Page images
PDF
EPUB

the mouths of the learned ministers of Killearnan and Kiltarlity, who regard the Celts as victors in "the sair fight o' Harlaw." The children of Somerled are not unbiassed historians.1

From David to Alexander II., Scotland was trying to acquire the north of England as a province. The result was the capture of William the Lion, and the Treaty of Falaise, which, for a few years, reduced all of Scotland but her indomitable Church to the abject condition which Edward I. revived for a year or two. Another result was the definite beginning of that sad and glorious Ancient League with France, to which Scotland owns her part in the fight of Baugé Bridge, and in the immortal victories of the Maid. About these names, Pathay, Lagny, Orleans, the most illustrious on our banners, Mr Hume Brown is so self-denying as to say nothing at all! He does not even touch on the crucial value of the Falaise treaty in its bearing on the question of English supremacy,2 except by remarking that Richard I. "restored the independence of Scotland." This, of course, implies that Scotland, save from 1174 to 1189, had been independent which is exactly what the English, and Mr Freeman, have denied. The

troubles of William contained one element of progress.

At

various times he had to pay heavy ransoms and indemnities to England-or to refuse pecuniary aid. These were the occasions of great assemblies and assessments, and hence began, on the question of finance, the very scanty "Constitutional history" of Scotland.

The reigns of the Kings of Peace, Alexander II. and Alexander III. (1214-1286), show the Celtic rivalries diminishing, while factions among the nobles take their place, and the truly Scottish constitutional practice of kidnapping the king in the interests of a party begins. The English claims, too, show various signs of maturing and in the cells of monasteries fraudulent historical grounds of claim are quietly elaborated by monkish chroniclers. Into the delicate question of the homage of Alexander III. to Edward I. (1278), Mr Hume Brown, as usual, does not go, merely accepting the Scottish as against the English version.3 Here economy of explanations is justifiable, we think, the Scottish case is so strong. The subjugation of Argyll and the Isles are the great successes of this period.

As to the formation of the Regency, after the death of Alexander III., Mr Hume Brown observes: "It is interesting to note that the dividing line of the Forth was still a practical consideration." Of

1 See Clan Donald, by these authors: a very interesting book in many ways. 2 Cf. Robertson, ii. 409.

3 Robertson, ii. 113. Register of Dunfermline, and letter of Boniface VIII. to Edward I. Fœdera, i. i. 554, 563; i. ii. 907; and Robertson, Appendix L. Hume Brown, 127, 128.

this we can offer a picturesque proof. When Edward I., in 1296, took oaths from all Scotland, those of Stirling were attested by the seal of the burgh. It represents Stirling Bridge. In the centre (as at Orleans) is a crucifix. On the right are a group of spearmen; on the left a group of bowmen take aim at them. Above the spearmen we read the legend, Hic armis Scoti brut stant; over the bowmen, Hic cruce tuti. The Christian bowmen are the English-speaking race south of Forth; the spearmen are Scoti bruti, "brutes o' Hielanders." Not а very united Scotland is attested by this little monument of folk who were glad that "Forth bridled the wild Highlandman."

Mr Hume Brown justly says that the Treaty of Birgham "bears signal testimony to the sensitive patriotism of the Scots."

But of what Scots? The noblesse had no patriotism: they had a foot in each country, and only wanted to keep estates in both. The burghs could not make themselves heard, much less the rural population. The patriots, who show their sensitiveness in the clauses of the Treaty, must have been the educated Churchmen, who had almost a monopoly of legal knowledge. They freely imperilled their immortal souls by desperate and repeated perjuries all through Edward's period of rule they spent their wealth; they gave their lives on the gibbet; and we know from a contemporary letter that they preached energetically for the cause of Scottish freedom, while

the nobles were sold, and the commons were dismayed. The clergy saved the national independence, with the aid of a sacrilegious assassin, whose crime they heartily condoned. Such were "Baal's shaven sort," in the pretty phrase of Knox.

As to the War of Independence, Mr Hume Brown writes, may we say, unheroically. He not only omits all Bruce's adventures; he does not even give the battles of Loudon Hill and Glen Trool, early successes, in the first of which, if Barbour may be relied on, Mr Oman justly recognises the military genius of the king. These advantages were won when Edward I. lay no farther off than Carlisle, while Lorne and Aylmer de Valence, with many other knights, were weaving their nets round Bruce in Galloway and Ayrshire. The brutalities of Edward, his gibbets, cages, and deaths of men quartered at the heels of horses, turned Scotland against him, as we know from English sources, and these details are not brightly stated, any more than is the energetic preaching of a kind of national crusade by the clergy. Yet all these things did more than we can estimate towards the making of Scotland. In place of such convincing details we only hear vaguely of Edward's "harsh and imperious dealing," of the "execution" of Nigel Bruce and many others, and of the "testimony from the national Church," given by a Provincial Council at Dundee, in 1310. Bruce's triumph looks like a miracle. It is explained by

the picturesque details, and by the action of the Church, no less than by the contrasted characters of the hero and of Edward II. The actual facts show what manner of men the Lowlanders were, and to make this clear is the interest as well as the duty of history. For the facts are romantic and interesting. Here again, therefore, we urge that history, while it should be "critical" and "scientific," cannot be either, or both, by dint of lack of colour. History, above all Scottish history, is not 'The Annals of a Quiet Neighbourhood,' nor to be written with the calmness of such records. It is not enough to call Bruce an accomplished knight, of winning personal qualities. We need to add the detail and living colour of Barbour. The annals of David II. exhibit a period of reaction. The deeds of Bruce seemed to be wiped out: "his own bishop," and his own Abbot of Inchafray, who paraded the crucifix before the kneeling ranks at Bannockburn, went over to Balliol and the English. The luck of Scotland, the blood of Randolph, the brave old sister of Bruce, a Mr Thomson, the Steward, and the English wars with France just saved the Scotland which the son of the victor of Bannockburn, and the representative of the Good Lord James, were trying to sell to the Southern foe. Now, in Douglas and the Black Knight of Liddesdale, begins the unexampled career of Douglas treachery. Mr Hume Brown, as

usual, leaves out almost all the fun (except for an allusion to Black Agnes of Dunbar); he avoids, however, Mr Tytler's welter of confusion about the affairs of 1363. Mr Burnett, in the edition of the Exchequer Rolls, has not written in vain; and Mr Bain's 'Calendar is also used to good effect. We cannot agree with Mr Hume Brown that Barbour's 'Bruce' "as literature cannot rank high." The judgment of Mr Henderson, in 'Scottish Vernacular Literature,' is more to the point. Barbour is an early avatar of Sir Walter Scott, and Sir Herbert Maxwell has vindicated his historical value. Mr Henderson's book, we may remark in passing, though, doubtless, no more infallible than other works of man, is an excellent and spirited summary of the vernacular literature of old Scotland.

To that literature the most illustrious contributor is King James, first of that name. Mr Hume Brown does not much like him, and we share his aversion. As to the recent critical attempt to deprive James of his chief claim to renown, "The King's Quhair," Mr Hume Brown discreetly observes that it is made "probably on insufficient grounds." Whether James wrote the poem or not, the "grounds" are not merely "probably," but, we think, conspicuously insufficient. The curious may refer to the arguments of M. Jusserand, and of Mr Henderson in his work already cited.1 James's

1 See The Authorship of the King's Quhair,' by Mr J. T. T. Brown, and M. Jusserand's reply, tiré à part from 'Revue Historique,' May-June 1897.

rage against the House of Albany is probably explained by his letters written in captivity, where he complains of neglect by Albany. Mr Hume Brown does not allude to these, given in Sir William Frazer's Book of Menteith.' He is sceptical about the so-called "contemporary account of James's murder; but, if he does not rely on this document, whence does he derive his belief that James's subjects in general thought him rapacious, violent, and so forth? Not from Bower, and not from the rhyme

[ocr errors]

"Robert Graham

Who slew our king,

God give him shame."

The story of how James avenged the poor Highland woman, in his effort to protect his unhappy Commons, is evidence of popular qualities. For social details we are referred to 'Early Travellers in Scotland' (a valuable collection by Mr Hume Brown), and the French ambassador's narrative, from which M. Jusserand has extracted the plums.

In the reign of James II. two gentlemen were put into pits and "bollit." There is something awful in being "bollit." Mr Hume Brown, periculo suo, interprets "bollit," and says "thrown into dungeons and placed in fetters." We much prefer the authentic "bollit in pits" of the Auchinleck Chronicle. We may be prejudiced, but we conceive that the treachery of the Douglases in their relations with the Yorkists in England, under James II., is rather more con

66

spicuous than Mr Hume Brown allows for; while, on the other hand, their provocation, the appalling inhospitable murder of the earl by the king on his own royal hearth, leaves our author more than usual calm." The act "betrayed folly and passion," like the peccadillo of Bruce at Dumfries. In that case, we think it can be demonstrated that the Red Comyn had not (as partial historians allege) betrayed his assassin to Edward I. On the other hand, Mr Hume Brown justly lays stress on the circumstance that, bloody, distracted, and treacherous as were the doings of our ancestors, other nations were not one whit better. Reading history, Scottish life seems not worth living. The sumptuary laws, however, attest a high standard of "the decoration of life," if not of "all modern appliances of comfort."

Mr Hume Brown dislikes the enigmatic James III., in whose dark melancholy face in the portrait at Holyrood we recognise a prophecy of the ill-fated James VIII. By aid of the Paston Letters, and a despatch of Kennedy's to Louis XI. in Wavrin, Mr Hume Brown makes it clear (and to us it never was clear before) that Kennedy and "the Young Lords" were for the Lancastrians; Mary of Gueldres and the Old Lords for the Yorkists. Douglas "schall not be reported, nor taken, but as an Englyssheman, and if he come in the daunger of Scotts, they to sle him."1 Even so was Angus of a later day "an Englishman,"

1 Paston Letters, Gairdner, ii. 111.

and to "sle" him would have been a patriotic act. In fact, Douglas, of course, was a banished man, and was aiding the Lord of the Isles in his scandalous Treaty with Edward IV., and raiding the Scottish marches. Douglases Black and Douglases Red are in the same condemnation, despite gallant and patriotic acts of the House under Bruce and later. The queen's death (December 1463) left Kennedy nearly two years of good government, he being now reconciled to the House of York. But his death, in July 1465, "let in" the shameful banded Flemings, Kennedys, and Boyds, with Graham, the first Archbishop of St Andrews, who probably soon quarrelled with his fellow "bandsters," and was apparently driven insane by St Andrews quarrels. But as Graham was in the BoydFleming "band," we cannot see that "from the first he had many and powerful enemies." The Boyds had all their own way till the king's mar riage in 1469, when the Boyds were "justified" in the usual style, and the House of Hamilton arose on their ruin. We have never been able to see why Graham has been praised as an honest reformer." First, he was in an unholy band of cynically rapacious courtiers; next, he was mad; and we cannot hold that what Buchanan says is evidence. Mr Hume Brown, omitting Graham's share in the Boyd "band," thinks Buchanan not improbably right.

[ocr errors]

James's misfortunes begin with his twenty-fifth year,with the troubles in his own

He

house, his brothers, Albany and Mar. James was fond of books, art, bibelots, and artists. had a bad seat on horseback. His brothers were sportsmen— hinc illæ lachrymæ! Mar died in confinement, and, of course, James was accused of murder, with no sort of evidence, as Mr Hume Brown admits. The picturesque stories of Mar and Albany are, as to detail, omitted. The nobility are said to have been "driven to desperation." In fact they hated an "æsthete." James, anxious for peace, was being betrayed by England and the Celts. Famine raged, the coinage had been debased, and so, in place of aiding their king to meet his open foes in Eng'and and his traitor brother "Alexander Rex" (Albany, who was under treaty to acknowedge Edward IV., as Balliol had acknowledged Edward I.), the nobles revolted, and hanged James's artists (but not his tailor) over the bridge of Lauder, shutting up the king in Edinburgh Castle. Against this infamous mutiny under arms, and in face of the approaching enemy, Mr Hume Brown has not much to say. Now, granting that James, or Cochrane (which is disputed), was responsible for the "Wood's pence" of the period; granting that James was interested in art and in psychical research, and that he had a bad seat on horseback, we cannot condone an outrage in which Angus, presently to be Albany's agent in another plot against national independence, was the ringleader, "belling the cat."

James, who is allowed to be "no mere weakling," overpowered

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »