
years of age, proceeded with a large retinue from Cardross to Berwick
to meet his bride; and there Joanna, a girl of eleven years, was handed
over, in accordance with the treaty, to Sir James Douglas and the Earl
of Moray. On the 18th of July 1328, the marriage was celebrated at
Berwick, amid great rejoicing. Robert I. was unable to be present at
the marriage of his young son, as he had been for years afflicted with
an illness brought on by the privations which he had endured in the
early stage of his career. In the latter years of his life, he spent
much of his time at Cardross on the Clyde, a manor which he acquired
in 1326. He occupied his attention and in some measure assuaged the
tedium and pain of his malady by improving his residence at Cardross.
He repaired the park there, and greatly improved the garden; he had a
house for falcons which was surrounded by a hedge, and it appears that
he kept a pet lion. The Earl of Moray, Randolph, was often with the
King, and both devoted much of their time to shipbuilding. The King had
a ship of his own which plied on the Clyde and the neighbouring waters.
At Cardross the King lived in a quiet but hospitable style, as appears
from the large number of sheep, salted salmon, haddocks, eels, lampreys,
and other provisions which were consumed. He gave gifts and pensions to
a number of persons, and charities to poor men.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.
Robert I. had done his work; and when he found his life drawing to its
close, he dictated a letter to his son, giving him his last paternal
advice, and directing that his heart should be buried at Melrose. A
portion of this letter may be quoted:――“Robert, by the grace of God
King of the Scots, to David his most beloved son and the rest of his
successors, wishes health, and so to keep his precepts that they may
reign with his blessing. Dearest son, he appears worthy to be esteemed
a son, who, imitating his father’s example in good things, endeavours
to follow out his devout wishes, nor does he properly take the name
of heir who does not adhere to the goodly designs of his predecessor.
Desiring therefore that you, and the rest of our successors, should
follow out in devout sincerity that pious love and sincere regard
which we have conceived toward the Monastery of Melrose, where, of our
special devotion, we have appointed our heart to be buried.... And this
exhortation, supplication and command, do you our son, and the rest
of our successors, take care with earnest resolution to fulfil, if ye
would have our blessing together with the blessing of the Son of the
Most High King, who taught sons to do the will of their fathers, in
that which is right.... And in witness of our devotion towards Melrose,
so loved and chosen by us, we give this present letter to the aforesaid
religious, to be shown to our successors in time to come.”¹ This letter
was written twenty-seven days before the King’s death, yet we know that
the instructions which it gave touching the burial of his heart were
superseded by a later expression of his wishes. There appears to be
no doubt that Bruce in his last hours besought Sir James Douglas to
carry his heart to Jerusalem. It is also certain that Douglas actually
made an attempt to fulfil the wishes of the King, although he failed to
reach Jerusalem. It is, however, uncertain what became of Bruce’s heart
in the end.
¹ _National Manuscripts_, Part II., Number 29.
Robert I. died at Cardross on the 7th of June, 1329, in the fifty-fifth
year of his age, and thus ended a remarkable career and a memorable
reign. His remains were interred in the choir of the Abbey Church of
Dunfermline, and a marble monument, made in Paris, was erected over the
grave. Bruce married Isabella, a daughter of the Earl of Mar. By her he
had one daughter, Marjory, who married Walter the Steward of Scotland.
Bruce’s second wife was Elizabeth, a daughter of the Earl of Ulster,
and by her he had two sons, David, mentioned in preceding pages, and
John, who died in infancy, and two daughters. King Robert had two
natural sons, Walter of Odistown, on the Clyde, who predeceased his
father, and Sir Robert Bruce, who fell at the battle of Dupplin in
1332. A papal bull, dated a few days after the death of Robert I.,
but addressed to him, finally cleared Scotland from the interdict,
and authorised the Bishop of St. Andrews, or the Bishop of Glasgow,
to solemnly anoint and crown the Kings of Scotland.
CHAPTER VII.
_Narrative to the Return of James I._
ON the death of Robert I., in accordance with his expressed request,
Randolph, Earl of Moray, assumed the government of the kingdom. He
was an energetic man, and during his short regency the kingdom was
admirably governed. The regent became aware that Edward III. had begun
to entertain hostile intentions against Scotland, as in 1330, Edward
Baliol, a son of the deposed King John, received permission from Edward
III. to reside in England as long as he pleased. Baliol, in concert
with a number of nobles who had forfeited their Scotch estates, was
then projecting an invasion of Scotland, under the connivance of
Edward III. After the battle of Bannockburn, the nobles who held lands
in Scotland, but preferred to give their allegiance to the King of
England, then forfeited their lands on the north of the Tweed; as
it had at last, from bitter experience, become plain that a divided
allegiance had already caused enormous suffering in Scotland. Still
these forfeited nobles were extremely loth to relinquish their hold
upon the lands of Scotland, and, as we have seen, the claims of three
of them were recognised in the treaty of Northampton. But the regent
was unwilling to restore extensive territories to the sworn enemies of
the kingdom.
On the 24th of November, 1331, King Robert’s son, a boy of eight years,
was crowned and anointed by the Bishop of St. Andrews, under the title
of David II. But perils were impending. The regent received tidings
of Baliol’s movements, and immediately mustered an army to defend the
kingdom. At this crisis the regent suddenly died at Musselburgh, on
the 20th of July, 1332. The Earl of Mar was elected regent, but he
had no qualification for the office, and led the nation to disaster.
In the beginning of August 1332, eleven days after the death of
Randolph, Edward Baliol appeared in the Firth of Forth with a fleet,
and immediately landed his troops on the coast of Fifeshire. His force
numbered about three thousand men on foot, and four hundred cavalry;
and his most ardent supporters were Henry Beaumont, who claimed the
earldom of Buchan, Lord Wake of Liddel, and Henry Percy. Besides these
there were many others under Baliol’s banner who were hungering for
land in Scotland, and pretended that they had claims to it. Among the
Scotch supporters of Baliol the most notable was the Earl of Athole;
he had estates in the south of England; his territories in Athole
and in Strathbogie were forfeited by Robert I., who gave Strathbogie
to Sir Adam Gordon. Thus Baliol’s supporters were animated by strong
motives, and they marched forward to Strathern with remarkable spirit,
surprised the Scotch army, under Mar, at Dupplin on the 11th of August,
and completely defeated the Scots. Mar himself, Robert Bruce, Earl
of Carrick, the Earl of Monteith, and many of the Scots were slain.
The day after the battle, Baliol and his followers took possession of
Perth, and commenced to fortify it.
The Earl of March was at the head of another Scotch army superior in
numbers to Baliol’s force, but it appears that he secretly favoured
the invaders. March advanced towards Perth, as if he intended to
attack Baliol; but he soon disbanded his army without striking a single
blow. Baliol for the moment was master, and accordingly on the 24th
of September he was crowned at Scone. He then proceeded southward to
Roxburgh, surrendered the independence of Scotland to Edward III., and
gave up Berwick and territories on the borders to his Lord Superior.
But whilst he was transacting this business, Sir Robert Keith, and
James and Simon Fraser, surprised and captured Perth. A party led by
the young Earl of Moray, Randolph’s son, and Sir Archibald Douglas,
then proceeded southward in search of the new made King, who lay
encamped at Annan. At midnight they entered his camp, and after a
short resistance, his men were utterly routed and many of them slain,
and Baliol himself fled half-naked into England.¹
¹ Hemingford’s _Chronicles_, Volume II., pages 303, 306;
_Register of the Great Seal_, pages 4, 14, 15; Hailes’
_Annals_, Volume II., pages 158‒161; _Fœdera_, Volume II.,
pages 876, 888; Volume III., page 317, _et seq._
Edward III. threw off the mask and openly assisted Baliol, who returned
to Scotland in March, 1333. The English army besieged Berwick, and
made the utmost efforts to take it. Sir Archibald Douglas, who was then
regent, attempted to raise the siege, and with an army numbering about
ten thousand men, attacked the English at Halidon Hill on the 20th of
July. But the Scots were completely defeated, Douglas, the regent, was
slain, and the Earls of Lennox, Strathern, Ross, and Sutherland, and
the greater part of the Scotch army. Berwick immediately surrendered,
and the southern part of the kingdom was under the heel of the invader.
Baliol held a Parliament at Edinburgh in February 1334, at which he
parcelled out the southern half of Scotland among his own adherents;
and then formally rendered homage to Edward III., surrendering to him
the remainder of the kingdom. His supporters, however, soon began to
quarrel with him, as he had no real hold of the nation. The Scots still
held the castles of Dumbarton, Lochleven, Lochdun in Carrick, Kildrummy,
and Inverness. In May, 1334, the young King, David II., and his queen
were sent to France for safety, and Philip VI. rendered material aid to
the national party.
About this time Sir Andrew Moray, who had been taken prisoner, returned
from England after two years imprisonment, and the Steward, who had
taken refuge in the Island of Bute, also appeared on the scene, and
the people began to rally round them. The invaders were driven out
of Renfrew, Kyle, and Carrick, and Beaumont, the Earl of Buchan, was
captured in his Castle of Dundarg, but on the payment of a large ransom
was allowed to return to England. Baliol fled a second time across the
Border to seek the protection of his Lord Superior. Edward III., like
his grandfather, was always willing to oppress the people of Scotland,
and within five years he led, in person, four successive invasions into
the kingdom. During the short intervals between these invasions the
Scots assailed Baliol’s supporters, and allowed them no rest. The Earl
of Athole wavered, and repeatedly changed sides. In the service of
Edward III. he besieged the castle of Kildrummy, but in 1335 he was
attacked by Sir Andrew Moray at ♦Culblean, and defeated and slain. The
fall of Athole was a severe blow to Edward III., and his tool Baliol.
At a meeting held in Dunfermline, Sir Andrew Moray was elected Regent
of the kingdom, and he struggled to the utmost against the enemies
of the nation. Edward III. resolved to crush all resistance, and in
1336 invaded Scotland at the head of a great army. He proceeded by
Perth, and thence marched to Aberdeen, wasting the country and burning
villages and towns along his route. He then advanced through the
counties of Aberdeen and Banff, crossed the Spey, and onward till he
reached Inverness. Moray, the regent, wisely avoided a battle, but he
♠harassed his enemy most effectively, and Edward returned to England
without having subdued Scotland. Shortly after Edward III. concentrated
his attention on France, where he found a more tempting field for his
inordinate ambition.
♦ “Culblen” replaced with “Culblean”
♠ “harrassed” replaced with “harassed”
Sir Andrew Moray, the Stewart, Sir William Douglas, and others,
assisted by the body of the people, continued their efforts to expel
the invaders. Several of the castles were retaken from the enemy. The
upstart Baliol, when left to his own resources, soon disclosed his
nakedness. The regent, Moray, died in 1338, and the Steward of Scotland
succeeded him as regent. He besieged Perth, which had been for years
the headquarters of the English, and the citadel of Baliol’s supporters.
After the siege had continued for some time, the governor of the town
capitulated on terms, and he and the garrison were permitted to retire
into England. By this time Baliol had become an object of hatred,
suspicion, and contempt, among all classes of the Scots, and in 1339
he finally fled from the kingdom, and assumed his natural position as
a pensioned dependant on England.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.; Hemingford’s
_Chronicles_, Volume II., pages 336‒340; Buchanan’s _History
of Scotland_, Book IX., Chapter 27.
The regent proceeded with the work of expelling the invaders and the
re-organisation of the government. He besieged Stirling castle, which
was captured in 1341; and Edinburgh castle was surprised and taken on
the 17th of April the same year. At this time the regent reported to
the King that the country was almost clear of the enemy, and suggested
that he should return to his kingdom. The King and Queen embarked
for Scotland, and landed safely at Inverbervie on the 4th of June
1341; thence they proceeded to Aberdeen, and were warmly received and
hospitably entertained by the magistrates and the citizens. After a
short stay in the city, the royal party paid a visit to the aged sister
of Robert I., the widow of Sir Andrew Moray, who then resided in the
castle of Kildrummy. The King returned to Aberdeen, and was present at
a council held there on the 21st of February 1342; and on the 14th of
April he was again at Kildrummy. This year the King sojourned for some
time at Ayr, and visited Dumbarton, Stirling, Linlithgow, Haddington,
Inverkeithing, Cupar, Scone, and other towns. The King along with
the Queen and his sisters spent a night at Banff; and in August and
November he was again at Kildrummy; on this occasion the royal party
stayed for some time at Aberdeen. It appears that the King took part in
the popular amusements of the period. So far it seemed that the young
King had a bright future before him, and it was evident that the people
had great faith and hope in the son of Robert I.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.
David II. was then a youth of eighteen years, and, on his return from
France, the Steward gave over the government to him. The state of the
kingdom then needed a ruler who possessed the characteristics of energy,
sagacity, and experience, but unhappily it became apparent that David
II. lacked these qualifications. The war with England still continued
on the borders; a truce was concluded in 1344, which was to continue
till November 1346; but so long as the English held any portion of the
kingdom, the Scots could not refrain from attempting to recover it.
In 1346, at the request of his French ally, David II. mustered
an army at Perth and marched southward. He entered England by the
western marches and plundered the country, advancing as far as the
neighbourhood of Durham. There the English army approached, and the
Scots hastily formed for action in three divisions. Their left wing
was under the Steward, their right under the Earl of Moray, and their
centre led by the King himself. At Neville’s Cross, on the 17th of
October, the English began the battle by an attack on the right wing
of the Scots. The Earl of Moray was slain, and his division was driven
back and thrown into disorder; the English then assailed the centre in
flank and in front; but David II. fought bravely, and for three hours
he maintained the contest against fearful odds; although severely
wounded, he continued to encourage his men, who fell fast around him,
till he was seized and disarmed by the enemy. When the royal banner
fell, the Steward retreated with the remnant of his army. The battle
was extremely disastrous to the Scots. The High Chancellor of Scotland,
the Chamberlain, the Marshall and the Constable, the Earls of Moray
and Strathern, many other nobles, and about fourteen thousand men were
slain upon the field. While the King, the Earls of Fife, Sutherland,
Monteith, and many other nobles and knights were taken prisoners.
The King and the prisoners were conveyed to London. By the orders of
Edward III., the Earls of Monteith and Fife were selected as traitors,
and tried and condemned. Monteith was executed with all the shocking
cruelties of the English law of treason, but Fife’s life was spared.¹
¹ _Walsingham_, Volume I., page 269; _History of Scotland_,
Winton, Volume III., pages 476‒477; _Rotuli Scotiæ_, Volume
I., pages 690‒696, 705; _Fœdera_, Volume III.
The English followed up their victory, entered Scotland, and overran
anew the greater part of the kingdom south of the Forth. The castles
of Roxburgh and Hermitage were surrendered to the enemy. But the
national spirit of resistance survived the calamitous defeat of Durham.
The Steward was elected guardian of the kingdom, and he assumed the
functions of his office, and exerted himself to the utmost to maintain
the liberty of the nation. In 1347 a truce was concluded between
England and France, which included Scotland, and it was continued by
renewals to 1354.
The adjustment of the King’s ransom was a most difficult and tedious
matter. It appeared that the main aim of Edward III. was to extort an
enormous ransom for his royal prisoner, accompanied by stipulations
which the Scots, impoverished to the brink of utter ruin by a war of
fifty years, would be unable to implement; by this and secret intrigue,
Edward hoped and endeavoured to obtain possession of the throne of
Scotland. Attempts were made to treat with David II. on conditions
entirely subversive of the independence of Scotland; the poor, captive
King, however, could give no assurance that such conditions would be
fulfilled, so this came to nothing. After many abortive negotiations
and much wrangling, the King’s ransom was fixed at 100,000 marks, to
be paid to England by ten yearly instalments of 10,000 marks; twenty
hostages drawn from the chief families of the kingdom were to be placed
in the hands of the King of England until the ransom was paid; and a
truce was to be observed between the two kingdoms for ten years. The
treaty was concluded at Berwick on the 3rd of October 1357, and the
payment of the first instalment of the ransom was to be due on the
25th of June 1358. After the ratification of this treaty David II. was
released and returned to Scotland.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume III., pages 242, 365, _et seq._; _Acts of
the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., page 155 _et seq._
The first matter that demanded attention was how to raise the money to
pay the annual instalment of the King’s ransom. On the 6th of November
1357, David II. met his Parliament which assembled at Scone to concert
measures to raise this money. It was proposed that the King should be
empowered to purchase all the wool and fleeces in the kingdom at the
price of four marks for each sack of wool, which was two-thirds of the
actual market price of wool at the time, thus giving two marks as a tax
on every sack. The Estates sanctioned this provision. Directions were
given for a re-valuation of all the lands and rents of the kingdom; the
produce, corn, cattle, sheep, and every kind of goods, and also lists
of the names of all the merchants and tradesmen in the country, as a
tax was to be laid on the rents and profits of land according to their
real value; and an inquiry was to be made as to how much each person
was likely voluntarily to contribute toward the payment of the King’s
ransom. Various arrangements were made for collecting these taxes, and
for punishing those who might attempt to avoid payment. It was then
enacted that all the lands, rents, and other rights of the Crown which
had been alienated should now be resumed; that such alienations by the
King in the future should not be made without mature deliberation with
his council. The great customs of the Crown were raised to three times
their former amount.
The payment of the King’s ransom pressed extremely hard upon the
impoverished nation. In spite of all the efforts of the parliament and
the people, the payment of the annual instalment fell into arrears.
This caused new arrangements to be proposed and concluded, which always
entailed more expense and increased the national taxes and debt. The
King himself was irregular and extravagant in his habits. It seems that
after his release he found little in Scotland to satisfy him, as he
frequently returned to England, and thus he entailed more annoyance and
expense upon his people; while the internal government of the kingdom
was neglected and the higher nobles became turbulent and lawless.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
133‒134.
David II. had no children by his wife, the princess Joanna, and she
died in England on the 14th of August 1362. The following year the King
married Margaret Logie, but he had no family by her, and it seems she
had been superseded by a new favourite, Agnes of Dunbar, a daughter of
the Earl of March, who had attracted David’s attention. Accordingly, in
1369 David II. divorced his queen, Margaret Logie. These facts enable
us in some measure to understand the public conduct of David II., and
his proceedings with Edward III., touching the succession to the throne
of Scotland.
In the month of October 1363, David II. proceeded to London, and a
project was then matured for transferring the Crown of Scotland to
England. The main points of the project agreed on between Edward III.
and David II., were that an immediate discharge of the ransom would
be given, on the condition of the Crown of Scotland being settled
on Edward III., in the event of David leaving no male issue; and
elaborate provisions were framed for preserving the separate laws
and institutions of Scotland. David II. undertook to ascertain the
inclinations of the Scots on the matter, and report the result to
Edward. In a parliament held at Scone on the 4th of March, 1364, David
suggested that the Estates should choose Edward III., or one of his
sons, to fill the throne of Scotland after his own death; but the
Estates rejected the proposal and threw it out with scorn, although
they were quite willing to make great concessions for peace. The
negotiations were continued; and at a General Council, which met
at Perth on the 13th of January, 1365, in order to obtain peace and
relieve the kingdom from its financial embarrassment, the meeting
agreed to offer to restore the forfeited nobles to the estates which
they claimed in Scotland, to settle the Isle of Man and the lands
of the Baliols on one of Edward’s sons, if the unpaid balance of the
ransom was totally remitted. The result of this was a treaty, which
was ratified by David II. on the 12th of June, 1365, and by Edward III.
on the 20th of the same month. This treaty contained an agreement to
pay £100,000 by annual instalments of £4000; and a truce to continue
for four years. The Scots desired a peace for a much longer period,
and sent envoys to England empowered to make further concessions. But
Edward III. expected greater concessions than the Scots were even yet
prepared to yield, before he would listen to proposals of a permanent
peace. At a council which met at Holyrood on the 8th of May, 1366, it
was declared that the proposals of Edward III., touching the homage,
the succession, and the dismemberment of the kingdom, were intolerable,
and could not be admitted as matter for deliberation. The Estates were
to attempt, if necessary, to pay the whole ransom within the four years
of the truce; and, with this in view, valuation rolls of all the lands
in the kingdom were ordered to be presented to the next parliament.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume III., pages 715, 770; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 134, 137‒139;
_Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume II.
When parliament met at Scone on the 20th of July, 1366, the new
valuation, which had been made under the Act of 1357, was laid before
it. Orders were then issued for a further valuation of the property
of burgesses and husbandmen, to be presented to a council which was
to be held on the 8th of September next. But £8000 had to be raised
immediately to pay the debts of the King and the expenses of the envoys,
who were again to proceed to England and attempt to negotiate for a
peace or a truce to continue for twenty-five years. The efforts to
obtain peace or a long truce with Edward III. failed, and he seemed
to be resolved on driving Scotland to the utmost extremities. The
extravagance of David II. was excessive, considering the financial
condition of his kingdom; he had borrowed large sums from burgesses
both in Scotland and in England. In spite of all the efforts to
extricate the nation, her financial difficulties were increasing.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
140‒143; _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume II.
Meantime the kingdom was drifting into a deplorable state of internal
disorder. The nobles were becoming lawless; and it appears that the
Earl of Ross, the Lord of Lorne, some other nobles, and John, the
Lord of the Isles, had declined to pay their share of the national
taxes, and defied the royal authority and absented themselves from the
meetings of parliament. But in 1369 the Earls of Ross and Mar promised
to assist the royal officers within their territories, and the Steward
promised to extinguish disorder in the districts of Athole, Strathern,
and Monteith. The Lord of the Isles, however, maintained that his
vassals were under no obligation to pay any portion of the national
taxes. In the end of the year 1369 he tendered his submission at
Inverness, and undertook to assist the royal authority; and he actually
paid a contribution to the national tax.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume II., page 431; _Acts
of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 145‒149.
The four years truce was almost expired; year after year Edward III.
had spurned all the concessions and offers and efforts of the Scots to
make a lasting peace between the two kingdoms. The Scots were burdened
with a load of taxation, and the national debt was still accumulating,
while the prospect of a renewal of the war was impending over the
nation. But the historic relations between England and France took
a sudden turn, and war ensued between them. Edward III. then thought
fit to come to terms with Scotland, and granted a truce for fourteen
years, which was proclaimed on the 18th of June, 1369, and ratified at
Edinburgh on the 20th of July, and at Westminster on the 24th of August.
By this treaty 56,000 marks were recognised as the balance of the
ransom due, which the Scots undertook to pay by annual instalments of
4000 marks. All other claims under the treaty of 1365 were cancelled;
Edward III. also allowed the Scots half the rent of the lands subject
to him in the sheriffdom of Roxburgh.¹ In January 1370, David II.
paid his creditors by a composition of 13s. 4d. in the pound; and a
parliament which met in February 1370, at Perth, cancelled all the
remaining debts which he had contracted before 1368, and then enjoined
his majesty to live within his means for the future. The instalments of
the ransom were pretty regularly paid up till 1377, but it seems that a
balance of 24,000 marks was never paid.²
¹ _Fœdera_; _Rotuli Scotiæ_, Volume I., page 924.
² _Fœdera_; _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume II. The
point of the non-payment of this balance is discussed in the
Preface to the third volume of the _Exchequer Rolls_. See
pages 54‒59.
David II. had been a costly King to the Scots. The circumstances in
which he was placed in his youth were unfavourable to the development
of his faculties, his character, and his habits. He was not responsible
for his marriage with Joanna, the sister of Edward III.; he was not
responsible for his residence in France, or for his training there:
these were the result of the exigences of the position of the nation.
This partly accounts for the strange career which he ran after his
return from France, and his unfortunate capture at Durham. His race was
approaching its close, and he died on the 22nd of February, 1371, in
Edinburgh Castle, in the forty-seventh year of his age, after a nominal
reign of forty-two years.
David II. having died without issue, under the settlement of 1318,
was succeeded by his nephew, Robert, the Steward of Scotland. He was
crowned and anointed by the Bishop of St. Andrews at Scone on the
26th of March, 1371, under the title of Robert II., in presence of
the nobles, the clergy, and a great assemblage of the people from all
quarters of the kingdom. Robert II. was then in his fifty-fifth year,
and, as we have seen, he had been twice regent. He was a man of ability
and good judgment, and was inclined to follow the paths of peace,
but unhappily the Scotch nobles were not as yet disposed to tread in
the quiet walks of life. The King had been twice married, and had a
large family of sons and daughters. The day after his coronation, in
the parliament assembled for the occasion, a declaration was read and
passed touching the succession to the Crown, a part of which may be
quoted:――“The most serene Prince Lord Robert, by the grace of God the
illustrious King of Scots, being at Scone at the time of his coronation,
the bishops, earls, barons, and others of the clergy and people of
his kingdom assisting, after the solemn rites of the anointing and
coronation completed, and a declaration made of the law by which the
most serene prince succeeded, and ought to succeed, as well by nearness
of blood as in virtue of a certain declaration made in the time of Lord
Robert, of illustrious memory, King of Scotland, the grandfather and
predecessor of the said Lord our King, there produced and read: also
having received the usual oaths of homage and fealty from the bishops,
earls, barons, and others of the clergy and people there present, which
of old were accustomed and required to be taken at the coronation of
the kings of Scotland; and willingly, after the manner and example
of that good King, of illustrious memory, Robert, his grandfather,
in presence of the clergy and people, to declare there his successor
and true heir, although with regard to him it was, and is evident, yet
for the greater certainty and with the unanimous consent and assent
of the said bishops, earls, nobles, and great men indicated, asserted
and acknowledged, declared and willed, that when it shall happen that
he, by the Divine dispensation, departs this life, the Lord John,
his first born son, Earl of Carrick and Steward of Scotland, shall
and ought to be his true and lawful heir; and, the Lord so ordaining,
shall and ought to sit upon the throne of his kingdom.” In 1373, in
a Parliament held at Scone on the 4th of April, another declaration
was made which limited the succession to the male line. The reasons
given for this limitation were that evils and calamities had happened
from the succession of female heirs. The assembled Estates of the
realm――“declared, ordained, and enacted that the sons of the King of
his first and second wives now born, and their heirs male only, shall
succeed one after another to the said King in the kingdom and in the
right of reigning; and the said Lord John and his heirs――male happening
to fail, but may it not be, the Lord Robert, Earl of Fife and Menteith,
the second born son of our Lord the King by his first wife, and his
heirs――male only, shall in turn and immediately succeed to the kingdom
and the right of reigning; and the said Robert and such heirs of his
happening also to fail, but may it not be, the Lord Alexander, Lord
of Badenoch, the third born son of our Lord the King by the same wife,
and his heirs male only, shall, after their death, in like manner, in
turn and immediately succeed to the kingdom and the right of reigning;
and the said Lord Alexander and his heirs happening in like manner to
fail, but may it not be, the Lord David, Earl of Strathern, son of our
Lord the King, born of his second wife, and his heirs――male only, the
said parties thus failing wholly, shall, in like manner, in turn and
immediately succeed to the kingdom and the right of reigning; and the
said Lord David and his heirs happening in like manner to fail, Walter,
son of our Lord the King, and his heirs male only, shall in like manner
succeed to the kingdom and the right of reigning: and the aforesaid
five brothers and their heirs male from them descending, happening
finally and wholly to fail, but may it not be, the true and lawful
heirs of the royal blood and parentage shall thenceforward succeed
to the kingdom and the right of reigning.” The above was enacted and
ordained by the Estates of the kingdom, and the bishops, earls, nobles,
and others present, each individually touched the “Holy Gospels and
swore their bodily oath that they would inviolably observe these
declarations, ordinances and statutes for themselves and their heirs,
and cause them to be observed for ever by others to the utmost of
their power. And immediately thereafter the whole multitude of the
clergy and the people in the church of Scone, before the great altar,
being specially convened for that purpose, the aforesaid declaration,
ordinance, and statute thus sworn, being explained to them in a
loud and public voice, each raising his hand, after the manner of
faith-giving, in token of the universal consent of the whole clergy
and people, publicly expressed and declared their consent and assent.
In witness of all which our Lord the King ordered his great seal to be
affixed to the present writing. And for the greater evidence and fuller
security all the bishops, earls, barons, and nobles above named caused
their seals to be affixed to this writing for the sake of testimony and
for a perpetual memorial to posterity.”¹
¹ _National Manuscripts_ Part II., Numbers 43 A, 43 B.
In the spring of 1371 Archibald Douglas and three other envoys were
sent to France, empowered to treat for the renewal and the amendment of
the former treaty of friendship and alliance between the two kingdoms.
On the 30th of June, at Vincennes, the new treaty was concluded, and
ratified by Robert II. at Edinburgh on the 28th of October. The two
nations agreed to mutually assist each other against English aggression,
and that no truce or peace should be concluded by either kingdom in
which the other was not included; this was an important stipulation,
which past experience had no doubt suggested to the Scots. In the event
of a disputed succession for the crown of Scotland the king of France
should support the right of the man whose claims were sanctioned by
the Parliament of the kingdom. The truce with England was continued,
although it was not strictly observed on either side. So long as
England held portions of Scotch territory in the southern countries,
the Scots could not refrain from driving out the invaders, but they
frequently went farther and made destructive and irritating raids into
the north of England.
Robert II. was anxious for peace, but a number of his nobles and
several of his own sons delighted to make inroads into England. In
1380 the Duke of Lancaster advanced to the Border with a strong army
to check the raids of the Scots and make peace. The Earls of Douglas
and March and the Bishops of Glasgow and Dunkeld were commissioned to
meet the Duke of Lancaster at Berwick, where a truce was concluded to
continue for a year. Lancaster then disbanded his army, and promised
to meet the Scotch commissioners in the summer of 1381 to continue the
negotiations. The Earl of Carrick and other Scotch envoys met the Duke
of Lancaster near Ayton, in Berwickshire, and they agreed to a renewal
of the truce for three years; but a party of the Scots, in spite of the
orders of the King, would not desist from hostilities.
The French Government had resolved to stimulate the Scots against
England. In May, 1385, a French force of two thousand men arrived at
Leith, under the command of John de Vienne, Admiral of France. The
French Admiral also brought with him a thousand stand of arms, and
fifty thousand franks of gold. The gold pieces were distributed between
the King and the chief nobles; but there was much difficulty in finding
quarters for the French army. As Edinburgh could only afford quarters
to a limited number, parties of them were billeted in Dalkeith,
Dunfermline, Kelso, Dunbar, and other places. They gave the Scots much
annoyance, and their foraging parties were sometimes resisted by them.
Misunderstandings and quarrels arose between the French soldiers and
the people, and on the 1st of July Parliament passed an ordinance, to
which the French Admiral agreed, to regulate the relations between the
French soldiers and the Scotch people. In this ordinance it was stated
that no pillage was permitted in Scotland, under the penalty of death,
and everything which the French troops required from the people was
to be duly paid. If one soldier killed another he should be hanged,
and if any servant defied a gentleman, he should lose his ears. If a
riot arose between the French and the Scots no appeal to arms should
be permitted, but the ringleaders should be immediately arrested, and
tried and punished by a council of officers.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
190, 191.
But the French had the pleasures of a raid into England, and of wasting
Northumberland to the gates of Newcastle. The French and Scotch modes
of warfare, however, were so different that disputes arose between the
leaders of the Scots and the Admiral. The French commander insisted
that they should face the English in battle, and at once strike a blow;
the Scots said such an attempt would be disastrous. The dispute waxed
warm; the Frenchmen talked contemptuously of the spirit of their allies,
and they were only silenced when taken to the top of a mountain and
shown the strength of the enemy’s force. Still the French Admiral said,
“if you do not give the English battle they will destroy your country.”
The Earl of Douglas replied, “Let them do their worst, they will find
but little to destroy.” The English army entered Scotland and advanced
to Edinburgh, burning empty villages and homesteads, and plundering the
churches and monasteries. But provisions soon began to fail, and many
of the English troops perished from want of food, and their commander
was forced to order a retreat. Meanwhile the Scots and their French
allies invaded and plundered the district of Cumberland.¹
¹ _Froissart_, Volume II., pages 49‒55, 1842.
After returning from the raids to Edinburgh, the French prepared to
go home. The Admiral settled various claims for damages and injuries
which the Scots alleged to have been caused by the French troops.
The Scots then provided vessels in which the French troops departed,
much displeased with their Scotch allies. The war with England still
continued; the Scots made many destructive inroads into the northern
counties of England; the result of these intensified the animosity of
the two nations towards each other and produced much evil. Robert II.
was averse to this incessant warfare, but the nobles followed their own
counsel and disregarded the views of their King.
In the summer of 1388 the Earls of Douglas, Fife, Moray, and other
nobles, held a conference, and resolved to muster an army near Jedburgh
in the beginning of August, in order to make a great invasion of
England. On the appointed day this army was arranged in two divisions.
The first division consisted of three hundred cavalry and two thousand
men on foot, under the command of the Earl of Douglas, with the Earls
of Moray and March, Sir James Lindsay, and others; the second division
consisted of the main body of the army, under the command of the Earl
of Fife, with the Earls of Strathern, Monteith, Mar, and Sutherland,
and Archibald Douglas. The main army marched on Carlisle, while the
Earl of Douglas advanced through the eastern marches. Douglas rapidly
marched through Northumberland till he reached the diocese of Durham,
and then the plundering began. After wasting this district to the
gates of Durham, the Scots retired to Newcastle, where Sir Henry Percy,
“Hotspur,” his brother, Sir Ralph, and other English barons were lying.
Douglas remained two days in the vicinity of the town; but the English
seemed to have imagined that the main body of the Scotch army was not
far off, and therefore they did not then attack the Scots. Douglas
resumed his march towards Scotland, and the Scots pitched their camp
in a strong position on the banks of the Reed water, near Otterburn,
thirty miles from Newcastle. Percy having ascertained that Douglas
was not supported by the main body of the Scots, at once mustered five
hundred cavalry and a strong body of infantry and marched in pursuit
of Douglas. After sunset on the evening of the 10th of August 1388, the
Scots descried Percy approaching, and their leaders were at supper when
the war cry of “Percy!” “Percy!” startled them. The English attacked
the Scottish camp furiously, but the camp followers defended the
waggons and baggage for some time, and Douglas rapidly advanced round
a wooded height and attacked the flank of the English while they were
entangled in the marsh near the Scottish camp. But Percy drew back
his men to firm ground and met the attack of the Scots with surprising
valour. The battle raged furiously for hours. Then the Scots began
to fall back, but Douglas followed by a few fought his way into the
midst of the enemy, where he was borne down and mortally wounded. The
combat continued to rage, and Sir James Lindsay and Sir John Sinclair
found Douglas lying in a dying state, but he was able to tell them to
raise his banner and cry Douglas, which was instantly done. The Scots
imagining that their leader was still on his feet, assailed the enemy
with unbearable fury. At last the English began to waver and then broke,
and many of them were slain. Henry Percy, Hotspur, and his brother
Ralph, and a number of other English barons were taken prisoners. The
body of Douglas was carried to Scotland, and interred at the Abbey of
Melrose.¹ The main body of the Scotch army, under the Earl of Fife,
were plundering the western district of England when tidings of the
victory at Otterburn reached them.
¹ _Froissart._
While the warfare briefly touched on in the preceding pages was
engrossing the attention and energy of the nobles, the material and
social progress of the nation was much retarded. The power of the
nobles was rapidly increasing, but the power of the Crown was becoming
feeble. The age and infirmity of Robert II. rendered it necessary that
something should be immediately done to maintain order in the kingdom.
Robert’s eldest son was lame and deemed unfit for public life; but his
second son, the Earl of Fife, was a man of energy, and in a Council
held at Edinburgh in December 1388, he was appointed regent. This man,
afterwards known in history under the title of the Duke of Albany,
held the reins of government for many years. A truce was concluded
between France and England in 1389, which was accepted by Scotland,
and continued by renewals to 1399. This cheered the last days of the
aged King, who had long desired peace. He died in April 1390, in the
seventy-fourth year of his age and the twentieth of his reign, and was
interred at Scone.
Robert II. was succeeded by his eldest son, John, Earl of Carrick.
But “King John” was a name extremely odious to the Scots, owing to its
association with the hapless Baliol, and Carrick assumed the favourite
name of Robert. After the funeral of his father he was immediately
crowned at Scone, under the title of Robert III. He was an amiable
and discreet man, but he lacked the strength of character to restrain
the restless and lawless nobles. His brother, the Earl of Fife, who
acted as regent in the later years of his father’s reign, continued to
wield the chief authority under the name of Governor of the kingdom.
Alexander, another brother of the King, Lord of Badenoch and Earl of
Buchan, who ruled the northern part of the country, earned for himself
the name of “the Wolf of Badenoch.” Amongst other oppressive acts he
took possession of land which belonged to the bishopric of Moray. For
this he was excommunicated; but he retaliated by advancing with a body
of his followers to Elgin, and burning the grand cathedral, the chantry,
and the city.¹
¹ _Registrum Episcopatus Moraviensis_, pages 204, 348‒349,
376, 381.
Shortly afterwards the Wolf’s natural son, Duncan Stewart, led a
party of his adherents across the mountains which divide the counties
of Aberdeen and Forfar, and plundered the Lowlands. In 1392 the landed
gentry, headed by Sir Walter Ogilvie, Sheriff of Angus, mustered
and met him at Gasklune, near the water of Isla; but he completely
defeated them. Ogilvie the sheriff, his brother, and others were
slain. The Government, in a General Council held at Perth, ordered
Duncan Stewart and his accomplices to be proclaimed outlaws, for the
slaughter of Walter Ogilvie and others. The weakness of the Crown and
the lawlessness of the nobles were the most striking features of this
period. The state of the kingdom and the suffering of the people were
deplorable. In 1397 parliament passed an act, which opened with a
declaration that continual burnings, harryings, and slaughters, were
common throughout the country. It was then enacted that no one should
ride through the kingdom with a greater retinue than they could pay for,
as it was common for such riders to seize whatever they wanted without
payment, and besides, they burned and destroyed the property of the
people. Those who committed such oppressive acts in future were to
suffer the penalty of death, and the sheriffs were enjoined to proclaim
this statute, bring offenders to trial, and execute them.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
208, 217.
In a Parliament which assembled at Perth on the 27th of January, 1399,
it was asserted, in the preamble to the acts, that the misgovernment
of the kingdom and the maladministration of the laws should be imputed
to the King and his officers. “If, therefore, the King chose to make
excuses for his own shortcomings then, if he thinks fit, he can call
his officers to whom he had given commission, and accuse them in the
presence of his council; and their answers heard, the council should be
ready to judge their defaults, since no man ought to be condemned until
he be called and accused.” This seems a fine and important statement,
but it is quite certain that the greatest offenders were amongst those
very men who drew up the statement itself, and they knew well that the
feeble King was not in a position to accuse them in any way. Parliament
then announced that, owing to the infirmities of the King, he could
not govern the kingdom nor repress trespassers and rebels. The Duke
of Rothesay, the King’s eldest son, was appointed Lieutenant-General
of the kingdom for three years, and entrusted with full regal power.
He took the coronation oath to preserve the freedom and rights of the
Church, the laws and the loveable customs of the people, to restrain
and punish all manslayers, robbers, and other masterful misdoers,
and especially all cursed men and heretics who were expelled from the
Church. Parliament appointed a council to assist the Duke of Rothesay
in the Government; amongst those named were his uncle, the Duke of
Albany, the Earls of Douglas, Moray, Ross, and Crawford, the bishops
of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Aberdeen, and his acts as ruler were to be
recorded, with the date, place, and the names of those present, that it
might be known on whom to fix responsibility.
The act lately passed at Stirling touching those who rode through
the country without paying their way was repeated. The sheriffs were
ordered to proclaim the laws, to search out and arrest vagabonds and
criminals, and bind them to appear in court and stand their trial at
the next justiciary circuit.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
210‒212.
It appears that the King, instead of being in a position to accuse
the chief offenders or the administrative officials of the Crown, was
entering into bonds with the nobles for the protection of himself and
his heir. Indeed, the weak monarch was reduced to the extremity of
purchasing the favour of the nobles. The bonds between the King and his
nobles were numerous, and assumed the form of annual grants of money
under the condition that they were to defend him and his eldest son.
Thus he bound himself to give large sums annually to individual nobles
for the natural period of their lives, and in some instances of the
lives of their children. The Duke of Albany, Lord Stewart of Brechin,
Lord Murdoch Stewart, the Earl of Moray, Sir John Montgomery of
Eglisham, Sir William Stewart of Jedworth, Sir William Lindsay, and
many others, were parties to bonds of this character.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume III., pages 251, 287,
280, 326, _et seq._
The truce terminated in 1399, and war was immediately recommenced on
the Borders. The Scots entered into the northern counties of England
and plundered the country; the English retaliated, and thus the former
mode of cruel warfare proceeded. The Duke of Rothesay had promised to
marry a daughter of the Earl of March, but the young prince changed
his mind, and contracted a marriage with a daughter of the Earl of
Douglas; thus he incurred the bitter enmity of the Earl of March, who
at once fled to England, and gave his allegiance to Henry IV. The King
of England, in return for the Earl’s homage, granted him lands and
possessions; the Earl of Douglas then seized his estates in Scotland.
Thus the personal and family affairs of two Scotch nobles embittered
the political relations of both nations.
Two English invasions of Scotland soon followed. The first one was led
by Sir Henry Percy and the Earl of March. They marched into Scotland
at the head of two thousand men, advanced through the Earldom of March,
wasted the country, burned villages, and collected booty, and pitched
their camp at Linton. A strong body of the Scots, under Archibald
Douglas, rapidly marched from Edinburgh to attack them, but on the
approach of Douglas they fled, and left their tents and plunder behind
them. In the summer of 1400 Henry IV. mustered his army and marched
northward, and despatched a herald to summon Robert III. and the
nobles of Scotland to meet him at Edinburgh on the 23rd of August,
and there to render homage to him as their Lord Paramount; but no
response was returned to this ghostly demand. Henry, at the head of his
army, advanced to Edinburgh, and his fleet appeared in the Forth and
supplied his troops with provisions; for, unlike all his predecessors,
he did not stain his name by acts of cruelty and pillage. The Castle
of Edinburgh was defended by Rothesay, the Lieutenant-General of the
kingdom, who had a strong and well provisioned garrison under him. The
Duke of Albany mustered an army and advanced towards Edinburgh, and
pitched his tents on a moor near Calder. Henry’s troops began to suffer
from want of provisions, and a rebellion, which was raging in Wales,
caused him to return home with his army without effecting anything of
the slightest importance in Scotland. He was the last English king who
led an army in person against Scotland, and henceforth the scheme of a
complete conquest of the kingdom seems to have been relinquished.
Rothesay was a somewhat rash young man, impatient of opposition, yet
open and courageous, and not beyond hope of improvement under the
sobering effect of experience. But his uncle Albany, the late governor,
was an ambitious man, fond of power, calculating and crafty, and
cold and pitiless: their position made them rivals, if not enemies of
each other; and it seems that Albany laid a trap to ensnare the young
prince, who was unable to cope with his unscrupulous relative. Sir John
Ramorgny, Sir William Lindsay, and others joined Albany, and means were
soon found for executing their purpose. The Bishop of St. Andrews died
in 1401. It was then customary for the castle of a deceased bishop to
be occupied by the Crown till the election of a new one. With this idea
in his mind Rothesay was proceeding to occupy the castle of St. Andrews,
but when within a mile of it he was arrested on a warrant obtained from
the King on the representations of Albany and Lindsay, and conveyed to
the castle of Falkland and imprisoned. The warrant for arresting him
was granted on the ground that his excesses and irregularities should
be restrained. A few weeks after his imprisonment, his body was removed
and interred in the monastery of Lindores, and a report issued that
he had died of a bowel complaint; but the people asserted that he had
been murdered by the cruel mode of utter starvation, and suspicion
pointed to Albany and the Earl of Douglas as his murderers. There was
a parliamentary inquiry into the cause of his death, in which it was
gravely stated that “he died by the visitation of Divine Providence,
and not otherwise.” Albany and Douglas admitted their share in
his arrest, and they and all their accomplices were indemnified
for whatever breach of the law this act involved, and everyone
was forbidden to spread false rumours against them.¹ The aged and
unhappy King bitterly lamented the fate of his son, but he was utterly
powerless. On the death of Rothesay, Albany resumed his position as
governor of the kingdom.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., page 220.
The evidence that Rothesay was murdered is mainly circumstantial, but
it is very strong. Although it may be difficult to see what motive the
Earl of Douglas had which could have induced him to become a party to
this crime――the acts of a Scotch noble of the fourteenth century were
often strange――while the murdered prince was the husband of Douglas’
daughter: yet the extensive territories of the Earl of March were then
hanging in the balance, and may have come into Douglas’ reckoning in
connection with this crime. The circumstantial evidence against Albany
is almost complete. The national records show that Rothesay during his
few years of office was not inattentive to his public duties,¹ though
he had not escaped from the follies of youth.
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume III., pages 378, 465,
472, 402, 412, _et seq._
The border warfare continued, and on the 14th of September 1402, the
Scots sustained a severe defeat at Homeldon Hill in Northumberland. In
this battle the Earl of March fought in the English ranks against the
Scots.
It was resolved that the King’s other son, Prince James, a boy of
fourteen years, should be sent to France for safety and to complete
his education. He sailed early in March, 1406, and when off Flamborough
Head he was captured by the English, conveyed to London, and lodged
in the Tower. When his guardians remonstrated, Henry IV. replied that
he knew the French language very well, and therefore his father could
not have sent him to a better master. The Duke of Albany seems to have
looked at the capture of the prince very calmly, but when the tidings
of his son’s capture reached the unhappy King he sank rapidly, and died
on the 4th of April, 1406, having reigned sixteen years. His remains
were interred in front of the high altar in the Abbey Church of Paisley.
On the death of Robert III. the captive prince was recognised as the
heir to the throne, in a Council which met at Perth in June; and Albany,
as the next in the male line of succession, was elected regent, and
continued to rule the kingdom. In February, 1407, the league between
France and Scotland was renewed.¹
¹ _Extracta ex variis chronicis Scotiæ_, page 216; Winton;
Buchanan.
The Scots were gradually pressing the English out of the positions
which they had long occupied in the southern counties. In 1409 the
Castle of Jedburgh was recovered, which had been in the enemy’s
hands since 1346, and to prevent the enemy from retaking it the Scots
levelled it to the ground. About the same time the castle of Fast
was taken. A truce with England was concluded, in which it was stated
that from the River Spey to the Mount of St. Michael, in Cornwall, all
hostilities between the two kingdoms should cease after the 17th of
May, 1412, for a period of six years.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume X., page 166, _et seq._
In 1411 an event occurred which has been strangely mis-interpreted
and exaggerated, namely, the Battle of Harlaw. This battle has been
represented as a great and decisive contest between the Celtic race
and the Lowland race. Now, as a matter of historic fact it was nothing
of the kind; it was entirely a personal and family quarrel, in its
origin, its cause, and its effect, and it arose in this way:――Robert
II. married, as his second wife, a sister of William, Earl of Ross;
Margaret, a daughter of Robert II., married John, Lord of the Isles,
and their son, Donald, succeeded to the Lordship of the Isles, and he
married Mary, a daughter of Walter Lesley, Earl of Ross; but Mary’s
brother, Alexander Lesley, who in due time became Earl of Ross, married
Isabel, a daughter of the Duke of Albany, Regent of Scotland, and they
had an only daughter, Euphemia, Countess of Ross, who, on the death of
her father in 1406, became a nun, and she then proposed to assign the
earldom of Ross to her maternal uncle, the Earl of Buchan, the second
son of Albany, the regent. But Donald of the Isles, in right of his
wife, had a legal claim to the earldom of Ross, which was preferable
to that of the Earl of Buchan, Albany’s son, and therefore Donald was
legally and morally right in resisting the ambition and the enormous
greed of the Duke of Albany, to aggrandise his own family in defiance
of law and justice. Eventually, after the death of Albany, Donald’s
right to the earldom of Ross was recognised and confirmed by James I.
Such, then, was the origin and the cause of the Battle of Harlaw; a
mere family quarrel from beginning to end, with no more real national
or racial significance than any other family quarrel and battle between
two nobles.
Owing to the determination of Albany to ignore the claim of Donald of
the Isles to the earldom in question, the island chief mustered his
vassals and followers, and at the head of about six thousand men he
crossed to the mainland, and marched through the earldom of Ross, in
which he received much support, and greatly increased the strength of
his army. Proceeding onward he advanced through Moray, crossed the Spey,
and continued his advance through the higher grounds of Strathbogie
and the Garioch, and pitched his camp on the Hill of Benachie. There
he posted his army, and awaited the attack of his adversary, the Duke
of Albany, but that grasping schemer had not the courage to face the
man whom he had been the cause of bringing so far from home. Albany
found a fit agent in Alexander Stewart, a natural son of “the Wolf
of Badenoch,” and who was then Earl of Mar, and the Regent entered
into a bond with him for mutual support. This Earl of Mar had been a
freebooter and a murderer of the deepest dye, so in the family cause
of the Duke of Albany, Mar led the people of Angus and Mearns and
Aberdeenshire against Donald of the Isles. The battle was fought on
the 24th of July, 1411, on a moor edging up the Hill of Benachie.
The action was long and furiously contested; many fell on both sides,
and night put an end to the desperate struggle. There was no victory
on either side, but Donald and his followers retreated. Many of the
Lowland barons and a considerable number of their followers, and of
the citizens of Aberdeen and Dundee, were slain on the field, and thus,
locally, the Battle of Harlaw was a great event; but it had not the
slightest national or racial significance, being entirely a family
affair from beginning to end. As stated above, Albany failed in his
object, for Donald retained possession of the earldom of Ross, and his
son succeeded him.
The Regent’s eldest son, Murdoch, was a prisoner in England, and his
father managed to obtain his liberation in 1416. Many of the people
were longing for the return of James I., and efforts were made to
negotiate for his freedom, but these were abruptly broken off. Albany
died on the 3rd of September, 1420, at the advanced age of eighty-one.
He had ruled the kingdom for a period of thirty years, though his
regency only extended to sixteen years, but he had established his
power so firmly that his son quietly succeeded him in the regency.
Murdoch, however, had not the energy and talent of his father, but he
imitated his father’s style, and granted crown charters under his great
seal; and, like his father, he had £1000 a year as Governor of the
kingdom, and 200 marks as Keeper of Stirling Castle, and other sums
from the burghs of Linlithgow, Cupar, and Aberdeen. It seems probable
that Murdoch had also bound himself to uphold the acts of the Earl of
Douglas, for in the year 1421 Douglas received more than two-thirds of
the gross customs of Edinburgh.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume IV., page 310, Preface,
page 79.
In August, 1423, negotiations were opened for the release of the
King, and the following year a treaty was concluded. It was agreed
that Scotland should pay to England £40,000, within six years, by
half-yearly instalments, and for this sum the burghs of Edinburgh,
Dundee, Perth, and Aberdeen, were to give security, and the Earls of
Crawford, Moray, and a number of other nobles were to become hostages
as additional security. It was stipulated that the King should contract
a marriage with some English lady, and 10,000 marks was to be deducted
from the ransom and given to such lady as a dowry. On these conditions
James I. was to obtain his freedom. James selected Johanna Beaufort,
a daughter of the Earl of Somerset, and their marriage was celebrated
at Southwark in March, 1424, with great regal pomp. A truce for seven
years was concluded. All the arrangements for the King’s return having
been completed, he moved northward, accompanied by many of his own
subjects. He crossed the Border on the 9th of April, and was warmly
welcomed by the people.
CHAPTER VIII.
_Reign of James I._
THE return of James I. was an important event in the history of
Scotland. He was crowned at Scone on the 21st of May 1424. He then
with his Queen visited Dundee, and thence returned to Perth. His
first parliament was opened in Perth on the 26th of May 1424, in
which many important acts were passed. An inquiry was ordered to be
made concerning the Crown lands and rents since the death of Robert I.
onward to the regency of Murdoch, Duke of Albany. The object of this
was plain. It was further announced that if the King thought fit, he
could summon all his vassals and freeholders to produce their charters
or other evidence, that it might be seen what lands lawfully belonged
to them. This act was executed with a determination which convinced
the turbulent nobles that the hand of a master was upon them. James I.
had resolved to humble the power of the nobles, and his plans were well
conceived, and carried out with remarkable energy. Acts were passed for
restoring order and a more efficient administration of justice.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 2‒8.
On the 13th of May 1424, Sir Walter Stewart, eldest son of the Duke of
Albany, Malcolm Fleming, brother-in-law of Albany, and Thomas Boyd, one
of the Kilmarnock family, were arrested and imprisoned; and about the
end of this year, the Earl of Lennox, father-in-law of Albany, and Sir
Robert Graham, were seized and imprisoned. But these acts of the King
were only the prelude of the tragedy, for he was then meditating a bold
and desperate move.
James summoned a parliament which met at Perth on the 12th of March
1425. For eight days it was engaged in passing laws against the
diffusion of heresy, bonds among the nobles, the reform of hospitals,
and the restoration of the lands of the Church, which had been wrested
from her and illegally possessed, the imposition of new customs, and
an inquiry touching the execution of the acts passed in the last
parliament. On the ninth day, the Duke of Albany and his son, Sir
Alexander Stewart, the Earls of Douglas, March, and Angus; William Hay
of Errol, Sir Alexander Seton of Gordon, Sir Alexander Irvine of Drum,
and others, altogether about thirty nobles and knights were arrested.
At the same time the King seized the castles of Falkland and Doune, and
imprisoned Albany’s wife in the castle of ♦Tantallon. These proceedings
astonished the aristocracy, and were presented as a lesson to the whole
body of the nobles, but the move was specially directed against the
Duke of Albany and his family. So the other nobles were released after
a very short imprisonment.
♦ “Tantallion” replaced with “Tantallon”
Parliament reassembled at Stirling in May, and prepared to settle
the fate of Albany and his family. A court was held in the palace of
Stirling, and on the 26th of May 1425, Walter Stewart, the eldest
son of Albany, was brought to trial before the King and a jury of
twenty-one nobles. Walter was found guilty, condemned, and immediately
beheaded. The next day the King’s own cousin Albany, and his son
Alexander, and the aged Earl of Lennox, were tried, convicted, and
sentenced to death, and they were all executed before the castle of
Stirling. No record has been preserved of these trials, so the nature
of the crimes of which they were accused can only be conjectured; some
of the chronicles report that they were accused of robbery. Albany and
his sons were men of stalwart and commanding presence, and their fate
excited much sympathy among the people.¹ Indeed this action of the King,
which flooded the scaffold with the blood of his own kindred, cannot
be justified. It was not even wise as a political measure. Although
probably James intended to exhibit a striking example of severity,
he may have wished the nobles to understand that a change had taken
place in the government and the administration of justice, and that the
lawlessness which had prevailed must henceforth cease.
¹ _Scotichronicon_, Volume II., pages 484, 485; _Extracta ex
variis chronicis Scotiæ_, page 228. It may be mentioned that
Alexander Earl of Ross and Lord of the Isles, son of Donald
who led at Harlaw, was one of the jurymen in the above
trials.
After the executions, it followed as a consequence that the large
estates of the families of Albany and the Earl of Lennox were forfeited
to the Crown. Unfortunately James I. had failed to forecast the
inherent strength of the class whose feelings and passions he had
aroused, and whose interests he had infringed. In 1425 the King,
however, proclaimed his intention to grant a remission of any injury
committed on persons or property in the Lowlands, on the condition
that the offenders made reparation to the injured parties, in all cases
where the extent of the loss could be ascertained by a jury of the good
men, who were to modify and fix the amount of damages.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., page 8.
James I., having thus far restored order in the Lowlands, next directed
his attention to the Highlands and the Western Isles, and summoned a
parliament to meet at Inverness. In 1427 he mustered an armed force and
proceeded to Inverness, and summoned the Lord of the Isles and upwards
of fifty of the most notable chiefs to attend his parliament. They
obeyed and attended, and were instantly seized, put in fetters, and
imprisoned. On this occasion, as when Albany and the other nobles were
arrested and imprisoned, James I. exhibited a characteristic craftiness
and duplicity. Amongst those arrested were, the Lord of the Isles and
his mother; Angus Duff with his four sons, leader of four thousand
men; Kenneth More with his son-in-law, leader of two thousand men;
John Ross, Angus of Moray, William Leslie, and many others. A number
of the chiefs were immediately executed, and the rest were conveyed to
various prisons; and after a time some of them were executed and others
liberated. The Lord of the Isles and his mother were among those who
were liberated. But he seems to have been displeased with the whole
proceedings of the parliament at Inverness, and after the departure of
the King and his army he mustered his followers in Ross and the Isles.
He then advanced on Inverness, wasted the Crown lands, and set the town
on fire. The King returned to the north at the head of a strong force,
and the Lord of the Isles retreated to Lochaber; and there the King
attacked and defeated him, and pursued his retreating followers over
the mountains and from glen to glen. At last he surrendered to the
King, and in 1429 he was imprisoned in the castle of ♦Tantallon, and
his mother was arrested and imprisoned in Inchcolm.¹
♦ “Tantallion” replaced with “Tantallon”
¹ _Scotichronicon_, Volume II., pages 488, 489; _Exchequer
Rolls_, Volume IV., pages 541, 621, 633.
But a rising in the Highlands under Donald Balloch, a cousin of the
Lord of the Isles, ensued, and he encountered the royal army under the
command of the Earls of Mar and Caithness, at Inverlochy in 1431. After
a severe engagement, the royal troops were completely defeated, and
the Earl of Mar, and many others were slain on the field. Shortly after
this the Lord of the Isles was liberated, and the King appointed him to
the office of Justiciary of Scotland north of the Forth.¹
¹ _Coronation of James I._, page 11; Dr. Skene’s _Celtic
Scotland_, Volume III., page 298.
In July 1428, a treaty of marriage was concluded between the Dauphin of
France and the princess Margaret, daughter of James I. The marriage was
celebrated at Tours in 1436, when the princess had attained her twelfth
year and the Dauphin his thirteenth. It appears that the King’s ransom
money promised to England was never paid, except a part of the first
year’s instalment; and in consequence of this, the Scotch hostages
were detained in England. Many of them died in England, some ransomed
themselves, a few escaped; and in June 1453, the Earl of Strathern, who
had gone to England as a hostage, was liberated from Pontefract castle,
when his son Alexander surrendered himself in his stead, the Earl of
Douglas and Lord Hamilton becoming sureties for his return in case of
the escape of his son. Many allusions to the ransom hostages occur in
the _Rotuli Scotiæ_ long after the death of James I.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume IV., Preface pages
133‒134.
James I. was an able legislator, administrator, and organiser, and
it may be said that the regular statute law of Scotland commenced in
his reign. The chief aim of his policy was to make the nobles more
dependent upon the Crown, to restrain them from oppressing the people,
and to rule the kingdom through Parliament, acting with the executive
power of the Crown. He attempted to introduce the principle of
representation in the election of members of Parliament. In his short
reign Parliament was assembled fifteen times; and besides transacting
other important business, his Parliaments passed upwards of one hundred
and sixty distinct statutes, which were written and proclaimed in the
language of the people. These Acts were admirably brief, incisive, and
clearly expressed, and dealt with many important matters, especially
the reform of the administration of justice.
At the outset it was announced that all the subjects of the kingdom
should be governed by the King’s laws and statutes, not under any
special laws or spiritual privileges of any foreign authorities. In
1426 a notable attempt was made to give precision to the common law of
the kingdom, as it was then enacted by the King in Parliament that six
wise and discreet men who knew the laws best should be selected from
each of the three Estates, “and since fraud ought not to help any man,
they should examine the books of the law of this realm, and amend the
laws that needed amendment, and to carefully expunge all fraudulent and
frivolous exceptions, so that no man might obtain an unjust judgment
against another.” In the same year James I. instituted the court known
under the name of “the Session.”
As it is a primary requisite that the laws should be made intelligible
to the people, and more especially to those who have to administer
the law, therefore the King, with the consent of Parliament, commanded
that all the statutes should be recorded in the King’s register, and
copies of them given to all the sheriffs throughout the kingdom. Every
sheriff was directed to proclaim the statutes in the chief towns of the
sheriffdom and in other places, and also to give copies of them to the
bishops, the barons, and burghs of barony. The sheriffs were ordered
to cause the tenor of the Acts to be obeyed in town and country, and
to declare to the people that it was their duty to obey the laws, so
that no man might have any ground to allege ignorance as an excuse for
his crime. To render the administration of justice free from outside
influence it was enacted that parties coming to the courts with their
causes should not appear with a multitude of their armed followers, but
simply accompanied only by their counsel and the necessary witnesses
for the trial of their causes. The King commanded that justice should
be equally distributed in every quarter of the kingdom, “to the rich as
to the poor, without fraud or favour”; and it was further enacted that
“If there be any poor creature who, for want of means, cannot follow
his case, then the King, for the love of God, shall ordain that the
judge provide and get a wise advocate to follow such a one’s case; and
if such a case be gained, the wrongdoer shall pay the injured party
and the advocate’s expenses: and if any judge refuses to obey this law,
then the party who has been defrauded shall have recourse to the King,
who shall so punish such a judge that he shall be a striking example to
all others.”
It was enacted that the statutes should be interpreted according to
their real tenor and the intention of the legislature. With a similar
aim it was ordered that no one should be permitted to practice in the
King’s courts unless they were known to have sufficient knowledge and
discretion for the proper performance of such functions; while no judge
or officer of justice in the kingdom, nor any man who had indicted
another for any action, should be allowed at the trial to sit as
a juryman under a penalty of ten pounds. Many acts bearing on the
internal order of the kingdom, and the arrestment and punishment of
criminals were passed. Rebellion against the king was proclaimed to
entail the loss of life and lands. Various attempts were made to attach
more responsibility to all those in positions of authority throughout
the nation.
Measures were passed relating to commerce, the coinage, and weights
and measures. Careful regulations were framed for preventing and
extinguishing fires in the towns, which were ordered to be strictly
observed. Every burgh was enjoined to provide a number of ladders at
the public cost――six, seven, eight, or more, according to the extent
of the town――and to keep them always in a convenient place ready for
use in case of fire; they were also to keep in readiness three or four
saws, and six or more iron clicks to pull down the timber and roofs
at fires. These and many other minute regulations were to be enforced
under penalties.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
2‒24.
James I. was a firm friend of the Church. His Parliaments passed
several acts in favour of the privileges of the Church and the
searching out of heretics, and it was stated that the secular power
would support the Church in her mission of executing heretics. In the
year 1433 the Church found a heretic, Paul Crawar, a native of Bohemia.
He was a skilful physician, but it was reported that he embraced every
opportunity of sowing opinions contrary to the doctrines of the Church,
so he was seized and accused of heresy, and, although he argued and
defended his views with much force and clearness, that only rendered
his conviction more certain. He was convicted and condemned, and as
he declined to renounce his opinions, he was brought to the stake and
burned at St. Andrews on the 23rd of July.¹ It seems that he had made
some converts in Scotland.
¹ _Ibid._, pages 3, 7, 9; _Scotichronicon_, page 495.
But the King was aware of the state of the Church. On the 8th of June,
1425, he sent a mandate to the Bishop of St. Andrews commanding him
to take immediate steps to recover the possessions of his See, which
had been robbed by the greed and the nepotism of his predecessors. The
same year he addressed a letter to the abbots and the priors of the
Benedictine and Augustine monasteries of Scotland, which exhorted them
to shake off their torpor and sloth and set themselves to restore their
fallen discipline and rekindle their decaying fervour, that they might
save their houses from the ruin which menaced them.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
24, 25.
James I. encouraged industry and commerce; he had an establishment of
his own at Leith, which was used as a shipbuilding-yard, a workshop,
and a storehouse. He had several ships, and entered into trading on his
own account. The wool and hides of the crown lands, instead of being
sold to the Scotch merchants, were directly exported by the King to
Flanders duty free. The remissions of custom show that in one year the
King had exported wool and hides representing a value of about £900.
The King’s ships were frequently mentioned in the records; and John
Hannay, a burgess of Aberdeen, Andrew Baxter, and Henry of Crawford,
were named as masters of King’s ships. James I. commenced to rebuild
the palace of Linlithgow, and in many other ways left traces of his
energy.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume IV.
But the great aim of James I. was to reduce the overgrown power of
the nobles. To accomplish this he endeavoured to raise the influence
of the small barons and freeholders as a counterpoise to the higher
nobles. Although it is impossible not to admire the legislative and
administrative abilities of James I., still some of his proceedings
against the nobles were not wise politically, or morally defensible.
After the execution of the Duke of Albany and his family, the Earldoms
of Fife and Monteith became the property of the Crown. In the case of
the Earl of Lennox, though no sentence of forfeiture was pronounced
against him, yet the King took possession of his estates and Earldom,
and retained them in his own hands during his reign. Yet James went
further, and in 1431, in a parliament held at Perth, it was decided
that the late regent Albany had no power to alienate any lands which,
by the death of a bastard, might have fallen to the Crown, and on this
ground, a grant of land to Adam Ker was declared to be invalid. In
this way the King prepared for a great stroke. The Earl of March, who
usually commanded the castle of Dunbar, and held large estates in the
south of the kingdom, had often been a cause of annoyance to the Crown.
As we have seen, the Earl of March fled to England in the reign of
Robert III., renounced his allegiance, and fought in the English ranks
against the Scots in several engagements; but he returned to Scotland,
and in 1409 his estates were restored to him by the regent Albany. He
died in 1420, and his son George succeeded to the lands of the Earldom;
and it was this man that the King resolved to humble. His loyalty was
not questioned, and he had rendered service to James I. in many ways;
but in 1434 his castle of Dunbar was seized, and he was arrested and
imprisoned in the castle of Edinburgh, on the ground that Albany had
exceeded the powers of a regent in restoring his father. A parliament
was assembled at Perth in January ♦1435, and proceeded to discuss
the cause of the Earldom of March. It was debated on both sides at
length:――First, touching the treason and forfeiture of the late Earl,
and the consequent reversion of his estates to the Crown; and second,
the position and claim of his son then in possession. After a long
debate, it was affirmed that Albany had exceeded his powers, and,
therefore, the verdict of the judges was against the Earl, and all the
lands of the Earldom were annexed to the Crown. The dispossessed Earl
and his family retired to England.¹
♦ “1335” replaced with “1435”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
22, 23.
In 1435 the Earl of Mar, Alexander Stewart, the hero of Harlaw, died,
and on the ground of his illegitimacy, the Earldom reverted to the
Crown. The King ignored the claim of Robert, Lord Erskine, the rightful
heir to the Earldom of Mar. The Scotch nobles were greatly alarmed
and enraged at the proceedings of the King. One of James’ bitterest
enemies was Sir Robert Graham, uncle of the deprived Earl of Strathern,
mentioned in a preceding page as one of the ransom hostages detained
in England. Graham in the parliament of 1435 had delivered a vehement
speech, in which he touched on the encroachments of the King upon the
nobles, and in his presence denounced him as a cruel tyrant. He was
immediately arrested and banished. Graham retired, brooding on revenge,
and matured the plot against the King. He addressed a letter to the
King renouncing his allegiance, and stating that James had ruined his
family and rendered himself houseless and landless; and, therefore,
he warned the King that he would pursue him to the utmost as his enemy
and slay him. The King issued a proclamation for his apprehension, and
offered a sum of gold for his head.¹
¹ _Contemporary Account of the Death of James I._
Yet it appears from circumstantial and direct evidence that Graham was
not the originator of the plot against the King, although he was one of
the chief actors in the tragedy. The real originator of the dismal plot
was Walter Stewart, Earl of Athole, son of Robert II., and uncle of
the King. In the preceding chapter, it was stated that Robert II. had
been twice married, and at the date of his settlement of the succession
to the crown in the male line (which was quoted at length) there were
three sons of the first marriage, and two of the second, named in the
instrument of the succession, these were all dead, except Walter, Earl
of Athole, who was the second son of Robert’s second wife. Then it
had been known that several of Robert’s children by his first wife
were born before he married their mother, and in spite of the solemn
settlement of the succession, a doubt hung over the legitimacy of the
first family of Robert II., and the children of the second marriage
cherished the idea that they had been unjustly excluded from the
throne; and the Earl of Athole was the representative of this branch
in the male line. It was suspected that he had been concerned in the
proceedings which terminated in the death of the young Duke of Rothesay.
He was one of James’ most trusted advisers, and he was one of the jury
who sanctioned the execution of the Duke of Albany and his sons; then
only James I. and his boy stood between him and the throne. It seems
that the King had no suspicion of Athole, and conferred on him honours
and wealth. He was appointed Justiciary of Scotland, and the _Exchequer
Rolls_ from year to year contain remissions of custom and gifts to him,
and his grandson and heir was made private Chamberlain to the King.
Meanwhile Athole had been devising his plot against the King, with his
grandson as his accomplice, and Graham and others as his tools.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume IV.
The King was gifted with a bold and fearless spirit, and he seems to
have forgot or disregarded the threats of Graham. James had resolved
to hold his Christmas at Perth, in the Black Friars Monastery. Thus he
unwittingly placed himself in the midst of his enemies; although he had
been warned of the impending danger to his life before he had crossed
the Forth, still he disregarded it and proceeded to Perth. The King was
cheerful and bent on enjoying himself; and on the arrival of the royal
party at Perth, day after day was spent in the pleasures and amusements
which were then customary at that happy season. It seems that the
King had not the slightest suspicion of the fate that was hanging over
him. The Earl of Athole, the arch-conspirator, and his grandson the
Chamberlain, were amongst the royal guests, and contributing their
share of mirth to the company, while everything was going on in the
most harmonious style.
The outside and subordinate agents of the conspiracy, headed by Sir
Robert Graham, had completed the arrangements, and they resolved to
execute the horrid crime on the night of the 20th of February 1437.
They proceeded in their dismal work with great calmness and surprising
cunning; the hour of the attack was fixed, and the conspirators
inside the monastery executed their part in the tragedy. Stewart the
Chamberlain removed the bolts of the doors which made communication
in the interior of the building easy. On this night the amusements of
the court were continued till past midnight, and the Earl of Athole
remained till a late hour, and when the King called for a parting cup,
the company retired, and Stewart, the Chamberlain, was the last to
leave the apartment. The King had undressed, and was standing in his
nightgown before the fire talking with the Queen and the ladies of
the bedchamber, when suddenly he was alarmed by the clang of arms and
the glare of torchlights in the outer court. The Queen and the ladies
rushed to secure the door, but the bolts were gone. The King instantly
saw his peril, and called to the ladies to keep the door as long as
they could; he tried to force the windows, but they were barred with
iron stanchions; he then seized the tongs, wrenched up a flag, and
descended to a vault below. The Queen and the women replaced the flag,
and tried to barricade the door; but the cruel ruffians soon forced it,
and broke Catherine Douglas’ arm, which she had heroically thrust into
the staple to replace the removed bolt. The conspirators on not finding
the King in the room, rushed in fury through the buildings and feared
that their victim had escaped. But Thomas Chambers suspected what had
happened, and returned to the bedchamber, and seeing that the floor
had been newly broken, instantly tore it up, and their victim appeared.
Although the King was unarmed and half naked, he made a desperate
resistance. Sir John Hall leaped down with a dagger in his hand, the
King seized him by the throat and threw him under his feet. A brother
of Hall’s followed and met with the same fate. Sir Robert Graham then
entered the room, and sprang down with his drawn sword, and the King
implored for mercy; but Graham called him a cruel tyrant, who had
never shown mercy to his own kindred, and in an instant thrust his
sword through the King’s body. Thus perished, by the hands of atrocious
villains, the ablest King of all the Stuart line.
By this time the citizens of Perth were hastening to the monastery
with torches and weapons, and on their approach the conspirators
fled and escaped. The pursuit of the murderers and conspirators was
prosecuted with the utmost energy, and within a month after the murder
the principal culprits and actors were captured and executed. The
record of their trials has not been preserved, but the chronicles
present details of the horrible modes in which they were tortured and
put to death. The Earl of Athole was seized by the Earl of Angus, tried,
condemned, tortured, and executed. Robert Stewart, the Chamberlain,
Graham, Chambers, and others, were captured and executed, and the
public feeling was at last appeased.¹
¹ Contemporary account.
James I. was cut off in the forty-fourth year of his age and the
thirteenth of his reign. He was popular among the people, who
appreciated the advantages and the effects of his Government. He
struggled hard to redress the oppression and to reform the intolerable
evils which Norman feudalism had generated in Scotland. He clearly
understood and thoroughly realised in his mind that which all his
♦predecessors had failed to see, namely, that Norman feudalism
contained in itself the essence of anarchy and injustice. He had a
true conception of the form of government which the people of Scotland
needed; though, unhappily, his ideas were too far in advance of his
time. No historian who has studied his legislation can fail to admire
his grasp of the fundamental principles of effective government, and
the efficient administration of justice. Still the historian may not
justify all his proceedings, and it seems to me that James I. sometimes
pushed his depression of the nobles beyond the limits of justice and
political wisdom.
♦ “precedessors” replaced with “predecessors”
CHAPTER IX.
_Narrative to the Battle of Flodden._
JAMES I. was succeeded by his son, a boy of seven years of age, who
was crowned at Edinburgh in the monastery of Holyrood on the 25th of
March, 1437, under the title of James II. The custody and care of the
young prince was entrusted to his mother, while the Earl of Douglas was
appointed Lieutenant of the kingdom. As the Government of the late King
had been extremely hostile to the nobles, they naturally regarded his
death with feelings of satisfaction. The tendency of his policy had
been to render the institutions and the laws of the kingdom effective,
but his presence and energy being gone, the Government soon relapsed.
During the minority the factions of the nobles struggled to kidnap
the King, and in this contest for power Sir William Crichton, the
Chancellor, and Governor of Edinburgh Castle, and Sir Alexander
Livingston of Callender, became prominent actors. The Queen, with
her son, had taken refuge in the Castle of Edinburgh, but Sir William
Crichton isolated the boy from his mother and made him almost a
prisoner. Then the Queen outwitted him and conveyed her son to Stirling
Castle, which Sir Alexander Livingston commanded. This move intensified
the rivalry between Crichton and Livingston; while the contests of
the rival factions increased the disorder of society. Fortunately
England was not then in a position to harass Scotland, and a truce was
concluded to continue for nine years.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 31,
32, 55.
In 1439 the Queen married Sir James Stewart, son of Sir James Stewart
of Innermeath and Lorne, called the Black Knight of Lorne, with the
hope of strengthening her position; but Livingston imprisoned them both,
and kept the young prince a captive in Stirling Castle. The Earl of
Douglas, the Lieutenant of the kingdom, died in 1439, and his son, a
youth of seventeen years, succeeded to the earldom. He soon assumed
an arrogant attitude, kept a host of retainers, and scorned to appear
at court or parliament. The factions of Livingston and Crichton saw
that the Earl must be crushed; as they were unable to attack him in the
field, they resolved to allure him into a trap. They invited the Earl
to visit the young King in Edinburgh Castle. The Earl and his brother
proceeded there, and were received with much show of respect; but in a
few days after their arrival, they were both beheaded; and the Earl’s
chief adviser, Malcolm Fleming, was also executed. Although Douglas was
slain, his earldom was not forfeited to the Crown; for the Government
was unable to seize the possessions of the head of the Douglas family;
the adherents of the chief were numerous and strongly attached to
him. This blow, however, stunned the family. A portion of the estates
of the earldom reverted to a sister of the murdered Earl, while his
grand-uncle, James Douglas, succeeded to the title and the greater
part of the lands; but the French possessions of the house, which were
limited to male heirs in the direct line of descent, reverted to the
Crown of France. This Earl was known in history as James the Fat, and
he died in 1443. He was succeeded by his son, William, a man of energy
and ambition. His power soon became enormous and inconsistent with
order, while the kingdom presented a scene of turmoil.¹
¹ Pitscottie; Buchanan’s _History of Scotland_, Book XI.,
Chapters xvi., xvii.; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_,
Volume II., page 33.
Crichton and Livingston were unable to offer effective resistance
to Douglas. To make himself complete master of the kingdom he sought
admittance to the King’s presence at Stirling Castle, and Livingston,
who had the custody of the Prince, granted the request. Livingston and
Douglas then became friends, and Crichton saw with dismay that he was
undone. Douglas pretended to be greatly pleased with the favour which
the young King had graciously shown him, and then he assumed the title
and power of Lieutenant-General of the kingdom, called a parliament,
and summoned Crichton and his adherents to appear and answer to a
charge of high treason. Crichton, instead of obeying the summons,
mustered his followers, plundered the lands of Douglas, then retired
into the Castle of Edinburgh, and defied his enemies; but they
afterwards came to terms with him.¹
¹ ♦_Auchinleck Chronicles_, page 36; Lesley’s _History of
Scotland_, page 17; Pitscottie.
♦ “Auclinleck” replaced with “Auchinleck”
The Earl of Douglas divorced his wife, then married his cousin, the
“Fair Maid of Galloway,” and thus reunited the domains of his house.
His power rapidly increased, and a struggle with the Crown became
inevitable. He strengthened himself by coalitions with other nobles,
and entered into a bond of alliance and mutual defence with the Earls
of Crawford and Ross. When Douglas desired the assistance of the
knights and gentry, and persons in his own neighbourhood, he summoned
them to attend the meetings at which he presided; and if any of them
failed to appear he soon brought them to obedience, and taught them a
lesson which would be remembered.
In 1449 James II. married a daughter of the Duke of Gueldres, and began
to show some energy and ability; but he mainly relied on the counsel
of Crichton the Chancellor, and Bishop Kennedy. The King had not the
command of a force which could venture to attack Douglas openly in the
field, and so the faction of the Livingstons was first crushed. They
had enriched themselves during the King’s minority, but they and their
active associates were now seized and imprisoned. The head of the house,
an old man, was granted his life, but his property was forfeited to the
Crown, and his son, and several others were executed.¹
¹ Pitscottie; Balfour’s _Annals of Scotland_, Volume I.,
page 173.
The parliament which crushed the Livingstons passed a number of Acts
and re-enacted others of the reign of James I., which were mostly
directed to the re-establishment of order. It was enacted that if any
man “commit treason against the King’s person or majesty, or wage war
against him, or lay violent hands upon him, whether young or old, and
all who reset, sustain, or advise any one convicted of treason, should
be punished as rebels. Those who rebel against the King should be
punished, according to the extent of their rebellion, by the sanction
of the Three Estates. Those who openly revolted and made war upon the
people, the King ought immediately to proceed against them with all
the force of the kingdom, and inflict condign ♦punishment upon them.”
When men of such power committed robbery and theft that the Justiciary
was unsafe to hold his court, or put the law in force against these
masterful evil-doers, then in such cases, he should inform the King,
who, with the advice of his council, will devise a remedy. That these
great criminals may not have the chance of escaping from justice, the
Justice Clerk was enjoined not to reveal his action to any one whatever,
or in any way to alter the form of the process which was given to
him, under the penalty of forfeiting his office and his goods. It was
enacted that the justiciaries, the justices, chamberlains, and other
officers, in their progresses through the kingdom, should travel with
a small train, and not oppress the people by their retinues.¹
♦ “puuishment” replaced with “punishment”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
33‒37.
Douglas continued to hold a haughty attitude towards the King, and kept
up communications with the leaders of parties in England and political
personages abroad. In 1450 he proceeded on a pilgrimage to Rome,
attended by a train of his retainers, passed through France, where he
was joined by his brother, and thence to Rome. During his absence some
of his vassals had caused disturbance, and were punished by the command
of the King. He returned to Scotland in 1451.
The King and his advisers were unwilling to attack Douglas, as they
were doubtful of the issue of the struggle that would ensue. As the
vassals of Douglas’s allies, the Earls of Ross and Crawford, and his
own vassals, and those of his kindred were numerous, and seeing that
the Earl of Ross was also Lord of the Isles, Douglas and his allies
could have mustered an army probably more numerous than any force which
the King could command. In these circumstances it was resolved to try
the effect of a personal interview; and in February 1452, Douglas was
invited to visit the King at Stirling Castle, and he complied. Douglas
proceeded to Stirling with a small retinue, and was received by the
King with respect. He dined and supped with the royal party; and then
the King took him aside to an inner room, where they entered into a
private conversation. One matter after another was touched on, till
the question of Douglas’s bonds with the Earls of Crawford and Ross
was broached. Their talk waxed hot, the King insisted that Douglas
must break these secret bonds, but he declined to desert his allies.
At last the King exclaimed, “This shall,” and instantly drew his
dagger and twice stabbed his guest. The nobles at hand rushed upon the
bleeding man and killed him outright. There can be no justification or
palliation of this murder; perhaps it was unpremeditated, as there was
no preparation made to meet its consequences.
The rash act of the King hastened the crisis, and civil war raged from
the borders to Inverness. The murdered Earl had four brothers then in
Stirling, and they immediately met with other friends of the family and
recognised James, the eldest brother, as his successor to the earldom.
They agreed to meet at Stirling on the 25th of March. Having mustered
their followers they met accordingly, proclaimed James II. a perjured
man, and then pillaged and burned the town of Stirling. The struggle
was desperate, and for some time the King was hard and sorely pressed
on every side. He appointed the Earl of Huntly Lieutenant-General of
the kingdom, and entrusted to him the task of suppressing the rebellion
of the Earls of Crawford and Ross. Huntly mustered a strong army from
the valley of the Deveron, Strathbogie, and the north, and marched
southward towards Stirling. But the Earl of Crawford was prepared to
oppose his advance, and had taken up a position near Brechin. On the
18th of May, 1452, Huntly, at the head of the loyal army, attacked
Crawford, and after a fierce and severe battle, completely defeated
him, when he fled to his castle of Finhaven. Two of Huntly’s brothers,
Gordon of Methlic, ancestor of the Earl of Aberdeen, and many of his
men were slain. One of Crawford’s brothers, and many of his chief
supporters fell upon the field.
Huntly returned to chastise the Earl of Moray, who had invaded
and wasted Strathbogie. He crossed the Spey, advanced into Moray,
and destroyed that part of the city of Elgin which belonged to the
adherents of the Earl of Moray. Thus the rebellion was subdued in the
north, but in the south and other parts of the country the war raged
with intense fury. The Earl of Crawford, infuriated by his defeat
at Brechin, wasted the lands, and destroyed the houses of the King’s
adherents in Angus; while the new Earl of Douglas and his brothers,
assisted by their numerous vassals, defied and scorned the King’s
authority, and wasted and burned the country. At last the Earl of Angus,
a member of the Douglas tribe, joined the King’s standard. His kinsmen
looked on this as an unpardonable crime, and attacked his possessions
with extreme ferocity. Sir John Douglas of Dalkeith also adhered
to the King, and his kinsmen besieged his castle of Dalkeith, and
having failed to take it, they burned the town and the villages in
the neighbourhood.¹
¹ Pitscottie; _Auchinleck Chronicles_, pages 46‒48; Buchanan’s
_History of Scotland_, Book XI., Chapters 37, 38. Though
John, Earl of Ross and Lord of the Isles was in league with
Douglas and Crawford, it appears that he did not engage
much in the rebellion. _Historical Records of the Family of
Lesley_, Volume I., page 88.
After many fruitless efforts, the King mustered an army which numbered
nearly thirty thousand men, on a moor near Edinburgh. At the head
of this force he advanced against the Earl of Douglas, and proceeded
through Peeblesshire, Selkirk Forest, Dumfries, and Galloway. When the
royal army appeared before Douglas Castle the Earl parleyed, and peace
was concluded on the 24th of August, 1452. Douglas agreed to renounce
his claim to the earldom of Wigton and the lands of Stewarton, and
to abandon all quarrels arising out of recent events, and all illegal
bonds. Shortly after the Earl of Crawford submitted to the King, and
was pardoned.
But it soon became apparent that the struggle was not finally
terminated. Douglas obtained a papal dispensation for his marriage
with the Fair Maid of Galloway, the widow of his late brother, and thus
once more united the extensive territories of the family. He entered
into communication with the Yorkish party in England, and conspired
to overthrow the Government and the Stuart dynasty. An appeal to arms
again became necessary. The King raised an army, and the castle of
Abercorn was besieged; Douglas advanced with a strong force to relieve
his castle, and a battle seemed to be imminent. At this critical
moment many of Douglas’s adherents, including Lord Hamilton, deserted
his standard, and consequently he was unable to offer battle to the
besieging army, and retired, while his castle of Abercorn was captured.
The King, then, at the head of a strong army, marched into the lands
of his enemy, attacked and reduced Douglas Castle, and subdued his
territories. Douglas made his last stand at Arkinholm, in the summer of
1455, but he was defeated by the royal troops under the Earl of Angus;
the Earl of Moray, one of Douglas’s brothers, was slain, and the Earl
of Ormond, his other brother, was taken prisoner. The Earl of Douglas
himself fled to England.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
75, 77; _Auchinleck Chronicles_, page 53.
Parliament assembled at Edinburgh on the 9th of June, 1455, and
proceeded to deal with the estates and offices of the Douglas family.
The Earl of Douglas, his mother, Countess of Douglas, the Earl of Moray,
his slain brother, and John Douglas of Balveny, were declared traitors,
and their lands and titles forfeited to the Crown, and other three of
the adherents of the Earl of Douglas were forfeited. Acts were then
passed which aimed at securing these forfeited lands and castles to
the Crown. It was enacted that certain lordships and castles should
for ever remain in possession of the Crown, and be given to no person
whatever. “If it should happen that James II. or any of his successors
alienated any of the castles and lordships belonging to the Crown,
it shall not be valid, as it shall always be lawful for the reigning
King to retake these castles and lands whenever he thinks fit,
without any process of law whatever.” This enactment was not well
observed, but several of the succeeding kings occasionally put it into
practical operation. Acts were passed which aimed at the restriction
of hereditary offices, and the jurisdiction and powers associated
with regalities. All the regalities which had fallen to the Crown were
to be annexed to it, and no new ones were to be granted without the
consent of Parliament. The hereditary Wardenship of the Marches was
to be abolished. In 1457 a Parliament, which assembled at Edinburgh,
passed many Acts and commanded all the sheriffs of the kingdom, and
the commissioners of the burghs to obtain copies of all the statutes
of this Parliament from the Register Clerk, and then to proclaim them
through all the counties and towns of the realm.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
41‒43, 52, 75.
The raids on the Borders were continued, and had become habitual. The
Scots, however, had still the object in view of driving the English out
of the castle of Roxburgh, and retaking Berwick. The English had held
this ancient stronghold for upwards of a century. In the summer of 1460
the King mustered a force, and having provided cannon and war-engines,
marched southward to the attack. This castle, however, was built on
a strong position, and the garrison made a determined and vigorous
defence. The King was actively urging on the siege, and he was
extremely eager to observe the effect of the cannon which were brought
to bear upon the castle. One of the great guns, which were purchased
in Flanders, was placed in position, and when it was discharged some of
the wedges, which were used to tighten the iron hoops, were driven out,
and one of them struck and killed the King. Thus fell James II., on 3rd
of August, 1460, in the thirtieth year of his age and the twenty-fourth
of his reign. But the siege was continued; and the Queen, with her son,
appeared upon the scene. The castle was taken, and having been more
serviceable to the enemy than to Scotland it was levelled with the
ground.¹
¹ _Extracta ex variis chronicis Scotiæ_, page 243; Mair’s
_History of Scotland_, page 325.
James II. was succeeded by his son, a boy of nine years of age, who was
crowned at Kelso on the 10th of August, 1460, under the title of James
III. The care of the young prince mainly devolved upon his mother,
Mary of Gueldres. The Earl of Angus was appointed Lieutenant-General of
the kingdom, and James Kennedy, Bishop of St. Andrews, was for several
years the leading man in the Government. Kennedy was the friend and
trusted adviser of the late King, and he continued to serve the nation.
The wars of York and Lancaster were then distracting England; and Henry
VI., after his crushing defeat at Towton on the 29th of March, 1461,
fled into Scotland, and was hospitably received. In return for the
kindness shown to him by the Government, he surrendered Berwick to the
Scots, which act for a time threatened to involve the nation in a war
with England. But this was avoided by a truce which left Berwick in the
possession of the Scots, on the condition that they should immediately
cease to assist Henry VI. On the 16th of November, 1463, Mary of
Gueldres, the mother of the Queen, died, and Bishop Kennedy encouraged
a policy of peace. The Earl of Angus had died also, leaving a son, who
was too young to succeed him in his public position. Unhappily, Bishop
Kennedy died in 1465, and his death was lamented by all the peaceful
people of the kingdom as a public calamity.¹ He had rendered great
service to the State and his country, and was a wise, moderate, and
upright man.
¹ Mair’s _History of Scotland_, page 326; Buchanan’s _History
of Scotland_, Book XII., Chapters 20‒23; _Accounts of the
Lord High Treasurer of Scotland_, Volume I., Preface, pages
37‒40.
After the death of Kennedy, the plotting and the characteristic
practice of the restless nobles recommenced. The King, then in his
fourteenth year, was made the tool of a faction of the nobles, whose
sole object was their own aggrandisement. Lord Boyd and his sons
entered into a bond with a number of other nobles in a conspiracy
to seize the young King, and rule the kingdom in their own interest.
This bond contained the names of Robert, Lord Boyd, Sir Alexander Boyd,
the Earl of Crawford, Lord Hamilton, Lord Livingston, Lord Maxwell,
Lord Montgomery, Lord Fleming, Lord Kennedy, the Bishop of St. Andrews,
and others, and was signed on the 10th day of February, 1466. On the
9th of July, 1466, while Lord Livingston, the Chamberlain, was holding
his court at Linlithgow with the King, Lord Boyd and a number of his
associates entered the court and requested the King to accompany them
to Edinburgh, with which request he at once complied. The party held
a Parliament, and passed an Act in which the King was made to say that
he willingly accompanied Lord Boyd and the knights from Linlithgow to
Edinburgh, and that anything connected with this matter which could
possibly be construed into an offence, His Majesty King James III.
freely pardoned. Lord Boyd was appointed guardian of the King’s person,
governor of the royal castles, and High Justiciary of the kingdom.
Thus he at once became supreme, and his family and relations speedily
acquired large tracts of territory, titles, and honours. In 1467 his
eldest son, Sir Thomas Boyd, was created Earl of Arran, and was married
to the King’s sister.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., page 185;
Crawford’s _Officers of State_, page 473; _Douglas Peerage_,
Volume II., page 32.
The relations between the Crowns of Denmark and Scotland demanded the
attention of the government. It was stated in a preceding chapter that
the Western Islands were ceded to Scotland in 1266, and the payment of
an annual rent of 100 marks was one of the terms of the treaty. This
had not been regularly paid, and the arrears amounted to a considerable
sum. A marriage was proposed between James III. and the Princess
Margaret of Denmark; and Boyd, the Earl of Arran, the bishops of
Glasgow and Orkney, and other commissioners, proceeded to Denmark to
negotiate with King Christian I. The Scotch commissioners concluded a
treaty with the Danish King, in which he agreed to abandon his claim
for the arrears of rent on the Western Islands, to endow his daughter
with 60,000 florins, of which he proposed to pay 10,000 before she
departed to Scotland, and to secure the remaining 50,000 on the Orkney
Islands. But, on further reflection, he proposed to give the bride 2000
florins for her immediate use, and secure the balance on the Shetland
Islands. The treaty thus adjusted was accepted; and, as the money
was never paid, the Orkney and Shetland Islands ultimately became
incorporated with Scotland.
In July 1469, the Princess Margaret of Denmark landed at Leith, and was
heartily welcomed by a great assemblage of the people. Shortly after,
the royal marriage was celebrated amid rejoicing throughout the nation.
During the Earl of Arran’s absence from the country, his enemies had
undermined his power and influence. When he returned with the King’s
bride, he found himself utterly deserted; and he immediately fled with
his wife to Denmark. But he was soon deprived of his royal wife by a
divorce. She afterwards married Lord Hamilton, and by this alliance his
descendants became in the succeeding century the nearest heirs to the
Crown of Scotland.
As the Boyds had risen rapidly to power and wealth, so their fall
was equally swift and complete. Parliament assembled at Edinburgh
on the 22nd of November, 1469, and the Boyds were summoned to appear
and answer to a charge of high treason. The charge of treason was
the seizure of the King’s person at Linlithgow. Old Robert Boyd,
the Justiciary and the head of the family, fled to England, where he
shortly afterwards died; but his brother, Sir Alexander, was tried,
condemned, and executed on the Castle Hill of Edinburgh. Thomas, the
Earl of Arran, wandered as an exile in Germany, France, and England,
and died at Antwerp about the year 1473. The extent of the lands which
they had unjustly seized in the short day of their power, is well shown
by the local names in the act of their forfeiture. The lordship and the
castle of Kilmarnock were the hereditary possessions of the family; but
the list in the Act contained the earldom of Carrick, the lordship of
Bute, the castle of Rothesay, the lordship of Arran, the lordship of
Cowal, the lordship of Stewarton, the barony of Renfrew, the land and
castle of Dundonald, and several others.¹ The case of the Boyds is not
an isolated phenomenon in the history of Scotland, as a similar policy
was pursued by the nobles whenever they had an opportunity; and this
was one of the chief sources of their endless feuds, and the social
disorder of the kingdom.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
90, 186; _Officers of State_, page 316.
The legislation of the parliament of 1469, touching the social order
of the kingdom, shows that the administration of justice was in a
deplorable state. It was stated that the sheriffs and other judges had
failed to perform their executive duties, or to protect the poor people
from oppression. “Therefore, it was enacted that in every quarter of
the kingdom, any person who had a case, should first make his complaint
to the local sheriff, steward, justice, or the magistrates in burghs,
and ask redress and justice: and if he obtains justice duly ministered
and executed, then he must rest content. But when the judge declines
to act, and will not administer justice, then the complainant should
proceed to the King and his council, take letters and summon the
offender, and also the judge; and if the judge be found guilty, he will
be punished and dismissed from his office for a long or short period
at the discretion of the King and his council; and he shall have to pay
the expenses of the complainant, and the King shall cause justice to
be administered to the complainant.” Murder and crimes of violence had
been extremely numerous during the King’s minority, while it was stated
that many persons committed crimes, and trusted to secure immunity
by taking refuge in the sanctuaries and remaining there, safe from
pursuit. To remedy this state of matters, it was enacted that officers
of justice should have power to seize such criminals, that they might
be tried before a jury, and punished according to their guilt.
The King had reached his twentieth year; but his education had been
sadly neglected, and he showed little capacity in the government of
the kingdom. In 1470 he made a progress through the northern part of
the country with his Queen; and on the 17th of March, 1473, an heir
to the throne was born. James III. was peacefully inclined, but lacked
the energy of character necessary to control the nobles. A truce with
England was concluded in October 1474, to continue for seventeen years;
but Edward IV. was not really friendly to Scotland. He harboured the
Earl of Douglas, and entered into negotiations with John, Earl of Ross
and Lord of the Isles, with whom he also concluded a treaty.
When the terms of this treaty became known to the Government, the
Earl of Ross was summoned to appear before a parliament in Edinburgh
to answer several charges of treason; but he failed to appear, and a
sentence of forfeiture was passed against him in 1475. Preparations
were then made to invade his territories and reduce him to subjection;
but he tendered his submission and surrendered himself to the King. The
earldom of Ross was annexed to the Crown; but the rest of his lands,
excepting Cantyre and Knapdale, were restored to him by royal charter;
he was also created a peer of parliament under the title of Lord of the
Isles.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., page 108,
_et seq._
James III. was not a vigorous ruler, while he seems to have incurred
the enmity of the nobles. He entertained a man called Doctor Andres,
an astrologer, gave him sums of money, and in 1474 a French gown for
his services. It was said that this astrologer told the King that his
life was in imminent danger from his own kindred. The King employed
and associated with persons of humble position; one Robert Cochrane,
a mason, became a special favourite; Robert Rogers, a musician; and
James Homil, a tailor, were the King’s favourites. Homil received an
annual pension of £20. The King’s brothers, the Duke of Albany, and
the Earl of Mar, were robust and active men, and more in harmony with
the characteristics of the nobles than the King. From whatever cause,
the King imagined that his brothers were his enemies, and the Earl of
Mar was imprisoned in the castle of Craigmillar, where he died; and it
was rumoured that the King had caused him to be murdered. Albany was
imprisoned in the castle of Edinburgh; but in April 1479, he escaped
and fled to France. Returning to England, in 1482 he entered into a
treaty with Edward IV. By this treaty he agreed to recognise the feudal
superiority of the King of England, who was then to give the Crown of
Scotland to him under the title of Alexander IV. Albany promised to
render homage to his feudal lord whenever he was put in possession of
the kingdom, also to support England, to abandon the old alliance with
France, to surrender to the English the town and castle of Berwick, the
castle of Lochmaben, and the districts of Liddesdale, Annandale, and
Eskdale.¹ To enter into a compact of this nature with the enemy of the
kingdom was a crime which the nation could not permit; although Albany
simply presented another illustration of a characteristic weakness
of the Stuart dynasty, namely, enmity amongst the members of the royal
family.
¹ _Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland_, Volume
I., pages 7, 13, 15, 18, 23‒6, 55; Pitscottie; _Acts of
the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 125‒132;
_Fœdera_, Volume XII., page 156.
The old Earl of Douglas was still alive, and being a retainer of Edward
IV., he and several other Scotch nobles joined Albany’s conspiracy.
England thus assumed a menacing attitude towards Scotland. Parliament
met in March, 1482, to deliberate on the state of affairs which had
arisen. In the record of the proceedings Edward IV. was termed a
usurper and a robber, “who had broken faith with Scotland, and invaded
it, robbed, burned, and destroyed the property of the King’s subjects.
And it was well known that this usurper, from his enormous avarice
and false love of conquest, neither fearing God nor the effusion of
Christian blood, nor remembering that he was obliged and sworn to
keep the truce, but casting his fidelity and honour to the winds, he
has determinedly resolved to continue this war, which he has caused
and begun, and with all his power to invade, and so far as he can,
conquer this kingdom. Those present in Parliament therefore promised
to support the King to the utmost of their power, and to defend him
and the kingdom as their forefathers had always done.” It was resolved
to muster the whole force of the country to resist the usurper Edward,
“and if he shall come in person, then he shall be resisted by our King
in person, and with the body of the people, who will live or die in his
defence.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
138‒139.
In July, 1482, a strong army assembled on the Boroughmoor, near
Edinburgh; and Cochrane, who had assumed the title of Earl of Mar, was
appointed to command the artillery. The army, with the King in person,
marched toward the Border, but when it reached Lauder a tragic action
happened. The nobles, headed by the Earl of Angus, met in a church,
and after some discussion they resolved to seize the King and to sweep
off his favourites. While they were considering how to execute their
resolution a knock was heard at the door; it was Cochrane with a
message from the King. The Earl of Angus instantly seized and pulled
the gold chain from Cochrane’s neck, saying that “a rope would befit
him better.” “My lords,” said he, “is it jest or earnest?” He was told
that it was earnest, and was quickly bound and placed under guard. A
party of the nobles, who were despatched to the royal tent, instantly
seized the King’s musician, Rogers, and the rest of his favourites.
These were then led, along with Cochrane, to the Bridge of Lauder,
where they were all hanged. After these cruel executions the nobles
disbanded the army, returned to the capital with the King, and
imprisoned him in the castle of Edinburgh; and thus left the southern
quarter of the kingdom a prey to the enemy.¹
¹ Buchanan’s _History of Scotland_, Book XII., Chapter 46;
Lesley’s _History of Scotland_, page 48; Pitscottie.
The English retook Berwick, which henceforth remained in their
possession. The English army, accompanied by the Duke of Albany,
advanced to Edinburgh with the intention of placing him on the throne
of Scotland. When Albany’s aim was discovered, it was seen that the
people would not submit to his scheme without a severe struggle. The
unhappy and captive King had still some loyal and powerful adherents,
including the Earl of Huntly, the representative of the house which
saved the crown of James II. By the efforts of these and the citizens
of Edinburgh, the King was released from prison,¹ and a partial
reconciliation between him and Albany was effected, on the ground that
Albany should return to his allegiance and be restored to his estates.
For a short time Albany attempted to rule the kingdom.
¹ On the 16th of November, 1482, the King granted a charter
to the citizens of Edinburgh, which constituted the
provost-sheriff within the boundaries of the burgh for ever;
and another charter which confirmed to the citizens of the
burgh the customs of the port of Leith, for assisting in
his deliverance from prison. _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_,
Volume I., page 43, 332.
On the 2nd of December, 1482, a Parliament met at Edinburgh, which was
under the control of Albany. A number of Acts were passed, in one of
which the King was made to express his warm thanks to his brother for
delivering him from imprisonment; and the unhappy King was also forced
to entreat Albany to accept the office of Lieutenant-General of the
Kingdom. Albany further received a grant of the Earldom of Mar as a
reward for his great services to the State. Thus Albany was virtually
placed in supreme power.
But he continued his intrigues with the English Government, and
entered into new plots and engagements. When his treason became known
his position was untenable, and he was forced to retire to England; but,
before he departed, he placed the castle of Dunbar in the hands of the
English. Edward IV. died on the 9th of April, 1483, and this event, and
those which followed in England, upset Albany’s schemes. A Parliament
met at Edinburgh on the 24th of June, 1483, to which Albany was
summoned to appear and answer to a charge of treason; as he failed to
appear, his estates were forfeited to the Crown, and also the lands of
his chief adherents. Albany afterwards crossed the English Channel, and
finally settled in France.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
142‒152.
A party of the nobles, chiefly connected with the southern part of the
kingdom, still continued to plot against the King with the intention
of dethroning him, and for the ensuing five years the Government and
the country were in an unsettled state. Truces for short periods were
concluded with England, and in 1485 the league with France was renewed.
Although Parliaments were assembled and many Acts passed touching the
disorder of the kingdom, the holding of courts, and the repression of
crime, the affairs of the Church, the currency of the kingdom, commerce,
and the herring-fishery, still the conspiracy against the King was
proceeding. Queen Margaret died at Stirling in 1486, and she left three
children――Prince James, the heir to the throne; John, who received the
title of Earl of Mar; and the Duke of Ross, who was born in March, 1476,
and educated under George Schaw, Abbot of Paisley; he was appointed
Archbishop of St. Andrews in 1497, Chancellor of the kingdom in 1502,
and died in 1503. The year following the death of his Queen, James III.
opened communication with Henry VII. with a view to a marriage with the
widow of Edward IV.; but the hapless King of Scots soon had other work
to engage his attention.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
165‒184; _Fœdera_, Volume VII., pages 236, _et seq._;
_Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland_, Volume I.,
Preface, page 64.
The conspiracy of the nobles against the King was matured. It had
occurred to them that the King’s son, a youth of sixteen years of age,
would serve their purpose, and the southern nobles induced him to join
them, and rise in rebellion against his own father. They mustered their
followers and advanced upon Edinburgh, where the King was then staying.
James crossed the Forth and passed into the northern counties, which
were loyal, and there a strong army rallied round him. He then marched
southward, and came in sight of the rebellious nobles at Blackness,
in West Lothian, where the Earl of Buchan attacked and drove back the
advance wing of the insurgent army. A pacification was arranged in May,
1488, and the King disbanded his army and returned to Edinburgh, as
the nobles had promised to return to their allegiance, to maintain the
rights of the Crown, and the peace of the kingdom.
But the disaffected nobles remained in arms, with the young Prince
at their head, whom they used as their tool. The hapless King again
mustered an army, and advanced towards Stirling to secure the passage
of the Forth, but the gates of the castle were closed against him, as
the Governor had joined the insurgent nobles. On the 11th of June, 1488,
the two armies approached each other at a small brook called Sauchie
Burn, about a mile from the field of Bannockburn. An engagement ensued,
and though the royal troops were outnumbered, the action was long
and fiercely contested. The King, in retiring from the field, was
thrown from his horse, and some of the rebels came up and killed
him. Thus fell James III., in the thirty-seventh year of his age, and
the twenty-eighth of his reign, another victim to the ambition of a
reckless aristocracy.¹
¹ Pitscottie, pages 133‒143; Buchanan, Book XII., Chapter 61;
_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., page 184.
The victorious nobles passed the night on the field of battle, and on
the following morning proceeded to Linlithgow; and that day, the 12th
of June, the prince issued a proclamation, and granted a commission to
William Hepburn, as Clerk of Council and Register. The dominant party
immediately seized the Government and the royal treasure, divided
the chief offices among themselves, and placed the royal castles in
the hands of their own adherents. On the 25th of June the Prince was
crowned at Scone, with the usual circumstance and ceremony, under the
title of James IV.; and the faction who had raised him to the throne
pampered his youthful passions and propensities. Theatrical farces,
dances, and masked balls, were got up for his special amusement, and
in this way the nobles degraded the character of the young King.¹
¹ _Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland_, Volume I.,
pages 79‒87, 276, 277, 280, 288, 293, 304, _et seq._
The party of the nobles who had attained the ascendancy exerted
themselves to the utmost to secure their position. They appointed an
embassy to proceed to the English courts, headed by the Archbishop of
St. Andrews, and the Bishops of Glasgow and Aberdeen, but Henry VII.
had not much confidence in the new Government. They obtained, however,
a renewal of the truce between the two kingdoms. At home they acted
with surprising energy; the supporters of the late King, including
the Earl of Buchan, Lord Forbes, Lord Bothwell, Sir Alexander Dunbar,
and others, were summoned to appear before Parliament and answer to a
charge of treason. Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 6th of October,
1488, and proceeded to consider the position of those who had been
summoned for treason. The Earl of Buchan appeared, and tendered his
submission to the King, and he was pardoned and restored to favour.
None of the others cited appeared, and consequently their possessions
were placed at the disposal of Parliament; and Lord Bothwell, John Ross,
the late King’s advocate, and others, were forfeited. Ross’s lands were
given to Patrick Home of Fast Castle; and the lordships of Bothwell
and Crichton were formed into the Earldom of Bothwell and given to
Patrick Hepburn, Lord Hailes, who was then created Earl of Bothwell,
as a reward for his service to his country at Sauchie Burn. The
leading members of this Parliament having succeeded so far, proceeded
to investigate the causes of the recent rebellion. After carefully
examining the whole matter, they unanimously came to the conclusion
“that the slaughter committed in the field near Stirling, where the
King’s father happened to be slain, and others of his barons, was
solely to be ascribed to the offences, falsehood, and deceit practiced
by him and his wicked counsellors before the battle. Therefore our
King that now is, and the true lords and barons who were with him in
the same field, were innocent, quit, and free, of the said slaughters,
battle, and pursuit, and did not cause or occasion them.” To this
statement the leading nobles of the party, some of the bishops and
burgesses, affixed their seals, in order that copies of it might
be sent to the Pope, the Kings of France, Denmark, Spain, and other
foreign powers.
Some concessions were granted to the supporters of the late King and
their kindred. It was enacted that the heirs of those who had fallen
in arms against the King at the battle near Stirling, should be allowed
to succeed to their estates, notwithstanding the legal difficulty
that their predecessors were slain when in open rebellion. The goods
belonging to the poor and unlanded people, which had been seized during
the recent struggle, were to be restored to them; and that castles and
lands, which had been plundered and occupied by either party, were to
be delivered to their owners.¹ Still, there were murmurs amongst the
people concerning the hard fate of the late King. In 1489 the Earls
of Lennox and Huntly, Lord Forbes, and others, rose in arms against
the party in power; but after a short struggle, they were defeated, and
the rising extinguished. The dominant faction then ran its course; and
James IV. gradually assumed his proper functions, and became an active
prince. Yet a parliament which met at Edinburgh on the 6th of February,
1492, found it necessary to allay “the heavy murmurs of the people
concerning the death and slaughter of our sovereign lord’s father,
whom God absolve, King James III., that those who slew him should be
punished as they deserved to be.” A reward of a hundred marks of land
was then offered to any one who should reveal the perpetrators of the
deed;² but the reward was never claimed.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 199,
201‒205, 209‒211, 269.
² _Ibid._, pages 223, 230.
Parliament assembled at Edinburgh in May 1493, and proceeded to pass
enactments touching the Church. All those who had pleas depending in
the Court of Rome were commanded to cease their litigation in that
Court, and bring their pleas before the courts of the kingdom, where
justice should be administered to them. Acts were passed which aimed
at withdrawing the appointment to the benefices of the monasteries from
the Court of Rome. The rights and the privileges of the Archbishops of
St. Andrews and Glasgow were confirmed. The doom of treason was to be
pronounced against every one who attempted to take the King’s rights
of patronage to the Court of Rome. Yet it appears that this was not
effective, for in 1496 parliament renewed the former Acts, and passed a
new one, which runs thus:――“For the honour of the kingdom and the good
of the community, and for averting innumerable evils daily incurred
upon the kingdom and the people through the exorbitant cost and expense
of churchmen, by their purchasing at the Court of Rome benefices and
elections contrary to the Acts of Parliament. Also by purchasing and
bringing in of novelties and innovations into the Church without the
advice of the King, distraining the kingdom of money, and putting the
King and patrons out of their possessions. Hereafter, all those who
go out of the realm on such business, without a license from the King,
shall be proclaimed rebels and put to the King’s horn.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
232, 237.
This parliament directed its attention to the state of the Highlands,
and it was alleged that since 1475 repeated attempts had been made in
the name of John, Lord of the Isles, to recover the earldom of Ross,
which was then held by the King’s brother. Therefore the title and
the estates of the aged Lord of the Isles were forfeited to the Crown.
Shortly after he surrendered to the King, and retired to the monastery
of Paisley, where he died in 1498, and was interred in the tomb of his
royal relative, King Robert III.
After the surrender of the Lord of the Isles, preparations were made
for an expedition into the Highlands and Islands with the aim of
establishing the royal authority. Towards the end of the summer of 1493
the King proceeded to the Isles, and received the submission of several
of the chiefs. In the spring of the following year the King again
visited the Isles, and repaired and garrisoned the castle of Tarbert
as a base of operations. He reduced the castle of Dunaverty in Cantyre,
garrisoned it, and then returned to Stirling in August. It seems that
James IV. did not adopt an effective mode of governing the Highlands
and Islands, though he was active and moved about rapidly, he followed
no defined and clear line of government. In autumn he proceeded with
the Northern Circuit Courts, and was in Inverness on the 6th of October,
and in Elgin at the end of the month; thence he passed to Banff and
Aberdeen, and then returned south. Starting from Edinburgh early in
February 1495, he followed the Southern Circuit Courts to Lanark,
Peebles, Selkirk, Jedburgh, Dumfries, and Ayr. In May he was at the
castle of Mingarry, in Ardnamurchan, and a number of the local chiefs
rendered submission to him, including the chief of Clanranald, and
Ewen, son of Alan of Lochiel, Captain of the clan Cameron. But James
returned to Glasgow before the end of June; what have been called his
expeditions to the Highlands and Islands were merely flying visits.¹
Still, it seems that the King and his government had a good opportunity,
after the surrender of the Lord of the Isles, for improving the
government of the Celtic people, and if they had been reasonably
treated and properly ruled, they would have soon settled into a state
of comparative quietness and order under the Crown. Unfortunately the
King and his government, after a time, divested themselves of their
functions and responsibilities to govern the Celtic people of the
Highlands and Islands, and assigned this duty to local and interested
nobles.
¹ _Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland_, Volume I.;
Gregory’s _History of the Western Highlands and Isles of
Scotland_.
The head of the Campbells, who had then attained the rank of Earl of
Argyle, practised a policy of encroachment on the small proprietors and
clans in his ♦neighbourhood. In the year 1502 all the charters which
had been granted by the King to the vassals during the last five years
were summarily recalled. The Earl of Argyle was appointed the King’s
Lieutenant, and empowered to let on lease for a term of three years
the whole lordship of the Isles. Argyle immediately proceeded to evict
the proprietors and their tenants from their lands and houses: and
the lands were appropriated by Argyle himself, and a few of the King’s
favourites. The natural result followed; the evicted people rose
in rebellion. As the Earl of Argyle had obtained the functions of
a King in the Western Highlands and Islands, so in the beginning of
the sixteenth century Alexander, third Earl of Huntly, was appointed
Sheriff of Inverness, Ross, Sutherland, and Caithness; and also keeper
of the Castle of Inverness, to which office there was a large extent
of land attached. Huntly had territories in Badenoch and Lochaber, and
the strong castle of Ruthven, although the centre of his power lay in
Strathbogie, in the counties of Aberdeen and Banff. These two Earls
and their successors, for upwards of a century may be said to have
ruled the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; and each earl within his
region often caused disorder, and committed many acts of aggression and
injustice upon the Celtic people.
♦ “neighbourhoood” replaced with “neighbourhood”
When a Government renders its subjects landless and homeless, rebellion
is likely to be the result. After causing a rising of this nature the
King summoned a parliament, which met at Edinburgh in March, 1503.
This parliament and the King then proclaimed that――“If any one should
apprehend and bring to the King, Maclean of Lochbuy, great Macleod
of Lewis, or MacNeil of Barra, they shall receive the half of these
rebels’ lands; and if they capture and bring to the King any other
head-men, or any Highland man whatever connected with the rebellion,
they shall be rewarded therefor according to the value of the land and
the goods of the persons taken.”¹ Such severe measures only served to
incite the people to rebellion; and it was only after a struggle of
three years that it was extinguished. The Earls of Argyle and Huntly,
with the sanction of the King, assumed and exercised the functions of
local and despotic rulers.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
240‒250.
In the reign of James IV. the relations of Scotland became more
interwoven with the other kingdoms of Europe, and she then really
entered the field of European politics. Scotland had diplomatic
communications with the Kings of France, Spain, the Pope, and other
powers. James IV. had a fondness for excitement and adventure, and a
feature of romance in his character, while his feelings and emotions
were excessively strong, as manifested in various forms. He was not an
adept in diplomacy; in that sphere of action he was apt to be duped,
and an instance of this may be narrated. Perkin Warbeck, a son of a
Florentine Jew, was persuaded by the Duchess of Burgundy, a sister of
Richard III. of England, to personate her nephew Richard, a brother of
Edward V. This character, accompanied by six hundred men, attempted to
land at Kent in July, 1495, but he was repulsed, and one hundred and
fifty of his followers were captured and executed. The adventurer next
made an effort to obtain a footing in Ireland, but he failed. Undaunted
by these failures, Perkin pursued his mission, and with his retinue
he arrived at Stirling on the 20th of November, 1495. He was at once
received by James IV. as “Prince Richard of England,” and was conducted
to apartments which had been prepared for him in Stirling. Immediately
letters were despatched to the lords and nobles of Athole and Strathern,
and to Earl Marischal and the barons of Angus, commanding them to meet
the King and the Prince at Perth; that they might have the honour of
being presented to Prince Richard. As it was intended to wage war in
support of the claims of this noble Prince, letters were sent to the
sheriffs ordering wappenschaws to be held throughout the kingdom.
Perkin soon became a great favourite of the King; and he was married
to the King’s cousin, Lady Gordon, a daughter of the Earl of Huntly,
a personal allowance of £1,200 a year being granted to him, while
his followers were quartered and maintained among the burghs. Perkin
moved through the kingdom in the style of a prince, staying at Perth,
Falkland Palace, Stirling, Linlithgow, Edinburgh, and other places, for
short or long periods as suited his pleasure.
The King having resolved to support the claim of Perkin Warbeck to the
throne of England, ordered the crown vassals to muster at Lauder. The
artillery stored at the King’s work in Leith, the castle of Edinburgh,
and the Abbey of Holyrood, was inspected and put in order. Parties
of workmen were sent to the woods of Melrose and of Irneside to make
carts, wheels, and all the requisite timber appliances, while the
King’s forge was used for preparing the necessary ironwork. New tents
were made for the King, and a banner of red and blue taffeta for Perkin,
who had now assumed the title of Duke of York. The preparations for the
invasion of England were completed on the 12th of September, 1496. John
Sandilands of Hillhouse, who had charge of the artillery, was ready
to advance. The master-gunners were mostly foreigners, the rest were
craftsmen, smiths, carpenters, and quarrymen, who were also trained
to work the guns. Before starting the bellman was thrice sent through
Edinburgh calling for workmen to engage for wages, and one hundred and
forty-three carters, with one hundred and ninety-six horses, were hired
for fourteen days’ service at a shilling a day for each man or horse,
for the conveyance of the guns, carts, tents, and other war materials,
“and seventy-six men with spades and mattocks to clear a way for
the artillery.” On the 14th the King and the Duke of York made their
offerings in Holyrood, and ordered a trental of masses for the success
of the undertaking, and then marched southward. The Scots crossed
the Border and entered Northumberland; the Duke of York then issued a
manifesto to his subjects, declaring that he had come to deliver them
from the usurpation and tyranny of Henry VII.; but the English showed
no signs of enthusiasm for a new King introduced by a Scotch army. The
King and his army plundered Northumberland, and returned to Scotland.
On the 8th of October the King and the Duke had returned to Edinburgh.
After this inglorious and utter failure, Perkin’s followers soon fell
away. James IV. at last discovering that the cause of Perkin was
unpopular among the Scotch people, resolved to send him away. A ship
called the _Cuckoo_ was equipped at Ayr, and stored with provisions,
which consisted of seventeen carcases of beef and twenty-three of
mutton, four tuns of wine, ten pipes of ale, two pipes of cider and
beer, two thousand biscuits, eight bolls of oatmeal, a hogshead of
herring, twelve ♦keeling, and six stone of cheese, and there was also
a store of peats, coal, and one hundred candles. In the middle of July,
1497, Perkin, his wife, and about thirty attendants, sailed from the
port of Ayr, under the care of Robert Barton, a skilful mariner, and
on the 26th of July he arrived at Cork, where he was coldly received;
thence he sailed with three small ships for Cornwall, and landed at
Whitsand Bay on the 7th of September. He assumed the title of Richard
IV. and raised his standard. About three thousand men joined him,
and he attacked Exeter; but he was captured on the 5th of October and
carried to London. He was first placed in the stocks at Westminster,
and then imprisoned in the Tower. Having plotted with the Earl of
Warwick to escape from the Tower, and killed a lieutenant, he was
hanged at Tyburn on the 28th of November, 1499. Thus ended the career
of Perkin Warbeck.¹
♦ “keling” replaced with “keeling”
¹ _Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland_, Volume I.,
Preface, pages 126‒128, 139‒142, _et seq._; _Exchequer
Rolls of Scotland_, Volume XI. I have stated above that
this impostor was a son of a Florentine Jew, but according
to Perkin’s own confession he was a native of Tournay in
Flanders.
After Warbeck’s departure great preparations were made for a raid into
England. A strong force was mustered at Melrose, and the artillery was
put in order at Edinburgh and Leith, and a large number of gunners, men,
oxen and horses, were hired to convey the guns and war materials. But
the only result of these preparations was an unsuccessful siege of the
castle of Norham, and the usual plundering. On the 30th of September,
1497, a truce for seven years was concluded between the two kingdoms,
which was subsequently extended to continue during the lives of the two
Kings.
James IV. was an exceedingly popular King, as he was constantly moving
through the kingdom on pilgrimages, or with the circuit courts, and
was often seen by all classes of his subjects in every quarter of
the country. He was open-handed with his money, and in his movements
through the kingdom always paid even for the smallest services. In July,
1496, Don Pedro de Ayala, the Spanish Ambassador, arrived in Scotland;
he was an able and accomplished man of the world, and having proceeded
to the Scottish court, as the representative of the greatest power in
Europe, he found the King of Scots to be an attractive character. The
Spanish Ambassador said: “When I arrived he was keeping a lady with
great state in a castle. He visited her from time to time. Afterwards
he sent her to the house of her father, who is a knight, and married
her.” This lady was Margaret Drummond, the youngest daughter of John
Lord of Drummond, and she was then living in Stirling Castle. For the
year 1496 the records contain considerable sums of money which were
paid to defray her expenses while she was residing in Stirling, and in
Linlithgow. She returned home in the spring of 1497, and that year she
bore a daughter to the King. This child in due time became the wife
of John Lord Gordon, and thus she was the mother of the fourth Earl
of Huntly.¹ The sad tragedy which befell Margaret Drummond and her two
sisters occurred in 1502. While residing at Drummond Castle the three
sisters, after partaking of breakfast, died in extreme pain, there
being a strong suspicion that they had been poisoned.
¹ _Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland_, Volume I.;
_Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume XII.
At an early age James IV. formed an intimacy with Margaret, or Mariot,
Boyd, a daughter of Archibald Boyd of Bonshaw, and by this lady the
King had a son, who was born about the year 1491. This son of James
IV., on the death of his uncle, the Duke of Ross and Archbishop of St.
Andrews, in 1503, was appointed to the primacy, which he held for ten
years. He was slain at the Battle of Flodden. James IV. formed another
illicit intimacy with Janet Kennedy, a daughter of Lord John Kennedy,
and by her he had a son, who was born about the year 1500, and named
James Stewart. In 1501 Janet Kennedy retired with her infant son to the
castle of Darnaway in Moray, and there the child was brought up as Earl
of Moray.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume XII.
Some of the obstacles to the King’s projected marriage having been
removed, as indicated in the preceding paragraphs, negotiations were
opened in June 1499, to treat for his marriage with the Princess
Margaret, daughter of Henry VII. The negotiations proceeded smoothly,
but, as James and Margaret were within the prohibited degrees of
relationship, Henry VII., in July, 1500, had to obtain a papal
dispensation which removed this impediment to the marriage. In November
1501, Henry VII. empowered the Earl of Surrey, and the Archbishop of
Canterbury, and the Bishop of Winchester, to treat with the Earl of
Bothwell, the Archbishop of Glasgow, and the Bishop of Moray, on all
the matters connected with the proposed marriage. They immediately
entered on their arduous task, and before the end of January 1502,
they framed three treaties:――one sanctioning the marriage between
the Princess and the King of Scotland; another for a perpetual peace
between the two kingdoms; and the other providing for the preservation
of order on the marches of the two countries. In the marriage treaty
it was stipulated that the Princess should be conveyed to Scotland, at
her father’s expense, and delivered to those appointed to receive her
at Lamberton Church in Lammermoor, on or before the 1st of September,
1503; and that the marriage should be solemnised within fifteen days
thereafter. Immediately after the marriage the Queen should obtain
seisin of all the lands, castles, and possessions, which had in past
times formed the jointure of Queen dowagers; and if the rents of
these possessions be below £2000 sterling, additional lands should
be assigned to her. The Queen should be allowed twenty-four English
servants, also Scotch retainers, and her husband should, at his own
cost, maintain her in a style befitting her rank as a Queen’s daughter
and a King’s consort, and provide her with a yearly allowance of 500
marks sterling. Her dowry, amounting to £10,000 sterling, was to be
paid by her father in three instalments, £3,333 on the marriage day,
and the remainder within three years; and if the Queen died without
issue within this period, then James IV. should have no right to the
unpaid balance. The treaties were duly ratified, and Lord Dacre, Sir
Thomas Darcy, Sir Henry Babington, and other commissioners were sent
from England to see that the contemplated arrangements touching the
jointure lands, and the punishment of offenders on the marches, were
carried into effect.¹
¹ _Fœdera_; _Calender of Documents relating to Scotland_,
Volume IV., pages 332‒336, _et seq._; _Exchequer Rolls_,
Volume XII., page 185.
On the 12th of July James IV. promised to Henry VII. not to renew his
league with France “till he consults with him, or is further advised.”
James also promised to pay suitable wages to Queen Margaret’s English
attendants.
Under the care of the Earl of Surrey the young Princess commenced
her journey to Scotland in the beginning of August, accompanied by a
retinue which increased as it advanced northward. The Earl of Morton
and a number of Scotch nobles proceeded to Lamberton Church and
received the Princess, and James joined the party at Newbottle. The
marriage was celebrated on the 8th of August, 1503, in the church of
Holyrood, amid great rejoicing and magnificent display. Exactly one
hundred years later, the issue of this marriage united the Crowns of
England and Scotland.
It has been already mentioned that the relations of Scotland with
foreign powers had assumed some importance. Henry VII., as we have
seen above, had exacted a promise from his son-in-law that he would not
renew his league with France without consulting him; but Louis XII. of
France despatched Bernard Stuart, Lord of Aubigny, as his ambassador
to the Scottish King. James received him with the utmost respect, and
placed him in the most honourable seat at his own table. Subsequently
Pope Julius II. sent an ambassador to the Court of Scotland, who
presented to James IV. a consecrated hat and sword as a special mark of
the Holy Father’s regard for him. The object of the Pope was to detach
the King from his alliance with France, but he utterly failed. Shortly
after, an embassy from the King of France arrived in Scotland, with
the object of inducing the King to join the ♦Cambray League, which had
been formed in 1508 against the Republic of Venice. It appears that
Henry VII. had some suspicion of his son-in-law, for, on the 12th
of December, 1508, he issued instructions to the Captain of Berwick,
in which it was stated that “if the Scots threatened an invasion or
besieged the town, the garrison of the castle should be increased to
six-hundred-and-thirty men.”¹
♦ “Cambary” replaced with “Cambray”
¹ Pinkerton’s _History of Scotland_, Volume II.; _Calender of
Documents relating to Scotland_, Volume IV., page 351.
Henry VII. died on the 21st of April 1509, and it may be said with
truth that by his death Scotland lost a friend and an unusually quiet
neighbour. His son, Henry VIII., who succeeded to the throne of England,
was a different personage, and not long after his accession the old
strife was renewed.
James IV. took an interest in shipbuilding, and in his reign Scotland
attained some importance as a naval power. Although there were no
war ships, strictly speaking, as the same ships were used for both
commerce and war, according to the exigence of circumstances. Still,
in a limited sense, it might be said that the King possessed a navy.
The King’s most distinguished captains were Sir Andrew Wood and the
Bartons, while the ships which won distinction, the _Yellow Carvel_,
the _Flower_, and others, were simply armed merchantmen.
At this period the distinction between honest trading and piracy
was not clearly drawn, and it was alleged that the Scottish captains
sometimes indulged in piratical exploits. Owing to the complaints
of English merchants against the Scotch captain, Andrew Barton, Lord
Thomas Howard and Sir Edward Howard, with two men-of-war, attacked
Barton’s ship, the _Lion_, and a small sloop called the _Pirwen_, in
the Downs. After a long and severe fight Barton was killed, and his
ships detained as prizes. James IV. immediately sent a herald to demand
satisfaction, but Henry VIII. replied that the destruction of pirates
was no infringement of their treaty. Other causes of quarrel soon arose.
Henry VIII. resolved to engage in a war against France, the ally
of Scotland. Ambassadors from the Pope, Spain, and England, arrived
in Scotland for the purpose of persuading James IV. to join in the
war against France; but all their efforts proved in vain. James IV.
declined to abandon his old ally, and resolved to assist France by
an invasion of England. Attempts were made to dissuade the King from
engaging in a war with England, but he had formed his resolution, and
determined to adhere to it and abide the issue. In the summer of 1513
he ordered the whole feudal force of the kingdom to muster on the
Borough Moor, near Edinburgh; and on the appointed day a large army
assembled. The King placed himself at the head of his army and marched
southward. On the 22nd of August he crossed the Tweed and encamped
on the banks of the Till. There he passed an Act, which ordered that
the heirs of all who fell in this war should be free from the feudal
burdens of “ward, relief, and marriage,” whatever their age might be.
The army marched along the side of the Tweed, and besieged the castle
of Norham, which was captured on the 29th of August. Valuable time was
lost in taking the border castles of Wark, Etal, and Ford, which gave
the enemy an opportunity of mustering his forces and advancing against
the Scots. The English army, under the Earl of Surrey, was advancing
northward, and messages passed between him and James IV. Although
James was brave and determined, as general of an army he had no
qualifications whatever; his idea of leadership was simply to make a
stand-up fight.
On receiving intelligence of the approach of the English army, the
Scots quitted their encampment and took up a strong position upon
Flodden Hill. When Surrey observed the position of the Scots, he did
not deem it wise to attack them then. He passed the Till on the 8th
of September, and marched in a north-westerly direction till near
the confluence of the Till and the Tweed, and then recrossed the Till
at Twisel Bridge. By this movement Surrey placed his army between
the Scots and their own country. He then drew up his army in battle
array on the left bank of the Till. When the Scots saw that they were
outgeneraled, they set fire to the tents of their encampment, descended
from the Hill of Flodden and took possession of the neighbouring height
of Brankston, towards which the enemy was advancing from the opposite
direction.
The opposing armies were nearly equal in numbers, each numbered about
thirty thousand men. The English advanced in four divisions, and the
centre of their line of battle was commanded by the Earl of Surrey.
The left wing of the Scots was commanded by the Earl of Huntly and Lord
Home, and the right wing by the Earls of Argyle and Lennox, and the
King in person and on foot led the centre. At four in the afternoon
of the 9th of September 1513, the battle commenced with cannonading on
both sides; the English artillery was better served than the Scotch,
and did considerable execution in the ranks of the latter. Huntly and
Home with the left wing of the Scots attacked the English vanguard and
drove it back in disorder; but the English reserve then advanced and
kept Huntly in check. After a long and severe struggle, in which the
Earls of Lennox, Argyle, Crawford, Montrose, and many others were slain,
the right and left wings of the Scots were completely routed. Meantime,
the King and the Earl of Surrey were wrestling in a fierce hand-to-hand
combat in the centre. The King placed himself in front of his spearmen
and fought with the utmost fury and bravery, and the English ranks were
repeatedly broken and Surrey’s standard threatened. At last the King
and his division were completely surrounded by the enemy; still the
Scots fought in a circle with their spears extended and repelled their
assailants――
“The stubborn spearmen still made good,
Their dark impenetrable wood,
Each stepping where his comrade stood,
The instant that he fell.
No thought was there of dastard flight,
Link’d in the serried phalanx tight;
Groom fought like noble, squire like knight,
As fearlessly and well.”¹
At length the King himself fell mortally wounded in the head within a
spear’s length of the Earl of Surrey; yet the Scots continued to fight
till night put an end to the contest. Surrey then withdrew his forces,
for he was uncertain of the issue of the battle as the Scottish centre
remained unbroken; but when day dawned, it was seen that the Scots had
retired from the field, and left their artillery standing on the side
of the hill.
¹ Scott’s _Marmion_.
The loss of the Scots on Flodden field was lamentable. Upwards of eight
thousand men were slain, including the King and his son, the Archbishop
of St. Andrews; twelve Earls, Lennox, Argyle, Athole, Erroll, Crawford,
Morton, Montrose, Bothwell, Caithness, Cassilis, and Rothes; five
eldest sons of peers; fifteen lords and chiefs of clans; the Bishop
of Caithness, the Abbots of Inchaffray and Kilwinning, and the Dean
of Glasgow, and La Motte, the French ambassador. Indeed there were
scarcely a single family of note in the kingdom but had lost some
of its members. The English lost about five thousand men, and Surrey
disbanded the remainder of his army. The body of James IV. was found by
Lord Dacre among the slain; and it was embalmed and subsequently placed
in the monastery of Sheen in Surrey.
CHAPTER X.
_The Social Condition of the Nation
in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries._
IN this chapter the social state of the people will be treated at
length. The government and the administration of justice, the power
of the nobles, and the condition of the tenants and labourers of the
land, will be explained; the state of the burghs and towns; the habits,
dress, and amusements of the people will be handled; the state of the
Church, the religious sentiments of the people, and many other matters
associated with the life of the people and the state of society, will
be touched on.
A notice of the King’s Council and its function was given in a
preceding chapter, and its relation to feudalism indicated. The Scotch
parliament gradually arose from these meetings of the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries which were frequently mentioned in preceding
pages. One of the stipulations of the treaty of Brigham declared that
no parliament should be held beyond the boundaries of the kingdom to
treat on Scotch affairs. John Baliol held a meeting at Scone in 1293,
and another at Stirling the same year, and both were called parliaments
in the record. From this date the term parliament was freely applied
to assemblies of a national and legislative character. A parliament met
at Dunfermline on the 23rd of February 1296, and ratified the treaty
between Baliol and the King of France; and the seals of four bishops,
four monasteries, four earls, eleven barons, and six of the burghs,
namely, Aberdeen, Perth, Stirling, Edinburgh, Roxburgh, and Berwick,
were affixed to the treaty. Still, from the phraseology of the deed
itself, it is uncertain whether the representatives of the burghs were
actually present, and voted in parliament, as their consent might have
been obtained in some other way.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
89‒97. On the 29th of March 1298, William Wallace, Guardian
of the kingdom of Scotland, in the name of King John, and
the consent of the community, granted a charter to Alexander
Scrymgeour, conferring on him and his heirs the office of
hereditary Constable of Dundee.
Robert Bruce held a parliament at St. Andrews on the 16th of March
1308, in which a letter to the King of France was dictated. The parties
consenting to the document were styled earls, communities of all the
earldoms of the kingdom, Edward Bruce of Galloway, James, the Steward
of Scotland, Alexander of Argyle, Donald of the Isles, Robert Keith,
Mareschal of Scotland, and other barons, and also the barons of Argyle
and Torchegall, and the whole inhabitants of the kingdom. In November
1314 Bruce assembled a parliament at Cambuskenneth, in which the
bishops, earls, barons, and others of the nobility, but not all the
communities of the kingdom, were present. In the parliament held at
Ayr in 1315, the heads of communities affixed their seals to a deed;
and the parliament which met at Scone in December 1318, settled the
succession to the throne, and also passed a number of other Acts. The
record stated that these were enacted “by the counsel and the express
consent of the bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, and the whole
community of the kingdom in our full parliament held at Scone.” Still
it may be doubted if the representatives of the burghs were actually
present as in a parliament, or gave their consent by voting in any
of the meetings noticed above. But in the parliament which met at
Cambuskenneth on the 15th of July 1326, there is clear evidence
that the burgesses sat with the earls, barons, and free tenants.
This parliament voted a supply to meet the expenses of the War of
Independence. It was then resolved that owing to the diminished
value of the Crown lands and revenues, as the result of the war, a
tenth penny should be granted to the King out of all the rents, to be
computed, except in some cases of extreme devastation, according to
the old extent of the reign of Alexander III. From this date onward the
representatives of the burghs usually sat in full parliaments, and were
recognised as a constituent branch of the great legislative and supreme
assembly of the nation.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
91‒127, _et seq._
It is necessary to observe further, in reference to the occurrence in
the national records in times anterior to the period under review, of
such expressions as “with the consent of the people,” “with the consent
of the community,” “with the consent and assent of all the people
of the kingdom,” that such phrases were not always, or even usually,
devoid of historic reality, truth, and value. Although the great body
of the people were not represented in the King’s council, in parliament,
or in any other legally specified form, still the voice and consent
of the people in reference to great undertakings, and the sanction of
important matters, was frequently sought and obtained by the supreme
heads of the kingdom from an early period. In preceding chapters many
indications have been incidentally mentioned as to how the voice and
consent of the people was obtained; as, for instance, when the people
assembled at the coronations of the Kings on the Mote Hill of Scone. On
such occasions the assembled multitude gave their “consent and assent”
to the inauguration of the Kings as their lawful and rightful rulers.
At the election of bishops, and other public officials in early times
“the consent and assent” of the people was sought and given in a
similar way. When Robert II. obtained the solemn sanction of parliament
to his settlement of the succession to the throne of Scotland in the
male line, in 1373, was he then satisfied with this sanction? No; for
it has been already stated, in a preceding chapter, that immediately
after the sanction of parliament was given and completed “the
whole multitude of the clergy and the people in the church of Scone
before the great altar, being specially convened for the purpose,
the aforesaid declaration, ordinance, and statute, thus sworn (in
parliament) being explained to them in a loud and public voice, each
raising his hand, after the manner of faith-giving, in token of the
universal consent of the whole clergy and people, publicly expressed
and declared their consent and assent.”¹ This mode of obtaining the
“consent and assent of the people” to a great and important national
matter was not an innovation of the first Stuart king, it was simply
a revival of a customary manner in which the people had sanctioned,
and given their “consent and assent” to public matters associated
with government for probably thousands of years before the period of
parliaments.
¹ See under page 315.
During the minority of David II. few records of the parliaments which
assembled have been preserved; but, after his return from captivity,
several rolls of the parliamentary proceedings of the later part of his
reign still exist. From its origin onward the Scotch parliament assumed
and exercised the functions of a Supreme Court of appeal and review.
It seems to have extended its power considerably in the reign of
David II. Parliament then treated the details of the administration of
justice, the coinage and the currency of the kingdom; and it assumed
the power and right to dictate terms of peace with foreign kingdoms;
and directly controlled the King himself in his expenditure. This had
become necessary owing to the character of the King, and his intention
to degrade and extinguish the independence of the nation, as was shown
by an enactment passed in a parliament held at Scone in 1367――“that no
officer should put in execution any royal warrant against the statutes
and common form of law.”
In the fourteenth century small barons and free tenants considered that
it was a great hardship to have to attend parliament. As yet there was
no regular representation. From this reluctance to give attendance,
some of the peculiarities of the Scotch parliament, and the mode of
conducting business in it, originated. In a parliament held at Scone in
September 1367, it was stated that, as it was autumn, and inconvenient
for many of the members to remain in attendance, a certain number
of persons were elected to hold the parliament, and the rest were
permitted to return home. The following year parliament assembled
at Perth in March, and owing to the inconvenience of the season and
the dearness of provisions, certain persons were elected to hold the
parliament, and they were divided into two committees, one to treat on
the general affairs of the nation, and a smaller one to sit on appeals
from the inferior courts. At another parliament, held in 1369 at Perth,
two committees were appointed, one to deal with appeals, questions,
and quarrels, which ought to be decided in parliament, and the other
to treat on special and secret affairs relating to the King and the
kingdom, previous to their being placed before the full parliament, as
it was inexpedient that the whole body should assist at a deliberation
of this character or be kept in attendance. In these arrangements the
origin of two peculiarities of the Scotch parliament clearly appears,
namely, the institution known under the name of “The Lords of the
Articles,” and “The Judicial Committee of Parliament.”
There was little constitutional development during the reigns of
the first two kings of the Stuart line. The statute passed in the
reign of Robert III., which threw on the King and his officers the
responsibility for the misgovernment of the kingdom, was noticed in
a preceding chapter. In 1427 James I. attempted to introduce a form
of representation of the small freeholders, but the act was totally
ineffectual, as no representatives were actually returned to parliament;
while Acts continued to be passed for upwards of a century to relieve
the small barons from attendance at parliament. In 1457 it was enacted
that no freeholder, who holds of the King under the value of £20,
should be constrained to attend in parliament or a general council.
Again, in 1503, an enactment was passed which declared that no man
should “be compelled to come personally to parliament whose lands
were valued under one hundred marks.” There was no regular form of
representation of the small barons and freeholders in parliament till
1587.
Originally each of the royal burghs had to send at least two
representatives to parliament, but the number of burgh members who
actually attended was unusually small. The great officers of the Crown
had a seat in parliament in virtue of their offices. The members of the
Scotch parliament all sat and voted in one house. But there was a body
called the ‘Lords of the Articles,’ which originated in the latter
years of the reign of David II., as indicated above. At first they
seem to have been elected to deal with special matters, but they
soon obtained the initiative of all measures and the management of
parliamentary business. The mode of electing the Lords of the Articles
seems to have been thus:――The clergy elected a certain number from
their own body, the nobles in like manner, and also the representatives
of the burghs, and the great officers of the Crown were entitled to act
among the Lords of the Articles in virtue of their offices. This body
usually arranged and prepared all the acts and measures, which were
then brought before the full parliament, and at once voted and passed,
without debate or deliberation.
As stated in a preceding chapter, James I. made an attempt to establish
a court of supreme civil jurisdiction; and in 1457, parliament enacted
“that the Lords of the Session should sit thrice every year, and
each time for forty days in these three places, Edinburgh, Perth, and
Aberdeen, and that nine persons should sit, three from each estate.”
In 1503 parliament announced that “there had been a great confusion of
summons at each session, as there was no time to bring them to an issue
and ending, therefore it was statuted, that a council should be chosen
by the King which should sit continually in Edinburgh, or where the
King resides, or where he thinks fit, to decide all manner of summons
in civil matters and causes daily as shall happen to occur; and should
have the same power as the Lords of Session.” These attempts entirely
failed, and parliament continued to appoint its own Judicial Committee,
who exercised the functions of a court of appeal, and also decided
causes in the first instance; their jurisdiction was similar to that
of the King’s Council. In 1467 parliament ordered that “all summons
and causes which were left undecided in this parliament, should be
decided before the Lords of the Council;” and causes which commenced in
the one court were sometimes disposed of in the other. The proceedings
of the Judicial Committee for the period from 1466 to 1494 have been
printed, and also the judicial proceedings of the Lords of Council from
1478 to 1495. These books are the earliest body of recorded law cases
which have been preserved in Scotland, and contain valuable historical
materials. Trial by jury was a characteristic of these courts. Although
the mode of taking evidence was crude, and testimony was admitted on a
principle not admissible now, still there was a striking improvement as
compared with the trial by ordeal and the processes of the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries. The functions of both these judicial bodies were
merged in the Court of Session established in the reign of James V.
In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the courts of the Church
monopolised a large portion of the civil business of the kingdom. The
Consistorial Courts of St. Andrews, Galloway, Edinburgh, and others,
had a great mass of legal business to execute. Their jurisdiction
embraced all cases of legitimacy and divorce; the large class of cases
connected with wills and executory; the affairs of widows and orphans;
questions of slander, and disputes arising on contracts, if they had
been sanctioned by an oath. The Consistorial Courts professed to take
care of the affairs of the poor, and those who were unable to pay for
the advice and assistance of lawyers, but contemporary literature does
not give them much credit for the performance of this part of their
duty.¹
¹ Henryson’s _Poems_, pages 148‒152. Laing’s Edition, 1865.
Owing to the introduction of Norman Feudalism and an extraneous
nobility, from the beginning of the reign of David I. to the reign of
Alexander III., the greater part of the land of the kingdom changed
owners. David I. and his two grandsons bestowed lands on these
extraneous nobles profusely, which entailed a legacy of enormous evil
upon the nation, and created a disorderly condition of society. These
Normans, mainly through their craft in forming marriage contracts,
obtained possession of extensive territories and rose to influence
and power; and at last they claimed the Crown and kingdom of Scotland.
They then sold the independence of this Crown and kingdom without “the
consent or assent of the people.” The invasion of the kingdom and the
War of Independence ensued.
From the commencement of the War of Independence to the middle of the
fourteenth century, the greater part of the land in the country changed
owners three or four times. A number of those Norman nobles who sold
the independence of the kingdom, and aided Edward I., II., and III.,
in their invasions of Scotland, at last forfeited their possessions
in Scotland. Robert Bruce was the first Scotch king since the reign of
Malcolm III., who discovered that no Norman noble could ride upon two
horses at once running in opposite directions. The result of this was
that Robert I. disinherited the Baliols, the Comyns, and many others;
and then conferred their forfeited possessions on his own supporters,
who had assisted him to recover the kingdom from the enemy. In this way
a considerable number of the small families of gentry were raised to
wealth, power, and influence; and amongst these were the Douglasses,
Gordons, Lindsays, Campbells, Hays, and many other families. But
unhappily Robert I. made no effort to limit the feudal power and the
privileges of the nobles in relation to the land and the people; on
the contrary, he rather extended their powers in these directions. He
not only gave his nephew, Thomas Randolph, the earldom of Moray with
the usual rights and privileges, but also conferred on him the burghs
of Elgin, Forres, and Nairn, the customs of Inverness, the burgh of
Lochmaben, extensive estates in the sheriffdoms of Dumfries and Berwick,
and the island of Man. Bruce also gave the town of Cromarty to the Earl
of Ross.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.
Although Bruce during his own reign kept his nobles in restraint, owing
to his success, yet in the reign of his son, David II., they greatly
extended their power; while the weak reigns of Robert II., and Robert
III., afforded the nobles many opportunities of extending their power,
which they eagerly embraced; and ere the end of the fourteenth century
they had attained to a position incompatible with any form of settled
government. When two or three of the chief nobles united, they were
more than a match for the King, and they often strengthened themselves
in this way. They entered into bonds and leagues, by which individual
nobles or families bound themselves to take part in the causes and
quarrels of each other; and this reacted in the most disastrous way
upon the social state of the nation. These bonds and leagues became so
universal in the fifteenth century and the first half of the sixteenth,
that there ♦was scarcely a man in Scotland, above the rank of the
smallest landholder, who was not bound in one or more of these private
leagues. Such bonds were always confirmed by the oaths of the parties.
The marriage alliances between families were also usually accompanied
by a bond, obliging the parties to assist each other in “all their
actions, causes, and quarrels, moved and to be moved, with their
persons, goods, fortunes, castles, kin, men, and friends; and all that
will do for them, contra and against all men that live and die may,
their allegiance to our lord, the King, except.” Thus powerful nobles
who held bonds from a host of other nobles and barons sworn to take
part in all their quarrels, were not likely to appeal to the ordinary
courts of law for justice, when they could more effectively secure what
they desired by force. So the King often found it necessary to suspend
and to forbid the holding of courts, in order to prevent hostile
collisions and bloodshed between rival barons and their armed vassals
and sworn adherents. In July 1474 the King sent letters to the Earl
of Buchan and the Lord Oliphant commanding them to stay their muster
for the court of Forfar; it appears that they disobeyed the King,
and the muster issued in bloodshed. Such collisions were a common
enough occurrence. Parliament in 1478 had under consideration the
administration of justice throughout the kingdom; and it was then
resolved that immediate steps should be taken to remedy the great
breaches which existed in various parts of the kingdom; and ♠especially
in Angus, between the Earl of Buchan and the Earl of Erroll and their
parties; and in like manner between the Master of Crawford and the Lord
of ♣Glamis and their parties; and in Nithsdale and Annandale between
Lord ♥Caerlaverock and the Laird of Drumlanrig; and the great struggle
raging in Caithness, Ross, and Sutherland, and in other quarters of the
kingdom.¹
♦ “were” replaced with “was”
♠ “especi-” replaced with “especially”
♣ “Glammis” replaced with “Glamis”
♥ “Caerlaverok” replaced with “Caerlaverock”
¹ _Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland_, Volume I.;
_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 16,
122; _Miscellany of the Old Spalding Club_, Volumes II., IV.
The right which earls possessed of granting charters to their vassals
within the territories of the earldoms, gave them an enormous power
over the people; and as mentioned in a preceding page, Robert I. rather
extended the feudal rights and powers of the nobles than limited them
in any way. But James I. clearly saw and realised that Norman Feudalism
contained in itself the essence of anarchy, and that no effective
government could be established while the nobles had such feudal rights,
and local power over the people. He therefore immediately proceeded to
act, and attempted to reduce the rights and the power of the nobles;
but these were too deeply rooted to be summarily extinguished, and
in spite of his exceptional abilities, his great energy, and his
utmost efforts, he soon fell a victim to their revenge. The attempts of
James II., James III., James IV. and James V., to restrain the lawless
anarchy and the oppression of the feudal nobles all proved equally
unavailing; and their power and turbulence continued to rage unabated
till past the Reformation period.
In the later part of the fourteenth century and the first quarter of
the fifteenth, the social state of the nation was deplorable, the great
nobles oppressing the poor people, and murders, robberies, and other
heinous crimes were committed with impunity. On the most frivolous
pretences, tenants were evicted from their holdings, and the labourers
from their cottages. Parliament tried to check this, and in 1401 it
was enacted that such resumptions of holdings by the overlord should be
null, unless lawful cause was shown; and it was provided that evicted
tenants should not lose their right to their lands till after the lapse
of a year, if they repledged them within forty days. It appears that
the overlords often expelled their vassals by force, and in this way
the nobles were enabled to accommodate their own sworn adherents, and
to crush all those within their territories who may have declined to
join in their projects, quarrels, and lawless proceedings. Thirty years
later, James I. simply requested the barons and bishops not to remove
the husbandmen and labourers suddenly from their lands if they had
leases. In 1449 parliament passed an act which aimed at giving more
security to the tenants, but it was not carried into effect. Parliament
in 1457 passed a statute which allowed lands to be let on feu-tenure,
free from military service; and the Act enjoined that the King should
show an example to the nobles, the bishops, and freeholders, by feuing
the Crown lands. In 1491 it was enacted that when land changed owners,
the tenants, labourers, and the inhabitants should not be removed
before the ensuing Whitsunday. At the terms of Martinmas and Whitsunday
there were always much poinding of the goods and effects of the tenants
for their rents, and a great commotion of “outcasting and incasting
among the tenantry all over the country.”
Even the small class of landed proprietors within the earldoms and
great free baronies of the kingdom were bound hand and foot to the
policy and service of their overlords. The baron always had the power
to expel and disinherit a refractory vassal, on the ground that he had
failed to render the proper feudal services to his lord. The overlord
might also raise a plea that his vassal was not the lawful heir, and
on that ground turn him out of his home and land. Much injustice was
inflicted upon the tenants and the inhabitants of the kingdom by the
action of the creditors of the nobles. When these exalted personages
fell into debt then their creditors sued for briefs of distress,
obtained judgments against them, and immediately seized the property
of the lord’s tenants. By such processes the tenants were often totally
ruined. In 1469 parliament passed a measure which attempted to remedy
this injustice, and it was then declared that the poor tenants should
not be held liable for more than the amount of their rent due to
the lord. If the debt exceeded the rents, then the creditor could
have recourse to the other goods of the debtor, and if he had no
other property but his land, the land itself might be sold to pay his
debt. But the debtor retained the right to reclaim his land from the
purchaser at any time within seven years, if he paid the same price as
it had been sold for. This Act had little or no effect in the fifteenth
century, although subsequently when the power of the nobles began to
wane it came into operation. Such were the relations between the feudal
aristocracy and the occupiers and tillers of the land, as presented in
the national records.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
208‒214, 217; Volume II., pages 17, 35, 225, 49, 96,
213, 248‒255, 286, 288, 367‒369; _Registrum Episcopatus
Moraviensis_, page 382.
The occupiers of the land and the people generally were severely
oppressed by the nobles and their retinues travelling through the
country; as the nobles, accompanied by a train of retainers, were in
the habit of living at free quarters on the husbandmen and the inferior
clergy, and thus consumed and often destroyed the crops and grass, and
any store of grain which these people possessed. Acts of Parliament
were repeatedly passed, with the object of checking and limiting this
form of oppression, but they failed to remedy the evil. Indeed, so
inveterate was the custom among the nobles of living on the produce
of the people as they passed through the country with their hosts of
followers, that in 1499 parliament found it necessary to enact and
command, “that all the officials and officers holding courts throughout
the kingdom, should ride with a small company only, in order that the
people might not be so grievously oppressed.” At the same time the
coroners were ordered to cease from taking the twopence of unlawful fee
from those who had immediately paid their bail. The oppression of the
people by the nobles, the Crown officers, and the entire organisation
of Norman feudalism, resulted in the infliction of enormous suffering
upon the people of Scotland. Contemporary literature as well as the
national records presents evidence of the oppressive character of
feudalism and the Scotch nobles. Bower, who wrote in the reign of
James II., presents a frightful picture of the state of the nation,
from which I quote the following:――“Confounded as we are with daily
tyranny, oppressed with rapine, spoil, and tribulation.... The groans
of the humble, and the miseries of the poor, whom I myself who write
this, have seen this very day in my own neighbourhood――stripped of
their garments, and inhumanely despoiled of their domestic utensils,
constrains one to exclaim with him who says, ‘I have seen the injuries
which are done, the tears of the innocent, the helpless and the
destitute, who cannot resist violence, and have none to comfort them.’
I have praised the dead more than the living, and happier than both
have I esteemed the unborn, the sole strangers to the evils of this
world.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., II.;
_Scotichronicon_, Volume II., page 473.
Robert Henryson, the poet, who wrote in the latter part of the
fifteenth century, frequently alludes to the state of society. His
writings indicate very clearly that the husbandmen and tenants were
grievously oppressed by their lords.¹
¹ Henryson’s _Poems_, pages 37, 152, 201, 214, 215.
Under the conditions indicated in the preceding page, agriculture could
not have been in a satisfactory state. In the fourteenth century a
large part of the best land of the country had been so much exposed to
the ravages of war, that some portions of the cultivated lands returned
to its natural state. After the return of James I., parliament passed
various acts relating to husbandry. In 1425 it was ordered that every
man who reasonably was a labourer, should either become the half owner
of an ox in the plough, or dig a plot of land seven feet square every
day. The following year, it was enjoined that every farmer in the
kingdom who possessed a plough of eight oxen, should every year sow
a firlot of wheat, half a firlot of pease, and forty beans, under a
penalty of ten shillings. And in his reign, Acts were passed for the
protection of growing crops, the destruction of wolves, and rooks.
In 1457 all the freeholders of the kingdom were ordered to make
a provision in their leases that their tenants should plant wood,
make hedges, and sow broom in the most suitable places; and that no
one should make enclosures of dry sticks or dressed wood, but only
of living plants, that wood might grow and become plentiful in the
country.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
6‒16, 51.
The Crown lands were extensive in the fifteenth century. In the reign
of James II., the Crown had lands in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh,
including Ballincreiff and Gosford. In the vicinity of Linlithgow, the
royal possessions around the palace were called the King’s acres, and
certain lands in the barony of Houston; and the rents of which amounted
in 1457 to £140 17s. 8d., with one chalder of barley, one of oats, two
dozen of hens, and two dozen of young cocks. The rents of the Crown
lands lying around the castle of Stirling, and in Stirlingshire in 1455,
amounted to £184 19s., with two dozen of salmon. The Earldom of Fife
fell to the Crown in 1425 on the forfeiture of the Duke of Albany; and
in 1457 the gross money rent was £560 12s. 7d., thirty-five chalders
and three bolls of wheat, sixty-two chalders and three bolls of barley,
forty-six chalders and three bolls of oats, and two bolls of oatmeal.
In the year 1451, four hundred and seventy-one young cocks, and one
hundred and four geese, formed a part of the rental of this earldom.
The Earldom of Monteith also fell to the Crown on the execution and
forfeiture of the Albany family in the reign of James I., and the King
retained the greater part of the lands of the earldom in his own hands.
For the year 1451 the money rental of the earldom amounted to £351 12s.
8d., and thirty-four chalders of oats, twenty-four chalders and seven
bolls of oatmeal, two chalders and two bolls of barley, thirty-four
sheep, sixty poultry, and one hundred and forty salmon. The Earldom
of Strathern was in the Crown, and in the latter years of the reign of
James II., its gross money rental annually ran from £316 to £461. The
Earldom of Athole was forfeited to the Crown by the treason of Walter
Stuart in 1437, and its money rental for the year 1450 amounted to £139
13s. 4d. James II. granted this earldom to Sir John Stewart of Balveny
in 1457. A large portion of Perthshire was in the possession of James
II., including the lands of Methven, which extended to the south and
west of the town of Perth; the barony of Strathbraan, which commenced
at Dunkeld, and included Logiealmond, and extended by Crief to
Innerpeffry; and at Loch Fruchy, in the upper reach of the strath, the
King had a hunting lodge. In 1455 the gross money rental of Methven was
£120 8s. 4d., three chalders and eight bolls of meal, and nine dozen of
poultry, while the money rental of Strathbraan was £46. The Crown had
many other lands in Perthshire, the lordship of Strathurd, Glenlyon,
Fothergill and others. In Forfarshire, the lordship of Brechin,
and other lands; and farther north, Aberluthnot, Fettercairn, and
Kincardine, were in the possession of the Crown. It was stated in a
preceding chapter that James I. annexed the Earldom of Mar to the Crown,
which then comprised nearly a half of the county of Aberdeen, and the
family of Erskine claimed it; but it seems to have been a disputed
possession between the Crown and Lord Erskine; and in 1459 James II.
granted the Earldom of Mar to his own youngest son, John, then an
infant. He died in the castle of Craigmillar, and the third son of
James III., John, was created Earl of Mar in 1486. The gross money
rental of the Earldom of Mar for the year 1459 was £396 10s., with
thirty head of cattle, for each of which 5s. was allowed, and two
chalders and four bolls of “custom oats,” for each boll of which 4d.
was allowed. After the Douglas forfeitures, the rents of the thanage
of Kintore fell to the Crown; and amongst the other Crown lands between
the Dee and the Spey were a portion of Badenoch, which fell to the
Crown on the death of Alexander, Earl of Buchan, in 1349, and the money
rental of which for the year 1455 was £20. But the forfeiture of the
Douglas tribe brought to the Crown the lands of Balveny, Boharm, and
Botriphnie, which had belonged to John Douglas, and the annual money
rental of these lands as given in the records vary from £25 to £73,
with seventeen cattle and the same number of sheep. In the same
locality, Kininmont, Buchromb, and the half of Clunymore, had fallen
to the Crown through the illegitimacy of David Garden, proved by a
jury at Aberdeen in the reign of James I. These lands were conferred
in liferent on Sir William Forbes of Kinaldy, and subsequently occupied
by the Earl of Huntly.
The Crown lands beyond the Spey were chiefly in the Earldom of Moray.
Farther northward, in the region between the Moray and Cromarty Firths,
called the Black Isle, also including Dunscathe on the north side
of the Ferry of Cromarty, is usually referred to in the records as
♦Ardmannoch, and sometimes Avach and Eddirdule. This district belonged
to the historic Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell; but in 1362, Archibald,
Lord of Galloway, afterwards third Earl of Douglas, married Joan Moray,
widow of Thomas Moray, and through her the lands of Avach and Bothwell
passed to the Douglas family. Hugh Douglas derived his title of Earl
from the castle of Avach, on the moot hill of Ormond near Castletown
Point, on the Bay of Munlochy. The gross rental of the lands of
Ardmannoch for the year 1460 was £172 15s. 8d., with ten chalders
and nine bolls of barley, and ten chalders and nine bolls of oatmeal,
twelve cattle and twelve sheep.
♦ “Ardmannock” replaced with “Ardmannoch”
One third of Duffus was another portion of the lands forfeited by
Douglas Earl of Ormond, and its rental in 1458 was £24, with eight
chalders of barley, one chalder and ten bolls of malt, one chalder and
ten bolls of oatmeal, three cattle and three sheep. Strathdearn or the
valley of the Findhorn, and Petty and Brachly lying along the shores
of the Beauly Firth, were forfeited to the Crown by John Douglas of
Balveny. The money rent of Strathdearn in 1460 was £53 6s. 8d. The
rental of Petty and Brachly was £80 6s. 8d., with ten cattle and ten
sheep. In 1456 these lands were in the occupation of the M‘Intoshes.
The Crown held the lands of Bonach and Bannachare, lying to the
westward of Inverness and beyond the river Ness; and the barony
and castle of Urquhart with Glenmoriston lying on the west side of
Loch Ness; but in 1455, this barony, castle, and Glenmoriston, were
conferred in liferent on John Earl of Ross and Lord of the Isles.
The Earldom of March was in the possession of the Crown from 1434
till 1455, when James II. conferred it on his infant son, Alexander,
afterwards Duke of Albany. The gross rents of the lands of the earldom
were sometimes returned as over £570. The lordship of Stewartown, in
Ayrshire, fell to the Crown at the time of the Douglas forfeitures. In
1457 the rental of this lordship was £127 13s. 4d., and two chalders
and eight bolls of meal. The islands of Bute and Arran were in the
hands of the Crown. In the reign of James II. both these islands were
in the occupation of kindly tenants or rentallers. The money rental of
Bute was £141 18s. 6d., which included £40 from the burgh of Rothesay,
and in addition to this one boll of barley was paid for every mark of
money rent. Each tenant had also to give one mart for every five marks
of rent due by him, and these marts were valued at 5s. In the reign of
James IV. these tenants were converted into feuars, and they and their
descendants came subsequently to be popularly known as “the barons of
Bute.”
The annual money rent of Arran was £56 18s. 8d., with barley and
cattle as in Bute. The slate quarries of Bute were worked, and in 1445
11s. 10d. was paid for 13,000 slates, which were sent to Dumbarton to
repair the King’s castle. A passenger boat then plied between Bute and
Cowal, and the ferryman for some time received a boll of barley yearly
from the Crown. It appears that Arran was in a more unsettled state
than Bute, and in the former the King’s rents were not regularly paid.
The shores of Arran supplied the King’s household with the fish, called
in the records “mullones,” large quantities of which were bought at two
shillings a dozen.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume V., Volume VI. 1883.
In the preceding paragraphs the principal, though not the whole, of
the Crown lands have been indicated. It appears that in the fifteenth
century a considerable portion of land rent was still paid in produce.
In the reign of James IV. the Crown lands were fully as extensive as in
the reign of James II.
The Crown lands were mostly in the hands of farmers, who held varying
portions of land for payment in money and produce, under leases which
were renewed from time to time; and kindly tenants or rentallers, who
enjoyed a certain fixity of tenure, which, however, depended on the
current of national events, emergencies, and circumstance; in other
words, the success of the King’s government or the reverse. But, on the
whole, it may be fairly assumed that the farmers and the kindly tenants
on the Crown lands were in a more favourable position than the same
classes on the lands of the nobles. The kings retained small portions
of Crown lands in their own hands, which were cultivated by their own
agricultural labourers.
The tenants on the church lands probably held their lands under
somewhat easier terms than tenants on the estates of the nobles. All
the bishoprics and the great monasteries possessed extensive lands; for
instance, the see of Moray had eight baronies, namely, Spynie, Keith,
Rafford, Birnie, Kynneder, Strathspey, Fothirface, and Kilmiles.
Touching the condition of the actual labourers and tillers of the soil,
it was stated in a preceding chapter that this work was chiefly done
by bondmen and serfs. And farther, it was historically maintained
that these servile classes were mainly created in Scotland by Norman
feudalism in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It was shown that
serfs were actually bought and sold, and that they could be reclaimed
by their owners like strayed cattle or sheep. The bondmen and serfs
were numerous in the thirteenth century, but they became less numerous
in the fourteenth, and disappeared before the end of the fifteenth
century. What were the causes of their disappearance? No Act of
Parliament nor canon of the Church ever proclaimed their emancipation;
on the contrary, parliament and the civil law supported the institution
of serfdom by written enactments and the decisions of the courts; while
the Church appears to have possessed a large number of serfs, and was
exceedingly careful in tracing and keeping records of their descent.
Indeed, the last case of claiming serfs which occurred in Scotland, so
far as known, was in 1364, when the Bishop of Moray, before the Sheriff
of Banffshire and a jury, obtained a verdict finding that two men were
his natives and property.¹ Thus it is obvious that the extinction of
serfdom was not effected by the Church or Parliament.
¹ _Registrum Episcopatus Moraviensis_, page 161.
The only series of events and social phenomena which contributed to
the emancipation of the serfs were those connected with the War of
Independence. When Edward I. conceived his scheme to conquer Scotland,
he thought that when he obtained the homage and submission of the
Scotch nobles, knights, landowners, clergy, and the magistrates
and heads of the burgh communities, then his object would be easily
accomplished. The mighty Lord Paramount would have disdained to look
at a labourer, a bondman, or serf, or accept homage from them, and yet
they were men perhaps as good, if not better, than himself. Edward,
however, ran his course on his own lines, while the labourers, bondmen,
and serfs ran theirs with more success than he ever achieved in
Scotland. When William Wallace and Sir Andrew Moray crossed the Tay for
the purpose of recruiting and organising an army in the region lying
between the river Ness and the Tay, where the army which fought and
won the battle of Stirling Bridge was solely raised, it may be fairly
assumed that whenever a suitable man presented himself to the patriots,
they never asked him whether he were a serf or not. Then, after the war
had continued for some time, and nobles and churchmen who had renounced
their allegiance to Edward I. were seized and imprisoned, and their
lands often given to Englishmen, the bondmen and serfs would have had
many opportunities of escaping and going wherever they thought fit.
As the struggle proceeded, lands all over the country fell into the
hands of new owners, which again in a short time were seized and the
ownership changed. This process continued, with short intervals, for
half a century, and by that time the institution of serfdom was broken
up, and beyond restitution. Thus the emancipation of the bondmen and
the serfs was an effect of the War of Independence――an effect rendered
more effectual by many of the class in question taking an active part
in the struggle themselves. Subsequently we learn from the Acts of
Parliament in the reign of James I., and succeeding reigns that some
of the serfs became labourers and tilled pieces of land, as indicated
in the Act of 1425, which was referred to in a preceding page, while
others found employment in the towns at various kinds of work, and
ultimately the servile class became merged in the society of the nation
and disappeared as a separate class.
Although the burgh communities suffered severely from the War of
Independence, they recovered from its desolating effects wonderfully
well. Having regard to locality, external and surrounding circumstances,
the towns of Scotland may be historically treated in three groups,
namely, the Border burghs, those in the northern quarter, and those
in the centre of the kingdom.
The Border burghs comprised Berwick, Roxburgh, Jedburgh, Dumfries,
Dunbar, Kelso, Peebles, and a few others. These towns were exposed to
the first brunt of war throughout the long struggle between England and
Scotland, and to the harassing and desolating effects of the constantly
recurring raids on the marches. This tended to engender many strongly
marked features of character and habits amongst the people of the
Borders, which were manifested in acts of daring, tragic deeds, and
many touching and romantic incidents.
Berwick was a place of habitation in far-gone ages, and a centre
of industry long before the period of record. In the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries it was the chief mart of traffic in Scotland;
but the town was desolated and its citizens massacred by Edward I.
The town never recovered its former trading pre-eminence. In 1327 the
customs of Berwick amounted to £673, and in 1331 it was £549. Two years
after Berwick fell into the hands of the English, and although it was
retaken several times by the Scots, it was not permanently retained by
Scotland.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.
Roxburgh was an early site of habitation, and it had some trade
and wealth from an early period; but in the period under review the
importance of the town mainly arose from its strong castle, which was
a good defensive position. Still the burgh had its craftsmen, mills,
markets, and fishings; and in 1327 its rent to the Crown was £20. It
was the scene of many contests between the English and the Scots. In
the fourteenth century the town was much injured by the war. It was
repeatedly taken by the English, and retaken by the Scots, but in the
reign of David II. the castle fell into the hands of the English, and
they occupied it till 1460, when it was captured by the Scots, who
then razed the castle to the ground; and the town itself has long since
disappeared.
The town of Dunbar lies on the south-east border of Scotland, and
throughout this period its strong castle rendered the town an important
position, and in fact it was the key to that quarter of the kingdom.
In 1338 the castle of Dunbar stood a memorable siege, when Black Agnes,
the Countess of March, a daughter of Randolph Earl of Moray, heroically
defended it for five months against the English army, and ultimately
forced the enemy to raise the siege. In the latter half of the
fourteenth century Dunbar had a considerable trade, chiefly in wool,
the customs on which in 1378 amounted to £139; but in the succeeding
century its trade seems to have fallen off.
Jedburgh rose into importance from its castle and its monastery.
Subsequently it was occasionally the mustering place of the Scottish
army; and the justiciary’s courts for that quarter of the kingdom
were often held there. In 1320 Robert I. granted to Sir James Douglas
the market, town, castle, forest, and mains, of Jedburgh, and in the
following year this was confirmed, along with other grants, to Douglas.
Jedburgh and its castle fell into the hands of the English early in
the reign of David II., and they held it for upwards of half a century,
being only finally expelled from it in 1409. The following year the
English burned the town. In 1416 and 1466 it was also destroyed by fire.
The men of Jedburgh and the forest in its vicinity were well inured to
war and brave in battle. They were engaged in most of the raids across
the Border; their special weapon was the Jedburgh staff, manufactured
in the town, which was four feet long, with a steel head. Their war-cry
was “Jeddards here,” and their onset was not easily withstood. The
town has passed through many viscissitudes, and is associated with many
interesting historic events and incidents.
The burgh of Dumfries has many historic associations which cannot be
detailed in this work. The burgh had a royal castle in the thirteenth
century. In 1288 the Crown rents of the burgh amounted to £20, and in
1330 these crown rents were £30, but at the later date the customs of
the burgh were only £4; being an inland town it had not much trade. At
the end of the fifteenth century the burgh paid to the Crown a sum of
about £20 annually by feu-charter in lieu of rents. In the fifteenth
century the Maxwells became the leading family in the Dumfries district,
and attained a commanding influence in the affairs of the burgh, as
will subsequently appear.
The town of Kelso attained some note owing to its rich monastery.
William of Dalgarnock, Abbot of Kelso, accompanied the young prince,
David II., to France as his preceptor.
Peebles was created a royal burgh in the reign of David I.; and it
became a favourite residence of the Kings. Charters of David I.,
Malcolm IV., William the Lion, Alexander II., and Edward I., were dated
at Peebles. In the fourteenth century the town and castle became a
kind of border garrison, as an outpost of Edinburgh. The Crown rents
of Peebles for the year 1327 were £23 6s. 8d., and in 1343 these rents
were £12 13s. 4d. In 1460 the burgh of Peebles gave a contribution of
£38 17s. 8d. toward the payment of the King’s ransom. David II. granted
to John Gray, Clerk of the Rolls, all the rents and issues of the burgh
for life, except the issues of the Chamberlain’s court. In 1398 the
Crown rents of Peebles were let by lease of Sir William Stewart of
Jedburgh to the bailies for an annual sum of £2 13s. 4d., and £6 13s.
4d. for the burgh mills, making a total sum of £9 6s. 8d. The burgh
fell into arrears, and in 1457 the Crown rent stood――arrears £8, by
feu-charter £9 6s. 8d., sum due £17 6s. 8d. But Peebles paid up the
arrears, and subsequently continued to pay the annual sum stated above
to the end of the century. In 1501, however, the bailies of the burgh
were fined £18 for failing to appear before the Exchequer.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volumes I., II., III., IV.,
V., VI., VII., X., XI.
The town of Peebles was repeatedly burned by the English in the
fourteenth century, and the citizens were often subjected to all
the horrors of war. Peebles had seven yearly markets, some of which
extended over several days, and the records of the burgh contain many
regulations touching the markets.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Peebles_, pages 67, 85, 209‒211.
The conditions and circumstances under which the people on the
Borders lived tended to encourage and to prolong the continuance of
the predatory spirit and habits; and the disorder on the Borders gave
the Government much work and trouble; still, these people were not
naturally more lawless than the inhabitants of any other quarter of
the country. The state in which they lived was a result of historic
conditions, for the creation of which they were responsible only in
a very limited measure. The Norman nobles planted upon the borders
of Scotland in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries had nearly all
disappeared long before the end of the fifteenth century, but the
effects of the feudalism, which was introduced along with them,
remained.
Turning to the northern burghs, including Inverness, Dingwall, Forres,
Elgin, Cullen, Banff, and others. During the period under review
Inverness was a burgh of comparative wealth and trade. The customs of
Inverness in 1366 were £81 5s., and those of Elgin £67 11s. 7d. In 1373
the customs of Inverness were £145 13s. 11d., and the same year the
Crown rents and the petty customs amounted to £40; in 1380 the customs
of the burgh were £248 19s., and the Crown rents and petty customs,
by lease of the Chamberlain, £53 6s. 8d. The same year the Crown rents
and petty customs of Banff were £33 6s. 8d. The trade of these northern
burghs, by sea at least, does not seem to have increased much during
the fifteenth century, as the customs of Inverness in 1455 were
returned at £62 8s. In 1499 the customs of Inverness, Forres, and Elgin,
were returned together, and consisted of a charge of £131 of custom
on 55 lasts of salted salmon exported, and a quantity of hides charged
£7 19s. 2d. The same year the Crown rents of the burgh of Inverness,
by feu-charter, were £57 6s. 8d. and one pound of pepper.
Cullen was a royal burgh in the reign of William the Lion. In the reign
of Alexander III. there was a royal residence at Cullen, and in 1266
the hall and the brewing utensils of the town were repaired. Robert
Bruce’s queen, Elizabeth, died at Cullen in November, 1327, and her
body was embalmed there, and she was buried at Dunfermline. Robert I.
founded a chaplainry at Cullen “to pray for the soul of his spouse,
Queen of Scots, who died in our said burgh of Cullen;” and £4 was paid
yearly out of the burgh rents to the chaplain celebrating mass for her
soul. The regular accounts of Cullen drop out of the burgh rolls after
the year 1343; but they were resumed in 1496. In that and succeeding
years the rents of various lands held by the burgh from the Crown were
accounted for, and the annuity to the chaplain still appears in the
accounts.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_
Alexander II. in 1227 granted a charter to Dingwall, which conferred
on the citizens the same liberties as the burgesses of Inverness, and
authorised a weekly market to be held on Monday. In 1265 Alexander
Comyn, Earl of Buchan and Justiciary of Scotland, was bailie of
Dingwall. Robert I. granted the burgh of Dingwall to the Earl of Ross,
and the town remained in the hands of the Earls of Ross for upwards
of a century. In 1475 parliament ordered the Sheriff of Inverness to
summon John, Earl of Ross and Lord of the Isles, either at the castle
of Dingwall or the cross of Inverness, to appear at Edinburgh and
answer for his crimes, and accordingly he was summoned at the gate of
the castle of Dingwall. The proceedings which followed on this were
stated in a preceding chapter. In 1498 James IV. renewed and confirmed
the rights and privileges of Dingwall, which had completely fallen into
desuetude.¹
¹ Ibid., Volume I.; _Origines Parochiales Scotiæ_, Volume II.,
page 494; _Burgh Charters_.
In 1266 the town of Cromarty paid to the Crown £7 of rent for lands;
but Robert I. granted the town of Cromarty to the Earl of Ross. In fact
the whole of the northern burghs were much under the control of the
local nobles during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Elgin, Tain,
and other towns associated with the Church, were often under a kind
of vassalage to the local nobles. The city of Elgin, with her grand
cathedral and upwards of a hundred churchmen, was sometimes forced
to place herself under the protection of the Earls of Moray and other
nobles.¹ In 1472 the citizens of the burgh of Nairn entered into a bond
of manrent with Lord Fraser of Lovat, and his heirs and successors.
¹ _Old Statistical Account of Scotland_, Volume V.
Adverting now to the more settled quarters of the kingdom, or the
region extending from the river Deveron to the border counties in
the south, which may be called the heart of the nation. In 1327
the Crown rents paid by the chief burghs to the Chamberlain were as
follows:――Aberdeen £213 6s. 8d., Perth £160, Stirling £36, Edinburgh
£34, Ayr £30, Rutherglen £30, Haddington £29, Dumbarton £22, Forfar
£18, Inverkeithing £15, Montrose £13, Lanark £12, and Linlithgow £10.
As indicated in a preceding chapter, the burghs eventually obtained
feu-charters, under which they paid a fixed yearly rent to the Crown,
and thus they at length acquired a perpetual right to collect and apply
to their own use the rents, small customs, and dues formerly levied by
the Crown. Aberdeen had obtained such a feu-charter in 1319 for the
yearly rent stated above, but none of the other burghs had obtained
such a charter in 1327, although Edinburgh obtained one in 1329 for
a yearly rent of £34 13s. 2d. In July 1386, Robert II. granted a
feu-charter to Stirling for an annual payment fixed at £16, and Dundee
obtained one in 1365 for a fixed annual payment of £20.
In the reign of Robert I., what was termed the great custom consisted
of the charges levied on the exports of wools, wool-fells, and hides. A
last of wool consisted of ten sacks, and the sack of twenty-four stones;
the last of hides contained twenty dacres, and the dacre ten hides.
The charges on the exports of these goods were the chief source of the
Crown customs during this period. In 1327 the customs of the following
burghs stood thus:――Edinburgh £439, Aberdeen £349, Dundee £240, Perth
£108, Linlithgow £14, Cupar-Fife £13, Inverkeithing £8, Ayr £3, and
Stirling £2. These are small sums, but it has to be observed that
lords of regality and church burghs had the right to export wool and
hides at their own ports custom free; so the sums collected by the
Crown officials only represent a part of the customs of the kingdom.
Before the year 1357 the usual rate of customs on exports had been
half a mark on the sack of wool, three shillings and fourpence on the
hundred woolfells, and one mark on the last of hides. In order to raise
money to pay the instalments of David II.’s ransom, the customs on
the above goods were doubled, and in 1359 tripled. The customs of the
chief burghs for the year 1360 stood thus:――Edinburgh £1300, Linlithgow
£356, Aberdeen £669, Dundee £485, Perth £437, Haddington £261, Montrose
£226, St. Andrews £249, Inverkeithing £72, and Stirling £37. Taking
for comparison the customs of the chief burghs for the year 1379, the
following results appear:――Edinburgh £2285, Aberdeen £1449, Dundee
£918, Haddington £617, Linlithgow £825, Perth £517, North-Berwick £269,
Montrose £235, St. Andrews £143, Stirling £49, and Inverkeithing £34.
At this time the produce of the custom of wool was nearly thirteen
times more than that of hides.
From the customs for the year 1379, it has been calculated that the
number of sheep then in the country exceeded a million and a half;
while the same year, the number of hides of cattle exported amounted to
44,559; but we have no data for estimating what proportion this number
of hides bore to the whole stock of cattle in the country. Comparing
the customs of 1327 and 1379, in the former year the fleeces of
1,450,485 sheep, and 8861 hides were exported; this, however, included
the exports of a considerable district in the south which was under
English rule in 1379; and making allowance for this, it appears that
the numbers of cattle and of sheep had increased considerably during
the period between 1327 and 1379. This increase of the staple wealth
of the nation is very striking, considering the unsettled state of the
country, and speaks volumes for the energy and industry of the people
under the most unfavourable conditions.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volumes I. and II.
The customs from 1379 to the end of the century rather fell off a
little than increased, but in the first twenty years of the fifteenth
century the customs fell very low. This demands some explanation. After
the death of Robert III., under the regency of Albany, it was an every
day occurrence for earls and barons to ship the produce of their lands
custom free, in open defiance of the collectors of customs, and also
to abet the merchants who were under their protection in doing the same
thing. Further, the nobles when they thought fit actually robbed and
plundered the collectors, and even imprisoned them till they delivered
up whatever balance they had in hand. And sometime the Earl of Douglas,
his brother James Douglas, Lord of Balveny, Walter of Haliburton,
Sir William Crawford of Haining, the son and heir of Sir William of
Borthwick, and James Dundas of Dundas, took possession of the tron and
granted a cocket for the shipment of the wool or hides themselves, and
then received the customs from the merchants, and thus prevented it
from coming into the hands of the collectors of customs at all. In the
first audit after the death of Robert III., the collectors of Edinburgh
deponed to £23 5s. 2½d. having been taken by violence from them by
James Douglas, brother of the Earl of Douglas. At the succeeding audit
in March 1408, the sum in question was carried over as arrears; and it
was explained that Douglas claimed the sum for his expenses in setting
fire to Berwick, and at the close of the account it was enumerated with
other sums amounting to about £100, which had been forcibly taken on
various pretexts. In the spring of 1409, Sir William Crawford and other
persons had shipped twenty-three sacks of wool duty free in defiance
of the custom collectors of Edinburgh. The Exchequer audit was held
in May, and the same collectors claimed to be credited with various
sums taken by Crawford and the Earl of Douglas――in all £708 2s. 1d.――as
having been extorted by violence, and by the imprisonment of one
of the collectors in Edinburgh Castle at the instance of Crawford.
The auditors referred this matter to the Regent, and the result of
the reference appeared in the next Edinburgh account, which was the
exoneration of the collectors, and a promise by the Regent to admonish
the Earl of Douglas against similar doings in future.
During part of the years 1411 and 1412 the Earl of Douglas was in
Flanders. The account of 1412, however, showed a new score amounting to
£43 11s., which had arisen from Borthwick and James Douglas, whose wool
had been arrested for payment of duty, but they had broken the arrest
and shipped their goods in defiance of the collectors of customs. The
Earl of Douglas returned to Scotland before 1413, and no doubt he had
received the Regent’s admonition; still at the audit of 1413 the Earl
of Douglas refused to pay the custom on his wool, estimated at £69,
and also carried off the whole balance in the hands of the collectors
of Edinburgh, amounting to £634 10s. 11d. The following year the Earl’s
“ministry” seized by violence the whole of the balance of £1339 5s.
9d. In 1415 the new depredations amounted to a further sum of £1254,
and Douglas then produced a list of his “ministry” who plundered the
customs under his authority, and these included the Earl of Orkney,
Walter of Haliburton, William of Borthwick, James Douglas, Sir William
Douglas of Drumlanrig, and the Earl’s own steward, John of Livingston.
It further appeared that Douglas had directly taken from the merchants
a sum of £240. The habitual evasion of custom greatly increased, and
in 1417 the auditors pressed the collectors to disclose who the evadors
of custom were, and amongst others they named Sir William Crawford,
Lord Seton, George Lauder, and Richard of Winton. It appeared that wool
had been shipped at North Berwick under a cocket, which the collectors
had granted under threats of violence. The collectors also said that
similar evasions of custom by many other persons occurred every day. Of
the balance in the collectors’ hands a sum of £562 4s. 6d. was carried
off by the Earl of Douglas, Haliburton, and the Master of Douglas.
In 1418 the gross customs of Edinburgh had diminished to £1098, and
of this, £378 was seized by the Earl of Douglas’s steward, John of
Livingston; and the collectors again produced a list to the auditors
of the habitual evadors of custom. The collectors of Linlithgow had
a similar narrative of the evasion of custom. Year after year the
collectors were robbed of the money which they had collected, and the
chief criminals were James Douglas and Walter of Haliburton, two of the
Earl of Douglas’s accomplices. On one occasion James Douglas seized the
collectors of Linlithgow and carried them to the castle of Abercorn,
and imprisoned them there till they disbursed the sum demanded.
Sometimes these robbers of the revenue overawed the merchants, and
compelled them by threats and imprisonment to pay their custom to them
instead of the lawful collectors. Such were the acts committed, and
such were the rewards which the Duke of Albany, Regent of Scotland,
covenanted to allow the Earl of Douglas and his associates in return
for their support of his demoralising government of the kingdom.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume IV., pages 80‒321,
Preface, pages 57‒64, 209‒212.
The great customs still continued to be levied at the same rates to
which they had been raised to pay the ransom of David II. The highest
yield of the customs on wool and hides in the reign of James I. was in
1428, when they reached the sum of £6912, but the average annual yield
was about £5000. James I. imposed some new taxes. In 1424 he imposed
a duty on the exportation of skins of the marten, polecat, otter, fox,
hart, hind, roe, and doe. The duty, however, brought only a very small
return to the Crown, and the most that it yielded in any year was £3
16s. 8d., and the average yield was about £1. The skin chiefly exported
was that of the rabbit, though at Inverness the skins of the otter,
♦marten, fox, and polecat appeared in the custom accounts, while deer
skins only occurred in the custom returns of Elgin. At the same time
a duty of 1s. in the pound was imposed on the home-made white woollen
cloth, and it appears from the custom rolls that about £3000 worth of
this cloth was annually exported. A duty on the export of salmon was
imposed, and the ports from which salmon were mostly exported were
Montrose, Aberdeen, and Banff. The average annual yield of the custom
on salmon was about £115, representing £920 worth of fish. All goods
imported from England were subjected to a duty of 2s. 6d. in the pound.¹
♦ “martin” replaced with “marten”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 6,
8, 13.
Subsequent to the reign of James I. the customs on wool and hides
rather fell off than increased. In the reign of James III. the average
annual yield of the customs was about £3300; and the average yield
of these customs for the last five years of the fifteenth century was
£3106. No doubt one cause of the falling off of the customs was that
greater quantities of the native wool, and also of the hides, were
being gradually consumed and used at home, as the population of the
kingdom increased, and civilisation advanced.
The export duty on salmon was 2s. 6d. in the pound, and in 1478 it
was ordered that salmon must be packed in barrels, under a penalty,
each barrel capable of containing fourteen gallons. In 1481 the duty
was raised by royal proclamation to 4s. per barrel. During the latter
years of the reign of James III. the yield of the custom on salmon, at
the chief ports where they were exported, stood thus:――Aberdeen, £135;
Banff, £47; Perth, £29; Dundee, £14; Montrose, £7; Stirling, £6; and
for the whole of the kingdom, about £310. The herring trade in some
of the arms of the sea on the west coast, and in other quarters was
becoming an important industry. The custom for herrings of Lochfyne
was returned by the collectors of Irvine in 1479 at £10, and in 1481 at
£34; from that date the custom was accounted for by the collectors of
Dumbarton. In 1487 it amounted to £379.
In preceding pages of this chapter it was indicated that the Crown
lands were of considerable extent and value in the later part of the
reign of James II. A large portion of the revenue of the Crown was
derived from the rents of these lands, which were partly paid in money
and partly in produce. It has been approximately calculated that the
revenue of the Crown in the reign of James III. amounted to £16,380,
which is equivalent to about £5,460 sterling money. This revenue was
derived from the following sources:――From the Crown lands, £10,600;
from the sheriffs, £1,720; from customs, £3,300; and from burgh rents,
£760. At the end of the century the Crown lands were still pretty
extensive.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume VIII., IX., and XI.
It was noticed in a preceding chapter that a commercial treaty
was concluded between Flanders and Scotland towards the end of the
thirteenth century, and the commercial dealings between Scotland and
Flanders and the Low Countries continued for many centuries. Edward I.
endeavoured to persuade the Count of Flanders in 1299 to cease all
trading relations with Scotland, but he failed in his object. In
December, 1321, the Count of Flanders gave letters of safe conduct
to Stephen Fourbour, burgess of Berwick, and James Will, burgess of
St. Andrews, and their companions, to come, stay, and go, as their
business might require, in the countries of Zealand, Holland, and
West Friesland. In 1323 Robert I. granted in return that all merchants
from Holland should have free ingress and egress to every quarter of
the kingdom wherever they pleased to land, and he ordered that these
merchants should be honourably treated, and allowed to dispose of
their merchandise according to the usages and the laws of the country.
A commercial treaty was arranged between Flanders and Scotland in
1427 to continue in force for a hundred years and one day. By this
treaty the Scots were allowed to export in bales the home-made white
woollen cloths (already mentioned) to any part of the provinces of
Flanders “without let or hindrance.” It appears that quantities of
this home-made cloth were sent to the low countries to be dyed and
then carried back to Scotland; but during this period Scotland had
commercial dealings with France, Bruges, Prussia, Lombardy, Spain and
England, though her staple trade was chiefly with the Low Countries or
Netherlands.¹
¹ _Scotichronicon_; W. T. M‘Cullagh’s _Industrial History of
Free Nations_, Volume I., pages 58, 76, 105.
Seasons of dearth sometimes occurred, and attempts were made to
mitigate them by encouraging foreigners to import food, and by
regulating the modes of selling. In 1454 it was enacted that strangers
who brought grain into the kingdom should be favourably received and
thankfully paid. There was a great scarcity of victuals in the country
in 1478, and it appeared that foreigners from several nations used
to bring victuals into Scotland, but the new duties imposed on their
goods had prevented them from coming with their cargoes, and the people
had been greatly injured. It was therefore enacted that all foreigners
“coming with their victuals and merchandise should be honourably and
favourably entertained, and have free entry with their goods, according
to former use and custom; and the King to have the first and the best
of their cargoes, next the lords of his council, and after that the
remainder to be sold among the people.” This Act was repeated in 1482
with some additions. “It was declared that any person who bought goods
from strangers and pretended that they were for the King’s use, and
then sold them again, should be banished from the kingdom and all
their property confiscated. Any foreigners in or out of the kingdom
complaining of injuries done to them, should have immediate redress,
according to justice, against any man in the nation. So, through
the fair and honourable treatment of all strangers who come into the
country hereafter, they may be encouraged to return, for the benefit
and utility of the whole community.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 36,
41, 119, 144.
It is scarcely necessary to remark that the trading regulations of
this period were sometimes based on curious notions. In 1467 Parliament
enacted that none but burgesses living in burghs, or their factors and
servants, should be permitted to sell or traffic in merchandise out of
the kingdom, and so no person, save burgesses, could engage in foreign
commerce. Even within the kingdom no craftsman was allowed to deal in
merchandise himself, nor by his factor, unless he first entirely ceased
to work with his own hands; and “no man should pass out of the kingdom
on business, but a famous and worshipful man, having of his own half
a last of goods, under a penalty of ten pounds.” The same Parliament
enacted that no ship should be freighted by any of the King’s subjects
at the ports of Scotland, nor from a foreign port, without a formal
charter party, that the shipmaster should find a steersman and timber
man, and a sufficient crew to manage the ship. If any dispute should
arise between the shipmaster and the merchantmen it must be referred
to the court of the burgh to which the ship was freighted. There were
careful rules for the protection of the cargoes from damage. Every
ship carrying more than five lasts of goods had to give one sack to
the chaplain of the Scottish nation at the port to which she was bound,
and every ship homeward bound was to bring one ton of materials for
the church work of the town to which she was freighted. It was enjoined
that no drink-money should be given to the shipmaster or his agents;
and also that no shipmaster should sail his vessel during the winter.
The amount and the description of the exports of the kingdom have been
indicated in the preceding pages; but the imports were various and
miscellaneous, including many articles in daily use, luxuries, and
ornaments. Throughout the period under review large quantities of
wines were imported, and wine was very generally and freely used in the
Scottish court, amongst the nobles, the burgesses, the monasteries, and
at festivals of every description. The wines chiefly used were those
of Gascony, Guienne, Burgundy, the Levant, and the Rhine regions; and
claret, which was imported by Scotch and French traders from Bordeaux.
The wines of Spain and Portugal were also imported from Lisbon, Bayonne,
and other ports. The Scotch Parliament encouraged the importation of
wine, and in 1431 it was enacted that those who exported salmon should
sell it only for English money or barter it for Gascon wine. Olives,
oranges, raisins, figs, and other fruit were imported in considerable
quantities. The finer woollen cloths, black, brown, blue, green,
scarlet, and russet; fustians, fine linen, silk stuffs, velvet, many
articles of apparel and ornament, and iron, hardware, armour, and
cannon, were imported.
The standard value of silver seems to have been about the same in
England and Scotland prior to the fourteenth century. It appears
that Robert I. made a slight diminution in the standard value of
the currency, and the money of Scotland, by successive depreciation,
gradually became of less and less value. Edward III. depreciated the
English currency, and two hundred and seventy pennies was coined from
the pound of silver instead of two hundred ♦and forty. The Steward, as
Regent of Scotland, issued a new coinage even more depreciated than the
money of England, and in 1355 Edward III. proclaimed that the new money
of Scotland was not of the same value as the old, and should only be
received as bullion. In 1366 the Scotch Council ordered that the money
to be coined in future should be similar in weight and fineness to
the English standard money; but a parliament, which met in September,
1367, resolved that the standard should be reduced by ten pennies in
the pound, so that the pound of silver should contain 29s. 4d.; and
from this sevenpence was taken for the King’s use, one penny to the
“custos monete,” and elevenpence to the master coiner and his workmen,
leaving 27s. 9d. for the people. In other words the pound of silver was
coined into 352 pennies instead of 240, which was the standard at the
beginning of the century. The deterioration went on in the reign of
Robert II., and the Act of 1367 was repeated in 1385.
♦ “aud” replaced with “and”
As yet the only coins struck in Scotland were silver pennies, with
their halves and quarters, and groats and half groats. There was no
gold coinage before the reign of Robert II., and the gold money in
circulation in the kingdom prior to this reign were coins of other
nations. According to English proclamations of 1390 and 1398 Scots
money was ordered to be received for only half its nominal value. In
1393 Parliament ordered the coinage of groats, half groats, pennies,
and half-pennies, equal in weight and fineness to the money of David
II., and a gold coin called a lion, worth five shillings; and at the
same time fixed the value of an English noble at nine shillings and
sixpence, and a Flemish noble at nine shillings and fourpence. No mint
records exist for the period of Albany’s regency, and no coins struck
by him have been discovered.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 139,
144, 190, 207.
James I. in 1424, ordered that the coinage should be amended, and
money struck of the same weight and fineness as that of England. In
spite of this enactment, he further debased the coinage of the kingdom.
Parliament in 1436, in order to supply gold and silver for the Mint,
enacted that all exporters of merchandise should import a certain
amount of bullion, while the export of gold or silver, coined or
uncoined, was strictly prohibited. It is possible that part of the
silver coined in the reign of James I. may have been native. In his
first parliament it was declared that mines of gold and silver which
produced three half-pennies of silver out of the pound of lead, should
belong to the King: the King seems to have had some miners in his
employment.¹ In 1428 Scots money was reckoned at half the value of
Flemish money; the English noble passed current for fifteen shillings
Scots, and in Flanders the English noble was current for eight
shillings. A large number of Flemish, French, and English coins were
circulated in Scotland, and these foreign pieces often became a subject
of legislation.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 6,
13; _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume IV.
From the accession of James II., in 1437 to 1450, the amount of gold
coined at the mint of Edinburgh was 48 pounds, which was struck in
demys――a coin of the value of nine shillings at the time of issue. The
amount of silver coined was 563 pounds, which was struck chiefly in
groats, and partly in pennies and half-pennies. During the same period
there was a mint at Stirling, and in 1442 and 1443 forty-eight pounds
of silver were coined there.
In 1451 Parliament resolved to issue a new coinage, conforming in
weight and fineness to the money of England. Eight groats were coined
out of an ounce of silver, and smaller coins――half-groats, pennies,
half-pennies, and farthings, of proportional weight, and each to
be equal in value to the English coin of the same denomination. The
current value of the new groat was fixed at 8d. A new gold coin was
struck with the figure of a lion on one side and the image of St.
Andrew on the other, clothed in a side-coat reaching to his feet;
the current value of this coin was fixed at 6s. 8d. An attempt was
then made to fix the value of the French and other foreign coins in
circulation in Scotland. The master of the mint was held responsible
for all the gold and silver struck under his authority; and power was
given to him to select the persons working under him, and to punish
them when necessary. In 1452 Parliament fixed the value of the English
penny at three pennies Scots, and in 1456 the groat of 1451 was ordered
to pass current at 12d.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 39,
41, 46; _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume V.
During the first nine years of the reign of James III. twenty-one
pounds weight of gold were coined, and nine hundred pounds weight
of silver. Among the gold coins of his reign there were two finely
executed pieces, the one called the rider and the other the unicorn;
their types were the King on horseback and the unicorn.
The copper coinage of Scotland commenced in 1466, according to the Act
of Parliament “for the ease and sustentation of the people, and the
giving of alms to the poor folk.” This copper coinage consisted of
farthing pieces, four in the penny, and they were to pass current in
payment of bread and ale, and merchandise up to twelve pence in the
pound. The debased pennies and placks, subsequently issued, and called
“black money,” consisted of copper mixed with silver. These black
pennies and placks caused much discontent among the people, and in
1485 they were all recalled. At the end of the fifteenth century Scotch
money was computed at somewhat less than one-third of the value of
English money, one pound Scots being worth about 6s. 6d. English. There
was a curious fluctuation in the value attached to Scottish coins;
sometimes seven nobles Scots were said to be equal in value to one
great pound of Flanders, at other times six nobles to one great pound,
and in other instances eight to one, and five to one.¹
¹ _Acts of the Lords of Council_, pages 5, 17, 67, 143; _Acts
of the Lords Auditors_, page 34.
The coinage was a matter which often engaged the attention and
deliberation of the Scotch legislators. From the commencement of the
reign of James I. to the end of the fifteenth century, Parliament
passed upwards of forty Acts relating to the coinage, the keeping of
the money in the country, and the importing of bullion into the kingdom;
the Acts ordering the keeping of the money within the realm, and the
importing of bullion from other countries, were often re-enacted. The
Scotch legislators of this period were completely possessed with the
idea that gold, silver, and copper, actually constituted wealth. But
the tendency to regard gold and silver, and even a paper currency as
real wealth, is very strong in human nature, although in reality they
only form one of the elements of the complex whole which constitutes
wealth and power; for the essential elements of the wealth and power of
a nation consist in the energy, the intelligence, the industry, and the
rectitude of the people, as these characteristics have always formed
the essence of wealth, and thus created power.
Having indicated the external relations of the nation in the preceding
pages, attention will now be directed to the internal and every-day
life of the burgh communities. The life of the townsfolk throughout
this period was marked by striking characteristics, and also their
relations with the important Crown official, the Great Chamberlain of
Scotland, present a subject of much historic interest. Some indications
of the functions and the jurisdiction of the Chamberlain have already
been presented in a general way, but it is necessary to offer fuller
details. Among the early collections of laws relating to the royal
burghs there are two which present the form of procedure in the
Chamberlain’s Court, and the matters which he took cognisance of in
his circuit courts throughout the kingdom. One of these belong to the
reign of Robert I. and the other to the end of the fourteenth century.
The procedure in the Chamberlain’s Court was very formal, minute, and
inquisitorial. The Chamberlain’s precept enumerates those who had to
appear at the court, including persons in and without the burghs; then
the brief to the sheriff, which gave intimation thus――“The Chamberlain
to the sheriff and his deputes, greeting: We command and charge you
that immediately ye attach all strangers whose names the bailies of
the burgh shall present to you in writ, placing them under safe and
sure pledges that they shall appear before us or our deputes one or
more ... to answer to charges against them and obey the law.” The
manner of holding the court was thus――“all the burgesses of the burgh
ought to appear before the Chamberlain――non-residents as well as
residents――which ought to be called by their names, and those that are
found absent should be fined by doom, nevertheless the suits should
be called and the court affirmed. Then the bailies and the officer of
court should be called. Then the bailies should be asked if they have
any commission or not, and by what laws they claim the King’s burgh
to be governed; and after that should be called all the actions and
complaints, and thereupon a good assize of the best and worthiest
citizens should be formed. Then should be asked the rental of the burgh,
by which they gather the King’s rents, as well of built and cultivated
lands as of waste. Then should be asked in writing the names of all the
burgesses of guild, both those resident in the burgh and non-resident,
and the names of the other burgesses by themselves. Then the roll of
the suits of court should be asked. Then ought to be asked the names
of the bailies and the officers of the burgh, every one by himself in
writ.”
After these formal proceedings the real business of the court was
commenced. The bailies were first challenged touching the discharge
of their public duties, and subjected to a searching scrutiny. It was
inquired if they had always been ready to do right and reason when they
were required, according to the form of their oath. If they had treated
the poor and the rich with equal justice, or if they had forbore to
execute the law rightly through favour, hatred, love of persons, or
taking gifts. Whether they had caused the assize of bread, ale, wine,
and flesh to be held, as it ought to be; and every week caused the
bread and ale, the wine and flesh, and other things, in the burgh to
be examined. Whether they have executed the commands of the King and
the Chamberlain. If they have sold or granted the freedom of the burgh
to strangers’ servants, that they may sell with the burgesses, and use
and enjoy the same profit. Whether they have caused the burgh to be
properly watched throughout the night, or compelled the poor to watch
and not the rich. “Also if there be a just assedation and uptaking of
the common good of the burgh, and if a faithful account of the same be
made to the community of the burgh: and if it be not so, by whom, and
in whose hands the produce has come; and if the common good is bestowed
in the business of the community.”
The sergeants and officers of the burgh and their duties were then
taken up, and a number of inquiries were dealt with; such as that
they do not present truly all the pledges in their hands; that they
do not cause the rich to take the night watches the same as the poor.
That in collecting the necessary charges for the King’s Justiciary
or Chamberlain they do not always act justly, but spare some of their
friends, and from others of the community charge too much; and whether
with regard to such charges, they have accounted for all the money
which they had collected. Whether they have inspected all kinds of
bread and ale as they ought to have done, or for their own profit
spared some, through which the assize may not have been well kept.
Queries addressed to the public ale-tasters followed, for there were
then officials of this character in every royal burgh of the kingdom.
It was asked if they had been always ready to taste ale whenever the
signal was put out, or if they remained in the house filling their
bellies drinking instead of standing in the middle of the street in
front of the ale-house, to send one of their fellows with the beadle
into the ale-house to choose which pot should be tasted, and then
present it to his fellows, and according to assize they should discern
upon it. Whether they always presented the defaulters before the
bailies at the next court, or if they held a regular assize on the
ale, or only simply said it is good or it is bad. A somewhat similar
set of questions was put to the public pricers of flesh, as in all
the royal burghs the authorities fixed the price of all kinds of meat.
The pricers of flesh were then asked, “if fleshers bought any other
than sound beasts.” Whether they had been always ready to act when
the signal to price flesh was put out, “as well for the profit of the
flesher as for the profit of the people.” If they had attended the
King’s markets every market day and observed the buying of oxen, sheep,
and swine, to be eaten; and after observing the selling and buying in
the market by their discretion, then the price of flesh should be fixed
by an assize, at which no flesher should be permitted to act. “And that
they keep the prices, that neither for gift, prayer, nor gain, they
do favour in their priceing.” That they should fix the price of these
things as oft as they were required.
The fleshers themselves were challenged in the Chamberlain’s court on
a long list of points. “That they sold flesh against the assize of the
worthy men of the town, and before it was priced. That they bought and
slaughtered beasts during the night contrary to the law of the burghs,
and that they forstalled the burgh by buying in the country. That they
sold flesh before the signal was put forth, and that they sold the
good flesh to strangers and the bad to their neighbours, and that they
denied the price when it was asked.” The bakers were asked if they
had more men engaged at their oven than the law allowed, which was
four――the master, two servants and a boy. And if they baked each kind
of bread as the law of the burgh commanded, namely, bread of the finest
flour, bread of the second quality, and bread baken of whole flour;
and if they baked according to price, “that is to say, penny bread,
halfpenny bread, and farthing bread.” The millers were asked if they
had more servants in their mills than the law allowed, “to the scath
of the King and the people”; and if they take smolts in the mill stank
against the inhibition of law; and if they used two measures, “one to
take with and another to deliver with.” The salmon fishers were asked
if they kept in the middle of the stream when fishing, according to
law, and if they ceased fishing on Saturday after evening till Monday
at sunrising. White fishers were asked if they sold their fish at the
bank, when they ought to sell them in the King’s market under the full
penalty of confiscation; and also if they sold their fish in the night
and in hidden places, and not in the market, and if they broke their
fish and sold them in pennyworths contrary to the King’s laws.
The brewers and ale-house keepers were asked, if they had kept the
price imposed by the assize of the worthy men of the town, after the
buying of the malt; if they had neglected to have their ale tasted,
as it should have been according to law; and if they have the proper
measures――“quart, pint, third part, and sixth part, according to the
King’s money, by which measures the people may be well served.” Wine
sellers were asked if they sold their wine without having it tasted by
the public tasters, and whether their own measures were unproved, and
if they mixed good wine with bad and corrupted it. The malt-makers were
asked if they mixed good and bad malt together, when they ought to make
them separate, and then sell them at different prices. That they let
their malt sprout at both ends and shot out all the pith of it, “when
it ought only to chip and come at one end.”
The shoemakers were asked why they made shoes otherwise than the law
had ordained, “that is, the horn and the ear are alike in length.”
They made shoes, boots, and other things of the leather before it was
barked. “They sewed with rotten thread, owing to which the shoes were
lost before they were half worn.” And when they should have given their
leather good oil and tallow, they gave it only water and salt; and they
worked it before it was curried, to the great scath of the community.
The skinners were asked if they had kindly worked their leather before
they made gloves and other things out of it; or if they had hungered it,
by not giving it enough of alum, eggs, and other things. They sewed and
worked with bad thread, and assumed the position of masters when they
did not know the craft. The tailors made too much refuse and shreds
of men’s clothes, through haste and for lack of skill. They made men’s
garments otherwise than they were ordered; they sewed with bad thread,
and often failed to keep their appointments. They assumed the place of
masters before they had properly learned the craft; and “they worked on
holydays against the law of God.”
One of the points into which the Chamberlain had to inquire, referred
to the treatment of foreign merchants――“If there be any burgesses
who hardly treated foreign merchants, coming to the burghs with their
goods by sea or by land, by not keeping the laws nor making payments
to them as ought to be done, or doing any other injuries to them, by
reason of which such merchants wholly cease to come to the burghs and
ports, to the damage of our lord the King, and the manifest ruin of the
communities of burghs, on account of such hard treatment.”¹
¹ _Ancient Laws and Customs of the Burghs of Scotland_, pages
115‒124, 132‒150.
It appears that the matters treated in the Chamberlain’s court, and
the laws and customs indicated in the preceding pages, were carried
into practical operation, as the records of the burghs show. In 1434
the Town Council of Aberdeen enacted that no one should sell ale dearer
than fourpence or sixpence, as it should be fixed, under the penalty
of the confiscation of their brewing utensils, their ale, and exclusion
from the trade for a year and a day. The head court of the burgh of
Peebles in 1450 appointed four men to the office of ale tasters, and
other four men to fix the price of flesh, and such officials were
regularly appointed. In 1458 the head court at Peebles enacted that
any brewers who broke the fixed price of ale should be fined for the
first offence, one gallon of ale, for the second two gallons, and for
the third three gallons, and for the fourth offence eight shillings. In
1471 the local authorities of Peebles ordered that the best ale should
be sold at tenpence the gallon, or cheaper if the ale tasters deemed
it right, and the second quality of ale at eightpence the gallon, and
whosoever broke the price of the ale should be fined ten shillings.
The provost and the magistrates of Edinburgh in 1492 proclaimed that
no person in the burgh should sell ale dearer than twelvepence and
eightpence the gallon, under the penalties authorised by the statutes
of the burgh. In 1499 the local authorities of Edinburgh enacted that
no one should sell ale above sixteenpence the gallon under the penalty
of having the heads of their barrels knocked off and the ale divided.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., page 392; _Burgh
Records of Peebles_, pages 111, 121, 128, 138, 142, 152, 158,
166, _et seq._; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume I.,
pages 62, 75.
The price of wheat, meal, and bread were all fixed by the local
authorities of the burghs. In 1492 the assize of good citizens of
Edinburgh ordered that the price of wheat should be ten shillings and
sixpence the boll, “of good and sufficient stuff,” and the price of
malt eighteen shillings the load. The good men of the assize in Peebles
in 1462 statuted that whosoever broke the price of bread or ale, from
him should be taken twelvepence “for the buying of a clock.” At the
same time the authorities of this burgh enacted that whosoever bought
skins, wool, or white woollen cloth from unfreemen either in or out
of the burgh, from all citizens found guilty of this offence, there
should be taken sixpence to go to the clock. In 1434 the Town Council
of Aberdeen ordered that no baker should break the price and the weight
of the bread which the bailies had sanctioned; and whoever contravened
this, should for the first offence pay eight shillings, for the second
fifteen shillings, and for the third his bread should be confiscated,
his person put in the pillory, and excluded from his craft for a year
and a day. Every baker was obliged to have his own mark upon his bread
that it might be known, and any one who neglected to put his mark
on his loaves was fined eight shillings. At the same time fleshers,
convicted for breaking the price of beef and mutton, or selling flesh
before it was priced, were to be fined eight shillings for the first
and second offences; but in the case of a third offence, the flesh was
to be confiscated, and the offender excluded from his craft for a year
and a day.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume I., page 62; _Peebles_,
page 147; _Aberdeen_, page 147.
No retail dealer was permitted to buy goods before eleven o’clock,
under the penalty of confiscation, and neither man nor woman was
allowed to pass out of the burgh to buy anything before it was brought
to the market. Salmon fishers were not permitted to sell their fish
till they were shown in the market, nor to store them, but bring them
to the market the morning after they were caught, under a fine of ten
shillings. If the bailies and local authorities of the burghs neglected
to enforce these laws and statutes, then they should be reported
to the King or the Chamberlain, “and each of them fined ten pounds
without remission.” In 1441 the Town Council of Aberdeen, for the good
of the community, enacted that no flesher, nor any other man, should
be permitted to buy any kind of fish till they came to the market;
and that no one should, in the future, dare to purchase any sort of
fish, and raise a dearth on the citizens, till the height of the day
was passed, under the penalty of confiscating such fish, and a further
fine of eight shillings. The profit of a dealer in fish was regulated
in this way: if a fish cost him twelvepence, then he was allowed one
penny on it; if it exceeded twelvepence he was allowed twopence, and so
on, for each shilling a penny. At the same time it was enacted that no
man should buy more victuals than was necessary for his own house and
family; if any one bought victuals to retail, he should sell it openly
on the market-day. In 1442 the guild burgesses of Aberdeen enacted that
no person should give more than six shillings and eightpence for the
stone of wool; and if any one bought wool at a higher price, he was to
be fined forty shillings for the common good of the burgh; the price of
woolfells were fixed in a similar way.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., pages 391‒397.
Many of the statutes of the burghs were directed against a class of
persons usually called forestallers and regraters. These were the
persons who bought goods, cattle, and food, before the markets or the
appointed time for selling and buying, or who purchased goods, grain,
fish, and other things, and resold them at higher prices and profits
than were then lawful. In the burgh records of Aberdeen, in the year
1402, there is a list containing the names of ninety-five forestallers;
they were often denounced in the local statutes, and sometimes
severely punished.¹ Within the boundary of every royal burgh there
was a complete monopoly of manufacture and trade. Further, some of the
charters granted to the burgesses a monopoly of trade throughout the
neighbouring or surrounding country. Thus the trading privileges of
Rutherglen included the city of Glasgow; the monopoly of Inverkeithing
embraced the burghs of Kinross, Bruntisland, Kinghorn, and Dysart;
Perth had an exclusive privilege of trade and manufacture over
Perthshire; and Aberdeen, Inverness, and Edinburgh, had similar trade
privileges in their several counties.
¹ _Ibid._, pages 383‒385, 445, 402; _Burgh Records of
Edinburgh_, Volume I., pages 36, 97.
The acts and regulations indicated in the preceding pages were
generally enforced in the royal burghs in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries. At Aberdeen, in 1443, Alexander Lammynton was fined for
selling flesh above the fixed price; and in 1492 three men were placed
in the pillory, their pecks were broken, and each of them fined eight
shillings for having pecks of too small measure. At Edinburgh, in
1495, twenty-two bakers in one day were convicted by a jury for buying
and regrating French flour; and on the 8th of January, 1499, fifty
“Browster Wives” were tried at once, and convicted for breaking the
statutes relating to the brewing and selling of ale.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., pages 398, 419;
_Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume I., pages 69, 75.
The burgesses of guild possessed a monopoly of commerce in the burghs
and outside of them. Acts of Parliament, the burgh laws of the kingdom,
and many local statutes of the various royal burghs, all proclaimed the
exclusive privilege of the guild brethren with regard to commerce. No
one was permitted to work at his craft and deal in merchandise of any
description. The guild were exclusively the commercial class, and they
assumed the chief offices and mainly exercised the ruling functions in
the royal burghs of Scotland; but the larger body of citizens naturally
began to form themselves gradually into separate associations, with a
distinct view to their own special interests. The craftsmen, however,
were not specially favoured by the Crown or the Parliament as the
burgesses of guild had been. The Crown and the Legislature frequently
interfered to protect the exclusive privileges of the guild burgesses,
but no early charter from the Crown or Act of Parliament has been
discovered legalising the incorporation of the craftsmen. In fact,
they seem to have risen into importance by their own energy. As we have
seen, they were subjected to a severe and exacting system of inspection
under the authority of the Great Chamberlain. At last, when Parliament
interfered with the craftsmen it was with the professed intention
of guarding the nation against their encroachment, a pretext often
groundlessly advanced by governments.
In 1424 Parliament passed an Act which enjoined that in every burgh
each separate craft should, with the advice of the town’s officers,
elect one of their own number to be deacon of their craft. The duties
of the deacons thus elected were to inspect the materials and the
workmanship of the craftsmen, “so that the people may not be scathed
by untrue craftsmen, as they have been in bygone times.” Whether
the deacons had exceeded the duties assigned to them or not, in 1426
Parliament declared that deacons of crafts should have no corrective
power over the other members of the craftsmen, except to inspect their
work once every fifteen days. The sworn bailies and council of every
burgh were ordered to fix the price of the materials of each craft
and consider the cost of the labour of the workmen, and then fix the
price of the articles produced, and proclaim it to the people. The
town councils were also commanded to fix the wages of craftsmen who
had to work on other men’s materials, such as wrights and masons. All
craftsmen who undertook more work than they could accomplish were to
be punished. In 1427 Parliament repealed the above Acts, which in some
degree had recognised the standing of the craftsmen, and then denounced
the action of the craftsmen as injurious to the people and the whole
nation, and therefore the craftsmen were prohibited from electing
deacons or holding meetings. This jealousy of the craftsmen continued
to manifest itself for more than another century, and till in some
measure the settlement of the different classes of the burghal
population was effected.
The Acts prohibiting all craftsmen from engaging in trade or dealing
in merchandise were repeated in the reign of James II., James III.,
and James IV. In 1459 the goldsmiths were recognised and treated as
an established fraternity in an Act of Parliament, but the body of
craftsmen were still regarded with suspicion by the Estates of the
realm. Parliament announced, in an Act passed in 1493, “that it was
clearly understood by the King and the three Estates, that the deacons
of the craftsmen in the burghs were extremely dangerous, and might
cause great trouble by the assembling and rising of the King’s subjects,
and by their statute-making against the commonweal for their own profit,
which deserved severe punishment. As those craftsmen assembled and
framed rules that they should have wages for holydays, or if not they
would not work; and when any of them began a job and left it unfinished,
then no one of his craft dare venture to complete it. Therefore, it was
enacted that all the functions of the deacons should cease for one year,
excepting the power to examine the materials and the quality of the
workmanship. Masons and wrights, and other craftsmen, who statuted that
they should have their wages for the holydays as for work days, and all
the makers of such statutes, should be indicted as common oppressors of
the people, and the justice-clerk should proceed thereupon and punish
them as oppressors; and likewise the makers of the rules that when one
man begins a job no one else can complete it, should all be punished as
common oppressors.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 8,
13, 14, 48, 234.
Still, in spite of this and other attempts to crush the fraternities
of craftsmen, the custom of incorporating them gradually came to be
introduced throughout the kingdom. The manner of effecting this was
pretty uniform, and consisted in granting letters under the seal of
the burgh court, called a “Seal of Cause.” There was some variation in
the tenor of these, as some of them expressly prohibited all persons
from working at the special trade but the freemen of the craft; they
all, however, gave the craft the privilege of admitting new members,
inspecting materials, making bye-laws, electing office-bearers, and
having a fund-box or common good. Of course, in all of them, there was
implied a strict monopoly within the limits of the burgh, as it stood
at the date of the grant.
As illustrative of this matter, and also of the common arts of life,
Edinburgh may be taken as a favourable example of the whole kingdom
in the latter half of the fifteenth century. In 1473 the provost
and council of Edinburgh granted a Seal of Cause to the hatmakers of
the burgh, in which it was stated, among other rules, that no master
hatmaker should take apprentices for a shorter period than seven years;
if, however, any of the craftsmen’s sons became apprenticed, they
should only be bound for three years. Further, the hatmakers considered
that it was very proper and profitable that no one of their craft
should, under any circumstances, sew, renew, or mend any old hats.
In 1475 the provost and council, and all the deacons of the craftsmen,
of Edinburgh granted a Seal of Cause to the masons and wrights――“For
the honour and the worship of St. John, and the augmentation of
divine service; and for the right ruling of these two crafts, equally
profitable to the workers and to all builders.” Among other rules in
this deed, no master was to be permitted to take apprentices for a
shorter term than seven years; and every apprentice at his entry should
pay half a mark to the altar of St. John in the church of St. Giles.
The same year the provost and council of Edinburgh granted a Seal of
Cause to the weavers――“For the honour and love of Almighty God, and his
mother the Virgin Mary, and St. Servanus, for supporting and upholding
of divine service, and the appareling of their altar of St. Servanus,
which was founded and upheld by them in St. Giles’ church, and for the
management of their work, the good rule and worship of the kingdom,
the common profit of the craftsmen, and divers other things.” In this
Seal of Cause it was stated that the weavers should elect their deacon
once a year, like the other craftsmen, and the deacon should rule the
craft, and all the men should obey him in all honest and lawful things
touching the craft. But the freemen of the craft who were burgesses
should elect the deacon, and no one else should have any voice therein.
No master should take apprentices for a shorter term than five years;
and every apprentice should pay at his entry five shillings to the
altar of St. Servanus. Every man and woman who worked at the craft
should give the priest his meat, and every week give a penny to the
altar, and each hired servant should give fourpence a year to the
altar. All those who disobeyed the deacon, and refused to abide by the
statutes of the craft, for each offence they should have to pay one
pound of wax. No woman should act as a master, or hold a workshop,
unless she be a freeman’s wife.
In 1483 the provost and council of Edinburgh granted a Seal of Cause to
the hammermen, in which were named the blacksmiths, goldsmiths, coiners,
saddlers, cutlers, bucklemakers, and armourers. There were a number of
very minute rules in this deed for the regulation and the profit of the
various crafts incorporated under it, and these all ran on the lines
of restriction already indicated. In 1488 the magistrates and council
of Edinburgh incorporated the fleshers, and the first rule in this
deed was a declaration to the effect that the deacon and the principal
masters of the craft in the burgh had, after mature consideration,
arrived at the conclusion that it was most expedient for the common
profit that all the unfreemen and boys should be expelled from the
craft, unless they either bound themselves as hired men or apprentices.
The coopers were incorporated in Edinburgh in 1500: and in the other
burghs of the kingdom the various classes of craftsmen began to be
incorporated much about the same time, or in some instances, a little
later than those of Edinburgh.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume I., pages 28‒34,
47‒55, 180‒183. An interesting and valuable _History of
the Incorporated Trades of Aberdeen_, by Mr. E. Bain, was
published in 1887; and in the records of other burghs much
information on the subject will be found.
One characteristic of the incorporation of the craftsmen which came
strikingly out, was their historic association with the prevailing
religion of the period. This side of the national life will be
subsequently treated.
Although it seems evident that the mechanical skill and the
manipulating power of the craftsmen of Scotland in the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries were not highly developed, still the persistent
efforts of industry, under unfavourable circumstances, were well
manifested throughout this period. It appears that the blacksmiths
were unskilful at shoeing horses. In 1478 it was stated in an Act of
Parliament that the smiths, through ignorance and drunkenness, hurted
and crippled men’s horses by shoeing them in the quick. Therefore it
was enacted that when a smith shod a horse into the quick he should
pay the cost of keeping the horse till his feet be healed, and find
the owner another to ride upon or labour, and if the horse be crippled
beyond recovery then the smith should pay the price of the horse to the
owner. In 1496 James IV. paid three shillings and fourpence for shoeing
two horses, and the following year he paid sixteenpence for shoeing
his grey horse in Brechin, and the same for shoeing his brown nag.
It appears that the Scotch kings of this period employed a number of
smiths and other craftsmen from time to time.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., page 119;
_Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer_, Volume I.; _Exchequer
Rolls of Scotland_.
The principal cities and towns of the Church during this period were
St. Andrews, Glasgow, Paisley, Dunfermline, Arbroath, Brechin, Dunkeld,
Dunblane, Dornoch, and a few others. St. Andrews was the residence of
the metropolitan of Scotland, the chief religious centre, with a fine
cathedral, castle, many churches and religious houses, and the seat
of a university; it had also a considerable trade; and these together
rendered it one of the chief cities of the kingdom in the period under
review. It was then a comparatively populous and wealthy city.
In the latter part of the fifteenth century Glasgow was still a
small city, although her great cathedral, with its many altars,
the archbishop’s palace, convent, and hospital, and her university,
conferred influence and dignity on the town. Glasgow was under the
authority of the Archbishop, and the appointment of the magistrates
remained in his hand till the Reformation. In the fifteenth century
Glasgow had little trade, and had to maintain a struggle about her
privileges with Rutherglen, Renfrew, and Dumbarton.
Paisley rose into a thriving town under the shadow of the monastery
and the abbot. In 1488 James IV. erected Paisley into a free burgh of
barony, with the same privileges as the burghs of Arbroath, Dunfermline,
and Newburgh; it had two yearly markets, and the magistrates were to
be nominated by the abbot. Twelve years later the abbot made a grant of
the burgh to the provost, the bailies, and the community. The burgesses
had the right of taking stones from the abbot’s quarries, and if they
should win coal, then the abbot should have fuel from their pits.¹
¹ _Register of Paisley_, pages 263, 73.
Arbroath, as indicated by its custom, had a considerable foreign
trade in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. About the end of
the fourteenth century the abbot and the burgesses made a worthy
effort to render the harbour more secure for ships, and voluntarily
taxed themselves to accomplish the necessary work connected with this
improvement. The burgh continued to prosper, and the port and town
eventually rose to commercial and manufacturing importance.
Brechin has been repeatedly mentioned in its historic relation in
preceding pages. In the period under consideration Brechin was a
city with her cathedral and castle, and many historic associations.
Dunfermline was a favourite residence of the Scotch kings from Malcolm
Canmore onward to modern times; still, at the close of the fifteenth
century, except its religious buildings, it was a comparatively small
town, built of wooden houses.¹
¹ _Register of Arbroath_, Volume II., pages 40‒42; Chambers’
_History of Dunfermline_, page 327. In the fifteenth century
the shirt of St. Margaret, the queen of Malcolm III.,
Canmore, was preserved at Dunfermline as a highly cherished
relic. It was carried to Mary of Gueldres at the date
of the birth of James III.; and it was also brought from
Dunfermline at the time of the birth of James V. _Exchequer
Rolls._
Greenock, Kilmarnock, and other towns, were as yet hardly in embryo.
In short, the mineral resources of the country, coal and iron, had
scarcely yet been touched.
The defence of the country constantly engaged the attention of
government and consumed a large part of the nation’s energy. The
habits of the people, engendered by the pressure of external enemies,
and fed by internal commotions, had assumed warlike and military
characteristics. Even the citizens of the burghs were often commanded
to have their weapons ready, and kept beside them in their shops, to
face any sudden emergency or brawl which might arise on the streets.
They had to defend themselves against the attacks of external enemies,
to watch and ward the burgh, maintain order and uphold the honour of
the town.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., pages 8, 9; _Burgh
Records of Edinburgh_, Volume I., pages 68, 72.
Many Acts of Parliament were passed touching the defence of the
kingdom, and ordering the sheriffs of the counties and the magistrates
of the burghs to hold “wapinschaws” of the fighting men of the realm
four times in the year; all those from sixteen to sixty years of age
were bound to muster as fighting men. The armour and weapons of the
different ranks of society were enumerated in an Act of Parliament in
1429, and again in the reign of James II. in 1456; and this matter also
engaged the attention of the parliaments of James III. and James IV.
The Act of 1429 enjoined that every man who had twenty pounds of yearly
income, or possessed a hundred pounds worth of moveable goods, should
be well horsed and fully armed. Those of lower rank, who had ten pounds
of yearly rent, or fifty pounds worth of moveable property, should
furnish themselves with a helmet and gorget, vambrace, breastplate,
greaves to cover the front of the thighs, and iron gauntlets. Every
yeoman worth twenty pounds, should arm himself with a doublet of fence,
an iron hat, a bow and a sheaf of arrows, a sword, buckler, and a knife.
Men worth ten pounds, should have a bow and a sheaf of arrows, a sword,
buckler, and a knife. All those who could not handle the bow should
have a good strong hat, a doublet of fence, a sword, a buckler, and
a good axe or else a pointed staff. Every burgess worth fifty pounds
was commanded to be completely armed as a gentleman ought to be; and
citizens worth twenty pounds, should arm themselves with a stout hat, a
doublet and habergeon, a bow and a sheaf of arrows, a sword, a buckler,
and a knife; those not bowmen should have a good axe and fencible
weapons. Severe penalties were to be inflicted on those entrusted with
the carrying out of the acts, if they neglected to comply with their
requirements.
Some of the armour and weapons mentioned above were imported. In 1425
parliament enacted that all merchants who passed to foreign countries
with their ships, besides their common cargoes, they should bring
home as much harness and armour, spear shafts and bow-strings, as
they possibly could. The spear was for long the favourite weapon of
the Scottish infantry. The length of the spear was from fifteen to
eighteen feet, and the Scots handled it with great skill and remarkable
effect. They were singularly deficient, however, in the use of the
bow, and owing to the marked superiority of the English in this arm,
the Scottish army often suffered severely. James I. and the succeeding
kings saw and understood this, and earnestly endeavoured to supersede
the spear in some measure by the bow; but all their efforts failed,
though many expedients were tried to induce the people to use the bow.
All the young men were commanded to learn the use of the bow, and butts
were ordered to be erected throughout the kingdom, especially in the
vicinity of the parish churches, and every man was enjoined to shoot
thrice. In 1457 a pair of butts were ordered to be erected at every
parish church, and shooting with the bow to be practised every Sunday.
It was then enjoined that each man should shoot at least six times,
under a fine of twopence on every man who was absent; and the fine
money was to be spent on drink amongst those who had attended the
shooting. Enactments were also passed which prohibited the national
games of football and of golf, with the object of promoting the
exercise of archery; but all these acts and devices were unavailing,
as the Scots never acquired an aptness in using the bow.
According to feudal usage the longest term of service which the King
could exact at any one time was forty days, and the more usual period
of service in the field was fifteen or twenty days. The feudal army
provided its own equipments and provisions, as indicated in a preceding
paragraph; thus the soldiers were the vassals of their respective lords
and chiefs, not the King’s men. Hence the curious social phenomena that
the royal authority usually waned in the times of war and increased
in the times of peace. The most daring acts of interference with the
powers of the Crown occurred on the array of the feudal army. The
command of the army belonged to the King, and the most experienced
of the nobles led the main divisions, usually four, the right and
left wings, the centre, and the reserve. The arrangement of the
sub-divisions and sections of the army seems to have been by clans,
in which the barons and chiefs acted as subordinate commanders and
officers, often by hereditary right. The pith of the Scottish army
always consisted of infantry, the Scots were never strong in cavalry;
though for quickness of movement the men were often mounted on small
hardy horses, which enabled them to march long distances in a short
time, and this suited the object of the raids into the north of England.
Each man furnished himself with a bag of oatmeal trussed to the saddle
of his horse, but they mainly trusted to the pillage of the enemy’s
country for food.
In actual battle, the distinctive tactics of the Scots was the
formation in deep battalions, usually circular, though sometimes
inclining to the oval or square forms according to the nature of the
ground and the position on which they were fighting. This compact
phalanx was admirably adapted for resisting cavalry charges, or any
form of attack at close quarters; but the deficiency of the Scottish
army was the want of a force to meet the English bowmen, who often
severely galled the ranks of the Scotch spearmen from a distance. So
the fate of a battle was frequently a mere question of time, as to how
long the circle of spearmen could endure the double attacks of showers
of arrows and cavalry charges. Still the intense national sentiment
and spirit of the Scots sustained them in fighting for centuries under
these unequal conditions.
About the middle of the fourteenth century cannon began to be used
in the attack and defence of fortified places, instead of the old
battering ram, sow, and other engines of destruction. James I. and
his successors directed their attention to the casting and forging of
cannon. In 1456 parliament enacted that “It was thought expedient that
the King should request certain of the great barons of the kingdom that
are of any might, to make carts of war, and in each cart two guns, and
each of them to have two chambers with the graith pertaining thereto,
and a cunning man to shoot them. If they have not skill to shoot them
now, they may learn or the time come when it will be necessary to
have them.” The great barons, however, did not furnish cannon for the
King’s use. Artillery was a branch which did not belong to the original
constitution of the feudal army; and therefore, all the expense
connected with the production of cannon, and the organisation and
equipment of an artillery force to take the field, fell entirely upon
the Kings themselves. The expense of the Crown for the artillery in the
year 1474 amounted to £753. In the latter part of the fifteenth century
there were two classes of guns used in Scotland: 1, guns of large
calibre for siege operations, mounted on carriages and usually drawn by
oxen; and the missiles discharged by these were mostly balls of stone
called “gun-stones.” 2, Guns of smaller calibre which were intended for
field operations, and were carried in gun-carts, two or more in each
cart; and the missiles discharged by these were usually balls of iron
or lead. But only a few of either of these guns were made in Scotland,
the greater part of them were imported.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 8,
10, 18, 19, 45, 48, 100, 133, 164, 226; _Accounts of the
Lord High Treasurer_, Volume I., Preface, pages 217‒219.
The houses of the people still mostly consisted of small wooden
erections. The houses of the farmers, and also the trades-people of
the burghs and towns, were built of wood or other slight materials,
although they were not necessarily devoid of comfort. No remains of
burgh architecture of a domestic character earlier than the sixteenth
century now exist in Scotland.
Touching the actual number of the population of the nation in the
later part of the fifteenth century, we have no data to draw a certain
conclusion from; but the probable number though not the exact number
may be reasonably conjectured. From the strength of the army which on
the greatest emergencies assembled for the defence of the kingdom, it
may be inferred with some approach to probability that the population
of the country did not exceed 600,000. In the latter part of the
fourteenth century Edinburgh was said to have contained four thousand
small houses, which by a common mode of calculating, would make its
population about 17,000; and at the end of the fifteenth century its
inhabitants probably did not exceed 21,000. The population of Perth
was not above 7,000 or 8,000; Aberdeen perhaps had a population of from
4,000 to 5,000; Dundee somewhat fewer, and St. Andrews about 5,000.
The roads and highways throughout the country were still very bad. Many
acts relating to ferries were passed by parliament, but it seems they
were little regarded, and many complaints were made that the ferryman
charged double and triple fares from both rich and poor people. The
establishment of inns by the road-sides and in villages and towns
was encouraged by the Crown with the view of saving the monasteries
and the farmers from the extortions of unwelcome guests, namely,
troops of sorners, sturdy beggars, and other idle vagabonds, who
infested the country. In 1424 it was enacted that in all the burghs
and thoroughfares of the kingdom inns should be erected, with stabling
accommodation for horses, and rooms for riders and travellers, so
that men might there find bread and ale and other refreshments at a
reasonable price, according to the standard charges of the country. It
appeared that travellers in Scotland had been too long accustomed to
live at free quarters, and did not patronise the inns. The innkeepers,
therefore, complained to the King that travellers did not lodge at
the inns, but stayed with friends and acquaintances. The King and his
parliament then commanded that no one travelling through the country
either on foot or horseback dare to lodge anywhere else but at the
inns, except those with a large company, that is, the nobles, who
should be free to lodge with their friends, if they sent their servants
and horses to the inns.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 6,
10, 89, 107, 119, _et seq._
With regard to sanitary provision the kingdom was in a wretched
condition. Swine were permitted to run freely upon the streets of
the burghs, and middens were allowed to lie on the thoroughfares
for weeks. In 1479 one man was appointed to mend the causeways and
clean the gutters for the whole burgh of Aberdeen, and he received one
penny from each householder as his wages; and in 1494 there was still
only one man for cleaning all the streets and lanes of the city. The
state of uncleanliness in which the people lived prepared them for the
ravages of disease and pestilence in every form, and so the nation was
frequently visited by the pest, which from time to time carried off
many of the inhabitants of the kingdom. The pestilence visited Scotland
seven times from 1348 to 1499, and in fact the country was hardly ever
free from it during this period. The disease of leprosy also prevailed
in Scotland, and regulations relating to it were passed by Parliament
in the reign of James I. Hospitals were erected on the outskirts of the
principal towns for the reception of those afflicted with this malady.
In the old burgh laws the leper folk were enjoined not to go from door
to door and beg, but to sit at the gates of the burghs and seek alms
from those that passed to and fro. At Stirling the leper hospital was
at the east end of the town.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I.; _Burgh Records of
Edinburgh_, Volume I.; _Burgh Records of Peebles_; _Acts
of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II. The History of
Leprosy in Scotland has been ably told by the late Professor
Simpson, and printed in the _Medical and Surgical Journal_
for October, 1841, and April, 1842.
During this period there was little or no medical knowledge in
Scotland. The only surgeons were the barbers, some of whom practised
“leechcraft.” In the fifteenth century blood-letting in the spring
season of the year was universal, and was believed to be highly
beneficial to the health, and to have a special efficacy against the
contagion of the plague and other epidemic disease. James IV. appears
to have taken much interest in surgical matters, and was himself
reputed to have been possessed of some medical knowledge and some skill
as a surgeon. Sometimes he bribed his servants to permit him to perform
on them such operations as blood-letting and drawing of teeth. There
was, however, some hope of improvement in this department, as we find
from the following reference to the salary of a medical professor in
King’s College, Aberdeen, in the year 1498:――“Uni medico in facultate
medicine, graduato et legenti in Universitate infra civitatem veterem
Aberdonensem noviter fundata, percipienti annuatim xii. libras et
vi. solidos.” In 1506 the barbers or surgeons of Edinburgh were
incorporated, and in their “Seal of Cause” it was provided “that no
person use or practice any of the points connected with the craft
of barbery and surgery within the burgh unless they were freemen and
burgesses, and after being examined and passed on the following points,
namely, that he knew anatomy, and the nature and complexion of every
member of the human body, and likewise all the veins of the same; that
he may make fly-botch well in due time, and also that he know in which
member the sign has domination for the time, for every man ought to
know the nature and substance of that on which he operates, or else he
is negligent. That we may have once a year a condemned man, after he is
dead, to anatomise upon, and whenever we have obtained experience each
will instruct the others, and we shall do suffrage for the soul.” It
was further provided that no apprentice or hired man should be admitted
into the craft unless he could read and write.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume I., page 102; _Exchequer
Rolls of Scotland_, Volume XI.; _Accounts of the Lord High
Treasurer_, Volume I.
Drinking of liquor seems to have been very common. In 1436 Parliament
ordered that no man should sit in a tavern drinking wine, ale, or beer,
in any of the burghs after the bell struck the hour of nine o’clock;
and if any persons were found in taverns or inns after that hour then
the bailies should imprison them in the King’s prison, and if the
local authorities neglected to perform this duty, they themselves
should be fined one shilling for each offence. The citizens of Aberdeen
and of other burghs spent considerable sums of money on wine given to
dignified persons. In 1453 the Countess of Huntly was presented with a
lagon of wine by the people of Aberdeen, and the bishop also received
a lagon; and at the feast of St. Nicholas various sums were spent for
wine to Lord Forbes, Lord Erskine, the Earl of Erroll, and the Abbot of
Arbroath.¹
¹ _Miscellany of the Old Spalding Club_, Volume V., pages
39, 40, 48; _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland_, Volume III., page 424, _et seq._
James IV. was unusually liberal in giving drink-money. In July, 1488,
he gave Mr. William Crichton two pounds for drink; and on the 3rd
of August he passed to Leith and saw the Danish ships, and gave the
sailors nine pounds for drink; and the same year he gave the masons
of the palace eighteen shillings “in drink silver,” and the following
year he gave a like sum for drink to the masons of Linlithgow working
at the palace. In 1489 the King gave the gunners who carted the
great cannon “Mons,” eighteen shillings “to drink-silver,” and to the
men who made the way at the Barwood for the great guns, he gave ten
shillings to drink. In October, 1491, he gave the masons of the palace
in drink-silver, two pounds and fourteen shillings, for the arching
of three vaults; and to the workmen who made the trenches eighteen
shillings for drink-silver, and to the shipmen ten shillings. In
1494 he gave the writers of the signet to their drink-silver eighteen
shillings, and to the wrights a similar sum. The man who made the case
to the King’s banner in 1496 got three shillings for drink-silver;
and the goldsmith who made the King’s case of gold to wear about his
neck, received eleven shillings and fourpence of drink-silver. In 1497
the dikers of the park of Falkland got ten shillings from the King
for drink-money, and to the workmen in the Castle of Edinburgh he gave
thirteen shillings and fourpence, and to the men who drew the ship nine
shillings.¹
¹ _Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer_, Volume I.
The chief festivals of the year during this period were Yule and Easter.
The festivities associated with Yule were continued over several weeks.
In the Scotch court Yule was held with much ceremonial circumstance
and merry-making. Early in the day the King, attended by his court
and heralds, went to high mass and made his offering; and at noon
in the hall the officers of arms and the trumpeters appeared before
the King and received their rewards, which consisted of small sums of
money. The sergeants of the town received a gratuity from the King,
and alms were given to the friars of Edinburgh and Linlithgow, and
James IV. frequently held his Christmas in the latter burgh. Mummings,
disguisings, and plays, always formed a part of the amusements, in
which professional players and minstrels often acted the leading parts.
An Abbot of Unreason was annually appointed in the King’s house, in the
houses of the nobles, and in the burghs, and these personages exercised
sway till the Yule holidays terminated. Cards and dice were among the
favourite amusements, and altogether the people at this season appear
to have enjoyed themselves.
Easter was also held with circumstance and ceremonial, and amusements
suitable to the season. On Easter morning the King took the sacrament
early in the chapel, and gave to the officiating priest an offering
which varied from eighteen shillings to twenty-four; thereafter he
attended high mass, and made his usual offering of eighteen shillings;
and at noon in the hall he gave the heralds and trumpeters their “Pasch
reward,” which usually amounted to a sum of from six to ten pounds
distributed amongst them. At the same season the King’s master cook
and the court cook received their “basin silver.” Minstrels, tellers
of tales, harpers, fiddlers, tabourers, and others who made pastime to
the King and the court, usually received gratuities of nine to eighteen
shillings each; the minstrels were always welcomed to the halls of the
nobles on festive occasions, as well as to the King’s court.¹
¹ _Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer_, Volume I., Preface,
pages 237‒246.
At this period the chief rural sports of the King and the nobles were
hunting and hawking. The Kings had forests, parks, and many hunting
ranges and seats; and the nobles also had hunting ranges and forests.
Throughout this period the Crown had extensive hunting grounds, and
falconry was also much practised in Scotland. The rights of the forest
and the hunting ranges were highly valued, and many acts concerning
them, and wild animals and birds, were passed by the Scotch legislature.
In 1424 James I. ordered the Justice Clerk to bring to justice stalkers
and their abettors who slay deer, and when any stalker was convicted of
slaying deer, roe, or doe, he was to be fined two pounds, and his
abettors ten pounds. An Act was passed in 1427, which prohibited the
killing of “partridges, plovers, blackcocks, greyhens, moorcocks,” and
such fowls, from the end of February to the month of August, under a
penalty of forty shillings; and similar statutes were passed in the
reigns of the three succeeding Kings. One of these Acts enjoined that
no person should destroy the nests or the eggs of the wild birds, which
were useful for the sustenance of man, “nor slay the birds in close
time, when they may not fly.” As already mentioned, Acts of Parliament
were passed in the fifteenth century, commanding the people to assemble
four times in the year to hunt and destroy the wolves; and every
man who at any time slew a wolf, was to receive one penny from every
householder of the parish in which the wolf was killed; and every one
who killed a fox and brought his head to the sheriff, baron, or bailie,
was to receive sixpence.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 7,
15, 16, 51, 52, 107, 235, 251.
The outdoor amusements of the people were chiefly of an athletic
character, such as fencing, wrestling, running, and leaping, and the
games of football and golf. James IV. himself frequently played at
football and other field sports; and he entered into more familiar
intercourse with his people than any other King of the Stuart line.
Enactments for regulating the dress of the different classes of society
were passed in the reigns of James I. and James II. The Act of 1457
opened with an announcement that each class of the community had
impoverished itself by wearing too sumptuous clothing; both the men
and the women, especially in the burghs, had passed the limits of
discretion and allowance. These Acts therefore strictly prohibited the
wearing of all kinds of silk dresses by the people, except the nobles
and the magistracy. All other men and their wives and families were
commanded to dress themselves in a fashion corresponding with their
rank and condition; and which for the women should be “short kerchiefs
with little hoods to wear on their heads, such as were used in Flanders,
England, and in other countries; and no woman whatever should go to the
kirk or market with her face covered, so that she might not be known,
under the penalty of the confiscation of her kerchief and all her
head gear. As to her kirtle, which covered the body from the neck to
the feet, no woman should wear tails of unbecoming length, or furred
round the foot, except on the holydays. The commons, husbandmen, and
labourers were enjoined not to wear any other stuff on week days but
white or gray clothes, and on holydays light blue, green, or red;
and their wives the same colours, with kerchiefs of their own making;
and the cloth worn by these classes should not exceed the price of
fortypence per yard.”
An Act was passed in 1455 which regulated the official dress of the
upper classes. When they appeared in parliament they should have been
attired in the following style:――“The Earls to wear mantles of brown
grained cloth, open in front and furred with white stuff, and with the
same lined a handbreadth in front and reaching down to the belt, staid
with similar furring, and with little hoods upon the shoulders. The
Lords of Parliament to wear a mantle of red cloth, opening in front
to the right, and lined with silk or furred with crispy grey, green,
or purple stuff, and furred hoods of the same cloth on the shoulders.
The Commissioners of the Burghs should each have a pair of cloaks made
of blue cloth, open on the right shoulder and furred round the end,
and with furred hoods.” If any of these ranks appeared in parliament
or a general Council without their proper habiliments, they rendered
themselves liable to a penalty of ten pounds. All the advocates were
ordered to wear a tunic of green cloth, with the sleeves open like
a tabard, and if they appeared in parliament without this they were
liable to a fine of five pounds. Among the clergy, no one was permitted
to wear a scarlet gown or furred ♦marten, except the dignitaries in
cathedrals, college churches, a doctor, or a person with an income of
three hundred marks a year.¹
♦ “martin” replaced with “marten”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 18,
43, 49, 100.
Touching the common articles of dress in use amongst the higher classes,
the gown in various styles was a common upper garment of the period.
The long gown was loose and reached to the feet, open in front, and
sometimes worn with a girdle. Some of them had sleeves, and some not,
as sleeves were often made as separate articles of dress, and thus
they could be used with different kinds of garments. The long gown took
four or five yards of broad cloth according to the size of those who
wore them. The short gown reached to the knee, and it was lined and
trimmed like the long gown, with various kinds of furs, such as marten,
minever, ermine, and lambskin. The doublet was a close fitting tunic,
and it was made of various kinds of cloth. The waistcoat was worn
under the doublet, and it was usually made of woollen cloth. The riding
or hunting coats were rather longer and fuller than the doublet. The
hose were tight-fitting pantaloons and usually reached to the ankles,
and they were fastened to the doublet or waistcoat by strings. There
were also short hose which reached to the knee, and were worn with
foot socks of cloth. The hose were made of woollen cloth of different
colours, but usually of the darker hues. Over these the tippet and the
cloak were worn. The tippet varied much in length at different times,
and it was made of various kinds of material. The cloaks worn in the
latter part of the fifteenth century were short and reached to the
haunches. James IV. had a cloak made of eighteen yards of velvet, lined
with satin and bordered with crimson satin, and it cost £110.
Bonnets, caps, and hats of various styles were worn. The bonnets were
usually made of black or scarlet cloth, and the price of them varied
from ten to eighteen shillings. Hats also varied in price from four
shillings to fourteen. Boots and shoes of various kinds were worn.
A pair of shoes cost one shilling, and a pair of pattens――shoes with
wooden soles――cost sixpence. French shoes cost four shillings, and a
pair of half-boots eight shillings.¹
¹ _Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer_, Volume I., Preface,
pages 168‒179.
Touching the domestic arrangements and the household goods and utensils
of the body of the people, there seems to be evidence of considerable
advancement during this period, notwithstanding the long war and all
the internal commotions and disturbances in the nation. Although it was
already stated that the houses of the rural population were of a small
and slight description, and that the greater part of the houses in the
burghs were built of wood and other light materials which were easily
procured, still their houses were better furnished than the state of
society would naturally have led us to conclude. Glass windows were in
general use in the houses of the nobles and the rich; as yet, however,
they were costly. In 1328 glass was put into the windows of the new
chamber which Robert I. had erected at his manor of Cardross; and in
1389 thirty pounds were paid for glass to the windows of the Abbey
of Paisley. In 1447 a quantity of glass was purchased for the repair
of the King’s chamber in Stirling Castle; and in 1501 nine pounds
were paid for glass to repair the windows of the Gray Friars Church in
Stirling. Still comparatively few of the houses of the people had glass
windows at the end of the fifteenth century. Grates were little used,
and bathrooms were rare even in the houses of the nobles.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland._
It seems curious that the legislature considered it necessary to pass
enactments for repressing extravagance in dress. If the people had been
very poor, then there could have been no need for such enactments; and
thus the historic interpretation appears to be that these sumptuary
acts indicate an advance in the civilisation of the people. In the
national records many notices of workers in gold and silver, of gold
chains, collars, signets, crosses, pins, rings, and other ornaments
and articles occur; and silver was more used in the form of seals,
beads, rings, book-clasps, belts garnished with silver, and many other
ornaments; and also as plate, silver basins, goblets, stoups, cups, and
spoons. Pearls were comparatively common.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_; _Acts of the Lords of Council_,
pages 9, 87, 98, 135, 176, 199, 220, 228, 287, 430; _Acts of
the Lords Auditors_, pages 14, 65, 55, 62, 67, 91, 129, 136,
146, 159.
The price of the staple necessaries of life in this period may be
briefly indicated. In 1330 the price of an ox was 8s. 7d., of a sheep
1s. 9½d., the chalder of oats £1 1s. 4d., the chalder of oatmeal £1
12s., and the chalder of wheat £1 16s. In 1372 the price of an ox was
4s. 11d., of a sheep 1s 2¼d., the chalder of oats £1, the chalder of
oatmeal £1 8s., and the chalder of wheat £2 1s. 4d. These prices varied
from time to time, but except in years of dearth they did not rise very
high. From the middle of the fifteenth century to its close the price
of oxen ran from 5s. to 18s. a head, sheep from 1s. 6d. to 3s., and
oatmeal from 4s. to 7s. per boll.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland._
A comparatively large number of the people lived on the land and
cultivated it, under various forms of tenure, and, as labourers, as has
been indicated in preceding pages. The wages of agricultural labourers
during this period has not been accurately ascertained, but it may
fairly be assumed that their wages were, for the most part, paid in
produce. Thus the agricultural labourers would usually have had a
supply of food, whatever else they might have lacked in the form of
money wages; and it seems probable that this class enjoyed a tolerably
comfortable life. No doubt there were exceptions, and the labourers
on some estates might have been much harder treated than those on
other lands; there were the Crown lands, the Church lands, the wide
possessions of the nobles, and the estates of the small barons,
on all which agricultural labourers were employed. It appears from
several distinct indications that after James I. assumed the reins of
government the labourers on the Crown lands obtained a considerable
improvement in their condition, as this able and enlightened prince
understood the source of wealth, and encouraged industry; while at the
same time he curbed the power of the nobles. One immediate result of
his action was that a large extent of lands was forfeited to the Crown,
and thus it was that a considerable number of agricultural labourers,
soon after his accession to power, found themselves under a juster and
wiser master than heretofore. The other grades of vassals, tenants,
and farmers, in the earldoms and lands which James I. annexed to
the Crown, also found themselves relieved from an oppressive form of
tyranny and anarchy, and they were permitted during his reign to follow
the ways of peace, order, and industry. On the Crown lands a practice
very generally prevailed of allowing tenants to occupy their holdings
rent free, either on account of some office, of which the rent was
considered as the fee, or as a reward for some important service
rendered to the nation. It also appears that tenancies thus occupied
were from time to time converted into feu-tenure or blanch holdings,
and the occupiers then received charters, and thus became Crown vassals
instead of tenants.¹ No doubt between the accession of James I. and
the end of the fifteenth century a number of the labourers on the
Crown lands became tenants and farmers under the Crown, and even some
of those whose ancestors were serfs in the thirteenth century might
have obtained feu-tenure and blanch holdings by charter from the Crown
before the close of the fifteenth century. It thus becomes manifest
that the right of the Kings of Scotland to forfeit the lands of
a disobedient and rebellious noble often had a most salutary and
beneficial tendency; although the historian must recognise that this
right of the Crown was sometimes unjustly, and even cruelly, exercised
by some of the Scotch kings, while at other times it was not exercised
when it should have been.
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland._
In the latter part of the fifteenth century the wages of common
labourers were about one shilling a day. Masons, carpenters, smiths,
and quarrymen, when employed on special service received from nine
to ten shillings a week, and highly skilled artificers and workmen
sometimes received from three to five shillings per day. Shipwrights
engaged on work which had to be completed at a specified time, received
one shilling and sixpence per day; the weekly wages of a gunner, who
was also usually a smith or carpenter, were thirteen shillings and
fourpence a week. Workmen had two weeks of holidays at Christmas, and
nine or more other holidays during the year.¹
¹ _Ibid._ _Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer_, Volume I.
Turning to the custom of begging which prevailed, and the state of
crime in the nation, matters connected with the administration of
justice, and the means of prevention, detection, and punishment of
crime, will be considered. Beggars, thiggers, sorners, masterful
robbers, oppressors, and other vagabonds, were numerous in the country.
Begging under certain limits was authorised by Act of Parliament in
1424. This Act prohibited all persons between the age of fourteen years
and sixty years from begging, unless it was found that they could not
live by any other means; such helpless persons were to receive a token
from the sheriff of the district, and in burghs from the bailies, and
those thus provided with tokens were then allowed to beg; all other
idle persons were commanded by proclamation to betake themselves to
honest labour and earn their living by their own efforts, under the
penalty of burning on the cheek and banishment from the kingdom. This
Act was often re-enacted with additions, still the beggars continued
to multiply. In 1425 James I. passed another Act of Parliament, which
ordered the sheriffs and the bailies to make enquiry concerning all
the idle men in the respective bounds of their jurisdiction, and having
ascertained those who had nothing of their own to live upon, then such
men were to be arrested and kept till they found caution not to injure
the country, but they were to be allowed forty days to find masters or
to engage themselves at some lawful work. When the forty days had run,
if they were still idle, then the sheriffs were directed to re-arrest
them, and send them to the King, who should punish them as he thought
fit. It seems highly probable that James I. might have found employment
for some of these men as labourers on the Crown lands.
In the fifteenth century many Acts of Parliament were passed against
masterful beggars and sorners. The sorners and masterful beggars were
described, in an Act passed in 1449, as persons who travelled through
the country in bands, accompanied by horses and hounds, and lived at
free quarters on the people, and consumed the fruits of their industry
and destroyed the growing crops. The Act directed that the sheriffs
and other Crown officers, the barons, and the bailies in burghs, should
make inquisitions concerning these sorners and masterful beggars at
all their courts, and if any of them were found, then their horses and
hounds and their other goods were to be confiscated to the King, and
their persons imprisoned till the King announced what should be done
to them. The Crown officers were also ordered to make inquiry at every
court if there were any persons who pretended to be fools, or bards,
“and such like runners about;” and if any of these were found, then
they should be imprisoned and detained as long as they had anything of
their own to live upon; when that was consumed, then their ears should
be nailed to the trone and cut off, and themselves banished from the
country; and afterwards if they were found in the kingdom, then they
should be hanged. But this did not extinguish the sorners nor “the
runners about”; for six years later another Act was passed against them,
which ordered that whenever sorners were taken they should be delivered
to the sheriffs, and forthwith the King’s justiciary should execute
the law upon them as robbers and thieves; yet this seems to have been
ineffectual, for in 1457 it was ordered that an inquisition should
be made of the sorners, masterful beggars, feigned fools, and bards,
and that all those found, should be banished from the kingdom or sent
to the King. Still, in 1478, it was enacted that “for stanching the
sorners and masterful beggars who daily oppressed and harried the
King’s poor subjects, the Acts before passed should be put into sharp
execution, which was to say, that wherever sorners were captured
they should be delivered over to the sheriffs, and the law executed
upon them as on common thieves and robbers; and also that indictments
should be framed upon this class of crimes every year in the Justiciary
Circuit Courts, and that due punishment should follow accordingly.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 8,
11, 15, 36, 43‒45, 49‒51, 119, 251.
It was one of the sheriff’s duties to report and indict all persons
charged with crimes which came within the Justiciary’s jurisdiction.
The indictments were delivered to the Justice Clerk, and when he made
up his roll it was the duty of the coroner to arrest all the persons
named in it. Although there was a Justice Clerk and also a King’s
Advocate, there was as yet nothing which could be called a regular
system of public prosecution, as the right to prosecute belonged
to the injured person or his relatives. Besides the compensation to
the injured party, there was a fine due to the Crown, for which the
sheriff was held liable, not only for the cases tried in his own court,
but also for the fines and escheats of the Justiciary Circuit Courts.
Moreover, unhappily, the sheriffs of the period had many fiscal duties
to perform; they had to render accounts of all the casualties of lands
held by feudal tenures from the Crown, and often to render accounts of
the rents of Crown lands. Thus it happened that only a portion of their
time and attention could be devoted to their judicial functions either
in the criminal or civil departments. Then there were the anomalies of
all the separate jurisdictions connected with earldoms, baronies, and
regalities, as explained in preceding pages, which greatly hampered and
retarded all efforts to improve the administration of justice.
Murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and theft, were rather common
throughout the kingdom. Many Acts of Parliament were passed for
stanching and punishing these crimes, but they seem to have produced
little effect. When criminals were convicted, they were often pardoned,
and many remissions of crimes and of fines were given every year. In
1487 Parliament enacted that no remissions for the crimes of treason,
murder, rape, slaughter, violent reft, theft, and false coining, should
be granted for seven years. It appears that among the barons there was
a custom of selling thieves, that is, saving them from punishment under
certain conditions. In 1491 it was enacted that “when any man happens
to be slain in the kingdom then without delay, and as quickly as the
sheriff, steward, or bailie of regality can be informed thereof, either
by the party complainant or in any other way, he should immediately
pursue the slayer and raise the King’s horn on him, and raise the
people in his support, until the criminal be overtaken; and if he be
captured, he should be brought to the King, or else kept in custody
till the King has been informed, and returned an answer as to what
should be done thereon. If the murderer escape from the sheriffdom in
which the crime was committed, then the sheriff should send one of his
officers to the sheriff of the next county and inform him of this man
who is a fugitive from the law. Then that sheriff should immediately
pursue the criminal through his sheriffdom, and so on from sheriffdom
to sheriffdom till he be taken or driven out of the country. But when
the murderer had fled out of the royalty and into the regality, the
sheriff should immediately inform the lord of the regality and his
bailie, and they should pursue the criminal as the sheriffs had done;
and wherever the criminal chanced to be taken, the sheriff or the
bailie of the regality should send him to the next sheriff, and so
on from sheriff to sheriff till he be returned to the shire in which
the crime was committed, and there justice should be executed. When
any of the sheriffs or officers neglect their duties in cases of this
character, if they be hereditary they should forfeit their offices for
three years, but if they held their offices by appointment they should
lose them for ever.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 23,
176, 256, 225; _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_.
Thus we see that at the end of the fifteenth century the sheriff
and other Crown officers could not follow even a murderer through a
regality. The practical result was that a powerful lord of regality,
whenever it suited him, could screen from the hand of justice the
greatest criminal in the kingdom; and this, in fact, frequently
occurred. Many of the sheriffs held office by hereditary right, and the
feebleness of the Crown appears from the trifling penalties attached
to the malversation of hereditary officials. Criminals who had been
captured were sometimes imprisoned in the castles of the barons of
the district, who were held responsible for their escape. Lord Kennedy
refused, on two different occasions, to imprison four criminals in his
castles when required by the Crown officer to do so; for this he was
fined forty pounds, but his lordship never had to pay the fine as he
received a remission.
The Earl of Bothwell was Warden of the west and middle marches,
and also Lord of Liddesdale. In 1498, in a Justiciary Court held at
Jedburgh, Bothwell was fined £550 as pledges or bail for a number of
persons dwelling in Liddesdale, and in the Justiciary Court held in
1500 he was again fined a similar sum of £550, which made his total
liability to the Court £1,100. Now, this sum represented the bail
and fines of fifty criminals, whom Bothwell had enabled to escape by
becoming security for them. But did Bothwell actually pay this sum of
money to the Crown? No! the whole of it was remitted by letters under
the Privy Seal. The ground of the remission was stated to be “the good
services done by the Earl of Bothwell in many ways, and especially in
settling the district which the aforesaid persons and other undaunted
people inhabited.”¹ This is simply an example of what occurred more or
less frequently in every quarter of the kingdom.
¹ _The Sheriff Courts of Scotland_, by John D. Wilson, LL.D.,
Introduction; _Exchequer Rolls_, Volume V. and XI.
In the burghs criminal cases were mostly decided by a jury, which
varied in number from five to twenty. Their verdict settled the truth
of the assertions and averments of the parties to the action, and then
the judge applied the law to the fact. The adjustment of the issues
seems to have been pretty rapid. This system of burgh law is now
obsolete, though fragments of it, under more or less disguise, survived
till recently.
There were various modes of punishment, such as fines, banishment
from the town, burning on the cheek, cutting off the ear, and penance
performed in the church, were common forms of punishment. The forms
of torture were connected with the jougs and the branks, very old
instruments. The usual form of the jougs consisted of a flat iron
collar with distended loops, through which a padlock was put to secure
the culprit in his ignominious durance. The branks were somewhat like
a skeleton iron helmet with a gag, which entered the mouth and bridled
that unruly member, the tongue. They were chiefly used as an instrument
of ecclesiastical punishment, for the correction of female scolds,
and those convicted of slander and defamation. The branks seem to have
been used at a very early period, and sometimes might have been cruelly
applied.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., pages 24, 46, 319,
390, 402, 412; _Burgh Records of Peebles_, pages 127, 132,
146‒147, 164‒167; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume I.,
page 86.
As penance was frequently applied as a punishment for common offences,
an instance may be stated. In 1492 “Philip Whithede was fined in the
burgh court of Aberdeen for the wrongous disturbance of Thomas Bard,
and Thomas also was fined for the disturbance of Philip. Moreover, the
court ordered that Philip, on the following Sunday, should go to the
church in the time of high mass, with a candle of one pound weight of
wax in one hand, and his knife in the other hand, drawn, and holding
it by the point; and then in the church deliver his knife to Thomas
and ask of him forgiveness, and beseech the worthy men present to pray
that Thomas might remit the offence done to him; and then offer the wax
candle to the Holy Light at the altar.”
Assaults and fights were common in the burghs, and many bye-laws were
enacted to suppress them. In 1398 the town-sergeants of Aberdeen were
charged with rebellion, and the following year the bailies of the burgh
were charged with rebellion. In the latter year a man was fined for
cursing and beating a woman, and another man was fined for beating his
own wife. Many notices of persons breaking the peace of the burgh were
recorded; and cases were frequently postponed owing to the weakness
of the court, which meant the weakness of the law. A number of persons
were fined for speaking aloud and cursing in the burgh court without
licence; and one woman was banished from the town. About the year
1411 a list of thieves and receivers of stolen goods was drawn up,
and in it there were enumerated twenty-three persons, male and female.
Considering the comparative smallness of the population of Aberdeen at
that period, the number of known thieves in the burgh suggests a state
of crime much greater than prevails at present.
In 1436 the provost and bailies of Aberdeen assembled to consider how
they could most effectively punish and extinguish robbers. All the
citizens of the town, freemen and unfreemen, were then bound to assist
the magistrates and the officers of the city in the maintenance of
order, and to turn out immediately when the common bell was rung,
or any sudden affray happened on the streets, and when they knew or
apprehended any scath to the town impending, or any duels to be fought
in it, they should instantly warn the authorities. At this period there
were no regular police, but in times of threatening disturbance, or of
war in the neighbourhood, a number of the citizens were appointed as a
night watch for a time.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., pages 3, 4, 6, 8, 38,
60‒63, 68, 73, 373, 377‒379, 382, 392, 421, 422.
Touching social vice, illegitimacy was prevalent amongst the royal
family, the nobles, the clergy, and the people. Robert I., Robert II.,
Robert III., and James IV., had many natural children, and many of
the highest nobles had natural children. In the fifteenth century,
clandestine espousals and marriages were common among all classes
in Scotland; but “espousals, however secret, if followed by sexual
intercourse, might annul the subsequent marriage of either party
so long as the other was in life.” This sometimes led to much
heart-burning, serious crime, and strife; and this was especially the
case in the royal family of Stuart in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries. The Crown was much weakened owing to the large number
of children which Robert II. had by his two wives, and his natural
sons and daughters. One form of irregular cohabitation was called
“Hand-fasted,” but not married. Early in the sixteenth century a
statute of Archbishop Forman enacted “that clandestine espousals
should be denounced, under the pain of excommunication, four times a
year in every church in his diocese.” This statute ordered the same
denunciation to be fulminated against those who after espousals lived
together as man and wife without celebrating marriage openly and in the
face of the church. Brothels were common in the burghs in the fifteenth
century.¹
¹ _Statuta Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ_, Volume I., pages 86, 87,
275‒277.
The castles of the thirteenth century were briefly noticed, and some
of them became associated with the struggle of Independence, and were
embalmed in the history of the nation. The square towers which were
erected in the latter part of the fourteenth century, but mostly in
the fifteenth century, were characteristic of the state of society. The
square towers of this period were stern keeps which rose storey above
storey to a considerable height, and each storey usually consisted of a
single apartment; the walls were very thick, and the entrance door was
placed high for security, and the window-openings narrow. The floors
of the apartments were strewed with bent, grass, or rushes mingled
with sweet herbs. Such were the abodes in which the barons and their
families and servants lived, and assembled together in the hall to take
their food and enjoy their drink. There were no separate apartments for
the women but their sleeping-rooms. The square tower usually contained
a dungeon in which the prisoners were kept, partly underground.
Although towards the end of the fifteenth century a few good
castellated edifices were erected, nearly another hundred years,
however, elapsed before a radical improvement was effected in the
dwellings of the Scotch nobles.
David II. in the latter part of his reign restored Edinburgh Castle,
and made extensive additions to it, including the great tower, which
was known as the Wellhouse Tower, and also the passage which formed
the communication between it and the castle. The buildings were kept
in repair and added to by succeeding kings, and thus it became a royal
residence as well as one of the chief strongholds of the kingdom. James
I. made considerable repairs on the castle and some additions. There
was a royal castle at Linlithgow in the twelfth century, and Edward I.
built a tower or peel there. Robert II. and Robert III. frequently
resided at Linlithgow, and small sums were expended on this residence
towards the close of the reign of the latter King. Shortly after the
return of James I., the town, the palace, and the nave of the church
of Linlithgow were destroyed by fire. James I. immediately commenced to
re-build the palace in a new form and style, and the work of building
and finishing the palace, and the park and fish ponds connected with
it, were going on during the greater part of his reign. He expended a
considerable sum of money on the works; and after his death the work
of completing the building of the palace proceeded till 1451, when it
appears the west side, and probably a part of the north side, were then
erected. In 1467 the work was resumed, and during the succeeding four
years a large sum of money was expended on it; and in 1468 the grounds
around the palace were extended. Between the years 1488 and 1496 the
south side of the palace seems to have been erected; and operations at
the palace went on into the succeeding century. There was a garden at
the palace and extensive grounds.
The erection of the quaint building in the Castle of Stirling known as
the palace, seems to have been commenced in 1496; and about the same
time a large kitchen garden was formed, perhaps in the valley on the
south side of the castle rock. The garden was well stocked with trees.
It appears that the south front of Falkland palace as it now stands,
was built in the early years of the sixteenth century. There were
extensive grounds around Falkland Castle in which deer were kept, and
there was also a garden.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_; _Accounts of the Lord High
Treasurer_, Volume I., Preface, pages 263‒267.
A considerable number of churches were built in the latter part of
the fourteenth century and in the following one. David II. built and
endowed the church of St. Monance in Fife. Most of the churches erected
in Scotland during this period were of the decorated flamboyant style,
and the polygonal apse was introduced from France. This class of
churches generally ran into the three-sided apse, and double doorways
with flattened heads which enclosed a pointed arch; battlements were
rare, and the corby-stepped gable and saddle-backed towers began to
appear before the close of the period. Portions of these decorated
churches still remain in Scotland, and specimens may be seen in
the nave of the Cathedral of Glasgow, the churches of Linlithgow,
Perth, Stirling, and others. In some of these churches the details
were admirably worked out, and the tracery of the windows very
fine. The most striking characteristic of this style was its surface
ornamentation, which was well calculated to arrest the eye of an
onlooker. The walls were covered with a profuse variety of embellished
devices, the stained glass glowed with variegated figures, and the
screens, founts, and altars, were all wonderfully posited for producing
effect. The whole accessories presented much artistic skill, a mastery
of design, details, and execution of a high order.
Very few specimens of the woodwork of the churches of this period now
exist, but some examples of the woodwork of the sixteenth century have
been preserved.
The flamboyant style, which was partly initiated in Scotland, was
excessive in its ornamentation. “Its essence seems to be elaborate and
minute ornament, and this continues till the forms and combinations are
sadly debased, and a strange mixture of Italianism jumbles with it. Its
combinations in the earlier part of the style, for richness, elaborate
ornament, and magnificent design, are admirable; and no one can
visit Rouen, where there are many churches still used, and others now
deserted, and contemplate leisurely the beautiful church of St. Maclou,
without feeling the beauty of the style, and also the value of that
fine stone which seems to have encouraged the flamboyant architects to
vie with each other in elaborate decoration. The portals of Abbeville,
Beauvais, Evreux, and St. Maclou at Rouen, parts of Caudebec Church,
and various others, are some of the finest specimens of this style.”¹
¹ _Rickman_; _The Ancient Church of Scotland_, by Walcott.
Many notices of the workmen engaged in the building of these churches
occur in the records, and some of them were a long time in process
of building. The Cathedral of Aberdeen was more than a hundred years
in building, and the choir of St. Nicholas more than half a century;
while many of the fines imposed by the bailies in the burgh court, were
ordered to be applied to the building of the same cathedral.
The Church still possessed extensive tracts of land which yielded a
large income, and considering the other sources of her revenue, such
as tithes, offerings, and the sums of money accruing from the Church
courts in the form of fees and fines; and recalling the fact that the
clergy were the best educated party in the kingdom, it seems that they
could not have failed to command power and influence in the nation. The
occasional efforts made by the Crown to limit the power of the Church
only showed its own weakness, and the Scottish Kings usually found
it more in harmony with their own interest to recognise and support
the claims and privileges of the Church. The attempts of the Crown to
recover the patronage of benefices failed, for at the Reformation, out
of nine hundred and forty benefices, six hundred and seventy-eight were
under the control of the Church.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 83,
85, 99, 133, 141, 166, 173, 183, 209, 232, 237.
Originally the monasteries tended to advance the progress of the
country, as the monks for a long time took the lead in agricultural
improvement and in dairy produce; but the principles on which the
monasteries were established only harmonised with a comparative rude
stage of civilisation, and in the fifteenth century they showed signs
of decay. The chief religious houses in Scotland were very rich, and
they had for a long period absorbed the greater part of the revenue of
the parish churches. The result was that the religious instruction of
the people was neglected, while the abbots and monks were rolling in
wealth.
Instead of dealing with a number of religious houses and entering into
needless details, I will present a brief account of a typical monastery.
Such monasteries as Melrose, Kelso, Holyrood, Paisley, Arbroath,
Scone, and others, had each a greater or less number of parish
churches attached to them; and taking the monastery of Arbroath, which
was richly endowed, the working of the system can be realised. This
religious house had lands in various districts, besides upwards of
thirty parish churches. In the Highlands it had the church of Inverness,
the churches of Banff and Aberchirder in Banffshire, the church of
Fyvie in Buchan, Aberdeenshire, and churches in other places widely
apart and far from Arbroath. It was then the duty of the Abbot of
Arbroath to pay the vicars or pastors of these parishes, as they were
impropriated to the monastery; thus the proceeds of such benefices were
paid to the monastery, and the abbot might pay the vicars or not as he
thought fit. The practical operation and the results of such a system
can be easily realised.
The lands of the monastery of Arbroath and the benefices attached to
it, brought in a large quantity of grain, and great numbers of cattle,
sheep, swine, poultry, and fish, and other provisions of all kinds. In
1489 the annual consumption of this monastery stood thus:――30 chalders
of wheat, 40 chalders or 640 bolls of oatmeal, and 82 chalders of malt;
800 fat sheep, 180 head of fat cattle, a number of lambs, a quantity
of veal, and 24 swine; a large number of chickens and geese, and
immense quantities of butter, cheese, and eggs; 12,000 dried haddocks
and speldings, 1,500 ♦keelings, and about the same number of fresh
fish, besides 9 barrels of salmon; 6 gallons of honey, a quantity of
fruit, almonds, and raisins, and a large supply of wine and ale.¹ This
monastery was a very large establishment, as its massive ruins still
attest; yet it is somewhat difficult to understand how the monks and
inmates of the monastery could have consumed such an enormous amount
of food and drink, even after making an ample allowance for the visits
of the King and the lords of the realm, the archbishops, and others,
who occasionally sojourned at the establishment. It seems probable that
there was a considerable waste of the gifts of nature and of industry
in such establishments towards the close of the fifteenth century.
Several of the other monasteries were as rich as that of Arbroath,
perhaps one or two might have been even richer, so that at the period
under consideration it was a fair specimen of the great monasteries of
the kingdom.
♦ “kellings” replaced with “keelings”
¹ _Register of the Monastery of Arbroath_, Volume I., pages 3,
8, 31, 37, 41, 93, 212, 262‒263.
Nunneries were not numerous in Scotland, and were classed according
to their rule, like the monks. At Coldstream there was a convent of
Cistercian nuns, and a register of their house has been preserved.
There was another convent of the same order at Haddington, which
received forty shillings annually from the rents of the burgh. There
was a nunnery in the vicinity of Perth, one in Aberdeen, and a few in
other places.
The friars were a distinct class, and differed from the endowed monks
and regular canons. They were a somewhat later offspring of the Church
of Rome, having come to Scotland in the thirteenth century. The friars
professed the rule of poverty, and practised begging; according to
law they could not hold property, except their church and place of
residence, which might include gardens. Unlike the monks, the friars
usually settled in towns amid the busy haunts of men; they had no
vows of seclusion, and some of them were very active men, and attained
distinction as popular preachers.
The Dominicans were called “black friars” in Scotland from their dress;
and in other countries this order was entrusted with the inquiries
connected with the Inquisition, but it does not appear that they
exercised this function much in Scotland. They had a large house in
Edinburgh, which was frequently used for the assemblies of the National
Church. Their establishment at Glasgow was very extensive; and there
they had fine gardens and a cemetery. They had churches in Perth,
Aberdeen, and in other places. The Franciscans, or the grey friars,
professed to follow the strict rule of their order, which enjoined
chastity, poverty, obedience, and simple food. They had churches in
Glasgow, Lanark, Haddington, Ayr, Dundee, Perth, Elgin, and elsewhere.
Their establishment at Lanark was a large one; and in 1496 a meeting of
all the Franciscan brethren in Scotland was held in it. The Carmelites
were called white friars from their habit. They were very strict in
their rule of life, and had churches in Dundee, Irvine, Linlithgow,
Aberdeen, Banff, and other places.
Hospitals were pretty numerous, amounting to upwards of eighty, but
they were poorly endowed. They were intended for various purposes, such
as infirmaries for the sick and the aged, as hostels for pilgrims and
travellers, or homes for those afflicted with leprosy. They were placed
at the gates and in the vicinity of towns, at the river-side beside the
ferry-boat, and in the mountain passes. The foundation of an hospital
usually maintained a few brethren, who devoted themselves to the care
of the sick and the poor; and sometimes small grants of money from the
public revenue were given to them. Amid all the rudeness of the times
the poor and the infirm were not altogether neglected; but many abuses
prevailed in the hospitals, and Acts of Parliament were passed for
visiting and reforming them.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_; _Origines Parochiales
Scotiæ_, Volume I., pages 6, 463, 464, 120; _Burgh Records
of Peebles_, pages 146, 151, 170; _Acts of the Parliaments
of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 7, 16, 49, 86, 97;
♦Walcott’s _Ancient Church of Scotland_, pages 339‒342,
376‒383, 343‒348.
♦ “Wallcott’s” replaced with “Walcott’s”
It is quite evident that the body of the people were firmly attached
to the prevailing religious creed. They manifested their religious
feelings in many ways. As already indicated, the craftsmen were
closely associated with their special chapels, altars, and saints, and
contributed a part of their means to uphold and adorn their favourite
chapels and altars. Thus the special and personal form of their worship
greatly intensified their religious feelings, and it became engrained
into the very tissues of the nation’s life, and though time might
change its form, its spirit and force endured.
A few examples of the avowed motives which induced men to assign
property to the Church, may be presented. In 1321 Robert I. granted
the church of Kirkmacho to the monastery of Arbroath――“For the health
of his soul, and the souls of his ancestors and successors, Kings
of Scotland, and especially for the souls of those whose bodies rest
within the church and its cemetery.” In 1327 David Lindsay, Lord of
Crawford, granted to the monks of Newbottle a tract of land in the
territory of Crawford――“For the weal of his soul and the soul of Mary
his wife; and with all the escheats which belonged to the land and the
men dwelling on it: and transferred to the monks the right of pit and
gallows, sock and sak, tol and them, infangtheft, and all the rights
and the privileges which belonged to a baron’s court.” About the year
1358 Roger of Auldtion, a gentleman on the Borders, granted property
and lands to found a chantry in the church of St. James at Roxburgh.
His testament runs thus: “This is the form in which Roger of Auldtion
founded the chantry of his chaplain officiating at Roxburgh in the
church of Saint James; and this also is the form in which he ordained
all alms and pious deeds which he has done, or in future may do:――First,
namely, for the love of God, and the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of
the same, and of all the saints; and also for the weal of his own soul
and of the souls of Margaret and Felix, his successive wives, and for
the souls of all to whom he is beholden and indebted, and for the souls
of all against whom he has offended, and whose goods he has unjustly
had or possessed, and for the souls of all the faithful departed, that
the Lord may pardon them and bring them to eternal life. Amen.”¹
¹ _Register of Arbroath_, Volume I., pages 212‒213; _Origines
Parochiales Scotiæ_, Volume I., page 168; _Register of
Kelso_, pages 397, 370‒375.
The will of Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith, executed about 1390,
contains some very curious items. “He gave the half of all his free
goods for his funeral, and for masses and alms for the weal of his
soul; and also his best horse and his arms as a funeral offering
to the Vicar of Lasswade.... He bequeathed a chalice and missal to
the chapel of St. Nicholas of Dalkeith, a small sum of money for the
support of the fabric of St. Andrew, and a jewel of St. John, worth
forty marks, to the church of Newbottle. He gave for the building of
the church of Newbottle and the wages of the masons twenty-three pounds,
six shillings for the use of the refectory, and other sums to the monks
to pray for his soul. He left twenty pounds to the monks of Kelso ...
and legacies to the friar preachers of Edinburgh and Haddington.... His
robes of cloth of gold and silk and his furred robes were to be given
to the church of St. Duthac at Tain, the chapel of Dalkeith, and to
other churchmen.... He left his third best horse to the Monastery of
Newbottle, and vestments to each of the churches of Lasswade, Newlands,
and St. Fillans’ of Aberdour.” Sir James lived many years after he had
made this testament.
In 1349 Adam Urquhart of Inchrory, sheriff of Cromarty, granted five
marks annually from the rents of the lands of Inchrory, and a croft
called the Alehouse in the same territory, for a perpetual chaplain
officiating in the chapel of St. Mary at Inchrory――“to pray for the
souls of William Earl of Ross and his parents, and for his own soul and
the souls of his parents, and all the faithful departed.” Adam reserved
to his heirs the right of patronage, and of giving instructions to the
chaplain. In 1456 Alexander Sutherland of Dumbath bequeathed six marks
annually from the rents of the lands of Easter to a priest to celebrate
mass continually for his own soul and the soul of his wife in the
chantry of Ross; and of thirty trentals for his soul, he ordered eight
to be said at Ross, four in Tain, four in Fearn, and four in Dornoch.
He also left six marks to the chanter of Fearn for celebrating mass,
with a note of the requiem, and other sums for religious purposes.
In 1451 Robert Sutherland, the son and heir of John Sutherland of
Fors, granted to the chaplain of St. Andrew’s Chapel of Golspie forty
shillings annually from the rents of the town of Drommoy――“to pray for
me and the souls of my forefathers and successors.”¹
¹ Bannatyne’s _Miscellany_, Volume II.; _Origines Parochiales
Scotiæ_, Volume II., pages 239, 416, 436, 607, 843, 650.
In 1487 James III.――“for the weal of his own soul and the souls of
his ancestors and successors, Kings of Scotland, and all who had
contributed to the foundation, erected the church of St. Duthac of Tain
into a collegiate church for a provost, five canons, two deacons, a
sacrist, and three singing boys.” James II. had founded a chaplainry
at Tain, and endowed it from the lands of Dunscathe and the ferry of
Cromarty; and in the reign of James IV. a sum of five pounds a year was
paid to Sir Donald Rede, chaplain, appointed to sing for the soul of
James III. in St. Duthac’s Church. James IV. also paid for masses for
his own soul in St. Duthac’s Church.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_; _Registrum magni sigilli
regum Scotorum_, Book X., _n._ 109; _Accounts of the Lord
High Treasurer_, Volume I.
All classes of the people gave liberally to the Church, some for one
purpose and others for different purposes. In 1363 William Soreys, a
burgess of Elgin, granted property to the altar of the Blessed Virgin
Mary in the cathedral of Elgin――“for the safety of his own soul and the
souls of his ancestors and successors, and all the faithful departed.”
The same year William Pope, also a burgess of Elgin, granted the rents
of several crofts and portions of land in the vicinity of the city to
the Church, under the condition of praying for his own soul and the
souls of his kindred, and all the faithful deceased. In 1365 Richard,
son of John, burgess of Elgin, bequeathed one hundred shillings
sterling from the rents of Bortharum to the altar of the Blessed Virgin
Mary in the cathedral of Elgin――“for a perpetual celebration of mass
for his own soul and the soul of Eliza, his wife, and the souls of
John and Emma, his father and mother, and the souls of all the faithful
departed.” In 1495 George Spalding, a burgess of Dundee, “of his own
good mind, and in honour and love of God Almighty, and his mother the
blessed Virgin Mary, and all the saints of Heaven,” bequeathed through
the provost, bailies, council, and the community of the burgh, a
number of articles for adorning the Lady Church of Dundee. Among other
articles there were a great bell, a silver chalice gilted over, a new
mass book, a new ward stall for the vestments of the high altar, and
twenty shillings of annual rent. Very minute and curious conditions
were framed for carrying into effect the intention of the donor. It was
enjoined that the provost, the council, and the community of the burgh,
and their successors, should for ever cause the priest officiating at
the altar of the Lady Church to exhort all the people present to pray
for the soul of George Spalding, and the soul of his wife, and the
souls of their ancestors and successors. Further, there were directions
to go to his grave and his wife’s and then “say psalms and cast
holy water on them.” The documentary deed itself was written in the
vernacular, of which the following is a sample: “For the said George
hys sowll, hys wyf, and yar antecessowris and successowris.”¹
¹ _Register of the Diocese of Moray_, pages 312‒314; _Register
of the Diocese of Brechin_, Volume II., pages 316‒317.
The preceding examples were drawn from a class of documents which are
very numerous in the religious records of Scotland, and they cover a
period of nearly two centuries. It should be observed that the historic
value of these indications of the religion of the people consists
partly in its relation to the worship of ancestors, which prevailed
in prehistoric times. The most characteristic thought and sentiment in
these writings was “the souls of their ancestors, and the souls of all
the faithful departed.” It thus appears that the worship of ancestors,
though associated with other elements, still survived in Scotland.
Another important phase of the religious feeling of the people
manifested itself in the pilgrimages. Pilgrims sometimes travelled in
companies to places that were esteemed holy, and during the journey
they were under the special protection of the King’s peace. In the
fifteenth century Whithern, the shrine of St. Ninian, Tain, Dunfermline,
Scone, Paisley, and Melrose, were among the chief places of pilgrimage
in Scotland. In 1473 the Queen, accompanied by her husband James III.
and a suitable retinue, made a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Ninian
at Whithern; and on this occasion ten pounds and ten shillings were
paid for livery gowns to six ladies of the Queen’s chamber, which
were made of grey cloth bought from David Gill at ten shillings per
yard; and the Queen’s riding gown for the pilgrimage was made of black
cloth, and cost six pounds and six shillings. James IV. had a habit of
going often on pilgrimage to the tombs, the shrines, and altars of the
saints throughout the kingdom. He often went to Whithern and usually
made offerings varying from ten to eighteen shillings. He also paid
considerable sums of money for masses; in 1497 he gave ten pounds to
the church of Whithern for ten trentals of masses. During his reign
he made offerings at the following sacred spots connected with St.
Ninian:――The outer kirk, the rood altar, the high altar, our lady’s
altar, the reliques, and at the feretrum in the outer kirk, so it
appears that the shrine――feretrum――in which the actual remains of
the saint were supposed to be kept, was placed in the outer kirk of
Whithern; and no doubt it was an object of extreme devotion to the
people. James IV. also made offerings at the Lady’s Kirk of Kyle,
and gave five pounds for five trentals of masses for his own soul;
in Glasgow he made offerings, and also paid for masses in our Lady’s
chapel at the end of the burgh of Dumfries, in the Cross Church of
Peebles, in St. James’ Chapel of the Craig of Stirling, in the chapel
of St. Mary at Perth, and in many other churches James made offerings
and paid for masses.
James IV. was born in Tain on the 17th of March 1473, and St. Duthac’s
Church of Tain was his great favourite place of pilgrimage. He made
many pilgrimages to this place, and always made offerings of ten
to eighteen shillings to St. Duthac’s Church, and he usually gave a
gratuity to the man who bore St. Duthac’s bell.¹
¹ _Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer_, Volume I.; _Origines
Parochiales Scotiæ_, Volume II., page 453.
On the great saint’s days processions were held and the day spent as a
holiday. The different classes in the burghs, the provost and bailies,
the burgesses, and the craftsmen, turned out and assembled at the
appointed place, and each class and craft, with their distinctive
emblems displayed, then formed into marching order and paraded the
streets, accompanied by music and shouts of joy and mirth. These
commemorative displays were performed with all the circumstance and
spirit which the nation could command; but it appears that these
rejoicings and processions sometimes terminated in a somewhat rough
fashion.
The shrines and the wells of the saints were regarded with much
devotion, while their relics were objects of extreme veneration, and
it was believed that they possessed marvellous virtues. The continuator
of Fordun, who wrote in the first half of the fifteenth century, gave
an account of a cross which was found when the church of Peebles was
founded in the reign of Alexander III.; and he then tells that, “In the
place where the cross was found frequent miracles were worked by it,
and are still worked, and multitudes of the people flocked thither, and
do still devoutly flock, making their oblations and vows to God.” The
relics of St. Fergus were preserved at Scone, where they performed many
famous miracles; and the bones of one of the arms of this saint were
preserved in the cathedral of Aberdeen. The relics of St. Fillan were
in great repute, especially his crosier, which was believed to possess
many rare virtues, the most singular of which was its power of tracing
stolen cattle and goods. James IV. had a relic of St. Duthac set in
silver, which was preserved for its miraculous power of healing.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Peebles_, pages 152, 156; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., page 97; _Origines
Parochiales Scotiæ_, Volume I. page 229; Pitcairn’s
_Criminal Trials_, Volume I.
The ideas concerning the sacredness of Sunday which subsequently
obtained currency, were totally unknown in Scotland in the fifteenth
century. Sports and amusements were openly and freely practised and
enjoyed, and shooting at the butts on Sunday in every parish of the
kingdom was commanded by Act of Parliament.
In closing this account of the social condition of the people during a
period of two centuries, the chief subjects touched on may be briefly
recapitulated. The chapter commenced with a statement touching the
origin, the development, and the peculiarities of parliament, and the
functions which it assumed and exercised. After a brief reference to
the law courts of the kingdom, subjects connected with the land were
taken up. It was stated that from the accession of David I. to the
termination of the War of Independence, the greater part of the land
of the country had changed owners many times, and that new families
had risen to power; but it was observed that Robert I. rather increased
than limited the feudal privileges of the nobles, and consequently
their power soon overshadowed the authority of the Crown, and they
became oppressive and anarchial. The state of the occupiers and the
tillers of the land was indicated; and a reference was then made to
the extent of the Crown lands in the fifteenth century, and the tenants
and occupiers of these lands. The condition of the labourers of the
land; and the causes of the emancipation of the bondmen and serfs were
treated. The burghs of the kingdom and the communities inhabiting them
were handled at length, and the custom, the revenue, the commerce,
and the coinage of the kingdom were noticed. The internal and every
day life of the burgh communities were then treated in detail, and
many interesting particulars and points were narrated, including the
incorporation of the different craftsmen of Edinburgh. A brief notice
of the burghs which belonged to the Church was presented. The military
characteristics of the people, their armour, weapons, and tactics, and
the introduction of cannon, were described. The probable number of the
population was indicated; and the state of the roads, the establishment
of inns, the sanitary condition, and the want of medical science, was
pointed out. Drinking customs, festivals, and the amusements of the
people were handled; the dress of the people, and of the different
ranks of society, sumptuary laws, and ornaments, were described. The
price of the staple articles of food during the period was indicated.
After careful consideration, I then made a statement touching the
condition of the tenants and the labourers on the Crown lands,
embracing the period from the return of James I. to the end of the
fifteenth century. Having indicating the wages of tradesmen and
labourers, the custom of begging, the state of crime, the defects in
the administration of justice, and the forms of punishment were handled
and explained. Social vice was touched on. The dwellings of the nobles,
royal palaces, and the church architecture of the period were briefly
treated. Monasteries, nunneries, the different orders of friars, and
the hospitals, were handled concisely; and finally, the religious
feeling and sentiments of the people were dealt with, and various forms
of their practical manifestation were presented.
CHAPTER XI.
_Literature of the Nation in the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries._
THE language of the people of Scotland at the commencement of the
fourteenth century was still Celtic over the greater part of the
country, although the Saxons or Angles had occupied a portion of the
country in the south from the sixth century onward, and had gradually
spread along the eastern coasts, and partly commingled with the
Celtic inhabitants, retaining, however, under slight variation, their
own speech and customs. North of the Tay the dialect of the Angles
was limited to a comparatively narrow strip along the east coast.
Originally the Lowland Scotch dialect was essentially similar to the
Anglo-Saxon speech of Northumbria, and the process of its introduction
and development on the north of the Tweed extended over a period of
seven centuries. In the fourteenth century this dialect was spoken from
the Humber to the Forth, and onward round the eastern seaboard toward
the Moray Firth. Hence it has sometimes been a matter of debate amongst
literary antiquaries, whether some of the early metrical romances, such
as “Sir Tristrem,” were written on the south or the north side of the
Tweed. For the twelfth and thirteenth centuries no writings have been
preserved in this dialect which could with certainty be claimed as the
compositions of writers living on the north side of the borders; but
a considerable number of words and phrases of the vernacular occur in
the early acts of the Scotch parliament, and in the ancient laws and
customs of the burghs, which indicate some of the characteristics of
the current dialect. As the Lowland people of Scotland were a mixed
race, so the Lowland Scotch language shows traces of contact with the
Celtic dialects of the country, and a number of Celtic words occur in
the common vocabulary of the Lowland Scotch. It was, however, mainly in
its ballad literature and poetry that the Lowland Scotch received real
Celtic characteristics; much of the charm, pathos, penetrating passion,
and chord of melancholy of its poetry, is derived from a Celtic source.
The earliest native songs, ballads, and tales of Britain were Celtic.
The Celts had their Finn and Ossian, and many other great heroes,
whose imaginary actions, deeds of valour, and feats of bravery, were
originated in prehistoric ages, and orally learned and transmitted
from generation to generation, with such additional variations as the
fine imagination of the Celts might figure in ideal forms to recall the
memory of their mighty leaders and departed ancestors. As century after
century passed, these heroes in some instances became invested with
more than mortal power; and thus the imagination of the poet had ample
scope for the creation of ideal attributes and characteristics.
In the early part of the sixteenth century the Dean of Lismore made
a collection of Gaelic poetry, and in 1862 a selection from his
collection was published under the title of _The Dean of Lismore’s
Book_. The pieces and fragments thus collected and published, appears
to belong to different periods. The fragments of Ossianic poetry which
were the common productions of the Celtic race, are the oldest in the
collection, while the other pieces mostly belonged to the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries. This Gaelic poetry has a glow and charm which
cannot be fully shown in an English translation. Celtic poetry usually
presents a fine sense of style, and the characteristics of heightened
expression, intense passion, piercing regret, and melancholy. The
subjects of most of these old fragments are associated with feats
of bravery and strength in battle, or feats and incidents connected
with the chase of the deer and the boar, and other wild animals. The
following presents a description of one of Ossian’s heroes:――
“His helmet close about the head
Of this brave and dauntless man;
His right arm bore a round black shield,
The surface of its back engraved;
A heavy, large, broad-bladed sword,
Tightly-bound, hung by his side.
He comes in attitude of fence,
As where we stood he swift approached;
Two javelins, with victory rich,
Rest on the shoulder of his shield;
For strength, for skill, for bravery,
Nowhere could his match be found:
A hero’s look――the eye of a king
Shone in that head of noblest mould,
Ruddy his face, his teeth pearl white;
No stream ran swifter than his steed,
Then did his steed bound on the shore,
And he in whom we saw no fear,
The well-formed warrior, then approached.
In rage, sustained by his great strength,
The maid he rudely bears away,
Though by Finn’s shoulder she had stood.
The son of Morne then hurled his spear,
With wonted force, as he bore off;
No gentle cast was that, in truth,
The hero’s shield was split in twain.
The wrathful Oscar then did shake
The red dyed belt from his right arm,
And killed the hero’s prancing steed,
A deed most worthy of great fame;
Then when the steed fell on the plain,
He on us turned in fiercest wrath,
And battle does, the onset mad,
With all our fifty warriors brave.
On the same side with me and Finn,
The fifty stood in front of him;
Yet though they oft stood firm in fight,
His arm did now them force to yield.
Two blows, and only two he gave,
With vigour to each sep’rate man,
When we were stretched upon the earth,
Each man of us with whom he fought.
* * * * *
Then did the manly Gaul advance,
The conquering hero to assail,
Whoe’er he was could see them then,
The struggle and the fight were fierce.
Then did Mac Morne slay with his arm
The King of Sorcha’s son, most strange;
Sad was the coming of the maid
Now that the brave in fight had fallen.”¹
¹ The Dean of Lismore’s Book, pages 22‒24.
This fragment presents clear description, strong passion, and
characteristic individuality. Both English and Scotch poetry and
literature were indebted to the mind and the genius of the Celtic race
for several of their most charming and attractive features. It has been
repeatedly stated by the most competent authorities that without the
Celtic genius England would never have produced a Shakespeare.¹ Further,
it has been recognised and admitted that English poetry received some
of its distinctive features of style from a Celtic source. “The Celt’s
quick feeling for what is noble and distinguished gave his poetry style;
his indomitable personality gave it pride and passion; his sensibility
and nervous exaltation gave it a better gift still, the gift of
rendering with wonderful felicity the magical charm of nature. The
forest solitude, the bubbling spring, the wild flowers, are everywhere
in romance. They have a mysterious life and grace there; they are
nature’s own children, and utter her secret in a way which makes them
something quite different from the wood, waters, and plants of Greek
and Latin poetry. Now, of this delicate magic, Celtic romance is so
prominent a mistress, that it seems impossible to believe the power
did not come into romance from the Celts.... Rhyme――the most striking
characteristic of our modern poetry as distinguished from that of the
ancients, and a main source, to our poetry, of its magic and charm,
of what we call the romantic element,――rhyme itself, all the weight
of evidence tends to show, comes into our poetry from the Celts.”²
The popular Celtic heroes were known to the early writers of Lowland
Scotch, and allusions to them occur in the writings of the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries; and thus Lowland Scotch literature is not
an isolated stream springing from one source, as it derived its form
and some of its most characteristic elements from the Celtic mind and
genius.
¹ Morley, and Matthew Arnold.
² M. Arnold, _The Study of Celtic Literature_, page 132. 1891.
The earliest compositions in the Scotch dialect or northern English
assumed the form of ballads or songs in rhyme, and they were common
long before it became customary to commit them to writing. The rhymed
form had taken such a hold of the national mind that our first three
historical writers, Barbour, Wyntoun, and blind Henry, all composed
their works in rhyme. The rhymed literature which preceded the long
chronicles of Barbour and Wyntoun consisted: 1, of ballads and songs
associated with historic incidents; and 2, short metrical tales, and
romances. The subjects of the first class were varied, and embraced
battles, personal encounters, feuds, domestic matters, and local
incidents. Some of the second class assumed a tragic character,
and many of them treated of incredible achievements and adventures;
the marvellous in various forms, such as the realms of fairyland,
spirits, ghosts, and other inhabitants of the supernatural regions,
were presented in these tales and romances. They mainly owe their
preservation to tradition, and the greater part of them have been
collected from oral recitation during the last two centuries; but
portions of early Scotch poetry and a number of ballads were collected
in the sixteenth century and preserved in the well-known manuscripts of
George Bannatyne, and Sir Richard Maitland. In 1507 a small collection
of popular poetry was printed at Edinburgh by Walter Chapman; and
the _Complaynt of Scotland_, which was published in 1549, gave a list
of stories and tales then popular, and a collection of ballads was
published about the time of the Reformation.
A collection by James Watson was issued in three parts――1706, 1707,
1710――which contained some pieces of ancient poetry. In 1724 Allan
Ramsay’s _Evergreen_ was published, which consisted mainly of extracts
from Bannatyne’s manuscript, with a few early ballads, including one
on the battle of Harlaw; and the same year he published the _Tea-Table
Miscellany_, which contained seven old ballads. Dr. Percy, Bishop of
Dromore, in 1755 gave the result of his researches to the public in his
well-known collection, entitled _Reliques of Ancient Poetry_; and seven
of the pieces printed by him have been claimed as Scotch productions.
In 1769 Herd published a collection of _Ancient and Modern Scottish
Songs, Ballads, etc._, in two volumes, and twenty ballads were printed
in it for the first time; a new edition of this collection was recently
issued. Pinkerton in 1781 published a volume entitled _Scottish Tragic
Ballads_; and _Select Scottish Ballads_ in two volumes in 1783; amongst
these he inserted twelve pieces of his own composition, and passed
them off as old ballads, but afterwards he admitted his offence. Joseph
Ritson published several collections of _Old Songs and Ballads_; and
in 1794 he issued a valuable collection of _Scottish Songs with Music_.
James Johnson, a music-seller in Edinburgh, published a work called the
_Scots Musical Museum_, 1787‒1803, which extended to six volumes, and
in these ten ancient ballads were for the first time printed.
In the year 1802 Sir Walter Scott’s first and second volumes of the
_Minstrelsy of the Scottish Borders_ appeared, and a third volume
followed in 1803. This work contained a great number of historic
and romantic ballads, many of which had not been before printed; and
it also presented in the form of introductions and notes a body of
exceedingly valuable, varied, curious, and interesting information,
touching the characteristics and the superstitions of the people, and
the work formed an invaluable contribution to the ballad literature
of Scotland. Robert Jamieson in 1806 published _Popular Ballads and
Songs_ in two volumes, and this meritorious work added sixteen ballads
to Scottish traditional poetry. In 1808 John Finlay issued a collection
of _Scottish Historical and Romantic Ballads_. Mr. Kinloch published a
collection of _Ancient Scottish Ballads_ in 1827, in which a number
of traditional pieces were, for the first time, printed. The same year
Motherwell’s _Ancient and Modern Minstrelsy_ appeared, accompanied
with a very valuable introduction and explanatory notes, which showed
considerable critical power and historic insight. A new edition of
this work was published in 1873. Peter Buchan, a faithful collector of
traditional ballads, published in 1828 _Ancient Ballads and Songs of
the North of Scotland_, hitherto unprinted, in two volumes; there are a
few historical ballads in this collection, but not of an early period.
Professor Aytoun published a good collection of _Scottish Ballads_
in two volumes; and a number of other collections have been issued,
which it is unnecessary to particularise. Various versions of many of
these traditionary ballads occur; the same story and incidents may be
presented in a somewhat different form in one district of the country
from that in which it appears in another district, and sometimes
different versions of a ballad may be found in the same locality. Some
ballads have two or three more verses in one version than in another,
though, excepting the additional verses, the versions may be nearly
similar.
A traditional character under the names of Thomas of Ercildoune, or
Thomas the Rhymer, was supposed to have been a writer of romance among
the people on the Borders, and he was for long recognised as a poet and
a prophet; but his life and writings seem to be involved in a haze of
mist. The date of his birth has not been ascertained, but it appears
that he attained the height of his reputation about 1283, and at this
time it was reported that he foretold the death of Alexander III. He
died before the end of the century. In 1804 Sir Walter Scott published
the _Romance of Sir Tristrem_, from a manuscript of the fourteenth
century, but it seems extremely doubtful if this be a work of Thomas
of Ercildoune. The quaint character of the language of the romance
indicates that it was an early production; but there seems to be no
ground for assigning it to Scotland more than to the north of England.
The style of _Sir Tristrem_ is brief and elliptical, and the rhymes
much complicated.
The ballad containing Thomas the Rhymer’s prophecies has been preserved
in three early manuscripts, which are all more or less incomplete.
The chief points and incidents of the piece may be presented thus:――On
a fine May morning Thomas was reclining at Huntly Bank, near Eildon
Hills, when he suddenly espied a lady of exquisite beauty, mounted on a
dapple-grey palfrey, and richly apparelled. Thomas thought she was the
Virgin Mary, and on finding that she was not the Queen of Heaven, he
made love to her, but she declared that to listen to his requests would
destroy all her beauty; but the Rhymer’s ardour could not be repressed,
and at last she was induced to alight, then at once all her beauty
vanished, which threw him into great amazement. She then told him
that he must leave the middle earth and go with her for a twelvemonth.
Accordingly they descended by a secret passage at Eildon Hill, and for
three dreary days Thomas heard nothing but the soughing of the flood.
At length they approached a fair herbary, well filled with flowers and
fruit, and enlivened by the chirping of a great variety of birds; and
Thomas, almost exhausted with hunger, then stretched his hand to snatch
some of the tempting fruit, but she warned him to desist under the pain
of being attainted by the fiend and falling into hell. She directed
him to lay his head in her lap, and she pointed out to him the way to
heaven, and to the palace of her own fairyland; and Thomas observed
that she had recovered her beauty and resumed her rich attire. When
they reached the palace it resounded with music and revelry. The scene
was exceedingly merry. “The harp and fiddle, the lute, and rebeck, were
playing, accompanied with every kind of minstrelsy; and knights were
dancing three and three with lovely ladies, fair and free, all bedecked
in rich array.” After Thomas had enjoyed this solace much longer than
he thought, the queen of the fairies intimated to him that she must
conduct him back to the Eildon tree. He was extremely reluctant to
leave this fine lady, but she then expressed her fear lest the fiend
of hell, who to-morrow was coming to claim his dues, should select him.
When they returned to the Eildon tree, he entreated her to grant to
him some token of their pleasant intimacy, and in compliance with his
request she gave him the tongue that would never lie. She then poured
forth a string of rather confused prophecies, in which allusions to
the events and personages of the Scottish wars of Edward III. may be
discerned.
Barbour and Wyntoun mention Thomas the Rhymer, and Bower noticed his
prediction of the death of Alexander III., and Mair said: “To this
Thomas our countrymen have ascribed many predictions, and the common
people of Britain yield no slight degree of credit to stories of
this kind, which I, for the most part, am accustomed to treat with
ridicule.” Metrical prophecies ascribed to Thomas the Rhymer were
current in the reigns of James V., Queen Mary, and James VI., and
they were collected and published in Latin and in English. At the
time of the Union of the Crowns Thomas reached the height of his fame.
Birrel, touching this point, said――“At this time all the whole commons
of Scotland that had read or understood, were daily speaking of and
expounding the prophecies of Thomas the Rhymer, and other prophecies
which were prophesied in old times.” John Colville, in a Latin oration
which was published at Paris in 1604, expressed his wonder at the
fulfilment of the prophecies of Thomas the Rhymer; the Earl of Stirling
alluded to this subject in one of his compositions, and Drummond
also mentioned it. With reference to the Rhymer’s prophecies Bishop
Spottiswoode said:――“Whence or how he had this knowledge can hardly
be affirmed, but sure it is that he did divine and answer truly many
things to come.”¹
¹ Barbour’s _Bruce_, page 25, Jamieson’s Edition; Wyntoun,
Volume II., page 157; _Scotichronicon_, Volume II., page 131;
Birrel’s _Diary_; Irving’s _History of Scottish Poetry_,
page 46.
The touching monody on the death of Alexander III., which has been
preserved in Wyntoun’s _Chronicle_, presents an early specimen of the
Scotch dialect. When Edward I., in 1296, approached to attack Berwick,
the citizens were reported to have derided him in these rude lines:――
“What wenys Kynge Edwarde, with his lang shankys,
To have wonne Berwyk, all our vnthankys;
Gaas pykes hym.”
From this time till the Battle of Bannockburn the heroic struggles of
the people afforded ample materials and incidents for historic ballads
and rhymes; and many ballads and stories in rhyme associated with
the name of Wallace and his deeds, were then composed in rude forms.
Wyntoun mentioned one of Wallace’s earliest achievements, which still
lives embodied in a ballad, and he also added that――“Of his good deeds
and manhood, great gests I have heard are made, but not so many I trow
as he in his day worked.” Barbour indicates that songs relating to the
War of Independence were common among the people in his time, but few
of these have been preserved; and it seems that the greater part of
them were gradually incorporated into the three metrical narratives
of Barbour, Wyntoun, and more especially Blind Henry’s _Wallace_,
for Mair explicitly stated that Henry’s _Wallace_ was composed from
the traditional stories and ballads current among the people. An
old English chronicler said that the Scots commemorated the national
triumph of Bannockburn in the following strains:――
“Maydins of Englande, sore may ye morne
For your lemmans ye have loste at Bannockysborne,
Wyth heue a low;
What wenyt the King of Englande
So soon to have wonne Scotlande,
Wyth a rumbylow.”
The narrator said that this song was for long afterwards sung by the
maidens and the minstrels of Scotland, to the reproof and disdain of
the English, with other songs which he considered it unnecessary to
particularise.
A spirited and graphic ballad on the Battle of Otterburn has been
preserved. The battle was fought in 1388, and the Scots were led by
the Earl of Douglas and the English by Henry Percy, the redoubtable
Hotspur. Douglas fell in the heat of the engagement, but the Scots
gained the battle:――
“When Percy with the Douglas met,
I wot he was fu’ fain;
They swakkit swords, and they twa swat,
Till the blude ran down like rain.
But Percy wi’ his gude braid sword,
That could sae sharply wound,
Has wounded Douglas on the brew,
That he fell to the ground.
And then he called his little foot-page,
And said――‘run speedilie
And fetch my ain dear sister’s son,
Sir Hugh Montgomerie.’
‘My nephew gude,’ the Douglas said,
‘What recks the death of ane,
Last night I dreamed a dreary dream,
And I ken the day’s thy ain.
My wound is deep, I fain would sleep;
Take thou the vanguard of the three,
And bury me by the bracken bush,
That grows on yonder lily lea.
O bury me by the bracken bush,
Beneath the blumin’ brier;
Let never living mortal ken,
That a kindly Scot lies here.’”¹
¹ Aytoun’s _Scottish Ballads_, Volume I., page 17.
The ballad on the Battle of Harlaw was probably written shortly after
the event. It is a dry narrative, without ornament of any kind, and
extends to 248 lines. But a much shorter traditional ballad on this
battle has been preserved, of which several versions were popular in
the North; and in the early part of the seventeenth century there was
a tune known under the name of the Battle of Harlaw.
The ballad entitled “Sir Patrick Spens” has been supposed to have
originated in connection with the marriage of James III. and the
Princess of Denmark. It presents some striking description, and some
very touching incidents:――
“They hadna sailed a league, a league,
A league but barely three,
When the lift grew dark, and the wind blew loud,
And gurly grew the sea.
The ankers brak, and the topmasts lap,
It was sic a deadly storm;
And the waves came o’er the broken ship,
Till a’ her sides were torn.
* * * * *
And mony was the feather bed
That floated on the faem,
And mony was the gude lord’s son
That never mair came hame.
The ladyes wrang their fingers white,
The maidens tore their hair,
A’ for the sake o’ their true loves――
For them they’ll see na mair.
O lang, lang may the ladyes sit,
Wi’ their gowd kaims in their hair,
A’ waiting for their ain dear lords,
For them they’ll see na mair.
Half ower, half ower to Aberdour,
It’s fifty fathom deep,
And there lies gude Sir Patrick Spens,
Wi’ the Scots lords at his feet.”
A few of the romantic rhymes published in Scott’s _Border Minstrelsy_
were probably composed in the fifteenth century, such as the fairy
ballad of _Tamlane_. The fairies and elves, and other airy and
subterraneous beings, were the surviving members of a numerous progeny
descended from the far-gone past, and they still continued to hold
a place in the popular imagination. Stories and rhymes relating
to these imaginary beings were quite common among the Scots. The
fairies of Scotland were a diminutive race, with a mixed and rather
dubious character. They were extremely capricious in disposition, and
mischievous in their resentment. They inhabited the interior of green
hills, and danced by moonlight on the tops of them. They usually
dressed themselves in green, but occasionally they wore heath brown.
They were great riders, and sometimes their presence was discovered by
the shrill ringing of the bridles of their invisible horses; while they
occasionally indulged in the pleasures of the chase. One form of their
resentment was to seize and carry off the infants of those who had in
any way offended them.
There were romantic tales in the vernacular touching King Arthur and
his knights, but these were common throughout Britain, and popular
in France, and not in any way peculiar to Scotland. Still such tales
had some influence on the productions of Barbour, Wyntoun, and Blind
Henry. The ballad tales touching the adventures and the exploits of
the popular heroes――Robin Hood, and his fellow, Little John――were well
known among the Scots, although they had their origin on the English
side of the border.
A long moral fable called Holland’s _Howlat_, seems to have been
written about the middle of the fifteenth century. It was founded on
the old fable of the jackdaw in borrowed plumage, but it is tedious
and deficient in energy; the construction of the verse was strained
to attain the alliterative form, which was a favourite style of
composition with many of the rhymers of the period. The curious poem
entitled ♦_Cockelbie’s Sow_, belonged to the same period. It is an
unpolished rambling production, though some touches of humour occur
in it, while it contained an enumeration of the names of songs, tunes,
and dances, which were then popular in Scotland.
♦ “Cokelbie’s” replaced with “Cockelbie’s”
In the preceding pages I have briefly indicated the original sources,
some of the elements, and the conditions and circumstances from which
the literature of Scotland was developed; and I will now proceed to
deal with the ascertained and definite literature of the nation.
John Barbour, the writer of the metrical story of Robert Bruce’s
chequered, interesting, and glorious career, was born in 1316, two
years after the battle of Bannockburn; but the exact date of his birth
has not been discovered, and there is little known touching his early
life. He was holding the position of Archdeacon of Aberdeen in 1357,
and that year Edward III. granted a safe conduct to him to visit the
University of Oxford for the purpose of study, with three scholars
accompanying him. In 1364 Edward III. granted a safe conduct to Barbour
with four horsemen in his company, to proceed through England and
study at Oxford or elsewhere as he thought fit. In the following year
he received permission from Edward to pass through England with six
horsemen accompanying him, and to proceed to St. Denis, near Paris, and
to other sacred places. In 1368 Edward III. gave him a safe conduct to
pass through England accompanied by two servants and two horses, and to
proceed to France for the purpose of study.¹
¹ _Rotuli Scotiæ_, Volume I., pages 808, 886, 897, 926.
Barbour was often engaged in the public service. In 1373 he was one of
the Auditors of Exchequer, and soon after he was discharging the duties
of Clerk of the Audit. He acted as one of the Auditors of Exchequer
from 1382 to 1384, and for his public service in the year 1382, he
received six pounds, thirteen shillings, and fourpence.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volumes II. and III.
He was then composing the remarkable national work which has handed
down his name and fame to posterity. According to his own statement the
work was more than half written in 1375. In 1377 he received a gratuity
of ten pounds from Robert II. In 1379 he obtained by charter to himself
and his assignees an annuity of twenty shillings from the Crown rents
of Aberdeen; and in 1388 he received a grant of ten pounds yearly from
the customs of Aberdeen under a charter of Robert II., as a reward for
his faithful service. Barbour died at an advanced age about the year
1396. He exercised the power of assignation of his annuity of twenty
shillings in favour of the cathedral of Aberdeen for the celebration
of his anniversary, and the dean and chapter received this sum annually
after his death. In the Exchequer Rolls of 1428 and subsequent years,
it was expressly stated that this annuity had been granted to Barbour
“for the compilation of the book of the deeds of King Robert the Bruce.”
Barbour resolved to write his story of Bruce in the language of the
people of the Lowlands; his chief aim was to produce a plain and
“soothfast story that every man might understand.” As indicated above,
he had sojourned in England and in France in pursuit of knowledge;
and no doubt he could have written his story of Bruce in Latin, if
he had thought fit to follow the fashion of the educated class of his
time. He was gifted with good natural faculties; his imaginative and
reproductive powers were considerable, and he showed practical insight
and good judgment; his feelings and sentiments were keen and warm, and
his opinions were very liberal for the age. His general fairness and
moderation was characteristic, though in a few instances his love of
freedom and his patriotism caused him to use harsh expressions. His
severe imprecation on the person who betrayed the brave Sir Christopher
Seton, “In hell condemned mot he be;” but then it should be observed
that Sir Christopher was one of those who formed the forlorn hope of
Scotland under Bruce. Barbour detested Edward I. and Edward II., and a
few other historic characters, on the ground of their extreme cruelty.
The literary merits of Barbour’s work, taking everything into
account, were great. His language and style were, for the period,
remarkably good. His style possessed the qualities of clearness,
brevity, terseness, and point; his descriptions of scenes and positions,
and delineations of historic characters, were generally vivid and
interesting; while, in short, his poem was pervaded by a dignified
simplicity and a directness of aim admirably calculated to attract and
to sustain attention; its historical value has been long recognised by
Scottish historians.
The work in its original form extended to one hundred and fifty
chapters, which was the arrangement followed in Cosmo Innes’ edition;
but Pinkerton and Jamieson in their editions divided the work into
books. The earliest known edition of Barbour’s _Bruce_ was printed at
Edinburgh in 1571, of which only one copy now exists; the next edition
was printed at Edinburgh in 1616, and it is also very scarce; but since
then many editions have been issued.
Barbour devoted the first part of the work to the early career of
Bruce; and he so far assumed the licence of the poet, as to make Bruce
the competitor――the hero who endured so much privation and recovered
Scotland――when in fact the competitor was only the grandfather of the
real hero. This was, however, merely an introductory device for effect.
The varied fortunes of Bruce, his reverses, privations, and many
exploits, were all narrated with much spirit and energy; then after the
tide turned in favour of Bruce, the progress of the war, the capture
and the demolition of castles. A clear account of the preparations
for the memorable battle of Bannockburn;――and here Barbour exerted his
powers to the utmost, and produced a masterly description. He presented
graphic pictures of the mustering of the English army and its march
to Stirling; and the magnificent appearance of the great host――divided
into ten divisions, with all the accompanying pomp and circumstance
of war,――mounted knights, and burnished armour, shields, banners and
pennons waving and glowing in the sun’s beams, “as if all the land
was in a glare.” On the other hand, his description of the mustering
of the small army of Scots, and Bruce’s homely manner of cheering his
men, were very effectively contrasted with the glittering splendour of
the opposing hosts. After noting a number of striking incidents as a
prelude, and the speech which Bruce addressed to his army on the eve of
the battle, saying to his men:――
“We have three great advantages:
The first is, that we have the right,
And for the right ay God will fight.
* * * * *
The third is, that we for our lives,
And for our children, and for our wives,
And for our freedom, and for our land,
Are constrained to stand fast in battle.”
The great battle then began, the fierce charge of the English cavalry,
the reeling of horses, and the mighty hosts of England broken by the
wall of Scottish spears; the crash of lances and the blows with axes
which cleft both helmets and heads, the thumps of the steel weapons
hewing the mail armour of the enemy; and the intense eagerness of the
Scots in the midst of the fight, the confusion and the slaughter of the
English, the grass red with blood, and the final panic and flight of
the enemy, were all described with graphic power and effect.
The remaining part of the work continued the narrative to the close
of Bruce’s reign, and presented characteristic sketches of Bruce’s
companions in arms――Douglas, Randolph, Edward Bruce, and others.
Barbour also wrote another poem, which gave a genealogical history of
the Kings of Scotland, and was entitled “The Brute,” but it is now lost.
The deeds and achievements of Bruce have been celebrated by several
other Scottish poets, one of which preceded Barbour. A monk of Melrose,
named Peter Finton, was said to have produced a work on Bruce, but
not a fragment of it is known to be extant. Patrick Gordon composed in
heroic verse “The Famous History of the Renowned and Valiant Prince,
Robert the Bruce, King of Scotland.” The first book only was printed
at Dort in 1615, and reprinted at Edinburgh in 1718, and at Glasgow in
1753; this poem came no further down than the Battle of Bannockburn.
Dr. Jamieson mentioned a work in manuscript on Robert Bruce, King of
Scotland, written about the end of the reign of James VI., which was
in the archives of the Society of Antiquaries. A poem by John Harvey
entitled “The Life of Robert Bruce, King of Scots,” was published at
Edinburgh in 1727.
Barbour’s _Bruce_, after a comparatively short interval, was followed
by Wyntoun’s _Metrical Chronicle_. Andrew Wyntoun, the Prior of St.
Serf’s Monastery, wrote his _Original Chronicle of Scotland_ in the
language of the people, but still in the metrical form. Nothing has
been ascertained touching the date of his birth and early life, but
he was Prior of St. Serf’s Monastery in 1395, and lived at least till
1420. Thus it appears that Wyntoun was a contemporary of Barbour,
and he several times mentioned and applauded the Archdeacon. Wyntoun
complained of the scarcity of written materials, though perhaps he
had access to some historic documents now lost. He stated that he had
part of the _Chronicle_ compiled by Peter Comestor, the _Chronicles_ of
Orasius and Friar Martin, and English and Scottish stories; the latter
would include the ballads then current among the Scots. He inserted
about three hundred lines in his own _Chronicle_ from Barbour’s _Bruce_,
and transferred thirty-six chapters from a person not named and adopted
them in his own _Chronicle_. He mentioned the names of a number of
ancient classic writers, and some of the fathers of the Church.
Although Wyntoun called his work _The Original Chronicle of Scotland_,
he commenced it with a general history of the world. He treated at
length of angels, creation, the death of Abel, the generations of
Cain and Seth, the primeval race of giants, the ark of Noah and the
Flood; the situation of Asia, Africa, Egypt, Europe, Britain, Ireland,
and various other countries; the confusion of tongues, the lives of
the patriarchs, the judges of Israel, the siege of Troy, the origin
of poetry, and the arrival of Brutus in Britain. Five of the nine
books into which his work was divided, were mostly occupied with the
heterogeneous topics indicated above, in the sixth book he treated of
the wars between the Picts and the Scots, and gradually limited his
narrative to Scotland.
The language of Wyntoun’s _Chronicle_ is nearly similar to that
of Barbour’s _Bruce_, except that the orthography of a number of
words exhibit variations, but they both followed the same form of
versification. In genius and vigour Wyntoun stood much below Barbour,
while he was more under the influence of superstitious feeling, the
original _Chronicle_ presenting many fabulous legends and stories,
which convey a curious impression of his credulity. Wyntoun was a
zealous churchman, and embraced every opportunity to magnify the
power of the clergy. Still the latter portion of his work possesses
considerable historic value, and contains useful information. A number
of manuscripts of his _Chronicle_ have been preserved, and it seems to
have been popular in the Middle Ages. The part of this book relating
to Scotland was edited by David Macpherson and published in 1795; and
recently a new edition containing the entire work has been issued in
the series entitled _The Historians of Scotland_.
James I. was not only an able ruler and a wise legislator, but, besides
other accomplishments, he also attained distinction as a poet. When a
prisoner in England, he had many opportunities of cultivating his mind,
which he seems to have assiduously embraced. His genius and energy
would have enabled him to attain distinction in any walk of life. It
has been reported that he was an adept in all the manly exercises of
his time; that he was well acquainted with the use of the bow and the
spear; that he handled the sword with all the ease and dexterity of
a master; that he was an excellent horsemen, a great pedestrian, and
a fleet runner. He was a consummate musician, and excelled both in
vocal and in instrumental music; he was especially distinguished as a
performer on the harp, and touched its strings like another Orpheus.
He has been extolled for his proficiency in polite literature, in
philosophy, and in jurisprudence.¹ His habitual energy did not permit
a single hour of his life to be wasted in listlessness, he was always
occupied with his varied business and recreations. It is mainly by such
mental activity, combined with a power of continuous attention, that
eminence in anything of importance has been attained.
¹ _Scotichronicon_, Volume II., pages 504, 505; Buchanan’s
_History of Scotland_, Book X. Chapter 57.
James’s chief work was a poem entitled the _King’s Quair_, which he
composed when a prisoner in England; and its subject was the praise
of the lady who subsequently became his wife. It was divided into six
cantos, and extended to one hundred and ninety-seven stanzas. The poem
showed a keen imagination, much feeling, and some touches of genuine
poetry; and it also manifested a comprehensive and discriminative
appreciation of the beauties of external nature, which indicated that
the author’s capacity for the enjoyment of life was very great. As a
specimen of his style, a few verses slightly modernised may be quoted:――
“Then, as it hapt, mine eyes I cast below,
And there I spied, beneath my prison tower,
Telling her beads, in walking to and fro,
The fairest and the freshest youthful flower
That ever I beheld before that hour:
Entranced I gazed, and with the start
Rushed instant all my blood into my heart.
Awhile I stood, abased and speechless quite,
Nor wonder was; for why?――my senses all
Were o’ercome with pleasure and delight,
Only with letting thus my eyes to fall,
That instantly my heart became her thrall
For ever of free will: for nought was seen
But gentleness in her soft looks serene.
* * * * *
In her beauty, youth, and bounty dwell,
A virgin port, and features feminine,
Far better than my feeble pen can tell,
Did meek-eyed wisdom in her gestures shine,
She seemed, persay, a thing almost divine――
In word, in deed, in shape, in countenance,
That nature could no more her child advance.”
James concluded his poem, by recommending it to his masters, Gower and
Chaucer.
The humourous poem entitled _Christ’s Kirk on the Green_, has sometimes
been attributed to James I., but it seems to belong to a later period.
This piece extended to twenty-three stanzas, and is characteristically
comic and humourous, and brimful of rustic pleasantry. The subject of
the poem was a rural gathering, which was common, where the assembled
multitude danced, and engaged in sports and revels. After the dancing
and other comic incidents of the scene, the bow was introduced and
the poet then ridicules the awkwardness of the men in handling it, and
describes their attempts thus:――
“With that a friend of his cry’d fy!
And up an arrow drew,
He forgit it so furiously
The bow in flinders flew.
So was the will of God, trew I,
For had the tree been trew,
Men said that kend his archery,
That he had slane anew
That day.
An eager man that stude him neist
Lous’d aff a schott with ire,
He ettilt the barn in at the breast,
The bolt flew o’er the bire.
Ane cry’d fy! he had slane a priest
A mile beyond a mire;
Then bow and bag fra him he keist
And fled as fers as fire
Of flint.
Then Lawrie as ane lyon lap
And soon an arrow feathered,
He aimed to pierce him at the pap,
Thereon to win a wager;
He hit him on the wame a wap,
It buft like onie bladder,
But sa his fortune was and hap
His doublet was of leather,
And saved him.”
Another burlesque poem of unascertained authorship, entitled _Peblis
to the Play_, has been supposed to be a description of the annual
gatherings held at Peebles in the month of May. It opens with a
description of the people flocking from all quarters of the country
to hold their holiday.
Henry the Minstrel, familiarly called “Blind Harry,” was a remarkable
character, and composed the well known metrical _Life of Sir William
Wallace_. The few particulars of the life of Blind Henry himself may be
shortly told. John Mair, who wrote in the latter part of the fifteenth
century and the early part of the sixteenth, said that Henry was blind
from his birth, and in the time of my infancy, he composed an entire
book on the deeds of Sir William Wallace, from such stories as were
then current touching his deeds of daring. That by the recitation of
his stories before men of the highest rank, he earned his food and
raiment.¹ Some of those who have carefully studied Henry’s long poem,
have on reasonable grounds doubted the statement that the minstrel was
blind from his birth, as it has been observed that his descriptions
of scenery are comparatively vivid, and he makes no allusion to his
blindness himself. He called himself a rustic man, but it appears from
his book that he had in some way obtained a very good education for the
period. It seems that he was able to translate Latin, he used a number
of words of French origin, and he knew a little about the ancient
history of Greece and Rome, and much more of French romances, and
current tales touching King Arthur.
¹ Mair’s _Gestio Scotorum_, page 169, 1740.
It would appear, from what was stated in a preceding chapter, that
beggars and other idle vagabonds who infested the country, had
sometimes feigned the role and assumed the character of minstrels,
merely to enable them to pursue their unlawful modes of living with
greater success and impunity. This explains the meaning of clauses
which occur in several Acts of Parliament, for it is evident that the
real minstrels were in high repute throughout this period. Robert I.
occasionally gave gratuities to the minstrels; and for their services
in connection with the marriage of David II., the minstrels received
a fee of £66 15s. 4d.; and on the occasion of the coronation of David
II. the minstrels present received a sum of £20 from the King, and £10
from the Queen. Robert II. granted his own minstrel, Thomas Aearsane,
an annuity of five pounds per annum, and he gave payments to Thomas
Fulhope, and other minstrels. In 1392 a payment was made for shields to
the minstrels. The gratuities given by James IV. to the minstrels were
already mentioned. During this period some of the burghs had minstrels,
who were paid from the common fund, for performing public services and
appearing in their official character on great occasions. Blind Henry
was not altogether forgotten by James IV.; in April, 1490, he received
eighteen shillings, in September the same year a similar sum; in April,
1491, eighteen shillings, in September the same year five shillings,
and in January, 1492, nine shillings; and as no more entries of his
name occur in the accounts, it has been supposed that he died shortly
after.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volumes I., II., III., IV.;
_Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer_, Volume I.
Blind Henry’s _Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace_ was written
in rhyme, and divided into eleven books, and extends in length to
nearly twelve thousand lines. He professed to draw the materials of
his narrative chiefly from a Latin chronicle by John Blair, who was
Wallace’s chaplain, but not a trace or fragment of Blair’s work is now
known to exist; he also mentioned Con’s chronicle, and in the course
of his narrative he frequently speaks of “the book and my author,”
but no Con’s chronicle has ever been discovered. It appears, however,
that there were materials relating to Wallace’s deeds before Henry’s
work appeared, but these, in all probability, were merely ballads
and stories orally learned and repeated among the people. The only
manuscript preserved of Henry’s work of authority and historic value is
the one in the Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh, which is dated 1488, and
purports to have been written in that year by John Ramsay. At that time
Ramsay was a common surname in Scotland. John Ramsay of Bothwell was
one of James III.’s favourites, who escaped execution on account of his
youth, being subsequently employed in various offices under the Crown.
Thus Henry’s book was put into the form, in which it has been preserved,
before his own death, and from the sentiment which he expressed at the
conclusion of his work it seems that he was pretty well satisfied with
his production. What then were the actual sources from which it was
drawn?
From a careful consideration of what is known about Blind Henry and
his mode of life, and the actual historic facts, in so far as they have
been ascertained, touching the national career of Wallace, I arrived
at the ♦conclusion many years ago that the work in question was mainly
derived from the traditions, the tales, and the rhymed ballads, which
had accumulated around the name of Wallace since his execution in 1305,
and were current among the people of Scotland in the second half of
the fifteenth century. The blind minstrel probably commenced his work
between the years 1450 and 1460, or one hundred and fifty years after
the death of Wallace. The floating traditions and stories touching
the deeds and the heroic achievements of Wallace, the idol of the
people, were then ample and varied; all that Henry had to execute was
to use these materials, which were naturally and specially suitable
for his calling and mode of life, and finally to form them into a
rhymed composition around the great national hero. This process of
manufacturing would account for all the peculiar characteristics
and inconsistences presented in the blind minstrel’s work, while it
makes no assumption that the minstrel intended to mislead any one or
misrepresent anything. As he simply embodied the ideas, the sentiments,
the national prejudice, and the traditional notions of the acts and
deeds of Wallace, which the people of Scotland entertained and gloried
to hear repeated in his day, it consequently follows that Henry’s
work was in complete harmony with the feeling and the notions of the
Scots touching their greatest national hero, and they were ready to
receive it with exulting delight. As an embodiment of the notions, the
feelings, and the traditions of the people concerning Wallace, the work
is genuine and invaluable, but considered as a historic narrative of
facts and events relating to Wallace or any one else it is worthless.
No doubt a strata of distorted facts were introduced into the work, but
they were so much mingled with romance, prejudice, hate, and ferocity,
as rendered them utterly valueless. For instance, Henry ascribed a
degree of cruelty to Wallace himself which was quite inconsistent with
all that is known of his character and life.
♦ “couclusion” replaced with “conclusion”
Touching the literary qualities of Henry’s long poem, the style was
vivid and full of spirit. His account of adventures and battles was
not constructed with much art, but the vigour of his mind and the glow
of his patriotism were well fitted to fix the reader’s attention, and
the author moves on from one adventure to another, and encounter after
encounter, with unabated ardour. A few references to the face of nature
occur in the work, and some touches which stand in marked contrast
to the general series of blows and fights. He concluded his work
thus:――“Go noble book, full of good sentences, suppose thou art barren
of eloquence; go worthy book, full of true deeds, but in language thou
hast great need of help. When there were many good poets in Scotland,
it was a great pity that none of them cast their attention on thee,
yet there is a part that can many advance; now bide thy time and be a
remembrance. I bespeak your benevolence, for the book is said as well
as I can.”
The book really did prove to be a great remembrance, as it had for
three centuries an unexampled popularity among the Scots; it had passed
through more editions than any other Scotch book before the period
of Burns and Scott. It appears to have been amongst the first books
printed in Scotland, for fragments of an edition of it printed by
Walter Chapman about the year 1508 were discovered by the late Dr.
David Laing. The earliest complete edition still preserved in the
British Museum was printed at Edinburgh in 1570, and since then
editions have appeared in 1594, 1601, 1611, 1620, 1630, 1648, 1661,
1665, 1673, 1699, 1711, 1713, and a number of more recent ones. An
excellent and valuable edition by Dr. Jamieson, the author of the
_Scottish Dictionary_, was published in 1820. Dr. James Moir edited for
the Scottish Text Society an edition, to which he has contributed an
introduction, a long series of expository notes, and a comprehensive
glossary.
From the evidence indicated in the above paragraph, it seems manifest
that the influence of Blind Henry’s _Wallace_ on the feeling,
the national prejudice, and the patriotism of the Scots, has been
considerable. Burns, in a letter to Dr. Moore, said――“The story of
Wallace poured a tide of Scottish prejudice into my veins which will
boil along there till the flood-gates of life shut in eternal rest.”
Think then how many Scotsmen may have been similarly affected by the
story of Wallace in the three hundred years during which it was the
most popular book in Scotland!
Robert Henryson was a contemporary of the blind minstrel, and one of
the most eminent and estimable of the early Scotch poets. It has been
supposed that he was born about 1425, but little has been ascertained
touching his early life. It appears that he received a liberal
education, for in 1462 he was admitted a member of the newly founded
University of Glasgow as a licentiate in arts and bachelor in degrees.
He seems to have acted for some time as schoolmaster of the Grammar
School of Dunfermline, and he also acted as a notary public. His
writings show that he had an accurate knowledge of the state of
society in his time; he was a keen observer, and feelingly alive to
the suffering and the injustice which prevailed in the nation. He died
at an advanced age about the end of the fifteenth century.
As a poet who wrote in the language of the people, Henryson held a
high place. His style was easy and flowing; and, though he did not
show great inventive genius or passion, he had a fine perception of the
beauties of external nature, and handled the objects around him with
remarkable skill, and often presented vivid and touching descriptions.
The piece entitled _The Testament of Cresseid_, which extended to over
six hundred lines, has been considered his chief work. It was intended
to be a supplement to Chaucer’s _Troilus and Cresseid_; as Henryson
thought the conclusion of that work was unsatisfactory, he composed
this piece to finish it off in proper character. The character,
Cresseid, proved inconstant and false to her devoted lover, and she
was in consequence afflicted at last with leprosy as a punishment, and
though touches of pathos occur, the piece presented a rather sad and
grotesque narrative, mixed with classic mythology. It first appeared in
a printed form in the collected edition of Chaucer’s works, which was
published at London in 1532, and the earliest known Scotch edition of
the piece was printed by Charteris in 1593, of which a copy has been
preserved in the British Museum.¹
¹ Laing’s Edition of Henryson’s Poems, pages 257‒258.
A number of Henryson’s short poems present very good examples of
didactic poetry, such as his “Abbey Walk,” “The Praise of Age,” “Age
and Youth,” and others. They are pervaded by a solemn, moral, and
religious tone of feeling and thought; and though they lack the highest
characteristics of poetry, yet they will compare favourably with
the productions of his contemporaries. His poem entitled “Robene and
Makyne” is a fine specimen of pastoral poetry, written in a natural
and flowing style. He also produced thirteen Moral Fables, which were
characterised by a quiet humour, simplicity, and clearness of style.
His fables contained many allusions to the state of society, the
rapacity of the aristocracy, and the hard treatment of the people. He
showed considerable skill in narrating a story, and always endeavoured
to produce a moral effect.
Sir John Rowll, a priest, produced a remarkable poem about the close
of the fifteenth century, which presented a scathing denunciation
of the persons who had stolen his fowls, and committed other serious
depredations. This piece extended to two hundred and sixty-two verses,
and is a curious specimen of style. The denunciation of the offenders
proceeded thus:――“Black be their hour, black be their part, for five
fat geese of Sir John Rowll’s, with capons, hens, and other fowls....
Now cursed and accursed be their fate while they are living on the
earth; hunger, strife, and tribulation, and never be without vexation;
of vengeance, sorrow, trouble, and care, graceless, thriftless, and
threadbare, and at all times in their legacy fire, sword, water, and
wodie.”¹ There were a number of other writers of rhyme in the fifteenth
century, whose names have been preserved.
¹ Laing’s _Select Remains of the Ancient Popular Poetry of
Scotland_.
John of Fordun produced the first long prose _Chronicle and Annals
of Scotland_, composed in Latin, in the later half of the fourteenth
century. He wrote the first five books, and left some materials
which came down to 1383. Walter Bower, Abbot of St. Colm, wrote a
continuation to the death of James I., and this compilation has long
been known under the title of the _Scotichronicon_; the parts of it
relating to the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, have
been considered to possess historic value, but the earlier portions of
it are of less value. Latin language and literature in the Middle Ages
had a considerable influence on some of the institutions of Scotland.
Latin was used in the service and public worship of the Church, and
English and Scotch writers enlarged their vernacular vocabulary from
the Latin. “Until the end of the fifteenth century it was only in the
theological and moral departments that Latin had much direct influence
upon English, most of the Latin roots introduced into it up to that
time having been borrowed from the French, but as soon as the profane
literature of Greece and Rome became known to English scholars through
the press a considerable influx of words drawn directly from the
classics took place.”¹ From the later part of the fifteenth century
the Scotch writers drew words very freely from Latin sources. The
close political relations, and the long intercourse between France
and Scotland had the effect of introducing a number of French words
into the Scotch dialect, and in a few instances slightly affected its
grammatical form.
¹ Marsh’s _Lectures on the English Language_, page 434.
The growing importance of the vernacular appeared in various directions.
For a long time the Acts of Parliament were recorded in Latin, but
toward the end of the fourteenth century they were sometimes written
in the Scotch dialect, and after the return of James I. the Acts of
Parliament were henceforth recorded and proclaimed in the language of
the Lowland people. In the latter half of the fifteenth century the
proceedings of the King’s Council and of the Judicial Committee of
Parliament were recorded in the vernacular, and the early laws of David
I., William the Lion, Alexander II., and Robert I., were translated
into Scotch in the same century. The ancient code of burgh laws was
also rendered into Scotch, and the records of the proceedings of the
burghs in the fifteenth century were mostly written in the current
vernacular; even some of the records of the religious houses then
began to be engrossed in the Scotch dialect. Then, as now, there
were two distinct living languages in Scotland――the Gaelic and the
Lowland Scotch――and in each of these two languages, respectively, the
traditions, the legends, the ballads, the poetry, and the tales of the
nation were embodied, and were more or less familiar to the humblest of
the people in the kingdom.
CHAPTER XII.
_Education, Music, and Art of the Period._
IT was indicated in preceding pages that there were schools at an early
period attached to the monasteries, and in some of the royal burghs.
In the fourteenth century there were different classes of schools;
the grammar schools in some of the royal burghs were partly under the
patronage of the magistrates, but most of the schools were under the
control of the Church. Robert I. sometimes gave assistance to persons
carrying on their studies at the schools, and in 1364 David II.
gave four pounds for the maintenance and clothing of a poor scholar,
“consanguinei domini regis.” By a mandate of Robert II. four pounds
was given to assist a poor scholar studying at the school of the
burgh of Haddington in 1384; and in 1382 five pounds six shillings
and eightpence were paid from the Exchequer for the expenses of two
scholars of Bute. It appears that the rectors and masters of the
schools of the period were frequently employed to discharge duties
connected with the customs and the revenue. Master William Tranent,
rector of the schools of Haddington, also acted as clerk of the cocket
of Haddington and North Berwick; and the master of the school of Cupar
sometimes acted as a collector of custom. Gilbert of Hay, son of Thomas
of Hay, who was studying at the schools of St. Andrews in 1384, by
mandate of Robert II., received twenty-six shillings to assist him, and
two years after he received thirty-two shillings for dress; the King’s
natural son, James, at the same time was studying at the schools of St.
Andrews.¹ The grammar schools of Glasgow were founded before the middle
of the fifteenth century, and were under the control of the Chancellor
of the diocese. Of course Latin was taught in the grammar schools of
the chief burghs of the kingdom, and in the schools connected with the
monasteries; but whether the scholars were instructed in the current
Scotch language at any of these schools during this period, has not
been clearly ascertained. From the numerous writings and documents of
various kinds produced in the vernacular in the fifteenth century, it
would seem probable that the Scotch language was taught in some of the
schools of the period.
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volumes I., II., III.
The first Educational Act was passed by Parliament in 1496. This
statute enjoined that the barons and freeholders of the kingdom should
send their eldest sons and heirs to the schools till they were well
instructed in Latin; and thereafter to attend the universities for
a term of three years to study arts and law; in order that justice
might reign throughout the kingdom, that the sheriffs and other judges
acting under the authority of the King might know how to administer
equal justice to all the people; so that “the poor people might have no
need to apply to the King for every small injury.” Those who failed to
comply with the provisions of the Act were to be fined twenty pounds to
the King.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II. page 238.
The first Scotch university was a very simple institution. It was
originated by a few men, who had some knowledge of literature and
philosophy, and formed an association in St. Andrews under the
patronage of Bishop Wardlaw, with the laudable aim of imparting
instruction to all those who desired to attend their lectures. They
commenced to deliver public lectures in 1410; and the Pope’s Bull,
which sanctioned the establishment of the University, arrived on the
3rd of February, 1413. The following morning the clergy assembled in
the refectory of the monastery, where the Bull was presented to Bishop
Wardlaw, as Chancellor of the Institution, and read aloud; and they
then proceeded to the high altar singing the _Te Deum_. After this
the learned clerks and church dignitaries spent the day in celebrating
the event with a festivity and rejoicing worthy of its significance.
On the 6th of February a grand procession was held, which at once
commemorated the arrival of St. Andrew’s bones and the inauguration of
the privileges of the new University. The teaching staff consisted of
four lecturers on the canon law, and three teachers of philosophy and
logic.
Chiefly through the efforts of Bishop Turnbull, the University of
Glasgow was founded in 1451 on the model of that of Bologna, under
the authority and sanction of the Pope. In 1453 James II. extended his
protection to all the members of the University――the rector, the deans
of faculties, the procurators of nations, the regents, the masters, and
the students; and also the writers, the stationers, parchment makers,
and the sacrists; and he exempted them from all tribute, service, taxes,
watching or warding, and all dues imposed or hereafter to be imposed
in the kingdom of Scotland.¹ The University was poorly endowed. In 1459
Lord Hamilton granted to the University a house in the city and four
acres of land on the Dovehill. In November 1475, John Laing, Bishop of
Glasgow, gave to the University two books for the use of the regents,
one of which contained the text of the Physics, and other treatises
of Aristotle. Shortly after, Duncan Bunch, a former regent, gave seven
volumes to the University, which contained treatises of Aristotle and
his commentators, and also “una Biblia in pergamino in parvo volumine
litera optima complete scripta.” In 1483 John Brown, also formerly
a regent, presented to the University thirteen volumes, embracing
treatises of a similar character to the preceding volumes; but
none of these early manuscript donations to the University have
been preserved.² This University had to struggle long with adverse
circumstances and lack of funds.
¹ _Origines Parochiales Scotiæ_, Volume I., page 9.
² _Glasgow University Library_, by William P. Dickson, LL.D.
William Elphinston had received all the advantages of education
which home and foreign universities could give him, and he made an
excellent use of it. He was appointed Bishop of Aberdeen in 1483. He
had discharged the duties of Chancellor and Privy Seal of Scotland, and
was entrusted with several important embassies. He erected the central
tower of his cathedral; and he built at his own cost a stone bridge
across the river Dee. In 1494 at Elphinston’s earnest solicitation,
James IV. obtained from the Pope a bull for the institution of the
University of Aberdeen, and the King conferred on all its members the
same privileges as those granted by James II. to the University of
Glasgow, and by James I. to St. Andrews. The branches taught in the
newly instituted University were civil and canon law, theology, and
medicine.
The Scottish Universities were instituted as a branch of the system
of Catholic education which had its head and centre in Rome, and
they were incorporated members of one great educational scheme which
embraced Europe in its folds. Thus they were closely associated with
the Universities of the Continent. In fact, the constitution of the
Scotch Universities were formed on the models of those of Paris,
Bologna, and Louvain.
Some knowledge of Latin was a qualification required from all the
entrants to the Universities, but Greek was not taught in Scotland
before the sixteenth century. It appears that Arts was the first
faculty constituted, which seems to have been the fundamental faculty
in the Universities of the Middle Ages. In the latter half of the
fifteenth century Scotsmen had become well known as able and ready
teachers in the Universities of the Continent. Scotland then sent
from her native Universities to those of France and other countries,
as teachers of philosophy, Thomas Otterburne, Henry Leighton, Robert
Fleming, Thomas Mushet, Umfrid Hume, and James Martin. The license to
teach and a ready command of Latin, were the passports of the Scottish
scholars through the Universities of Europe.
The early Scottish music seems to have been interwoven with the
national songs and dances; but a people might have many songs and yet
have little music. So far as has been ascertained, it appears that the
earliest Scotch melodies were very simple, and consisted of one measure;
and these simple tunes no doubt originated at a remote period. But
in Scotland, as in other Catholic countries, the ancient vocal music
was overlaid by that of the Church. “From the very earliest periods of
descant, ecclesiastical musicians had been in the habit of taking the
popular melodies of the time and working them into the services of the
sanctuary.”¹ The Gregorian chant was taught in the Scotch cathedrals
and in the early schools; and organs began to be introduced into the
churches of Scotland in the reign of James I.
¹ Hullah’s _History of Modern Music_, pages 33‒35, 77,
_et seq._
As already indicated, singing and dancing were popular in Scotland
during this period. There were professional singers, both male and
female, and harpers, luters, and fiddlers. James IV. often gave small
sums of money to singers, fiddlers, harpers, and dancers; and some
notable characters occasionally performed before the King, such as the
broken-backed fiddler in St. Andrews, who received nine shillings from
the King, and the crooked vicar of Dumfries, who sang to the King at
Lochmaben. In 1487 there were three public pipers in Edinburgh, who
were supported in the following manner:――“For the honour of the city,
the provost and council enacted that the common pipers of the burgh
should be fed, and that they should go and get their food in turn from
all persons of means; or if the pipers took wages, then they should
live thereon for that day; and all those who did not give them food,
should pay to them ninepence on their day, that is, to each piper
threepence at the least.” There were similar officials in the other
burghs of the kingdom, and they were sometimes called minstrels;
but their functions were well understood, and consisted in playing
favourite pieces of music in their progresses through the town
every morning and evening; and on high occasions they attended the
magistrates in their official character.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume I., page 52; _Accounts
of the Lord Treasurer_, Volume I.
Although the human voice is the first and the best of all instruments,
still the development and improvement of musical art greatly depended
on instruments. The performance of a varied piece of music required
many instruments, and skill in making these was an essential condition
of success. To harmonise the sounds of a number of wind and stringed
instruments is an extremely difficult matter; and the tuning of
instruments to play together was long of reaching such a state of
perfection as in any degree satisfied the musical perceptions and
sensibilities of the human mind. The noblest keyed instrument, the
organ, was brought to considerable perfection in the fourteenth century,
and by the end of the succeeding century it might be said to have been
almost perfected. But the Scots at this period were far behind several
other European nations in the art of making musical instruments. Many
musical instruments, however, were then in use amongst the Scots; and
in a rhyme written in the fifteenth century, upwards of twenty musical
instruments were mentioned; while the harp, the lute, the pipes, and
some kind of a fiddle, were quite common. The principle of the stringed
instrument was known from a very early period, but the fiddle or
violin has undergone many modifications. In the Middle Ages there were
instruments somewhat resembling the violin, but the art of making and
perfecting this fine instrument has been the work of comparatively
modern times.
Religion, dramatic representations or plays, and dancing, were all
associated with music. Dramatic exhibitions founded on mystical
passages of the Scriptures, and hence called mysteries, were sometimes
performed in the churches as acts of devotion in the Middle Ages. These
were succeeded by moral plays, which approached somewhat nearer to the
form of the drama, still presenting, however, a curious and grotesque
jumble of characters. While at this period it is sometimes difficult to
distinguish a dramatic actor from the bands of rope-dancers, buffoons,
jesters, fools, singers, and fiddlers, who amused the kings and the
nobles, as several of these callings were at times exercised by the
same person. James IV. retained two or three fools, and frequent
payments to them occur in the accounts.
In the department of painting there is little to record. The names of
painters occur in the records during the reigns of David II. and Robert
II., but there is no evidence that they were artists. Andrew, called
the painter, was engaged in connection with the mint; and John, the
painter, of Aberdeen, was employed to paint the armorial banners of
David II. James I. had a painter called Matthew, who was engaged at the
work in connection with the erection of the Palace of Linlithgow; and
a payment for materials to John, the King’s painter, also occurs in the
records. Payments to painters were made in the reigns of James II. and
James III. James IV. gave his painter, David Pratt, an annual fee of
ten pounds, besides payment for the work which he executed. In 1497
he was engaged in painting the altar in the new chapel at Stirling. He
died in 1503. At the same period John Pratt, the painter, painted and
gilded the vanes of the King’s tents, and emblazoned the King’s coat
armour.¹ As indicated above, however, these men were not artists.
¹ _Exchequer Rolls_; _Accounts of the Lord Treasurer_.
In one of the minor arts, seal engraving on metal, some good work was
executed in Scotland. The seals of the preceding period were briefly
described, and the art of seal-making maintained its excellency in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The Great and the Privy Seals of
the Scottish Kings present good specimens of this branch of art. The
Privy Seal showed the royal arms only. The Great Seal of Robert I. is a
very fine piece of work; and the Privy Seal of David II. is exceedingly
beautiful both in design and execution. The Great Seal of Robert II.
exhibited a change of costume in the equestrian figure of the King
corresponding with the change in the style of armour, and the lettering
is finely executed. The goldsmith was paid twenty marks for making the
matrix of this seal. Some of the seals of the first Earl of Douglas are
very beautiful. On the seal of the Countess of Mar of date 1405, the
figure of a lady holding a shield in each hand was represented. Figures
of the peacock and the swan were depicted on several of the seals of
the period.
About the beginning of the fifteenth century the design of the
Episcopal seals underwent a change. Instead of the simple figure of
the bishop in pontifical vestments, which had formerly been the usual
form, either a representation of the Trinity, the Virgin, or the patron
saint, within a niche or beneath a canopy, became the prevailing style.
The rich architectural designs of a number of the seals present very
fine illustrations of that art; and a pretty accurate idea of the
characteristics of the church architecture of the period might be
formed from an examination of them.¹
¹ Laing’s _Ancient Scottish Seals_.
In conclusion, the volume opened with an explanation of the aim and
scope of the work. A description of the geographical and physical
features of the country, and the influence of climate, soil, and
food, on the organisation of early society, were presented. The
method of historic interpretation in connection with the early stages
of the human race was then touched on; the interpretation and the
sequent arrangement of the prehistoric phenomena of Scotland, and the
discrimination of historic evidence followed. The ethnological problem
came next, and after a brief statement touching the cradle and the
language of the Aryans, the ethnology of Scotland was concisely treated.
The Stone and the Bronze periods were treated at length, and a summary
of the conclusions reached, touching the social condition, the religion,
and the culture of the prehistoric people, was presented. The Roman
Invasion, new historic conditions, the conflicts of the different
races and tribes, which issued in the foundation of the Monarchy, were
treated. An account of the introduction of Christianity was given,
and its influence on the people pointed out. The narrative of the
progressive extension of the kingdom was then resumed and continued
to the close of the eleventh century; and it was observed that nothing
had occurred to arrest the onward movement and civilisation of the
people. The state of society from the seventh century to the end of
the eleventh was treated at length, the clan organisation, the relation
of the people to the land, and social customs were explained. Early
architecture and the sculptured stones were handled at some length,
in their historic relation to the people; the chief characteristics of
Celtic art were briefly considered, and the Introduction closed with
a notice of the fragments of early and traditional literature.
A critical estimate of the Anglo-Norman colonisation, and the result
of the introduction of Norman Feudalism on the Civilisation of
Scotland was presented. The narrative of the conflict of the nation
was resumed and continued to the death of the Maid of Norway. A very
full account of the social state and the progress of the people in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries was given, and the organisation and
characteristics of Norman Feudalism explicated. The lamentable position
of the nation arising from the disputed succession to the throne, the
claims and proceedings of Edward I., and the candidates for the Crown,
was narrated. Edward’s invasion of Scotland, the submission of the
nobles, the deposition of Baliol, and the nation under the heel of
the invader, were explained. The appearance of Wallace upon the scene,
the rising led by him, his heroic struggles against the invaders, his
capture and cruel execution, and the influence of his example upon the
nation, were narrated at length. At last the nation seemed completely
subdued, and Edward I. prepared a scheme for the government of Scotland;
but a worthy successor of Wallace immediately appeared and mounted the
throne of Scotland, and commenced to retake the kingdom from the enemy.
Bruce’s followers were few in number, and he had to contend against
fearful odds; but after a desperate and long struggle his heroic
efforts culminated in the decisive and glorious Battle of Bannockburn;
and the subsequent acknowledgment of the independence of the kingdom.
The narrative of the external and internal conflicts of the nation was
continued to the Battle of Flodden. An exhaustive account of the social
condition of the nation in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was
presented, in which many subjects of the highest historic interest
and national importance were treated and explained. After giving an
account of the literature of the period, the volume concluded with
a concise review of education, music, and art. Finally, this volume
gives a continuous view of the people from the earliest traces of their
occupation of the country onward, and of their condition, culture, and
civilisation.
INDEX.
Abercorn, i., 116;
castle of, 343, 390;
Earl of, iii., 19.
Abercromby, Dr. Patrick, iv., 143.
Aberdeen, i., 148, 151, 234, 238‒9, 264, 284, 288, 306, 325, 366,
370, 386‒7, 390;
ii., 116, 123, 192, 202, 212, 241, 247;
iii., 28, 90, 91, 219, 223, 228;
iv., 370, 375;
University of, i., 415, 467;
ii., 412, 413;
iii., 62, 392‒3;
iv., 60, 139, 317‒320.
Aberdeen, Earl of, iv., 482.
Aberdeenshire, i., 28, 49, 52, 68, 75, 90, 95, 140, 184, 271, 284,
287, 325;
ii., 154;
iii., 244;
iv., 370, 371.
Abernethy, i., 114, 165, 245.
Aboyne, i., 174;
Viscount of, iii., 93.
Ada, daughter of Earl David, i., 204, 256.
Adam,
Dr. Alexander, iv., 153;
William, Robert, James, 402.
Adamson, Archbishop of St. Andrews, ii., 182‒4, 189, 271, 380.
Aed, King, i., 136.
Agricola, General, i., 105, 109.
Agriculture, i., 100, 133, 150, 250‒254, 376‒381;
ii., 266, 289, 290;
iii., 303‒305;
iv., 332‒339.
Aidan, King of Dalriada, i., 117‒8.
Aikman, iv., ♦429.
♦ page number provided by transcriber
Airlie, Earl of, iii., 90;
castle of, 337.
Alan, Lord of Galloway, i., 211.
Albany,
Duke of, i., 319, 321‒2, 324‒6;
Murdoch, 326, 327, 328;
Alexander, 348‒351;
John, Regent, ii., 36‒37.
Ale, i., 251, 399, 400, 401, 402, 404;
ii., 291‒292;
iii., 217‒219;
iv., 395.
Alexander I., reign of, i., 200, 201.
Alexander II., reign of, i., 209‒212, 242.
Alexander, III.,
coronation of, i., 213;
reign of, 213‒217.
Alexander, William, iv., 209‒211.
Alison,
Rev. Archibald, iv., 86;
Sir Archibald, 155‒6;
Dr. William, 312.
Allan,
David, iv., 433;
Sir William, 443.
Alloa, iv., 433.
Alnwick castle, i., 143, 300.
Amberley, Viscount, ii., 43, 44.
Anderson,
Dr. Joseph, i., 52, 55, 57, 61, 65, 66, 168, 180;
William, ii., 68;
James, iv., 143, 144;
Robert, 173.
Angles, i., 113, 118, 119.
Angus,
Pictish King, i., 120;
Angus, Chief, 116, 202;
Angus Duff, 329;
Angus, Lord of the Isles, 218, 285, 292, 293;
Angus, Earl of, 342, 343, 350, 351;
ii., 36, 37, 38, 61, 63, 64, 65, 181, 195, 212.
Annandale, i., 26, 203, 223, 349.
Annandale, Earl of, iii., 179.
Anne, Queen, iii., 204, 205, 209, 211, 220, 222.
Anstruther, ii., 192.
Arbroath,
monastery of, i., 249, 296, 432, 433, 434;
town of, 238, 409;
iii., 93, 301;
iv., 375.
Arbuthnot,
Alexander, ii., 372, 373, 413;
Dr. John, iv., 228‒230.
Architecture, i., 157‒165, 247‒250, 428‒431;
ii., 396, 397;
iii., 396‒7;
iv., 401‒411.
Ardnamurchan, i., 24, 261, 356;
iii., 90.
Ardoch, i., 106.
Argyle,
Earl of, i., 356‒7, 364, 365;
ii., 63, 64, 89, 96, 97, 130, 134, 135, 145, 150, 181, 201,
202, 224, 226, 229;
iii., 90, 91, 92, 99, 104, 121, 123, 159, 167, 192;
Duke of, 206, 223, 241.
Argyleshire, i., 53, 116, ♦117, 121, 127, 210, 261, 369;
iii., 91; iv.
♦ “177” replaced with “117”
Arkinholm, battle of, i., 343.
Armada, ii., 191, 192.
Armstrong,
John, a marauder, ii., 224, 225;
Dr. John, iv., 169.
Arran, island of, i., 23, 95, 216, 286, 379, 380.
Arran,
Earl of, i., 346;
Regent, ii., 63, 65, 67, 70, 74, 78, 86, 87;
Stewart, Earl of Arran, 175, 177, 181, 184, 185, 187.
Arrowheads, i., 49, 50.
Art,
early, i., 52, 75‒79, 166‒174, 176‒180, 241‒243, 470, 471;
ii., 423‒425;
iii., 393‒396;
Progress of, in Scotland, iv., 428.
Aryan race, i., 38‒42;
language of, 43.
Arth, a friar, ii., 51‒53.
Asceticism, i., 131, 156, 157, 244;
ii., 43‒46, 261, 262.
Assembly, General,
ii., 115, 129, 149, 151, 160, 166, 167, 169, 188, 193, 211,
213;
iii., 28, 34, 36, 39, 69‒72, 77, 83, 84, 98, 104, 186;
iv., 465‒485.
Athole,
Earl of, i., 208, 209, 214, 217, 255, 263, 283, 285, 305, 306,
335, 337;
ii., 143, 148;
iii., 110;
Marquis of, 174;
Duke of, 207, 212.
Attwood, iv., 143, 144.
Auldearn, battle of, iii., 94.
Ayr,
Burgh of, i., 240, 356, 359, 386, 387;
ii., 69;
iii., 303;
iv., 369‒372;
Castle of, i., 215, 248, 274, 287.
Ayrshire, i., 29, 114, 286, 287, 379;
ii., 78;
iii., 134, 153;
iv., 341, 342.
Aytoun, William E., iv., 194.
Bacon, Lord, ii., 395;
iii., 434‒435.
Badenoch, i., 211, 276, 356;
iii., 181.
Badenoch, Lord of, i., 217, 256, 271, 274, 275, 277.
Baillie,
General, iii., 93, 94, 95;
Rev. Robert, 75, 76, 87, 88, 357, 358.
Bain, Dr. Alexander, ii., 420;
iv., 139, 140, 141, 155.
Balcanqhall, Walter, ii., 177, 184, 187, 206.
Balfour,
Sir James, ii., 75, 135, 144, 146;
John, of Burley, iii., 151, 153, 343;
Sir Andrew, 369.
Baliol, Bernard de, i., 203.
Baliol,
King John, i., 256, 258, 259, 260‒262, 263, 264, 366;
Edward, 304, 305, 306, 307.
Ballads,
early, i., 184‒5, 441‒450;
ii., 76, 77, 244, 245, 341‒345;
referring to the Civil War and persecution, iii., 237‒346;
Jacobite ballads, 346‒353.
Balmerino, Lord, iii., 18, 60.
Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, iii., 32.
Bane, Donald, King, i., 144.
Banff, i., 148, 248, 307, 385, 390, 391;
iii., 301;
iv., 373.
Bank of Scotland established, iii., 327‒329.
Bannatyne, George, ii., 371, 372.
Bannockburn, battle of, i., 291‒295.
Barbour, John, i., 451‒454.
Barclay,
Robert, iii., 258;
Dr., iv., 308.
Barlow, Bishop, ii., 54, 56.
Barmekyn hill, fort on, i., 90.
Barony, i., 223, 225.
Barton, Captain, i., 359, 363.
Beaton,
James, Archbishop, ii., 38, 58;
David, Cardinal, 58, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70‒72, 79.
Beaumont, Henry, i., 301, 305, 306.
Beck, Bishop of Durham, i., 266, 270.
Bede, i., 116, 122, 126.
Bellhaven, Lord, iii., 197, 211‒12.
Bell Rock, i., 23.
Bell,
Dr. John, iv., 306, 307;
Sir Charles, 307, 308.
Bellenden,
John, ii., 317, 318;
Sir John, 158;
Sir Lewis, 274.
Berkeley, Bishop, iii., 470, 471.
Berwick-North, i., 387, 389.
Berwick, i., 206, 233, 234, 236, 238, 239, 248, 259, 260, 263,
264, 268, 279, 285, 295, 305, 350, 382;
Treaty of, ii., 100, 272.
Bible, translations of, ii., 25‒27, 49, 170.
Bisset, Thomas, i., 271.
Black,
David, ii., 204‒206;
Dr. Joseph iv., 260‒263, 273, 276, 278.
Blackadder, John, iii., 139.
Blackie, John S., iv., 247‒249.
Blakey, Robert, iv., 160.
Blacklock, Dr. Thomas, iv., 171, 172.
Blair,
Robert, iv., 169, 170;
Dr. Hugh, 215.
Blair Athole, iii., 90.
Blair Castle, iii., 181.
Bœce, Hector, ii., 316.
Bondmen, i., 252, 380‒382.
Book of Common Order, ii., 113, 114;
Book of Discipline, the first, 105‒113;
the second, 171‒173.
Book of Canons, iii., 45, 46.
Boot and shoe manufactures, iv., 392, 393.
Borders,
state of, i., 309, 315‒318, 322, 324, 342;
ii., 223‒225;
order established on the Borders, iii., 20‒28.
Borthwick Castle, ii., 143.
Bothwell,
Earl of, i., 353, 426;
ii., 69, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138‒145;
Francis Stewart, Earl of, 198, 272, 273, 274‒276.
Bothwell Bridge, Battle of, iii., 153, 154.
Botriphnie, i., 378;
iv., 197.
Bower, Walter, i., 376, 463.
Boyd,
Robert, of Kilmarnock, i., 283;
Robert, Lord Boyd, 345, 346, 347;
Sir Thomas, created Earl of Arran, 146, 147.
Boyd, Zachary, iii., 358, 359.
Braemar, iii., 222.
Brahmanism, ii., 428, 429, 431, 433.
Braxfield, Lord, iv., 458.
Breadalbane, Earl of, iii., 190, 191.
Brechin, i., 138, 164, 183, 238, 249, 276, 409;
Castle of, 264, 276;
Battle of, 342.
Bridges, Early, i., 250.
Briggs, Henry, ii., 389, 390, 391.
Brigham, treaty of, i., 218.
Britons of Strathclyde, i., 113, 114, 117, 123‒125, 138.
Britons and Scots, early laws of, i., 151‒153.
Brochs, i., 157‒163.
Brodick Castle, i., 286.
Brodie,
Alexander, iii., 255;
William, iv., 454.
Bronze weapons and tools, i., 74‒79.
Brooches, i., 117‒119.
Brown,
Janet, ii., 231;
Dr. Thomas, iv., 87‒97;
John, 216;
Dr. John, 217;
Dr. William L., 218, 219.
Bruce,
Robert, of Annandale, i., 203, 218, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259,
260;
Robert, Earl of Carrick, 266, 267, 271, 276, 278, 281‒283.
Bruce,
Nigel, Thomas, Alexander, i., 285;
Edward, 287, 290, 291, 292;
Robert, ii., 201, 208, 216, 381, 382;
Michael, iv., 177.
Brude, King of the Picts, i., 127.
Bruno, Giordano, writings of, iii., 399‒401.
Brunston, Laird of, ii., 69.
Buchan, Earl of, i., 208, 209, 211, 213, 217, 262, 287, 288, 319,
325, 352, 353, 373.
Buchan, Peter, i., 446.
Buchanan,
George, ii., 58, 145;
writings of, 364‒369, 409;
Thomas, 260;
Dr. Robert, iv., 224.
Buddha, his life and work, ii., 429‒432.
Buddhism, ii., 233, 432.
Burghs,
the origin and organisation of, i., 33, 82, 83, 152, 232‒237;
Custom and trade of, 382‒391;
Social life and characteristics of the burghal communities,
397‒408, 414, 438, 439;
ii., 230‒243, 291‒294;
iii., 245‒248, 274‒278, 283‒289.
Burghs of regality, barony, and church, i., 226, 237, 238, 408,
409.
Burial dues exacted by the Church, ii., 39, 40.
Burnet,
Bishop, his works, iii., 364‒366;
John, iv., 441.
Burns, Robert, iv., 179‒182.
Burntisland, iii., 301.
Burton, Dr. John H., iv., 160.
Caerlaverock Castle, i., 247, 272.
Cairns, burial, chambered, i., 53‒64, 91, 92.
Caithness,
prehistoric structures in, i., 53‒58;
Norseman inroads, 136, 138, 139.
Caithness, Earls of, i., 207, 208;
ii., 227;
iii., 237, 238, 239.
Calderwood, David, iii., 38, 356, 357.
Caledonians, i., 105‒109, 110, 111, 114.
Caledonian Canal, iv., 354.
Calvin, ii., 119, 357‒360.
Cambuskenneth, i., 249, 367.
Cameron of Lochiel, i., 356;
iii., 181.
Cameron, Richard, iii., 155, 156.
Cameronians, iii., 155, 174, 185, 186, 187.
Campbell of Glenlyon, iii., 192.
Campbell,
Sir Colin, iii., 395;
Dr. John, iv., 144;
Dr. George, 85, 86;
Thomas, his writings, 185‒187;
Colin, architect, 402;
Thomas, sculptor, 454.
Candlish, Dr. R. T., iv., 221, 222.
Canterbury, Archbishop of, i., 200, 201, 272.
Cantyre, i., 21, 215, 261, 285, 348.
Canute, i., 139, 192.
Carberry Hill, ii., 144.
Cardross, i., 302, 303.
Cargill, Donald, iii., 155, 156, 157.
Carham, battle of, i., 138.
Carlisle, i., 210, 318;
iii., 227.
Carlyle,
Thomas, iv., 156‒159;
Dr. Alexander, 19, 43, 44.
Carmichael, Lord, iii., 186, 187.
Carmichael,
John, of ♦Meadowflat, iii., 27;
William, 151;
Gershom, iv., 18.
♦ “Meadowflatt” replaced with “Meadowflat”
♦Carmon, Colonel, iii., 183.
♦ Printed out of alphabetic order.
Carrick, Earl of, i., 217, 266, 271, 278, 281, 302, 305, 314,
316.
Carswell, John, ii., 108.
Carstairs, William, iii., 178, 179.
Carved woodwork, i., 430;
ii., 423.
Casket Letters, ii., 141, 142;
iv., 145.
Cassillis, Earl of, i., 365;
ii., 69, 150;
iii., 19, 56, 87, 99, 104.
Castellio, Sebastia, ii., 359.
Castles, i., 247, 248, 428, 430;
ii., 422, 423.
Catechisms, ii., 77, 78, 85, 109, 110;
iii., 89.
Caterthun, hill fort, i., 89, 90.
Cathen, the King’s adviser, i., 125.
Caves, i., 43, 83, 163.
Celestius, ii., 356.
Celibacy, i., 131, 156, 244, 245;
ii., 21, 22, 41‒43, 45, 46, 261, 262.
Celtic tribes, i., 44, 45, 90, 100, 101, 105, 110, 113‒116, 119.
Censorship of the press, ii., 277, 278.
Chalmer, James, ii., 90.
Chalmers,
George, iv., 153;
Dr. Thomas, 219‒221.
Chambered Cairns, i., 53‒65.
Chambers,
Thomas, i., 336, 337;
David, ii., 138;
Dr. Robert, iv., 163.
Charles I.,
reign of, iii., 42‒100;
policy of, 43‒50, 51‒54, 57, 58, 59, 63‒65, 66‒68, 71, 73‒75,
76, 77, 78‒82, 90, 95, 96, 97.
Charles II., reign of, iii., 103, 107, 110, 119‒163.
Charles Stewart, prince, iii., 226‒229.
Charters, i., 148, 201, 223‒225, 227, 232‒234, 373, 387, 422.
Chartularies, i., 247.
Chatelherault, Duke of, ii., 86, 130.
Chemical Science, iv., 260‒266, 273, 286, 296‒298, 397.
Chepman, Walter, ii., 300‒302.
Christian I., King of Denmark, i., 346.
Christianity,
introduced, i., 121‒129;
early form of, 130‒134;
influence of, 134, 135, 168, 181, 186, 232, 245, 248‒250, 288,
289, 466, 467;
ii., 437‒439, 443.
Church,
early, i., 130‒134, 155‒157, 200, 201;
re-organisation of, 212, 213, 243‒245;
property of, 227, 252‒254, 380, 431‒433;
state of, 332, 333, 431, 432;
ii., 40‒43, 51, 76‒78, 79, 102.
Church, the Reformed,
organisation of, ii., 104‒115;
conflict with the Government, 165‒173, 177‒189, 192‒194,
197‒220;
iii., 20‒42, 46‒82, 83‒87, 95‒101, 110, 120‒163, 164‒169;
internal struggles of, iv., 467, _et seq._
Circuit Courts, i., 222, 355, 356, 424;
Lords of Council, Judicial Committee, i., 370, 371;
Court of Session, ii., 216, 223;
iii., 112, 113, 124, 232‒235; iv.;
Church Courts, i., 227, 230, 371.
Cists, i., 55, 93, 95.
Civilisation,
primary causes of, i., 19‒20, 31‒33, 34, 35;
ii., 426, 427;
gradual progress of, i., 53, 70, 71, 98‒102, 119‒121, 135,
149‒151, 161, 164, 169, 170, 181‒188, 232‒241, 245‒55,
330‒332, 366‒371, 382‒397, 408, 418‒422, 465‒472;
ii., 109, 278‒291, 398, 419;
iii., 101, 102, 294‒335;
rapid development of, iii., 215;
iv., 142‒145, 165, 284, 324‒332; _et seq._, 341‒400.
Clackmannan, iv., 343.
Claim of Right,
of the Scotch Parliament, iii., 176, 177;
Claim of Right, of General Assembly of the Church, iv., 480,
_et seq._
Clan, i., 146;
iii., 225.
Clan Canan, i., 150.
Clan Morgan, i., 150.
Clanranald, chief of, i., 356;
ii., 226;
iii., 242, 243.
Cleland, William, iii., 153.
Clunymore, i., 378.
Coal,
early notice of, i., 238, 409;
mining, ii., 286;
iii., 292‒293;
iv., 341‒343.
Cochrane, Robert, i., 348‒350.
Cockburne, of Henderland, ii., 224.
Cockburn, Sir Richard, Sir John, iii., 18.
Coinage, i., 238, 394‒397;
ii., 279‒282;
iii., 320‒327;
paper currency, 327‒329.
Coldingham, i., 209, 246.
Colin, King, i., 137.
Colliers, iii., 291‒292;
iv., 342‒344.
Colville, John, i., 448.
Commerce, i., 239‒240, 391‒394;
ii., 286‒290;
iii., 112, 300‒303, 311;
iv., 352‒357, 359‒363, _et seq._
Compurgators, i., 228‒229.
Comyn, Clan, i., 213‒214.
Comyn,
John, i., 217, 256, 271, 275, 277;
slaughter of, 281.
Confessions of Faith, ii., 34‒35, 102, 204‒205;
iii., 89.
Constantine, Roman general, i., 112.
Constantine I., son of Kenneth M‘Alpin, i., 136.
Constantine II., 136‒137.
Constantine III., 138.
Conventicles, acts against, iii., 130, 131, 133, 138, 140, 146,
148, 149.
Convention of Royal Burgh, i., 234, 235.
Convention of Estates, iii., 173‒177.
Cope, Sir John, iii., 226, 227.
Corrichie, battle of, ii., 123, 124.
Cotterel, Colonel, iii., 110, 111.
Covenant,
National, iii., 59‒62;
Solemn League and Covenant, 83‒86.
Covenanters, iii., 68‒73, 74‒77, 78‒82, 86, 89‒102, 103‒105, 107.
♦Craftsmen, i., 335, 336, 404‒408;
ii., 240, 241, 242, 293, 294;
iii., 287‒289.
♦ “Craftesmen” replaced with “Craftsmen”
Craig,
John, ii., 110, 158, 167, 185;
Sir Thomas, 384;
Andrew, iii., 245.
Craigellachie, iv., 354.
Craigmiller Castle, i., 349.
Craigphadrig, vitrified fort, i., 91.
Crannogs, i., 42, 84‒87.
Cranstoun, Sir William, iii., 21, 24, 25, 27.
Crawar, Paul, i., 332.
Crawford, Earl of, i., 321, 340, 341, 342, 343, 364;
iii., 120, 179, 186.
Crawford, Sir William, i., 388, 389.
Crawford Moor, ii., 282;
iii., 293.
Crichton, Sir William, i., 338, 339, 340.
Crinan, Abbot of Dunkeld, i., 139, 140.
Cromwell, iii., 99, 108, 100, 110, 111, 112‒115.
Culblean, battle of, i., 306.
Cullen, burgh of, i., 385, 386.
Culloden, battle of, iii., 229, 230, 351, 352;
iv., 172, 173.
Cumberland, i., 105, 125, 142.
Cumberland, Duke of, iii., 228, 229.
Cummene, i., 181.
Cunningham, Allan, iv., 192, 193.
Cupar, i., 465;
iii., 157.
Curates, under Charles II., iii., 130, 132, 173.
Dacre, Lord, ii., 62.
Dalkeith, iii., 227;
castle of, i., 316, 342;
ii., 423.
Dalriada, i., 116, 117, 127.
Dalry, iii., 133.
Dalrymple, Sir John, iii., 191‒193, 233, 234.
Dalziel, General, iii., 134, 135, 342.
Dancing, i., 457, 468;
ii., 124, 125, 415;
iv., 416.
Darien Colony, iii., 196‒204.
Darnaway Castle, i., 360;
ii., 124.
Darnley, ii., 128, 129, 130‒136, 137, 138.
Dauney, William, iv., 416.
David I., reign of, i., 201‒204, 221, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228,
230, 232, 234, 235, 243, 244.
David II., reign of, i., 304, 306, 307‒313, 429.
David, Earl of Huntingdon, i., 204, 256.
Davidson,
John, ii., 198, 214, 373, 374;
Thomas, 302, 303;
John, Principal of the University of Glasgow, 352, 408;
Dr. Patrick, iv., 164.
Dean of Lismore’s Book, i., 442, 443.
Defence of the Country, armour, weapons, organisation of the
army, i., 409‒413.
Denmark, marriage treaty, i., 346.
Descartes, method and principles of his system, iii., 403‒418.
Dickson, David, iii., 61, 359.
Dingwall, i., 385, 386.
Divorce, ii., 265, 266.
Donald I., i., 136.
Donald II., i., 136.
Donald Bane, i., 144.
Donald Balloch, i., 329, 330.
Donald, Lord of the Isles, i., 324‒326.
Douglas,
Sir William, i., 266, 267;
Sir James, 283, 286, 287, 290, 292, 300, 303;
Sir Archibald, 305, 306;
Sir William, 307;
Sir John of Dalkeith, 342;
Sir James, 435;
Sir William of Drumlanrig, 389;
Sir James, ii., 225;
George of Parkhead, 284, 285;
Sir Archibald, iii., 18.
Douglas, Earl of, i., 316, 317, 318, 321, 323, 326, 338, 339,
340, 341, 342, 343, 349, 388, 389, 390.
Douglas,
Gavin, ii., 36, 310‒315;
Dr. James, iv., 320.
Drumclog, battle of, iii., 153.
Drummond,
Lord, i., 360;
ii., 228;
Earl of Perth, iii., 171, 172;
Lady Margaret, i., 360.
Drummond,
General, iii., 135;
James, 227;
William, 366, 367.
Dryburgh, Monastery, ii., 66.
Duff,
King, i., 137;
Angus Chief, 329;
♦Dumbarton, i., 114, 121;
castle of, 248, 278;
ii., 149, 154, 155;
burgh of, i., 386, 391;
iii., 302, 303;
iv., 361.
♦ Separate item, not part of Duff.
♦Dumfries,
Castle of, i., 248, 290;
burgh of, 282, 356, 384;
ii., 131, 186;
iii., 24, 27, 134, 212, 228, 342, 386;
iv., 371.
♦ Printed out of alphabetic order.
♦Dumplin, battle of, i., 305.
♦ Printed out of alphabetic order.
Dunaverty Castle, i., 285, 355.
Dunbar,
Castle, i., 263, 383;
ii., 133, 140, 141, 143, 149;
town of, i., 383, 503;
iii., 227, 300, 387;
battle of, 109.
Dunbar, Earl of, i., 212, 214, 217, 218;
iii., 18, 25, 26, 30.
Dunbar, William, ii., 303‒310.
Dunblane,
cathedral, i., 249;
ii., 423;
city of, i., 238, 408.
Duncan I., i., 139, 140.
Duncan II., i., 143, 144.
Duncan, Dr. Andrew, iv., 302‒304.
Dundee, i., 83, 119, 248, 265, 267, 288, 387, 391, 437;
ii., 69, 93, 197, 202, 233, 235, 237, 240, 243, 400;
iii., 93, 223, 301, 303;
iv., 243, 331, 357, 358, 375, 376.
Dundee, Viscount, iii., 174, 175, 181, 182, 183.
Dunfermline,
Abbey of, i., 141, 144, 156, 239, 248, 252, 303, 385;
burgh of, 238, 258, 408;
ii., 400;
iv., 375.
Dunfermline, Earl of, iii., 18, 30.
Dunkeld, i., 119;
church of, 120, 134;
abbot of, 138, 139, 143;
bishopric of, 210, 218, 222, 225.
Dunlop,
John, iv., 155;
Alexander, 480.
Dunnichen, i., 116.
Dunnotter, i., 136.
Duns Law, iii., 74.
Dunsinnane, i., 91, 92, 140.
Dupin, Nicolas, iii., 313, 318, 333.
Durham, i., 203;
battle of, 308;
iii., 97.
Durham, James, iii., 359.
♦Durrisdeer, i., 91.
♦ Printed out of alphabetic order.
Durward, Alan, i., 214, 216.
Dury, John, ii., 167, 178, 179, 182.
Eadmer, i., 200, 201.
Earth-houses, i., 65‒70.
Earthenware, iii., 317;
iv., 365, 366.
Edgar, King, i., 143, 144, 148.
Edinburgh,
annexed, i., 137, 144, 151, 233, 247, 258, 276, 301, 306, 312,
317, 319, 338, 352, 354, 370, 388, 389;
ii., 35, 54, 58, 65, 66, 78, 89, 90, 91, 93, 97, 99, 100,
115, 117, 119, 124, 128, 132, 133, 135, 140, 143, 148,
151, 154, 163, 167, 179, 183, 203, 206, 213, 219, 237;
iii., 37, 41, 42‒44, 48, 49, 54, 55, 56, 67, 81, 99, 110,
120, 129, 134, 135, 147, 153, 163, 168, 171‒173, 174‒176,
180, 182, 186, 203, 206, 213, 219, 227, 236, 241, 274, 285;
iv., 44, 70, 75, 87, 97, 144, 148, 165, 174, 178, 194, 211,
222, 234, 330, 391, 405‒6;
Castle of, i., 248, 264, 274, 307, 322, 339, 349, 350, 358,
429;
ii., 101, 134, 142, 144, 149, 152, 155;
iii., 73, 159, 174, 175, 227;
University of, ii., 414‒419;
iii., 392, 393;
iv., 18, 69, 70, 74, 75, 87, 97, 102, 103, 136, 148, 156,
157, 167, 257, 263, 274, 291‒315.
Edinburgh, treaty of, ii., 100.
Edmund, i., 143.
Education, i., 184, 245, 466;
first Educational Act, 466, 467, 468;
ii., 109, 110, 397‒422;
iii., 375‒393;
iv., 324‒330.
Edward I., policy of, i., 218, 219, 255‒260, 261, 262, 263‒265,
266, 269‒271, 272, 273‒279, 283, 287.
Edward II., i., 287, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 296, 298, 299, 300.
Edward III.,
Invasions of Scotland, i., 305, 306, 307;
policy of, 309, 310, 311, 312.
Edward IV., i., 348, 349, 351.
Edward VI., ii., 75, 86, 87.
Egfrid, defeat of, i., 116.
Eglinton, Earl of, ii., 140, 229;
iii., 56, 75, 99.
Elgin, i., 139, 264, 385, 390;
ii., 251;
iii., 92, 94;
iv., 370;
Elizabeth, wife of Robert I., i., 303.
Elizabeth, Queen, ii., 92, 93, 99, 100, 145, 150, 220;
iv., 147.
Elliot, Robert, iii., 27.
Ellon, iv., 370.
Elphinstone, Bishop, i., 467;
ii., 300, 301.
Elphinstone,
Lord, iii., 19;
master of, 292.
England, policy of toward Scotland, i., 206, 214, 218, 257‒260,
261, 263‒265, 271, 273, 278, 280, 283, 287, 299, 300, 301,
305, 306, 309, 310, 322, 349, 361, 362;
ii., 54‒57, 63‒67, 76, 99‒101, 155;
iii., 179, 183, 184, 190‒193, 198, 201‒204, 206, 217‒221.
English language, i., 441, 443, 464.
English money, i., 396;
ii., 282;
one standard fixed, iii., 216.
Eocha, King, i., 136.
Episcopacy, ii., 108, 109, 157‒160, 164‒171, 177, 182‒185, 188,
210‒218;
iii., 28‒42, 44‒69;
abolished, 70‒72;
reintroduced, 122‒128;
again abolished, 180, 181, 184.
Erc, Chief, i., 116.
Eric II., King of Norway, i., 217, 259.
Errol, Earl of, i., 365, 373;
ii., 195, 196, 199, 201, 212;
iii., 19.
Erskine,
Lord Robert, i., 334;
John, of Dun, ii., 88, 89, 93, 108, 158, 185;
Rev. Ebenezer, iv., 213;
Rev. Ralph, 213;
Dr. John, 213, 214;
Thomas, Lord, 232‒234.
Ethnology, i., 38‒43;
of Scotland, 43‒47, 114, 115, 116, 118.
Etive, Loch, vitrified fort on, i., 91.
Evans, Dr. John, i., 50, 51.
Exchequer, i., 221.
Excise, difficulties connected with, iii., 217‒219;
iv., 395, 396.
Excommunication of Robert I., i., 295, 303;
form of, ii., 255, 257.
Fairfax, iii., 342.
Falasie, i., 192.
Falkirk, battle of, i., 269‒271;
iii., 228.
Falkland Castle, i., 323, 430;
ii., 213, 274.
Fast Castle, i., 324, 353.
Fasting, i., 131;
ii., 257‒260;
iii., 272, 273.
Fergus,
King, i., 120;
Chief, 116, 205.
Ferguson,
David, ii., 352;
Adam, iv., 69‒74, 152.
Fergusson, Robert, iv., 178, 179.
Feudalism, i., 161, 190, 193, 198, 199, 201, 203, 209, 211,
220‒228, 256, 260, 261, 269, 337, 371‒376, 411.
Fife, Earl of, i., 143, 204, 209, 213, 217, 225, 271, 308, 314,
317, 319, 333.
Fifeshire, i., 105, 119, 121, 136, 304;
ii., 66;
iii., 151;
iv., 142, 143, 341, 373.
Finlay, John, i., 446.
Firth of Forth, i., 23, 28, 109, 110, 115, 119.
Fisheries, i., 239, 377, 390, 391, 432;
ii., 40, 54;
iii., 301, 302, 303, 308;
iv., 400.
Flanders, Count of, i., 240, 241, 391, 392.
Fleming,
Robert, i., 283;
Malcolm, 327, 339.
Fleming, Lord, i., 345;
ii., 150.
Fletcher,
Sir John, iii., 120;
Andrew, of Saltoun, 179, 206, 255.
Flint weapons and tools, i., 48‒52.
Flodden, Battle of, i., 363‒365.
Forbes, Lord, i., 353, 354.
Forbes,
Patrick, Bishop, iii., 362;
Dr. John, 362, 363;
Professor, iv., 266, 268.
Fordoun, iii., 94.
Fordun, John, i., 463.
Forest,
free, i., 223;
forest laws, 225, 417.
Forfar,
Castle of, i., 248, 267, 288;
burgh of, 373, 387;
iv., 375.
Forfarshire, i., 89, 121, 202, 264, 378;
ii., 88;
iii., 90, 110;
iv., 373.
Forfeited estates, i., 343, 344, 347;
ii., 60;
iii., 217, 224;
iv., 336.
Forman, Andrew, Archbishop of St. Andrews, i., 428;
ii., 36.
Forres, i., 248, 372, 385.
Forrest, Thomas, martyred, ii., 58.
Forrester, Robert, martyred, ii., 58.
Four Burghs, court of, i., 234, 235.
France,
Alliance with, i., 262, 274, 275, 299, 300, 315;
French troops in Scotland, 316, 317, 330, 363;
ii., 76, 97.
Franchise, iv., 456, 460, 461‒463.
Francis II., ii., 97, 116.
Frankfort, ii., 75.
Fraser, William, Bishop of St. Andrews, i., 217, 246, 255.
Fraser,
Sir Simon, i., 275, 277, 285;
Alexander, 283;
James, 305;
Simon, 305;
Captain Simon, iv., 421.
Free Trade with England under Cromwell, iii., 112.
French refugees, ii., 189.
Fyvie, i., 50, 432;
iii., 91.
Fyvie, Lord, ii., 204;
iii., 18.
Gaelic, i., 148, 175, 183, 184, 442‒444.
Galgacus, Chief, i., 106‒109.
Galloway, i., 115, 122, 201, 203;
risings in, 205, 206, 211, 212, 272;
law of, 229, 230;
castles of, 290.
Galloway,
Lord of, i., 211, 230, 256;
Bishop of, 212;
ii., 153.
Galt, John, iv., 204.
Game laws, i., 417.
Garioch, i., 325.
Gasklune, battle of, i., 319, 320.
Geddes, Sir William, iv., 142.
Geneva, ii., 75, 89, 113, 114, 359.
Geology, iv., 268‒271.
George I., iii., 222.
Gibbs, James, iv., 402‒404.
Gibson, James, ii., 188.
Gilbert, Chief, i., 206.
Gillespie, George, iii., 87, 362.
Gillies, Dr. John, iv., 152, 153.
Gladstanes, Archbishop of St. Andrews, iii., 19.
Glammis,
Lord, i., 373;
Master of, ii., 177, 181;
iii., 19.
Glasgow,
Bishop of――Wishart, i., 266, 273, 277, 283, 294;
Turnbull, 466, 467;
Laing, 467;
Archbishop of, ii., 38, 59;
iii., 19, 35, 363;
Cathedral of i., 249.
Glasgow,
city of, i., 125, 238, 403, 408, 465;
ii., 97, 252, 400, 402, 403;
iii., 50, 69, 128, 153, 218, 228, 245, 246, 248, 254, 284,
302, 303, 319, 328, 330, 331;
iv., 348‒351, 360‒363, 370, 376, 378, 380, 383, 389, 392‒393,
395, 397‒399, 406‒409, 428;
University of, i., 466;
ii., 408‒410;
iii., 388, 390, 391, 392;
iv., 18, 19, 44, 60, 102, 260‒263, 266, 272‒275, 284, 315‒317.
Glass,
introduction of, i., 420;
Glass-making, iii., 315‒317;
iv., 363‒365.
Glencairn, Earl of, ii., 69, 88, 89, 97, 130, 133, 145, 148, 177;
iii., 120, 124.
Glencoe, iii., 191‒193.
Glenfinnan, iii., 226.
Glengarry, chief, iii., 190, 191, 226.
Glenlivet, battle of, ii., 201, 202.
Glenmore, i., 25, 215.
Godly Ballads, ii., 341‒345.
Gold ornaments, ancient, i., 79‒81.
Goodal, Walter, iv., 145.
Goodsir, John, iv., 306.
Gordon, Duke of, iii., 174, 175;
iv., 421, 454.
Gordon,
Sir Adam, i., 298, 305;
Sir Alexander, 338;
Sir John, ii., 124;
George, 124;
Sir Robert, iii., 237, 238;
Sir Alexander, 238;
Lord Gordon, 238, 239;
Robert, 247;
George, 267, 268;
Dr., iv., 309;
Sir John W., 446.
Gourlay, Norman, burned, ii., 54.
Gow,
Neil, iv., 418, 420;
Nathaniel, 421, 422.
Gowrie, Earl of, ii., 177, 179, 180, 181, 218, 219.
Gowrie, Carse of, i., 28.
Graham,
Sir John, i., 271;
David de, 277;
Sir Robert, 327, 334, 335, 336, 337;
William, iii., 313;
John of Claverhouse, 153;
George F., iv., 416.
Grammar Schools, i., 465, 466;
ii., 399‒405;
iii., 380‒388;
iv., 327.
Grant, James, iv., 208.
Gray, Lord, iii., 238.
Gray, David, iv., 195.
Greenock, i., 409;
iii., 303;
iv., 394.
Gregory,
James, iii., 371, 372;
David, 372, 373;
Dr. John, iv., 300, 302;
Dr. James, 302.
Greyfriars Church, iii., 49.
Greyfriars Churchyard, iii., 61, 154.
Grub, Dr. George, iv., 164.
Gruoch, i., 139, 140.
Guilds, laws of, i., 235‒236, 404.
Guinea, iii., 330.
Guise, House of, ii., 57, 92, 93, 116, 124, 125.
Grum John, iv., 422.
Guthrie,
James, iii., 123, 326;
William, iv., 150;
Dr. Thomas, 222.
Hackston, of Rathillet, iii., 151, 153, 156.
Haco, i., 215, 216.
Haddington, i., 307, 386, 387, 465;
ii., 69, 303, 315;
iv., 370.
Haddington, Earl of, iv., 335.
Haddingtonshire, i., 271;
iv., 343, 373.
Hailes, Lord, iv., 146, 151, 152.
Halidon Hill, battle of, i., 306.
Hall, Sir John, i., 336.
Hamilton,
Lord, i., 345, 346;
Lord Claud, ii., 150, 155, 208;
Marquis of, iii., 63, 64, 65, 67, 70, 71, 74;
Duke of, 98, 99, 174, 175, 177, 179, 181, 193, 207, 211.
Hamilton, Patrick, martyred, ii., 49, 50.
Hamilton,
of Bothwellhaugh, ii., 152;
John, Archbishop of St. Andrews, 71, 77, 87, 96, 138, 150, 154,
406;
Sir Thomas, of Monkland, iii., 18;
James, Master of Paisley, 19;
Sir Robert, 154;
William, iv., 167;
William, of Bangour, 170;
Sir William, his writings, 102‒135.
Hamilton town, iii., 153;
iv., 295, 296.
Harlaw, battle of, i., 324‒326, 450.
Harold, King, i., 194.
Harold, Earl of Orkney, i., 207, 208.
Harrington, James, iii., 450.
Hastings,
John, i., 256, 259, 260;
Henry de, 204.
Hawick, iv., 369, 370, 371.
Hawley, General, iii., 228, 229.
Hay,
Gilbert, of Errol, i., 283;
Hugh, 283, 284;
Alexander, iii., 19;
Sir James, 19.
Hebrides, i., 22, 23, 118, 134, 144, 156, 215, 217, 329, 346,
348, 355, 356, 357;
ii., 60;
iii., 242, 243.
Henderson,
James, ii., 238;
Alexander, iii., 52, 55, 60, 61, 70, 87, 88, 362.
Henry, the minstrel, i., 458‒462.
Henry I., i., 195, 202.
Henry II., i., 205, 206.
Henry III., i., 214.
Henry IV., i., 322, 324.
Henry VI., i., 345.
Henry VII., i., 353, 358, 361, 362.
Henry VIII., i., 362, 363;
ii., 37, 51, 54‒56, 57, 61, 63‒67, 69, 76.
Henry II. of France, ii., 97.
Henry, Dr. Robert, iv., 151.
Henryson,
Robert, i., 376, 462, 463;
Dr. Edward, ii., 383.
Hepburn,
William, i., 353;
Patrick, Lord Hailes, 353;
John, ii., 36, 406.
Hereditary jurisdiction, i., 220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 228, 237,
238, 372, 411, 424‒426;
iii., 213, 225, 226.
Heresy, i., 37, 327, 332;
ii., 18, 19, 49, 53, 58‒60, 68‒70, 74, 75, 78, 81, 91.
Hermitage Castle, i., 309.
Herries, Ralph, i., 285.
Herries, Lord, ii., 150.
Hertford, Earl of, ii., 65‒67.
Hexham, i., 253, 254, 268.
High Commission, Courts of, iii., 34, 132, 133.
Highlands, i., 23‒25, 27, 29, 206‒208, 329, 348, 355‒357;
ii., 226, 227, 290;
iii., 237‒239, 241‒244;
iv., 353, 354.
Hill, Dr. George, iv., 219, 470.
Hill forts, i., 88‒92.
Historic Interpretation, i., 33‒37.
Historical conditions, i., 19, 45, 46, 85, 88, 101, 102, 113,
119, 120, 121, 135, 136, _et seq._, 227, 228, 255‒265;
ii., 1, 2, _et seq._, 100, 103, 220;
iii., 17‒20, 176, 177, 214, 215.
History of Scottish philosophy, iv., 17‒142.
Hogarth, George, iv., ♦422, 423, 427, 429.
♦ page numbers supplied by transcriber
Hogg, James, iii., 344;
iv., 189‒191.
Holland, John, iii., 328.
Holyrood Abbey, i., 221, 222, 249, 338;
Palace of, ii., 117, 130, 133, 136, 142, 179, 206, 209, 215,
273, 275, 423;
iii., 396;
Chapel of, ii., 119, 138;
iii., 37, 51, 169, 172.
Home, Lord, i., 364;
ii., 199, 224.
Home, John, iv., 174.
Homeldon Hill, battle of, i., 323.
Homil, James, i., 348, 350.
Hope, Sir Thomas, iii., 84, 367.
Howard, Lord, i., 363.
Hume, Lord, ii., 143, 145, 148.
Hume,
Alexander, ii., 377, 378;
Alexander, 402, 403;
Sir Patrick, iii., 179;
David,
his philosophical writings, iv., 25‒44;
history, 146‒148.
Huntingdon, Earl of, i., 204.
Hunter,
Dr. Henry, iv., 217, 218;
Dr. William, 320, 321;
Dr. John, 321‒323.
Huntly,
Earl of, i., 342, 350, 354, 356, 357, 358, 364;
ii., 63, 64, 78, 116, 123, 124, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139,
150, 152, 155, 192, 195, 196, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206,
212;
Marquis of, iii., 68, 74, 90, 94, 104, 222.
Hurry, General, iii., 93, 94.
Icolmkill, statutes of, iii., 242, 243.
Inchaffary, Abbot of, i., 292.
Inchcolm, ruins of monastery, i., 163.
Inchkeith, i., 23.
Inchmahome, i., 249.
Incontinence, i., 155, 244, 245;
ii., 41.
India-rubber manufactures, iv., 391, 392, 393.
Indulf, King, i., 137.
Independents, iii., 88, 96, 97.
Influence of surrounding nature upon the Mind, i., 19, 20, 31‒33,
66;
ii., 427.
Innermaith, Lord, ii., 145, 146.
Innes,
Thomas, iv., 145;
Cosmo, 162.
Invercharron, iii., 105, 106.
Inveresk, iv., 418.
Inverkeithing, i., 307, 387;
iii., 301.
Inverlochy, battle of, iii., 92.
Inverness, i., 83, 91, 127, 151, 207, 233, 240, 306, 329, 356,
385, 390, 404;
ii., 226, 227;
iii., 94, 225, 226, 227, 228, 288, 302;
iv., 354, 373, 374.
Inverurie, i., 278‒287;
iii., 74.
Iona, i., 127‒134, 156, 175, 181, 182.
Ireland, 21, 48, 70, 77, 78, 126, 127, 133, 161, 174, 181, 211,
285, 291, 357;
iii., 65, 85, 90, 297, 302, 303.
Irish,
early writings, i., 117, 150;
note illuminated manuscripts, 172, 173.
Iron works and manufactures, iv., 345‒352.
Irvine, i., 267, 391, 434;
iii., 134.
Irvine, Sir Alexander, i., 328.
Irving, Dr., ii., 367;
iv., 163.
Isles, lordship of forfeited, i., 348, 355.
Isabella, daughter of Earl David, i., 204, 256.
Jack, Thomas, ii., 402.
Jacobites, iii., 175, 176, 181‒183, 190, 193, 195, 196, 201,
205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 213, 218, 219, 220, 222‒224,
226‒230.
Jacobite Songs, iii., 346‒353.
James I., reign of, i., 226‒337.
James II., reign of, i., 338‒344.
James III., reign of, i., 344‒352.
James IV., reign of, i., 353‒365.
James V., reign of, ii., 38‒39, 49‒62.
James VI., reign of, ii., 169‒220;
iii., 17‒42.
James VII., policy of, iii., 163‒172.
James VIII., Pretender, iii., 223.
Jamesone, George, painter, iii., 393‒396.
Jamieson, Dr., i., 280, 461.
Jedburgh, 238, 356, 383, 426;
ii., 292;
iii., 24, 27, 380;
iv., 371;
castle of, i., 248, 264, 324;
abbey of, 248;
ii., 66.
Jeffrey, Lord, iv., 234‒236.
Jesuits, ii., 82‒84, 192, 195.
Joanna, Queen of David II., i., 302, 306, 307, 310.
John, King of England, i., 208, 209, 210.
Johnstone,
of Johnstone, ii., 186, 224;
Archibald, of Warriston, iii., 60, 61, 70, 87, 121, 123;
Dr., 380;
Mrs., iv., 204, 205.
Justiciary, i., 214, 222, 330, 386, 424.
Jury trial, i., 221, 230, 371.
Justice of the Peace, iii., 248, 249, 294.
Kay, John, iv., 366.
Kells, Book of, illuminated manuscripts, i., 172, 173.
Keith, iii., 244.
Keith,
Sir Robert, i., 292, 293, 305, 367;
Sir William, of Inverugy, ii., 228;
Dr. William, iv., 319.
Kelso, i., 238, 344, 384;
iv., 369;
Abbey of, i., 216, 249, 250, 252‒254, 432;
ii., 66.
Kennedy,
Bishop of St. Andrews, i., 340, 345;
Walter, ii., 309;
Quintin, 349, 352, 353.
Kennedy, Lord, i., 360;
ii., 309.
Kenneth I., M‘Alpin, i., 120, 121, 136.
Kenneth II., i., 138.
Kenneth, M‘Duff, i., 138.
Ker,
George, ii., 195, 196;
Mark, 224;
Robert, iii., 19;
Dr. David, iv., 319.
Kilconcath, William, i., 246.
Kildelith, i., 246.
Kildrummy Castle, i., 247, 264, 276, 284, 285, 306, 307.
Killiecrankie, Battle of, iii., 181‒183.
Kilmarnock, i., 409;
iii., 297;
iv., 369, 371, 372.
Kilpatrick, West, i., 110.
Kilsyth, battle of, iii., 95.
Kincardineshire, i., 136, 137, 378.
Kinghorn, i., 217, 258.
Kinghorn, Earl of, iii., 19.
Kirk-of-Field, ii., 135.
Kirkcaldy, iii., 301, 303;
iv., 375.
Kirkcaldy, Sir William, of Grange, ii., 71, 149, 152, 153, 155,
156.
Kirkpatrick, i., 282.
Knapdale, i., 348.
Knox,
John, ii., 69, 72, 73, 74, 75, 87‒89, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99,
100, 104, 118, 119, 120, 123, 124‒127, 130, 134, 147, 153,
154, 159, 160‒165;
his writings, 345‒349, 352‒354, 360‒364;
Andrew, minister of Paisley, 195;
Bishop of the Isles, iii., 242, 243;
Dr., iv., 309.
Laing, David, ii., 300, 305, 331, 340, 343, 346;
iv., 163.
Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, i., 274, 281, 283, 285.
Lanark, i., 356, 387;
ii., 181;
iii., 160;
iv., 373.
Lanarkshire, i., 29, 81, 114, 271, 279;
iii., 134;
iv., 341, 342, 343, 344, 347, 378, 381, 388.
Land, in connection with the tribe, and organisation of society,
i., 100, 146‒150, 202, 223‒228, 250‒254, 371‒376, 377‒380,
380‒382, 421, 422;
ii., 39, 40, 110, 266, 297;
iii., 305;
iv., 336‒339.
Langside, battle of, ii., 150.
Largs, battle of, i., 216.
Latin, i., 183, 245, 463, 464;
ii., 5, 6, 379, 380.
Laud, Archbishop, iii., 45, 63, 66.
Lauder Bridge, i., 350.
Lauder, Sir Thomas D., iv., 206.
Lauderdale, Earl of, iii., 14, 129, 137, 142, 348.
Laws, early, i., 151‒153, 221, 222, 228‒231, 370, 371.
Lawson, James, ii., 162, 167, 184, 421.
Le Crocke, ii., 161.
Leibnitz, theory of monads, iii., 432‒434;
iv., 255, 256.
Leighton, Bishop, iii., 141, 363‒364.
Leith, i., 316, 333, 346, 358, 359, 419;
ii., 66, 89, 97, 98, 99, 100, 117, 132, 158, 275, 291, 294;
iii., 74, 84, 300, 301, 303, 309, 313, 331, 332;
iv., 357, 369.
Lennox,
Earl of, i., 217, 283, 285, 327, 328, 354, 364, 365;
ii., 37, 128, 131, 139, 152, 154, 155;
Duke of, iii., 54.
Lennox, Esme Stewart, Duke of, ii., 175, 176, 177, 179.
Lesley, Norman, ii., 71.
Leslie,
General Alexander, iii., 73, 76, 79, 338;
General David, 95, 338;
Sir John, iv., 263‒265.
Lesly, John, ii., 116.
Lesmahagow sanctuary, i., 232.
Leven, Earl of, iii., 175.
Lewis, island, i., 22, 357.
Leyden, University of, iv., 287, 292, 293, 304.
Leyden, John, ii., 319;
iv., 184, 185.
Liddel, Dr. Duncan, ii., 393, 394.
Lindisfarne, i., 126.
Lindores, i., 323.
Lindsay,
Alexander, i., 267, 277;
Sir James, 317;
Sir William, 321, 322;
David, Lord of Crawford, 434;
David, ii., 158, 167, 188.
Lindsay, Lord, ii., 132, 134, 143, 145, 148, 155, 175, 181, 206,
207.
Linlithgow, i., 258, 264, 274, 276, 290, 294, 307, 326, 345, 358,
387, 390;
ii., 120, 152, 207, 349, 400;
iii., 29, 80, 54;
iv., 370.
Linlithgow, Palace of, i., 333, 360, 377, 429, 430, 470;
ii., 62.
Linlithgow, Earl of, iii., 19.
Linlithgowshire, i., 29, 119;
iv., 341, 342, 343, 373.
Lismore, Book of the Dean of, i., 442.
Literature,
early, i., 181‒185, 215‒247, 441‒464;
Poetry, ii., 301‒315, 331‒341, 370‒380;
Ballad, 341‒345;
Historical and various, 315‒330, 345‒364, 364‒370, 380‒385,
393‒396;
Ballad and Jacobite Song, iii., 336‒355;
Historical and various, 356‒368;
Historical, iv., 143‒154, 154‒164;
Poetry, 165‒182, 183‒198;
Fiction, 199‒212;
Religious, 213‒228;
Miscellaneous, 228‒254.
Liturgy, iii., 44, 46‒50, 51‒58, 62, 63.
Livingston,
Sir Alexander, i., 338, 339, 340;
John of Livingston, 389, 390;
Sir William, iii., 19.
Livingston, Lord, i., 345;
ii., 150.
Livingstone, Dr. David, iv., 250.
Lochaber, i., 329, 356;
iii., 181.
Lochiel, chief of the clan Cameron, i., 356;
iii., 181, 226.
Lochindorb Castle, i., 247, 276.
Lochleven, i., 140;
ii., 144, 145, 147, 150.
Lochmaben,
Castle, i., 281;
town of, 372, 468.
Locke, John, writings of, iii., 452‒462;
iv., 17, 18, 27.
Lockhart,
Colonel, iii., 113;
Sir George, 148, 233;
Sir George of Carnwath, 208, 209, 210, 214;
John G., iv., 207, 208.
Logan, John, iv., 177, 178.
Logic, iii., 437‒439;
iv., 130‒133.
Logie, Margaret, i., 310.
Lomond, Loch, i., 29.
London, i., 271, 279, 280, 285;
ii., 99, 220;
iii., 54, 82, 86, 116, 118, 173, 179, 183, 198, 229, 296;
iv., 167, 173, 245.
Long Parliament, iii., 80, 84, 86, 87, 89, 96, 97.
Lord of the Isles, i., 285, 292, 312, 324, 325, 329, 330, 341,
348, 355.
Lords of the Articles, i., 369, 370;
iii., 37, 38, 129, 130, 180, 183, 184.
Lords of the Congregation, ii., 89, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100.
Lorne,
Lord of, i., 284, 312;
black knight of, 338; ii., 89.
Lothian, i., 47, 116, 138, 185, 189.
Lothian, Earl of, iii., 18, 188, 189, 190.
Loudon, Lord, iii., 55, 57, 58, 60, 61.
Loudon Hill, battle of, i., 286, 287.
Lowe, Dr. Peter, ii., 393.
Lovat, Lord, i., 386.
Lubeck, i., 268.
Lude Hill, iii., 181.
Lulach, i., 140.
Lumphanan, battle of, i., 140.
Luther, ii., 17, 32‒34, 49.
Lyndsay, Sir David, ii., 42, 331‒340.
M‘Ancrum, Donald B., ii., 229.
M‘Angus, William, iii., 237.
Macbeth, i., 139, 140, 148.
M‘Cowane, Donald C., ii., 229.
M‘Crie, Dr. Thomas, iv., 154.
M‘Culloch, Horatio, iv., 449.
Macdonald, Lord, i., 163.
Macdonald,
Sir Donald, iii., 190;
Chief of Glencoe, 191‒192;
of Boisdale, Glengarry, Keppoch, 191, 226;
Donald Gorm of Sleat, Donald of Ylanterim, Captain of
Clanranald, Angus of Dunivaig, 242, 243.
Macdonald, Alaster, iii., 90.
Macduff, i., 261, 271.
Macgill, James, ii., 146, 158, 274.
MacGregors,
clan of, iii., 243;
Patrick Roy, 244.
MacHeth, i., 205, 207, 209.
Mackay, ii., 227;
Donald, iii., 237, 238;
Dr. Charles, iv., 196;
Angus, 425.
Mackay, General, iii., 176, 181‒183.
Mackenzie,
Kenneth, iii., 19;
Sir George, 144, 146, 147, 234, 368;
Henry, iv., 199, 200.
Mackinnons, i., 117, note;
Rory, iii., 242.
Mackintosh,
of Borlum, iii., 224;
Sir James, iv., 97‒101;
Robert, 421.
Macknight, Dr. James, iv., 216, 471.
Maclean of Lochbuy, i., 357;
Lauchlan, iii., 242;
Hector of Duart, 242;
Lauchlan of Lochbuy, 242.
Macleod,
of Lewis, i., 357;
Rory, of Harris, iii., 242;
Dr. Norman, iv., 223, 224.
MacNeil of Barra, i., 357.
Macpherson, James, iv., 175, 176.
Macquharrie, Gellespie, iii., 242.
M‘Sevir, Farquhar, ii., 229.
MacWilliam, i., 207, 208, 209.
Magi, i., 128, 129.
Magnus VI., King of Norway, i., 216.
Maid of Norway, i., 217, 218, 219.
Mair, John, ii., 51, 315, 316.
Maitland,
Sir Richard, i., 445;
ii., 370, 371;
William, 99, 100, 120, 121, 135, 141, 152, 155, 156, 157.
Malcolm I., reign of, i., 137.
Malcolm II., reign of, i., 138, 139.
Malcolm III., reign of, i., 140‒143.
Malcolm IV., reign of, i., 204, 205.
Malise, Earl of Strathern, i., 203.
Mallet, David, iv., 169.
Man, Isle of, i., 216, 301.
Manufactures,
Textile, woollen, i., 100, 133, 150, 162, 241, 390, 392, 406,
407;
ii., 294;
iii., 306‒310;
iv., 366, 369‒372;
linen, iii., 311‒313;
iv., 372‒376, 377;
jute, 375‒377;
cotton, 377‒379, 383;
thread, 379‒380;
silk, 380;
mixed fabrics, 380, 381.
Mar,
Earl of, i., 208, 214, 216, 217, 304, 305, 312, 325, 334, 348,
349;
ii., 139, 145, 148;
elected Regent, 155, 177, 184;
iii., 19;
John, Secretary of State, 210;
his rising, 222‒224.
March, Earl of, i., 255, 270, 305, 321, 322, 328, 333, 334.
Marchmont, Earl of, iii., 262.
Margaret,
Queen of Malcolm III., i., 141, 143, 155‒157;
Queen of James III., 346, 351;
Queen of James IV., 360‒362;
ii., 36, 37.
Marischal, Earl, i., 358;
ii., 86, 419;
iii., 19, 222.
Marriage, i., 99, 153‒156, 428;
ii., 229, 261‒266;
iii., 264, 278‒281.
Mathematical Science, progress of, ii., 386‒391;
iii., 371‒374, 403;
iv., 254‒260.
Marston Moor, battle of, iii., 95.
Mary of Gueldres, Queen of James II., i., 340, 344, 345.
Mary of Guise, Queen of James V., ii., 57, 86, 87, 90, 91, 93,
95, 97, 98, 101.
Mary,
Queen of Scotland, ii., 62, 63, 79;
reign of, 116‒147;
imprisonment of, 144;
escape, flight to England, 150;
her execution, 189, 190.
Mary, Queen of England, ii., 87, 92.
Maxwell,
Lord, i., 345;
ii., 186, 187, 224;
Master of, 225;
iii., 27.
Maybole, ii., 353.
Mechanical Science, i., 408;
ii., 384‒386;
progress of, iv., 271‒285.
Medical Science,
state of, i., 414, 415;
ii., 392‒394;
iii., 368‒371;
progress of, iv., 286‒323.
Melrose, Monastery of, i., 125, 126, 246, 254, 302, 303, 432,
438;
ii., 66.
Melville,
James, ii., 71;
Sir James, 141, 142;
Andrew, 167, 182, 201, 202, 213, 214, 409, 410, 412;
iii., 32, 33;
Sir Robert, iii., 19.
Melville, Lord, iii., 179, 183, 186.
♦Menteith, Earl of, i., 213, 214, 217, 218, 263, 383, 308, 317.
♦ “Monteith” replaced with “Menteith”;
Printed out of alphabetic order.
Menteith, Sir John, i., 278, 279.
Metaphysics, iii., 399‒401, 405, 407‒414, 418‒452, 432‒434, 468,
469, 470;
iv., 126‒130, 136‒139.
Methven,
Bruce defeated at, i., 284;
lands of, 377.
Middleton, Earl, Royal Commissioner, iii., 121‒123, 125‒129.
Military service under the feudal organisation, i., 409‒412.
Mill,
Walter, executed for heresy, ii., 91;
John S., iv., 135;
James, 155.
Miller, Hugh, iv., 238‒240, 271.
Mining, ii., 282‒286;
iii., 291‒294;
iv., 340‒345.
Mitchell,
James, 135, 147, 148;
Dr. Charles, iv., 318.
Moir,
Dr. James, i., 461;
David, iv., 208.
Monk, General, iii., 110, 116.
Monmouth, Duke of, iii., 153, 154, 167.
Monro,
John, iv., 292;
Alexander, professor, 292‒294;
Alexander, 304‒305;
Alexander, 305‒306.
Montgomery,
Sir John, i., 321;
Sir Hugh, 449;
Sir Matthew, ii., 229;
Alexander, poems of, 375‒377;
Sir James, iii., 179, 180.
Montgomery, Lord, i., 345.
Montrose, i., 276, 387, 391;
ii., 69, 182, 217;
iii., 301, 303, 323;
iv., 369, 375, 424.
Montrose,
Earl of, iii., 18, 74;
Marquis of, 90‒95, 105, 106, 338, 339.
Moral philosophy, iii., 417, 418, 424‒430, 448, 451, 452,
466‒467;
iv., 19‒24, 38‒40, 45‒50, 68, 69, 71‒74, 81, 82, 94‒96,
98‒101.
Moray,
Sir Andrew, i., 266, 267, 268;
Sir Andrew of Bothwell, 306, 307, 378;
Thomas, 379.
Moray,
Earl of, Randolph, i., 283, 290, 292, 296, 298, 299, 300, 302,
304, 305, 308, 317, 360;
James Stewart, Earl of, ii., 123, 128, 129, 130, 131, 134, 136;
elected Regent, 148‒152.
Morken, King, i., 124, 125.
Morton,
Earl of, ii., 132, 133, 134, 142, 143, 145, 147, 151;
elected Regent, 155, 158, 165, 169, 175, 176.
Mouat, Bernard, i., 285.
Mowbray, 291, 294.
Mure, William, iv., 163, 164.
Murray,
Lord George, iii., 227, 228;
Mungo, 227;
Gideon, 21.
Music, i., 245, 468, 469;
ii., 421‒422;
iii., 386‒388;
iv., 416‒428.
Musselburgh, ii., 144;
iii., 300.
Nairn, i., 372, 386;
castle of, 248.
Napier, John, inventor of logarithms, ii., 386‒391.
Narne, Duncan, ii., 415.
Nasmyth, iv., 436.
Navigation, teaching of, iii., 386.
Navy, under James IV., i., 363.
Negative Confession, ii., 176.
Ness, Loch of, i., 25.
Newbattle, i., 239, 434, 435.
Newbattle, Lord, iii., 18.
Newcastle, i., 318;
ii., 75, 184;
iii., 33, 79, 80, 97.
Nithsdale, Earl of, iii., 222.
Nithsdale, i., 26, 272.
Norham,
meetings at, i., 255, 256, 258;
castle of, 209, 300, 359, 363.
Normans, i., 189‒194, 196, 197, 101‒103.
Norman Conquest, i., 141, 197, 198.
Norsemen, i., 47, 118, 120, 134, 136, 214‒217.
Northallerton, battle of, i., 203, 204.
Northampton, Treaty of, i., 300, 301.
Northumberland, i., 142, 143, 262, 268, 295, 300, 318.
Northumbria, i., 116, 138, 441.
Norway, 21, 144, 215, 216, 217, 219.
Oaths associated with feudalism, i., 258, 264, 281, 372, 373.
Ochiltree, Lord, ii., 146, 275;
iii., 19, 235, 236.
Odistown, i., 303.
Ogham, writing, i., 174, 175.
Ogilvie, Sir Walter, i., 319, 320.
Oliphant, Sir William, i., 277, 278.
Oliphant, Lord, i., 373;
ii., 228.
Orkney Isles, i., 22, 47, 53, 58‒61, 138, 139, 158, 215, 217,
219, 346;
ii., 60;
iii., 302;
iv., 372, 373.
Orkney, Earl of, i., 138, 139, 207, 208;
iii., 239‒241.
Ormiegill, i., 55.
Ormiston, Laird of, ii., 69.
Ormond, Earl of, i., 343, 379.
Ossian, Ossianic poems, i., 442‒444;
iv., 175, 176.
Otterburn, battle of, i., 318, 449.
Otterburne, Thomas, i., 468.
Oxford, i., 451, 452;
iii., 372, 373, 374;
iv., 102, 134.
Pae, David P., iv., 208, 209.
Painting, i., 470;
ii., 423, 424;
iii., 393‒396;
iv., 428‒454.
Paisley, i., 83, 151, 238, 409;
ii., 195;
iii., 386;
iv., 182, 183, 205, 206, 214, 372, 377, 378, 380;
Abbey of, i., 249, 324, 355.
Paper, manufacture of, ii., 2;
iii., 317‒319;
iv., 384‒389.
Parliament,
origin and constitution of, i., 366‒370;
Meetings of, 295, 309, 310, 311, 313‒315, 316, 320, 327, 328,
329, 330, 334, 340, 343, 347, 349, 351, 353, 354, 357;
ii., 38, 49, 60, 65, 68, 91, 102, 126, 139, 149, 183, 193,
213;
iii., 30, 33, 37, 41, 44, 77, 81, 84, 97, 99, 103, 121‒128,
129, 137, 140, 142, 158‒160, 164‒167, 168, 180, 183, 193,
202, 203, 205, 206‒208, 210‒215.
Parliament of the United Kingdom, introduced changes in Scotland,
iii., 217‒218, 220.
Paterson,
Abraham, ii., 284;
Robert, 289;
William, iii., 196, 199.
Patronage, ii., 107, 172;
iii., 103, 104, 184;
iv., 467‒473 _et seq._
Peasantry,
in Normandy, i., 191, 193;
in Germany, ii., 16, 17.
Pedro de Ayala, i., 360.
Peebles, i., 282, 356, 384, 402;
ii., 260;
iii., 274, 290, 307, 380;
iv., 246, 369.
Peers, Scottish representative, iii., 214.
Pembroke, Earl of, i., 283, 284, 286, 287.
Pennington, Joseph, iii., 21.
Pentland Firth, i., 22.
Pentland, battle of, iii., 134.
Percy,
Henry, i., 266;
Sir Henry, Sir Ralph, 318, 449.
Perkin Warbeck, i., 357‒359.
Persecution, ii., 49, 50, 53, 54, 58, 68‒70, 91;
iii., 130‒135, 140, 144‒154, _et seq._
Perth, i., 119, 151, 205, 208, 233, 258, 264, 276, 278, 279, 283,
290, 307, 311, 320, 327, 333, 335, 369, 386, 387, 391, 433;
ii., 69, 93, 94, 96, 179, 214;
iii., 39‒41, 90, 193, 194, 222, 223, 226;
iv., 196, 354, 373.
Perth, Earl of, iii., 171, 172.
Peterhead, iii., 223, 301, 302;
iv., 370, 374.
Philip IV., of France, i., 262, 271.
Phillip, John, iv., 450, 451.
Philiphaugh, battle of, iii., 95, 338.
Philosophy, ii., 28‒30, 220;
outline of European in the seventeenth century, and early part
of the eighteenth, iii., 398‒471;
Scottish, iv., 17‒142.
Physical Science, progress of, iv., 255‒271.
Picts, i., 112, 114, 115, 116, 119, 120, 127, 128.
Pinkerton, John, iv., 153, 154.
Pinkie, battle of, ii., 76.
Pitcairn,
Dr. Archibald, iii., 371;
Robert, iv., 163.
Plantations, nonconformists banished to, iii., 167, 168, 223.
Pont, Robert, ii., 158, 184, 382, 383.
Poor Laws, ii., 238, 239, 267;
iii., 248‒254.
Population, i., 413;
iv., 214, 495.
Postal communication, iii., 296‒296;
iv., ♦352, 356.
♦ Page numbers supplied by transcriber.
Prehistoric period,
Stone Age, i., 36, 47‒71;
stone weapons and tools, 48‒53;
modes of disposing of the dead, chambered cairns, cremation,
53‒65;
earth-houses, 65‒70;
primitive boats, 70;
Bronze Age, 71‒74, 74‒96;
bronze weapons and implements, 74‒79;
ornaments, 79‒81;
traces of dwellings, 81‒83;
crannogs, 84‒87;
hill forts, 88‒92;
cairn, and urn interment, 92‒96;
summary, 96‒104.
Prelacy, iii., 177.
Presbyterianism, ii., 166‒175, 193‒194;
iii., 68‒72, 184‒185.
Press, censorship of, ii., 84, 277, 278.
Preston, battle of, iii., 227.
Primrose, Sir Archibald, iii., 120.
Pringle, Charles, iii., 236, 237.
Printing,
introduction of, ii., 2, 25‒27, 299‒303;
development of, iv., 389‒391.
Privy Council, ii., 223, 225, 229, 248, 273, 275, 279, 281, 283,
288, 403;
iii., 18‒20, 24, 26, 28, 30, 47, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59,
62, 67, 123, 124, 128, 131, 133, 134, 136, 142, 146, 147,
148, 163, 171, 182, 192, 195.
Protestantism, history of in Scotland, ii., 149‒218.
Protests, iii., 59, 65, 67.
Protesters, iii., 109, 110, 111.
Provincial councils of the Roman Catholic clergy, i., 212, 213;
ii., 41, 42, 76, 77, 78.
Psalms, ii., 114, 342, 422.
Psalmody, iv., 426‒427.
Psychical faculties, i., 34, 35.
Psychological phenomenon, ii., 439, 441.
Psychology, ii., 30;
iii., 414‒417, 422‒430, 435, 436, 438‒444, 453‒460, 470;
iv., 20, 27‒39, 61‒68, 77‒82, 88‒96, 108‒126.
Quakers, iii., 114, 115, 256‒259.
Quarries, iv., 406, 411, 412.
Queensberry, Duke of, iii., 164, 202, 205, 210.
Quoyness, i., 59.
Raban, Edward, iii., 363.
Raeburn, Sir Henry, iv., 436‒439.
Raid of Ruthven, ii., 179‒181.
Ramorgny, Sir John, i., 322.
Ramsay,
John, i., 460;
Allan, ii., 305;
his writings, iv., 165, 166;
Allan, painter, 429‒431.
Randolph, Thomas, i., 283, 284.
Ratisbon, ii., 351.
Reader, office of, ii., 108, 174.
Reeves, Dr., i., 127, 129, 181.
Reformation,
rise of, ii., 16‒31;
eras of, 32, 85, 86;
history of, in Scotland, 38‒54, 58‒60, 67‒103, 104, 105, 149.
Reformed Church, organisation of, ii., 104‒115, 121, 122,
161‒175.
Regalities, i., 225, 226, 373, 374, 425, 426;
iii., 225.
Regality burghs, i., 234, 237, 238.
Reid,
Dr. Thomas, writings, iv., 161‒169;
General, 427, 428.
Religion,
prehistoric in Scotland, i., 58, 63, 99;
primitive, ii., 426, 428.
Renwick, James, iii., 155, 171.
Representatives of Scotland in the United Parliament, iii., 214.
Rescissory Act, iii., 122.
Resolutioners, iii., 109, 111.
Reuchlin, ii., 17, 18.
Revenue, i., 220, 221, 391.
Revocation Act of Charles I., iii., 43‒45.
Ricco, ii., 131, 132, 133, 134.
Richard, I., i., 206.
Riderch, King, i., 125.
Ripon, iii., 80, 81.
Roads, i., 256, 413;
iii., 225, 294‒296;
iv., 352‒355.
Robert I., reign of, i., 283‒303.
Robert II., reign of, i., 313‒319.
Robert III., reign of, i., 319‒324.
Robert, Prior of Scone, i., 201.
Robertson,
William, iv., 148‒150;
Joseph, 162, 163;
E. W., 163;
George C., 139‒142;
James S., 425;
Andrew, 439.
Robin Hood, i., 451.
Rollo, a Norman hero, i., 190, 191.
Rollock,
Robert, ii., 380, 381, 415, 416;
Hercules, 402.
Roman Catholic Church, ii., 3‒14;
Power of, 14‒20;
state of the clergy, 20‒23, 40‒43, 51‒77, 78, 328, 329.
Roman invasion, i., 104‒112.
Romanised tribes, i., 112, 113.
Rome, i., 45, 122, 129, 140, 341, 354, 355;
ii., 5, 20, 33, 58, 82, 103, 434, 435, 438.
Roslin, battle of, i., 275.
Ross, Earl of, i., 209, 211, 217, 264, 306, 312, 324, 325, 326,
340, 341, 348.
Ross, Lord, iii., 179.
Ross,
Alexander, iv., 170, 171;
William, 425.
Rothes, Earl of, ii., 130, 139, 150;
iii., 56, 60, 61, 120, 129, 148, 156, 165.
Rothesay, Duke of, i., 320, 321, 322, 323.
Rowll, i., 463.
Roxburgh, i., 231, 232, 245;
Castle of, 248, 264, 290, 305, 364, 383.
Roxburgh, Earl of, iii., 49, 57.
Royal Burghs, i., 233‒237, 382‒387, 397‒408.
Runic Inscriptions, i., 59, 175.
Russell, Dr. William, iv., 152.
Rutherford, Samuel, iii., 359‒362.
Rutherglen, i., 386, 409;
iii., 152.
Ruthven,
Lord, ii., 132, 133, 134, 135, 145, 158;
Master of, 219.
Ruthwell, i., 175.
Sadler, Sir Ralph, ii., 57, 65.
St. Adamnan, his life of St. Columba, i., 126, 181‒183.
St. Andrews, i., 137, 148, 200, 201, 238, 239, 277, 322, 332,
367, 387, 408, 413;
ii., 49, 66, 69, 70, 91, 96, 120, 136, 153, 199;
iii., 38, 151;
Castle of, i., 322;
ii., 49, 70, 71, 72, 73‒75;
Cathedral of, i., 249;
Bishop of, 137, 200, 209, 217, 255, 271, 281, 283, 285, 304,
340, 345, 353, 355, 360;
ii., 36, 58, 71, 77, 78, 90, 138, 154, 159, 182, 271, 380;
iii., 19, 63, 119, 124, 129, 131, 135, 147, 151;
University of, i., 466;
ii., 405‒408, 410‒413;
iii., 390, 392, 393;
iv., 136, 178, 219, 220, 224.
St. Bartholomew, massacre of, ii., 160, 161.
St. Bridget, i., 131.
St. Columba, i., 126‒131, 132‒135, 136.
St. Cuthbert, i., 125, 126.
St. Duthac, i., 436, 438.
St. Fergus, i., 439.
St. Fillan, relics of, i., 180, 439.
St. Finnian, i., 127.
St. Giles, i., 430, 431;
ii., 239.
St. Kentigern, i., 124, 125.
St. Maclou, i., 431.
St. Monance, i., 430.
St. Nicholas, i., 431;
ii., 239, 240.
St. Ninian, i., 122, 123;
shrine of, 48.
St. Regulus, i., 148.
St. Serf, monastery of, i., 455.
St. Servanus, i., 407.
Sandlands, John, i., 358.
Salt, export of, ii., 288, 289.
Sang Schools, early, i., 245, 468;
ii., 421, 422.
Sanquhar, Declaration proclaimed at, iii., 155.
Sauchie Burn, battle of, i., 352.
Saxons, i., 47, 112, 115, 116, 119, 141, 189.
Scandinavia, i., 161, 190.
Scandinavians, i., 47, 118.
Schools, i., 245, 465, 466;
ii., 398‒405;
iii., 375‒388;
iv., 224‒327.
Schrander, Dr., i., 41.
Science, progress of, ii., 384‒391;
iii., 371‒374;
iv., 255‒323.
Scolocs, i., 184.
Scone, i., 119, 121, 137, 141, 204, 209, 213, 217, 221, 241, 260,
262, 264, 283, 305, 313‒315, 319, 327, 353;
iii., 110, 223;
Monastery of, i., 201, 227, 239, 250;
ii., 94.
Scots, i., 112, 116, 118, 120, 127.
Scott of Tuschielaw, ii., 224;
John, 303, 372;
Walter, iii., 27;
Sir Walter, iv., 187‒189, 202‒204;
William B., 453.
Scrymgeour,
Alexander, i., 366;
Sir James, iii., 19.
Sculptured stones, i., 165‒174.
Seaforth, Earl of, iii., 92, 110, 222.
Selby, Sir William, iii., 21.
Security of the Kingdom, Act for, iii., 205, 206.
Segrave, Sir John, i., 275.
Selkirk, i., 356;
ii., 189;
iii., 378;
iv., 371;
forest of, i., 223, 274, 287, 343.
Semple, Robert, ii., 374.
Serfs, i., 250, 380‒382.
Seton, Sir Christopher, i., 283, 385, 453.
Seton, Lord, ii., 138.
Seton of Pitmedden, iii., 211.
Severus, his campaign, i., 110, 111.
Sharp, James, Archbishop of St. Andrews, iii., 118, 119, 120,
124, 129, 135, 137, 143, 147, 148, 151, 152.
Shawfield, iii., 218.
Sherifmuir, battle of, iii., 223.
Sheriffs, Sheriffdoms, i., 223, 261, 423‒426;
ii., 223.
Shetland Isles, i., 22, 47, 174, 185, 215, 217, 346;
ii., 60;
iv., 372.
Shipbuilding, i., 133, 240, 333, 363;
iv., 357‒363.
Shipping, i., 239, 240, 241, 391‒393;
ii., 286‒289;
iii., 300‒303;
iv., 356‒357.
Sibbald, Sir Robert, iii., 370.
Sigurd, i., 138.
Silver, ancient ornaments of, i., 177‒178.
Siward, Earl of Northumberland, i., 140.
Simpson, Sir James Y., iv., 313‒314.
Simson,
Andrew, ii., 400, 403;
Robert, iv., 260;
William, 446.
Sinclair,
Oliver, ii., 62;
Sir John, iv., 346.
Skene,
Dr. Gilbert, ii., 392, 393;
Sir John, 383, 384;
iii., 18;
Dr. William F., iv., 161.
Smith,
Adam, iv., 25, 43, 44‒59;
Alexander, 195, 196;
William R., 226, 227;
Robert A., 426.
Smollett, Dr., iv., 150, 172, 173, 199.
Social state of the People, i., 70, 71, 98‒103, 145‒157, 220‒254,
366‒440;
ii., 222‒298;
iii., 232‒335.
Solemn League and Covenant, iii., 85, 86.
Solway Firth, 21, 26, 70, 105.
Solway Moss disaster, ii., 62.
Somerled, i., 205.
Somerset,
Earl of, i., 326;
Duke of, ii., 76.
Soulis,
John, i., 271, 274, 277;
Nicholas, 256.
Southesk, Earl of, iii., 222.
Spain, i., 357, 360, 363;
ii., 18, 19, 20, 131, 191, 192.
Spear-heads,
flint, i., 50;
bronze, 76, 77.
Spense, John, ii., 138.
Spey, i., 150;
iv., 354.
Spinoza, his method and ethics, iii., 418‒432.
Spottiswood,
John, ii., 104, 108, 349, 350;
John, Archbishop, iii., 19, 26, 39, 63;
his writings, 357.
Stair, Lord, iii., 223, 232, 235, 367, 368.
Standard, battle of, i., 203, 204.
Stephen, King, i., 202, 203.
Stevenson, Professor, iv., 18, 75.
Stevenson, Robert L., iv., 211, 212.
Steward of Scotland, i., 214, 217, 218, 267, 274, 277, 292, 306,
307, 308, 309, 312, 313.
Stewart, Lord of Brechin, i., 321.
Stewart,
Sir Walter, of Jedworth, i., 321, 384;
Sir Alexander, 328;
Sir James, 338;
Duncan, 319, 320;
Sir Walter, 327;
James, 360;
Captain James, iii., 235;
William, 236.
Stewart,
Dugald, iv., 74‒84;
Matthew, 260.
Stirling, i., 83, 116, 140, 151, 209, 233, 234, 238, 264, 276,
386, 387, 391;
ii., 58, 93, 97, 99, 120, 124, 129, 140, 147, 152, 155, 179,
181, 187;
iii., 59, 62, 123, 228;
iv., 369;
castle of, i., 206, 248, 277, 278, 291, 294, 307, 338, 341,
352, 430;
ii., 140, 152, 181;
iii., 64, 228.
Stirlingshire, i., 29, 119, 121, 265;
ii., 364;
iv., 341, 342, 343, 373, 378.
Stirling, James, iv., 259, 260.
Stirling, Earl of, iii., 366.
Stone circles, i., 94‒96.
Stone weapons and tools, i., 48‒53.
Stone of Destiny, i., 119, 137, 264, 265.
Stonehaven, i., 28, 106.
Stormont, Earl of, iii., 222.
Strachan, Colonel, iii., 106.
Strafford, iii., 80.
Strathbogie, i., 140, 284;
castle of, ii., 123, 124, 202.
Strathclyde, i., 84, 85, 114, 139.
Strathern, i., 136, 138.
Strathern, Earl of, 203, 209, 213, 214, 217, 308, 317, 333.
Strathmore, i., 28.
Strathmore, Earl of, iii., 205.
Strathspey, i., 27, 207, 267.
Strathurd, lordship of, i., 378.
Succession Acts, i., 296, 313‒315;
iii., 155.
Stuart, Lord of Aubigny, i., 362.
Stuart,
John, i., 68, 69;
Dr. Gilbert, iv., 151;
Dr. John, 162.
Sugar works, iii., 330;
refining of, iv., 394, 395.
Sunday, i., 158, 439;
observance of, enforced, ii., 247, 248, 251‒254;
iii., 269‒272.
Superintendents, ii., 108.
Surrey, Earl of, i., 264, 267, 268, 270, 364.
Sutherland, Earl of, i., 306, 308, 318;
ii., 139;
iii., 53, 61.
Sutherland, James, iii., 369.
Tables, institution of, iii., 56, 57.
Tacitus, i., 106‒108.
Tactics of the Scots, i., 412.
Taverns, i., 415.
Taxes in early times, i., 149, 150, 220, 221, 251, 386‒391.
Tay, i., 27, 105, 106, 109, 110, 119, 264, 267, 287;
iv., 354.
Test Act, iii., 158, 159.
Teviotdale, i., 26.
Thane, thanage, i., 152, 251, 252.
Thrift, early laws touching, i., 128‒131.
Thomas the Rhymer, i., 446‒448.
Thomson,
James, iv., 167, 168;
Dr. Andrew, 219;
Dr. John, 309‒311;
Sir William, Lord Colvin, 266, 284;
George, 434.
Thor, ii., 436.
Thorburn, Robert, iv., 452.
Thorfinn, i., 138, 139.
Tithes, i., 243, 244;
ii., 40;
iii., 43, 44.
Todd, Dr., i., 117.
Torture, i., 276, 427;
ii., 195, 196;
iii., 134, 147, 148, 158, 177.
Torwood, i., 291;
iii., 156.
Traquair, Earl of, iii., 58, 59, 62, 77.
Trent, Council of, ii., 79‒85, 161.
Tucker, iii., 300, 301.
Tullibardine, Marquis of, iii., 222.
Tulloch, Dr. John, iv., 224, 225.
Turgot, Bishop, i., 156, 200.
Turnberry Castle, i., 286.
Turner,
Sir James, iii., 134;
William, iv., 306.
Tweed, i., 21, 138, 203, 363;
iii., 79, 86.
Tweeddale, i., 26.
Tweeddale, Marquis of, iii., 206, 210.
Tyrie, James, ii., 353, 354.
Tytler,
William, iv., 151;
Patrick F., 155.
Ulbster, i., 55.
Umfraville, Sir Ingram, i., 274.
Union of England and Scotland,
proceedings connected with, iii., 206‒215;
advantages of, 216, 217, 231.
Universities,
institution of, i., 466‒468;
changes in, ii., 405‒419;
iii., 388‒393;
iv., 327‒330.
Urns, i., 92, 93‒96.
Vane, Sir Henry, iii., 84, 85.
Veitch, John, iv., 246, 247.
Vesy, John, i., 258.
Vienne, John de, i., 316, 317.
♦Vipont, i., 294.
♦ Printed out of alphabetic order.
Vikings, i., 118.
Vitrified forts, i., 90‒92.
Wade, General, iii., 224‒225.
Wager of battle, i., 228‒229.
Wake, Lord, i., 301, 315.
Wales, i., 125, 174.
Walker,
William, iv., 197, 198;
James, 425.
Walls, Roman, i., 109, 110.
Wallace, Sir William, i., 265‒272, 277, 278‒280.
Wallace,
Adam, ii., 78;
William, iv., 253.
Wanlock, lead mine, ii., 284.
Wardlaw, Dr. Ralph, iv., 221.
Warwick, iv., 342.
Watson, Dr. Robert, iv., 152.
Watt, James, iv., 272, 274‒281.
Weapons, prehistoric, i., 49, 50, 75‒78.
Webster, Dr. Alexander, iv., 214.
Wedderburn,
Robert, ii., 319, 341;
James, 341, 343;
John, 343.
Weights and measures, i., 239, 332, 401, 402.
Wells, venerated, i., 128, 135, 260, 261.
Welsh,
John, iii., 29;
Dr., iv., 483.
Welwood, William, ii., 384, 385.
Wemyss, glass work at, iii., 315.
Westminster Assembly of Divines, iii., 85, 87‒89.
Whig, early use of the word, iii., 155, 342, 350, 351.
Whisky, ii., 192, 193;
iv., 396, 397.
White Caterthun, i., 89, 90.
William the Conqueror, i., 142, 143, 192, 193‒195, 196, 198.
William the Lion, reign of, i., 205‒209, 222, 227, 230.
William Rufus, i., 143, 196.
William of Orange, iii., 171, 173, 174‒176, 178‒180, 183‒185,
186‒190, 192, 201‒204.
Willock, John, ii., 87, 97, 98, 101, 104, 108.
Wilson,
John, iv., 105, 205, 206;
Alexander, 182.
Wine, i., 393, 394, 415, 416, 432;
ii., 292.
Winram, John, ii., 52, 104, 108, 158.
Winzet, Ninian, ii., 349‒352.
Wishart,
Bishop of Glasgow, i., 266, 273, 283, 285;
George, ii., 69;
seized and martyred, 69, 70.
Witchcraft, ii., 9, 268‒277;
iii., 259‒264.
Witherspoon, Dr. John, iv., 214, 215.
Wool, i., 240, 333, 387, 388;
ii., 290;
iii., 306, 307, 308.
Worcester, battle of, iii., 110.
Wyntoun, Andrew, i., 455, 456.
York, Duke of, iii., 156, 157, 163.
York, Archbishop of, i., 200, 201.
Young,
Peter, ii., 403;
Dr. Thomas, iv., 267.
Yule, i., 416, 417.
Zealand, i., 392.
END OF VOLUME I.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND, VOL 1 (OF 4) ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
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.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
