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.