The ferocity of the Scotch character, which was the natural result of the ignorance and poverty of the nation, was, no doubt, one cause, and a very important one, of the commission of such crimes as these, not secretly, but in the open light of day, and by the highest men in the State. It cannot, however, be denied, that another cause was, the influence of the clergy, whose interest it was to humble the nobles, and who were by no means scrupulous as to the means that they employed.22 As the crown became more alienated from the aristocracy, it united itself still closer with the Church. In 1443, a statute was enacted, the object of which was, to secure ecclesiastical property from the attacks made upon it by the nobles.23 And although, in that state of society, it was easier to pass laws than to execute them, such a measure indicated the general policy of the government, and the union between it and the Church. Indeed, as to this, no one could be mistaken.24 For nearly twenty years, the avowed and confidential adviser of the Crown was Kennedy, bishop of Saint Andrews, who retained power until his death, in 1466, during the minority of James III.25 He was the bitter enemy of the nobles,

him on the head with a pole-ax. The rest that were attending at the door, hearing the noise, entred, and fell also upon him; and, to show their affection to the king, gave him every man his blow after he was dead." Compare Lindsay of Pitscottie's Chronicles of Scotland, vol. i. p. 103. "He strak him throw the bodie thairwith; and thairefter the guard, hearing the tumult within the chamber, rusched in and slew the earle out of hand."

22 In Nimmo's History of Stirlingshire, pp. 99, 100, the alienation of the nobles from the Church is dated "from the middle of the fifteenth century;" and this is perhaps correct in regard to general dislike, though the movement may be clearly traced fifty years earlier.

23 See Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 33, edit. folio, 1814; respecting the "statute of haly kirk quhilk is oppressit and hurt."

24 In 1449, James II., "with that affectionate respect for the clergy, which could not fail to be experienced by a prince who had successfully employed their support and advice to escape from the tyranny of his nobles, granted to them some important privileges." Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. iii. p. 226. See also p. 309. Among many similar measures, he conceded to the monks of Paisley some important powers of jurisdiction that belonged to the Crown. Charter, 13th January 1451, 2, in Chalmers' Caledonia, vol. iii. p. 823.

25 Pinkerton's History of Scotland, vol. i. pp. 188, 209, 247, 254. Keith's Catalogue of Scotch Bishops, p. 19. Ridpath's Border History, p. 298. Hollinshead's Scottish Chronicle, vol. ii. p. 101. In Somerville's Memorie of the

against whom he displayed an unrelenting spirit, which was sharpened by personal injuries; for the Earl of Crawford had plundered his lands, and the Earl of Douglas had attempted to seize him, and had threatened to put him into irons.26 The mildest spirit might well have been roused by this; and as James II., when he assassinated Douglas, was more influenced by Kennedy than by any one else, it is probable that the bishop was privy to that foul transaction. At all events, he expressed no disapprobation of it; and when, in consequence of the murder, the Douglases and their friends rose in open rebellion, Kennedy gave to the king a crafty and insidious counsel, highly characteristic of the cunning of his profession. Taking up a bundle of arrows, he showed James, that when they were together, they were not to be broken; but that, if separated, they were easily destroyed. Hence he inferred, that the aristocracy should be overthrown by disuniting the nobles, and ruining them one by one.27

Somervilles, vol. i. p. 213, it is stated, under the year 1452, that fear of the great nobles "had once possest his majestie with some thoughts of going out of the countrey; but that he was perswaded to the contrary by Bishop Kennedie, then Arch-bishop of Saint Andrewes, whose counsell at that tyme and eftirward, in most things he followed, which at length proved to his majesties great advantage." See also Lesley's History, p. 23. "The king wes put to sic a sharp point, that he wes determinit to haif left the realme, and to haif passit in Fraunce by sey, were not that bischop James Kennedy of St. Androis causit him to tarrye.'

26 His lands were plundered by the Earl of Crawford and Alexander Ogilvie of Inveraritie, at the instigation of the Earl of Douglas, who had farther instructed them to seize, if possible, the person of the bishop, and to put him in irons." Memoir of Kennedy, in Chambers' Lives of Scotchmen, vol. iii. p. 307, Glasgow, 1834. "Sed Kennedus et ætate, et consilio, ac proinde auctoritate cæteros anteibat. In eum potissimum ira est versa. Crafordiæ comes et Alexander Ogilvius conflato satis magno exercitu, agros ejus in Fifa latè populati, dum prædam magis, quam causam sequuntur, omni genere cladis in vicina etiam prædia grassati, nemine congredi auso pleni prædarum in Angusiam revertuntur. Kennedus ad sua arma conversus comitem Crafordiæ disceptationem juris fugientem diris ecclesiasticis est prosecutus.' Buchanan, Rerum Scoticarum Historia, lib. xi. p. 306.

27This holie bischop schew ane similitud to the king, quhilk might bring him to experience how he might invaid againes the Douglass, and the rest of the conspiratouris. This bischop tuik furth ane great scheife of arrowes knitt togidder werrie fast, and desired him to put thame to his knie, and break thame. The king said it was not possible, becaus they war so many, and so weill fastened togidder. The bischop answeired, it was werrie

In this he was right, so far as the interests of his own order were concerned; but, looking at the interest of the nation, it is evident that the power of the nobles, notwithstanding their gross abuse of it, was, on the whole, beneficial, since it was the only barrier against despotism. The evil they actually engendered, was indeed immense. But they kept off other evils, which would have been worse. By causing present anarchy, they secured future liberty. For, as there was no middle class, there were only three orders in the commonwealth; namely, government, clergy, and nobles. The two first being united against the last, it is certain that if they had won the day, Scotland would have been oppressed by the worst of all yokes, to which a country can be subjected. It would have been ruled by an absolute king and an absolute Church, who, playing into each other's hands, would have tyrannized over a people, who, though coarse and ignorant, still loved a certain rude and barbarous liberty, which it was good for them to possess, but which, in the face of such a combination, they would most assuredly have forfeited.

Happily, however, the power of the nobles was too deeply rooted in the popular mind to allow of this catastrophe. In vain did James III. exert himself to discourage them,28 and to elevate their rivals, the clergy.29 true, bot yitt he wold latt the king sea how to break thame: and pulled out on be on, and tua be tua, quhill he had brokin thame all; then said to the king, "Yea most doe with the conspiratouris in this manner, and thair complices that are risen againes yow, quho are so many in number, and so hard knit togidder in conspiracie againes yow, that yea cannot gett thame brokin togidder. Butt be sick pratick as I have schowin yow be the similitud of thir arrowes, that is to say, yea must conqueis and break lord by lord be thamselffis, for yea may not deall with thame all at once."" Lindsay of Pitscottie's Chronicles of Scotland, vol. i. pp. 172, 173.

28He wald nocht suffer the noblemen to come to his presence, and to governe the realme be thair counsell. Lesley's History of Scotland, p. 48. "Wald nocht use the counsall of his nobillis." p. 55. "Excluding the nobility." Hume's History of the House of Douglas, vol. ii. p. 33. The nobility seeing his resolution to ruin them." p. 46. "Hes conteming his nobility." Balfour's Annales, vol. i. p. 206.

29 Also to aggrandize them. See, for instance, what "has obtained the name of the golden charter, from the ample privileges it contains, confirmed to Archbishop Shevez by James III. on 9th July 1480." Grierson's History of Saint Andrews, p. 58, Cupar, 1838.

Nothing could shake their authority; and, in 1482, they, seeing the determination of the king, assembled together, and such was their influence over their followers, that they had no difficulty in seizing his person, and imprisoning him in the Castle of Edinburgh.30 After his liberation, fresh quarrels arose ;31 and in 1488, the principal nobles collected troops, met him in the field, defeated him, and put him to death.32 He was succeeded by James IV., under whom the course of affairs was exactly the same; that is to say, on one side the nobles, and on the other side the Crown and the Church. Every thing that the king could do to uphold the clergy, he did cheerfully. In 1493, he obtained an act to secure the immunities of the sees of Saint Andrews and of Glasgow, the two most important in Scotland.33 In 1503, he procured a general revocation of all grants and gifts prejudicial to the Church, whether they had been made by the Parliament or by the Council.34 And, in 1508, he, by the advice of Elphinston, bishop of Aberdeen, ventured on a measure of still greater boldness. That able and ambitious prelate induced James to revive against the nobility several

30 Such was the influence of the aristocracy over their warlike followers, that the king was conveyed to the castle of Edinburgh, without commotion or murmur." Pinkerton's History of Scotland, vol. i. p. 308.

31 66

"The king and his ministers multiplied the insults which they offered to the nobility." . . . . "A proclamation was issued, forbidding any person to appear in arms within the precincts of the court; which, at a time when no man of rank left his own house without a numerous retinue of armed followers, was, in effect, debarring the nobles from all access to the king." "His neglect of the nobles irritated, but did not weaken them." History of Scotland, book i. p. 68, in Robertson's Works, edit. London, 1831.

32 Balfour's Annales, vol. i. pp. 213, 214; Buchanan, Rerum Scoticarum Historia, lib. xii. p. 358. Lindsay of Pitscottie (Chronicles, vol. i. p. 222) says: "This may be ane example to all kingis that cumes heirefter, not to fall from God." "For, if he had vsed the counsall of his wyse lordis

and barrones, he had not cum to sick disparatioun."

33 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, folio, 1814, vol. ii. p. 232. “That the said abbaceis confirmit be thame sall neid na prouisioun of the court of Rome."

3 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 240; and the summary of the statute (p. 21), "Revocation of donations, statutis, and all uthir thingis hurtand the croune or hali kirk." In the next year (1504), the king "greatly augmented" the revenues of the bishoprick of Galloway. Chalmers' Caledonia, vol. iii. p. 417.

obsolete claims, by virtue of which the king could, under certain circumstances, take possession of their estates, and could, in every instance in which the owner held of the Crown, receive nearly the whole of the proceeds during the minority of the proprietor.35

To make such claims was easy; to enforce them was impossible. Indeed, the nobles were at this time rather gaining ground than losing it; and, after the death of James IV., in 1513, they, during the minority of James V., became so powerful, that the regent, Albany, twice threw up the government in despair, and at length abandoned it altogether.36 He finally quitted Scotland in 1524, and with him the authority of the executive seemed to have vanished. The Douglases soon obtained possession of the person of the king, and compelled Beaton, archbishop of Saint Andrews, the most influential man in the Church, to resign the office of chancellor.37 The whole command now fell into their hands; they or their adherents filled every office; secular interests predominated, and the clergy were thrown completely into

35 Pinkerton's History of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 63; Calderwood's History of the Kirk of Scotland, vol. viii. p. 135, edit. Wodrow Society, Edinburgh, 1849. The latter authority states, that "The bishop devysed wayes to King James the Fourth, how he might attaine to great gaine and profit. He advised him to call his barons and all those that held any lands within the realme, to show their evidents by way of recognition; and, if they had not sufficient writings for their warrant, to dispone upon their lands at his pleasure; for the which advice he was greatlie hated. But the king, perceaving the countrie to grudge, agreed easilie with the possessors."

36 The Regency of Albany, little understood by the earlier historians, has been carefully examined by Mr. Tytler, in whose valuable, though too prolix, work, the best account of it will be found. Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. iv. pp. 98-160, Edinburgh, 1845. On the hostility between Albany and the nobles, see Irving's History of Dumbartonshire, p. 99; and, on the revival of their power in the north, after the death of James IV., see Gregory's History of the Western Highlands, pp. 114, 115.

37

See

Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. iv. pp. 180-182: "Within a few months, there was not an office of trust or emolument in the kingdom, which was not filled by a Douglas, or by a creature of that house." also pp. 187, 194; and Keith's Catalogue of Scotch Bishops, pp. 22, 23. Beaton, who was so rudely dispossessed of the chancellorship, that, according to Keith, he was, in 1525, obliged "to lurk among his friends for fear of his life," is mentioned, in the preceding year, as having been the main supporter of Albany's government; "that most hath favoured the Duke of Albany." State Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII., vol. iv. p. 97, 4to, 1836.