spect to the transactions in the reign of queen Mary.
From whatever quarter information came, in whatever
mode it has been communicated, I have considered it
calmly and with attention. Wherever I perceived that
I had erred, either in relating events, or in delineating
characters, I have, without hesitation, corrected those
errours. Wherever I am satisfied that my original
ideas were just and well-founded, I adhere to them ;
and, resting upon their conformity to evidence already
produced, I enter into no discussion or controversy in
order to support them. Wherever the opportunity of
consulting original papers either in print or in manu-
script, to which I had not formerly access, has enabled
me to throw new light upon any part of the history, I
have made alterations and additions, which, I flatter
myself, will be found to be of some importance.

COLLEGE OF EDINBURGH,
March 5th, 1787.



THE
HISTORY OF SCOTLAND

DURING THE REIGNS
OF QUEEN MARY AND OF KING JAMES VI.

TILL HIS ACCESSION
TO THE CROWN OF ENGLAND:

WITH
A REVIEW OF THE SCOTTISH HISTORY

PREVIOUS TO THAT PERIOD;

AND AN APPENDIX
CONTAINING ORIGINAL PAPERS.

VOLUME I.



THE

HISTORY OF SCOTLAND.

THE FIRST BOOK,

CONTAINING A REVIEW OF THE SCOTTISH HISTORY PRE-
VIOUS TO THE DEATH OF JAMES THE FIFTH.

THE first ages of the Scottish history are dark and The origin
fabulous. Nations, as well as men, arrive at maturity fabulous*
by degrees, and the events, which happened during a nd ob-
their infancy or early youth, cannot be recollected, and sc '
deserve not to be remembered. The gross ignorance
which anciently covered all the north of Europe, the
continual migrations of its inhabitants, and the frequent
and destructive revolutions which these occasioned,
render it impossible to give any authentic account of the
origin of the different kingdoms now established there.
Every thing beyond that short period to which well-
attested annals reach, is obscure ; an immense space is
left for invention to occupy ; each nation, with a vanity
inseparable from human nature, hath filled that void
with events calculated to display its own antiquity and
lustre. History, which ought to record truth and to
teach wisdom, often sets out with retailing fictions and
absurdities.

The Scots carry their pretensions to antiquity as high Origin of
as any of their neighbours. Relying upon uncertain * e " :ote>
legends, and the traditions of their bards, still more
uncertain, they reckon up a series of kings several ages
before the birth of Christ ; and give a particular detail
of the occurrences which happened in their reigns.



4 THE HISTORY BOOK i.

But with regard to the Scots, as well as the other
northern nations, we receive the earliest accounts on
which we can depend, not from their own, but from

A.D. 81. the Roman authors. When the Romans, under Agri-
cola, first carried their arms into the northern parts of
Britain, they found it possessed by the Caledonians, a
fierce and warlike people ; and, having repulsed, rather
than conquered them, they erected a strong wall be-
tween the firths of Forth and Clyde, and there fixed
the boundaries of their empire. Adrian, on account of

A.D. 121. the difficulty of defending such a distant frontier, con-
tracted the limits of the Roman province in Britain, by
building a second wall, which ran between Newcastle
and Carlisle. The ambition of succeeding emperors
endeavoured to recover what Adrian had abandoned ;
and the country between the two walls was alternately
under the dominion of the Romans, and that of the
Caledonians. About the beginning of the fifth century,
the inroads of the Goths and other barbarians obliged
the Romans, in order to defend the centre of their em-
pire, to recall those legions which guarded the frontier
provinces ; and, at that time, they quitted all their con-
quests in Britain.

A.D. 421. Their long residence in the island had polished, in
some degree, the rude inhabitants, and the Britons were
indebted to their intercourse with the Romans, for the
art of writing, and the use of numbers, without which
it is impossible long to preserve the memory of past
events.

North Britain was, by their retreat, left under the
dominion of the Scots and Picts. The former, who are
not mentioned by any Roman author, before the end
of the fourth century, were probably a colony of the
Celtae or Gauls ; their affinity to whom appears from
their language, their manners, and religious rites ; cir-
cumstances more decisive, with regard to the origin of
nations, than either fabulous traditions, or the tales of
ill-informed and credulous annalists. The Scots, if we



BOOK r. OF SCOTLAND. 5

may believe the common accounts, settled at first in
Ireland ; and, extending themselves by degrees, landed
at last on the coast opposite to that island, and fixed
their habitations there. Fierce and bloody wars were,
during several ages, carried on between them and the
Picts. At length, Kenneth the second, the sixty-ninth A. D. 838.
king of the Scots, according to their own fabulous au-
thors, obtained a complete victory over the Picts, and
united, under one monarchy, all the country, from the
wall of Adrian, to the northern ocean. The kingdom,
henceforward, became known by its present name, which
it derived from a people who at first settled there as
strangers, and remained long obscure and inconsiderable.
From this period the history of Scotland would merit
some attention, were it accompanied with any certainty. History of
But, as our remote antiquities are involved in the same peculiarly
darkness with those of other nations, a calamity pecu- obscure.
liar to ourselves has thrown almost an equal obscurity
over our more recent transactions. This was occasioned
by the malicious policy of Edward the first of Eng-
land. Towards the end of the thirteenth century, this
monarch caHed in question the independence of Scot-
land ; pretending that the kingdom was held as a fief
of the crown of England, and subjected to all the con-
ditions of a feudal tenure. In order to establish his
claim, he seized the public archives, he ransacked
churches and monasteries, and getting possession, by
force or fraud, of many historical monuments, -which
tended to prove the antiquity or freedom of the king-
dom, he carried some of them into England, and com-
manded the rest to be burned a . An universal oblivion
of past transactions might have been the effect of this
fatal event ; but some imperfect chronicles had escaped
the rage of Edward; foreign writers had recorded
some important facts relating to Scotland ; and the tra-
ditions concerning recent occurrences were fresh and

Innes, Essay, 552.



6 THE HISTORY BOOK i.

worthy of credit. These broken fragments John de
Fordun, who lived in the fourteenth century, collected
with a pious industry, and from them gleaned materials
which he formed into a regular history. His work was
received by his countrymen with applause ; and, as no
recourse could be had to more ancient records, it sup-
plied the place of the authentic annals of the kingdom.
It was copied in many monasteries, and the thread of
the narrative was continued, by different monks, through
the subsequent reigns. In the beginning of the six-
teenth century, John Major and Hector Boethius pub-
lished their histories of Scotland, the former a succinct
and dry writer, the latter a copious and florid one, and
both equally credulous. Not many years after, Bu-
chanan undertook the same work ; and if his accuracy
and impartiality had been, in any degree, equal to the
elegance of his taste, and to the purity and vigour of
his style, his history might be placed on a level with
the most admired compositions of the ancients. But,
instead of rejecting the improbable tales of chronicle
writers, he was at the utmost pains to adorn them ; and
hath clothed, with all the beauties and graces of fiction,
those legends, which formerly had only its wildness and
extravagance.

Four re- The history of Scotland may properly be divided into

-eras in the four periods. The first reaches from the origin of the

Scottish monarchy, to the reign of Kenneth the second. The

second, from Kenneth's conquest of the Picts, to the

death of Alexander the third. The third extends to the

death of James the fifth. The last, from thence to the

accession of James the sixth to the crown of England.

The first period is the region of pure fable and con-
jecture, and ought to be totally neglected, or abandoned
to the industry and credulity of antiquaries. Truth be-
gins to dawn in the second period, with a light, feeble
at first, but gradually increasing ; and the events which
then happened may be slightly touched, but merit no
particular or laborious inquiry. In the third period,



BOOK i. OF SCOTLAND. 7

the history of Scotland, chiefly by means of records
preserved in England, becomes more authentic : not
only are events related, but their causes and effects ex-
plained ; the characters of the actors are displayed ;
the manners of the age described ; the revolutions in
the constitution pointed out : and here every Scotsman
should begin not to read only, but to study the history
of his country. During the fourth period, the affairs
of Scotland were so mingled with those of other na-
tions, its situation in the political state of Europe was
so important, its influence on the operations of the
neighbouring kingdoms was so visible, that its history
becomes an object of attention to foreigners ; and with-
out some knowledge of the various and extraordinary
revolutions which happened there, they cannot form a
just notion, with respect either to the most illustrious
events, or to the characters of the most distinguished
personages, in the sixteenth century.

The following history is confined to the last of these A review
periods : to give a view of the political state of the king- r * e
dom during that which immediately preceded it, is the
design of this preliminary book. The imperfect know-
ledge which strangers have of the affairs of Scotland,
and the prejudices Scotsmen themselves have imbibed,
with regard to the various revolutions in the govern-
ment of their country, render such an introduction
equally necessary to both.

The period from the death of Alexander the third
to the death of James the fifth, contains upwards of
two centuries and a half, from the year one thousand
two hundred and eighty-six, to the year one thousand
five hundred and forty-two.

It opens with the famous controversy concerning the Rise f tne
independence of Scotland. Before the union of the concerning

two kingdoms, this was a question of much importance. the J , nde '
mo i 111 >ii -i pendence

It the one crown had been considered not as imperial O f Scotland,
and independent, but as feudatory to the other, a treaty
of union could not have been concluded on equal terms,



8 THE HISTORY BOOK i.

and every advantage which the. dependent kingdom
procured, must have been deemed the concession of a
sovereign to his vassal. Accordingly, about the be-
ginning of the present century, and while a treaty of
union between the two kingdoms was negotiating, this
controversy was agitated with all the heat which na-
tional animosities naturally inspire. What was then
the subject of serious concern, the union of the two
kingdoms has rendered a matter of mere curiosity.
But though the objects, which, at that time, warmed
and interested both nations, exist no longer, a question
which appeared so momentous to our ancestors, cannot
be altogether indifferent or uninstructive to us.

Some of the northern counties of England were
early in the hands of the Scottish kings, who, as far
back as the feudal customs can be traced, held these
possessions of the kings of England, and did homage
to them on that account. This homage, due only for
the territories which they held in England, was in no-
wise derogatory from their royal dignity. Nothing is
more suitable to feudal ideas, than that the same per-
son should be both^a lord and a vassal, independent in
one capacity, and dependent in another 5 . The crown
of England was, without doubt, imperial and independ-
ent, though the princes who wore it were, for many
ages, the vassals of the kings of France ; and, in con-
sequence of their possessions in that kingdom, bound
to perform all the services which a feudal sovereign

It A very singular proof of this occurs in the French history. Arpin sold
the vicomt6 of the city of Bourges to Philip the first, who did homage to
the count of Sancerre for a part of these lands, which held of that noble-
man, a.d. 1100. I believe that no example of a king's doing homage
to one of his own subjects, is to be met with in the histories either of Eng-
land or Scotland. Philip le bel abolished this practice in France, a. d.
1302. Hnault, Abr6g6 chronol. Somewhat similar to this, is a charter
of the abbot of Melross, a.d. 1535, constituting James the fifth the bailiff
or steward of that abbey, vesting in him all the powers which pertained to
that office, and requiring him to be answerable to the abbot for his exercise
of the same. Archiv. publ. Edin.



BOOK r. OF SCOTLAND. 9

has a title to exact. The same was the condition of
the monarchs of Scotland ; free and independent, as
kings of their own country, but, as possessing English
territories, vassals to the king of England. The Eng-
lish monarchs, satisfied with their legal and uncontro-
verted rights, were, during a long period, neither ca-
pable, nor had any thoughts, of usurping more. Eng-
land, when conquered by the Saxons, being divided by
them into many small kingdoms, was in no condition to
extend its dominion over Scotland, united at that time
under one monarch. And though these petty princi-
palities were gradually formed into one kingdom, the
reigning princes, exposed to continual invasions of the
Danes, and often subjected to the yoke of those for-
midable pirates, seldom turned their arms towards
Scotland, and were little able to establish new rights
in that country. The first kings of the Norman race,
busied with introducing their own laws and manners
into the kingdom which they had conquered, or with
maintaining themselves on the throne which some of
them possessed by a very dubious title, were as little
solicitous to acquire new authority, or to form new pre-
tensions in Scotland. An unexpected calamity that
befell one of the Scottish kings first encouraged the
English to think of bringing his kingdom under de-
pendence. William, surnamed the Lion, being taken
prisoner at Alnwick, Henry the second, as the price of
his liberty, not only extorted from him an exorbitant
ransom, and a promise to surrender the places of
greatest strength in his dominions, but compelled him
to do homage for his whole kingdom. Richard the
first, a generous prince, solemnly renounced this claim
of homage, and absolved William from the hard con-
ditions which Henry had imposed. Upon the death
of Alexander the third, near a century after, Edward
the first, availing himself of the situation of affairs in
Scotland, acquired an influence in that kingdom, which
no English monarch before him ever possessed, and,



10 THE HISTORY BOOK i.

imitating the interested policy of Henry, rather than
the magnanimity of Richard, revived the claim of so-
vereignty to which the former had pretended.
Pretensions Margaret of Norway, granddaughter of Alexander,
B^ioTexa- d and heir to *" s crown, did not long survive him. The
mined. right of succession belonged to the descendants of
David, earl of Huntingdon, third son of king David the
first. Among these, Robert Bruce, and John Baliol, two
illustrious competitors for the crown, appeared. Bruce
was the son of Isabel, earl David's second daughter ;
Baliol, the grandson of Margaret the eldest daughter.
According to the rules of succession which are now
established, the right of Baliol was preferable ; and,
notwithstanding Bruce's plea of being nearer in blopd
to earl David, Baliol's claim, as the representative of
his mother and grandmother, would be deemed incon-
testable. But in that age, the order of succession was
not ascertained with the same precision. The question
appeared to be no less intricate, than it was important.
Though the prejudices of the people, and perhaps the
laws of the kingdom, favoured Bruce, each of the rivals
was supported by a powerful faction. Arms alone, it
was feared, must terminate a dispute too weighty for
the laws to decide. But, in order to avoid the miseries
of a civil war, Edward was chosen umpire, and both
parties agreed to acquiesce in his decree. This had
well nigh proved, fatal to the independence of Scotland ;
and the nation, by its eagerness to guard against a civil
war, was not only exposed to that calamity, but almost
subjected to a foreign yoke. Edward was artful, brave,
enterprising, and commanded a powerful and martial
people, at peace with the whole world. The anarchy
which prevailed in Scotland, and the ambition of com-
petitors ready to sacrifice their country in order to ob-
tain even a dependent crown, invited him first to seize,
and then to subject the kingdom. The authority of an
umpire, which had been unwarily bestowed upon him,
and from which the Scots dreaded no dangerous con-



BOOK i. OF SCOTLAND. 11

sequences, enabled him to execute his schemes with
the greater facility. Under pretence of examining the
question with the utmost solemnity, he summoned all
the Scottish barons to Norham ; and having gained
some, and intimidated others, he prevailed on all who
were present, not excepting Bruce and Baliol, the com-
petitors, to acknowledge Scotland to be a fief of the
English crown, and to swear fealty to him as their
' sovereign,' or ' liege lord.' This step led to another
still more important. As it was vain to pronounce a
sentence which he had not power to execute, Edward
demanded possession of the kingdom, that he might be
able to deliver it to him whose right should be found
preferable ; and such was the pusillanimity of the no-
bles, and the impatient ambition of the competitors,
that both assented to this strange demand, and Gilbert
de Umfraville, earl of Angus, was the only man -who
refused to surrender the castles in his custody to the
enemy of his country. Edward, finding Baliol the most
obsequious and the least formidable of the two compe-
titors, soon after gave judgment in his favour. Baliol
once more professed himself the vassal of England, and
submitted to every condition which the sovereign whom
he had now acknowledged was pleased to prescribe.

Edward, having thus placed a creature of his own
upon the throne of Scotland, and compelled the nobles
to renounce the ancient liberties and independence of
their country, had reason to conclude that his dominion
was now fully established. But he began too soon to
assume the master; his new vassals, fierce and inde-
pendent, bore with impatience a yoke, to which they
were not accustomed. Provoked by his haughtiness,
even the passive spirit of Baliol began to mutiny. But
Edward, who had no longer use for such a pageant
king, forced him to resign the crown, and openly at-
tempted to seize it, as fallen to himself by the rebellion
of his vassal. At that critical period arose sir William
Wallace, a hero, to whom the fond admiration of his



12 THE HISTORY BOOK i.

countrymen hath ascribed many fabulous acts of prow-
ess, though his real valour, as well as integrity and
wisdom, are such as need not the heightenings of fic-
tion. He, almost single, ventured to take arms in de-
fence of the kingdom, and his boldness revived the
spirit of his countrymen. At last, Robert Bruce, the
grandson of him who stood in competition with Baliol,
appeared to assert his own rights, and to vindicate the
honour of his country. The nobles, ashamed of their
former baseness, and enraged at the many indignities
offered to the nation, crowded to his standard. In
order to crush him at once, the English monarch en-
tered Scotland, at the head of a mighty army. Many
battles were "fought, and the Scots, though often van-
quished, were not subdued. The ardent zeal with
which the nobles contended for the independence of
the kingdom, the prudent valour of Bruce, and, above
all, a national enthusiasm inspired by such a cause, baf-
fled the repeated efforts of Edward, and counterba-
lanced all the advantages which he derived from the
number and wealth of his subjects. Though the war
continued with little intermission upwards of seventy
years, Bruce and his posterity kept possession of the
throne of Scotland, and reigned with an authority not
inferior to that of its former monarchs.

But while the sword, the ultimate judge of all dis-
putes between contending nations, was employed to
terminate this controversy, neither Edward nor the
Scots seemed to distrust the justice of their cause; and
both appealed to history and records, and from these
produced, in their own favour, such evidence as they
pretended to be unanswerable. The letters and me-
morials addressed by each party to the pope, who was
then reverenced as the common father, and often ap-
pealed to as the common judge of all Christian princes,
are still extant. The fabulous tales of the early British
history ; the partial testimony of ignorant chroniclers ;
supposititious treaties and charters ; are the proofs on



BOOK i. OF SCOTLAND. 13

which Edward founded his title to the sovereignty of
Scotland ; and the homage done by the Scottish mo-
narchs for their lands in England is preposterously
supposed to imply the subjection of their whole king-
dom . Ill-founded, however, as their right was, the
English did not fail to revive it, in all the subsequent
quarrels between the two kingdoms; while the Scots
disclaimed it with the utmost indignation. To this we
must impute the fierce and implacable hatred to each
other, which long inflamed both. Their national anti-
pathies were excited, not only by the usual circum-
stances of frequent hostilities, and reciprocal injuries ;
but the English considered the Scots as vassals who
had presumed to rebel, and the Scots, in their turn,
regarded the English as usurpers who aimed at en-
slaving their country.

At the time when Robert Bruce began his reign in 1306.
Scotland, the same form of government was established jj^dom* *

in all the kingdoms of Europe. This surprising simi- when Bruce

began his
larity in their constitution and laws demonstrates that re jg n .

the nations which overturned the Roman empire, and
erected these kingdoms, though divided into different
tribes, and distinguished by different names, were either
derived originally from the same source, or had been
placed in similar situations. When we take a view of
the feudal system of laws and policy, that stupendous
and singular fabric erected by them, the first object
that strikes us is the king. And when we are told that
he is the sole proprietor of all the lands within his do-
minions, that all his subjects derive their possessions
from him, and in return consecrate their lives to his
service ; when we hear that all marks of distinction,
and titles of dignity, flow from him, as the only fountain
of honour ; when we behold the most potent peers, on
their bended knees, and with folded hands, swearing
fealty at his feet, and acknowledging him to be their

c Anderson's Historical Essay concerning the independency, etc.



14 THE HISTORY BOOK i.

' sovereign' and their ' liege lord ;' we are apt to
pronounce him a powerful, nay, an absolute monarch.
No conclusion, however, would be more rash, or worse
founded. The genius of the feudal government was
purely aristocratical. With all the ensigns of royalty,
and with many appearances of despotic power, a feudal
king was the most limited of all princes.

origin of Before they sallied out of their own habitations to
govern- * conquer the world, many of the northern nations seem
ment, and not to have been subject to the government of kings d :

itsaristocra- . . i . ,

deal genius, and even where monarchical government was establish-
ed, the prince possessed but little authority. A general,
rather than a king, his military command was extensive,
his civil jurisdiction almost nothing 6 . The army which
he led was not composed of soldiers, who could be
compelled to serve, but of such as voluntarily followed
his standard f . These conquered not for their leader,
but for themselves ; and, being free in their own coun-
try, renounced not their liberty, when they acquired