Site icon Random Scottish History

Timeline of Events Between Scotland & England; Roman Era to 1900

[Extra Articles Contents]

   This is designed to be a short synopsis in relations between what was to become the countries of Scotland and England in order to better understand the chronology of our mutual history. The compiler is aware not every single event is covered, merely just the main and most obvious, again, in order for folk, possibly unacquainted with the full history, to better get their heads around how we got where we are.

85  Agricola’s army defeated by the Caledonians at Mons Grampius & Agricola’s Wall built between the rivers Forth and Clyde.

120  A new wall built by Hadrian further south between the rivers Tyne and Solway.

139  Wall completed by Antoninus.

843  Northumbria claimed by Kenneth II. The river Tweed becomes Scotland’s southern boundary.

1057  Malcolm (III.) Canmore becomes king. The heir of the Saxons in England, Aethling claims refuge in Scotland after England is conquered by the Normans in 1066. Malcolm marries Margaret, Aethling’s sister, and this leads to an influx of Saxons into Scottish lands. Saxon nobles are given lands along with the people on them. This is when the title of Thane developed.

1100  Mathilda, Malcolm III.’s daughter marries Henry I., Norman king of England.

1174  William the Lion is captured at the Battle of Alnwick. Henry II. keeps him prisoner at Falaise in France until he accepts and acknowledges England’s feudal superiority over Scotland. This was accomplished with the Treaty of Falaise, in 1175, at York.

1189  English king Richard the Lionheart found himself short of funds to go on crusade to the Holy Lands and terminated this treaty in return for payment of 10,000 marks.

1251  Alexander III. marries Margaret, Henry III. of England’s daughter at the age of 10.

1253  Haco, King of Norway, defeated at Largs.

1281  Alexander III.’s daughter married to Eric, King of Norway.

1286  Alexander III. dies. His niece Margaret, the Maid of Norway, is his only successor. Edward I. is set on uniting Scotland with England by marriage of his son, Edward II., to her. The Scottish Estates agree to this marriage. She’s sent over and dies en route, at Orkney, in 1290.

1290  Edward I. has added Wales to his dominions and is in the belief he is also Scotland’s overlord. This is somewhat compounded when the Scots send the Bishop of Brechin, William Comyn, to have Edward choose between Robert Bruce & John Baliol as Scotland’s next monarch. Baliol was chosen as a king due to his already being prepared to pledge fealty to Edward I.

1296  Baliol is finally harassed into rebellion by Edward but is defeated and deprived of his kingdom by the English king. Edward I. took the Stone of Destiny from Scone to Westminster believing that would secure his ascendency over the Scots.

1297  William Wallace rises in defense of his country. Battle of Stirling Bridge won. He’s made Protector/Governor of the Realm.

1298  William Wallace defeated by Edward’s army at Falkirk.

1305  Sir John Menteith betrays Wallace and he’s captured and taken to London to be tried, condemned, and executed for Treason. This could only have happened legally had Scotland had accepted the dominance of Edward, as protecting his country was not treason against a king not his own.

“After the death of Wallace, Scotland seemed so completely subdued that Edward took steps to incorporate it with England, and Scotsmen of the highest rank in church and state were selected to represent their country in the English parliament. Twelve years of war, however, had made such a union impracticable. The English king was preparing for a parliament of the two nations to meet at Carlisle, and was intending by a conciliatory party to reconcile the Scots to his rule, when one morning in the beginning of February, 1306, less than six months after the death of Wallace, it was announced that Robert Bruce had left the English court, and set off for Scotland.”

– ‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. II; King Robert the Bruce, 1306-1315.

“A few years ago Scotland was ignored and degraded by her bigger sister beyond the Tweed. Her nationality was wilfully and maliciously written down. She was merely the northern province of England; her great men were Englishmen; her rivers that sing to the music of a hundred national songs were English rivers; her enterprise, her commerce, and her discoveries were all classed as English; and it was only when something shabby and mean was to be said of the northern province that our nationality was ever allowed. Whisky drinking, for example, was a Scotch vice; and Sabbath keeping, which was always joined with it, was allowed to be another national characteristic. The fact is that an attempt was made – an old underhand attempt – to cheat us out of our nationality altogether. The English in the 13th century demanded that Scotland should acknowledge their Kings to be Lords Paramount over the whole island; and in the 19th century the same spirit led these assuming Southerners to speak and write as if that demand had never been resisted, and as if they had swallowed us up when the Union was consummated as the boa constrictor swallows a rabbit. There did not fail great Scotchmen to take up the cause of their country in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; and when all other hearts were faint in the nineteenth, one Scotchman resolutely buckled on his armour and took the field. History is always repeating itself, but the consolation is that when we find such an episode as that of Edward Longshanks’ claim upon Scotland repeated in the conduct of the statesmen and thunderers of England of the present day, we also find our Wallaces and our Bruces reproduced in our ‘North Britons’ and William Burnses.”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), Collection of William Burns on the Attempt of English Centralisation.

1306  Robert Bruce crowned King of Scots. Edward claims a papal bull authorising the excommunication of Bruce by “bell, book, and candle.” Bruce defeated at Methven after a surprise attack by the English. – The crusades were instigated by Pope Urban II. in 1096 to reclaim the Holy Lands from Islamic rule. It became authorised for any Christian nation to conquer and assert a right over any other non-Christian nation. This bull obtained by Edward I. was for exactly this purpose.

1307  Edward I., self-proclaimed ‘Hammer of the Scots’, dies. Edward II. wasn’t quite as set on the task as his father and only continued on as far as Cumnock, Ayrshire, before retreating with his army back to England. Bruce begins reclaiming Scottish strongholds.

1309  Edward II. convinced into a truce with the Scots by advice from the French King, Philip IV. Scotland wasn’t prepared to accept a truce while the English retained any ground Scotland.

1313  Stirling Castle remained occupied, though in need of resources, and it was agreed that if they were not relived by an English army within a year then it would return to Scottish hands. Edward II. made an effort to aid this occupation in the belief that it would reassert his right over Scotland.

1314  The Battle of Bannockburn is fought and won by the Scots. Edward II. still refuses to accept Scottish independence from his authority.

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), p.22.

1320  The Declaration of Arbroath is written up and sent to the pope as a defense asserting Scotland’s sovereign right as an independent Christian nation over whom England had no rights or authority. The was to annul the papal bull granted to Edward I.

1323  Thirteen year truce agreed to between Scotland and England.

1327  Edward III. ascends to the English throne and is advised not to renew this truce unless Bruce accepted English superiority over Scotland. This was never going to be agreed to. The Scots, under Douglas and Randolph, form an army and head into England where they manage to evade the English faction. A knighthood and £100 per year reward was offered to anyone who could tell the English army where they might encounter the Scots. An English soldier captured by the Scottish side was released by them to go and obtain the reward. They were found with this information but absconded again without notice. The English gave up their pursuit of the elusive army.

1328  A truce was finally wanted by the English and agreed to at York. This Treaty of Northampton states,

“the King of England declared for himself and his heirs that the kingdom of Scotland shall remain for ever to the great prince, Lord Robert by the grace of God illustrious King of Scotland, and that Scotland shall be separated from the kingdom of England, and from all claims of subjection or vassalage.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. III; King Robert the Bruce, 1314-1329.

1332  The Battle of Dupplin Moor instigated by disinherited nobles. The Regent Mar was defeated. Edward Baliol crowned at Scone. Baliol acknowledged Edward II. as Lord Superior of Scotland. The English claim Scotland has broken the Treaty of Northampton and lay siege to Berwick. Berwick was surrendered, and Baliol gave Edward control of the south of Scotland up to the Forth while he acted as a vassal king in the north.

1339  Baliol flees to England as uprisings occur over Scotland.

1341  Edinburgh is retaken by the Scots.David II. returns from France.

1346  David II. taken prisoner at the Battle of Neville’s Cross, paraded through London, and imprisoned in London Tower.

1357  David released on a ransom of 100,000 marks.

1363  Suspicion of David’s looking to betray Scotland’s independence to the English confirmed when he selects Edward’s 3rd son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence, as his successor. This is decisively rejected by the Estates as they determined never to be subject to any Englishman.

1369  A 14 year truce with England agreed to.

1370  David II. dies leaving no heir. The first of the Stuart line, Robert II., High Steward of Scotland, David’s nephew, was crowned.

1383 England was to enter into a truce with France and Scotland,

“but before the ambassadors could communicate with the government of Scotland, the Earls of Northumberland and Nottingham crossed the Border with 2000 men-at-arms and 6000 bowmen, and slaughtered and burned as far as Edinburgh. Scarcely had they departed when a body of thirty French knights, who knew that the truce had not been communicated to Scotland, landed at Montrose and found their way to Perth, whence they sent two of their number to Edinburgh to inform the government that they wanted employment in fighting against the English. At the very same time the ambassadors sent with the terms of truce came to Edinburgh. The truce was agreed to by the king, but the Estates, embittered by the English raid, would not accept of it. They would have their revenge,..”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. V; Robert II, 1370-1390.

1385  “England was resolved at this time to make a great effort to annex Scotland. The young king, Richard II., marched northward with an army of 70,000 men. The Scots were able to muster 30,000. The French were eager for battle, but Douglas took Vienne to the top of a hill, showed him the whole English army, and convinced him that in a contest with such a mighty host, victory was hopeless. The French expected that they would have to surrender, but Douglas let them understand that the Scots could defeat their enemies otherwise than in a pitched battle. He said the English might do their worst in Scotland, while he and they invaded England. They accordingly laid waste Cumberland and Westmoreland. The French said among themselves that they burned more in the bishoprics of Durham and Carlisle than the value of all the towns in Scotland. The English army had meanwhile marched to the Forth, finding little to destroy except the religious houses. Being in danger of starvation, the invaders had to go back to their own country. The Scots returned from England laden with booty. When the English army was gone, the inhabitants came back from the hills and glens with their cattle and effects, restored their houses with turf and a few beams of wood, and resumed their ordinary way of life.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. V; Robert II, 1370-1390.

1389-1399  Truce between England, France & Scotland.

1390  Robert II. dies leaving his son, John, as his heir. The Scots are not encouraged by the thought of being ruled over by another John, after the impression left by his namesake Baliol. So, he obliged them and was crowned under the name Robert III.

1400  The truce with England has ended and Henry IV. was king of England. He marched a large army to Leith and demanded homage be paid him. The nobles held out the Scottish strongholds against him until the invading army’s resources ran out and they were forced to return to England.

1405  Scots fear for the life of Robert II.’s son and heir, James, and decide to send him to France until he had been educated and raised to manhood. They set sail with him from the Forth but were captured by an English vessel near Flamborough Head, Yorkshire. Henry IV. kept him a prisoner of the English court for 18 years.

1406  James I. acknowledged as king while still a prisoner in England.

Henry V. of England had been so successful in his wars with France, that he had made himself not only nominally, but almost actually, king of that country. A party in France, however, still remained faithful to the Dauphin and the House of Valois, and cultivated the old alliance of France with Scotland. In 1419 arrangements were made for sending a Scottish force to France, and the English government gave orders to watch for and intercept them. Notwithstanding the watchfulness of the English, however, a Scottish force of 7000 men succeeded in landing in France in 1421, and under command of the Earl of Buchan they defeated the English at Baugè. This victory encouraged the French in their efforts to shake off the English yoke. The wrath of Henry V. against the Scots was terrible. He had the captive King of Scots with him, and under pretext that the Scots were fighting against their own king, he gave orders that all of them that might be taken should be hanged as rebels. In the battle of Verneuil, which was fought two years after, 1424, the Scots were almost exterminated. The French, however, never forgot the great services which the Scots had rendered to them. Out of those who survived the slaughter of Verneuil the famous Scots Guard was formed in France, and a right of common citizenship was established between the two countries.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. VII; James I, 1406-1437.

1424  James is released and allowed to return to Scotland with his English wife, Jane Beaufort, the Earl of Somerset’s daughter. James was to also pay £40,000 to the English court

“for his maintenance during his captivity.”

On his return he reformed the laws and caused them to be made available in the Scots language,

“that no one might plead ignorance of them,” and “the parliament was assimilated as far as possible to that of England.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. VII; James I, 1406-1437.

1434  James’s eldest daughter, Margaret, is sent to France and marries the Dauphin, afterwards Louis XI. This cemented the auld alliance and gave offence to England to the point that war was declared by them which led to some few wee battles in the border counties but didn’t really come to anything.

“The love of national independence was a sentiment that animated almost all Scotsmen. They might fight and quarrel among themselves; but at the report of an English invasion they laid aside their feuds and suppressed their enmities till the Southern was compelled, by force of arms or starvation, to cross the Border.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. VIII; Condition of the Country During the Fourteenth and Beginning of the Fifteenth Century.

1460  James II. uses the civil war in England as a good opportunity to retake Roxburgh and Berwick. He died at Roxburgh when a cannon exploded by him. The siege was continued in the name of his son James III. and he was crowned shortly after the town was successfully cleared of English.

1461  The War of the Roses in England led to Henry IV.’s defeat and he fled to Scotland and gave the Scots Berwick.

“Edward IV., was too busy openly to quarrel with Scotland, and in August, 1461, he appointed a commission to treat for peace with the King of Scots. Secretly, however, at the instigation of the banished Earl of Douglas, he had only two months before issued a commission to engage the Lord of the Isles and Donald Balloch to rise in rebellion against their youthful sovereign. It was agreed that if Scotland should be conquered by the aid of the Lord of the Isles, he should become the Liege-man of Edward and be lord of all Scotland north of the Forth, while Douglas, should he give effective aid, would be lord of the territory south of the Forth. The Lord of the Isles, raised an army in terms of this agreement, proclaimed himself King of the Hebrides, took the castle of Inverness, invaded Athole, and committed depredations as far south as Arran. For want of co-operation on the part of Douglas and the King of England, this rising collapsed, nor was the true cause of it known in Scotland till 1474, when it was discovered that such a secret treaty had been made. The King of England was not in a position to make open claim of homage from the King of Scots, but he seems to have made preparations for doing so at a future time, for a great number of forged documents were at this time solemnly deposited in the English Treasury, setting forth that the English claims were just, and had been acknowledged by the Scots.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. X; James III, 1460-1488.

1478  “…the aristocracy look[ed] to [James III.’s] brothers as the chief support of the state, and alienated their minds from the sovereign. Hence it came about that the king treated his brothers as enemies. Mar was thrown into Craigmillar Castle, where he died. Rumour said he was murdered. Albany was committed to Edinburgh Castle, but he escaped to Dunbar. When Dunbar was besieged and taken, he fled to France. He came thence to England, and made a treasonable treaty with Edward IV., whereby, on his acknowledging the feudal supremacy of the crown of England over Scotland, he was to be made King of Scotland with the title of Alexander IV., and was, if possible, to take the place of his nephew, Prince James, and marry the Princess Cecilia.

Albany and the banished Earl of Douglas stirred up the English to hostilities against Scotland, while Louis, King of France, stimulated the Scots to make war with England. The King of Scots raised an army to oppose the attack which England threatened. A nuncio, however, came from the pope, and enjoined the two nations to stop their quarrel. The Scots obeyed and dispersed their force, but the English continued their raids, burning and destroying the Scottish Border.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. X; James III, 1460-1488.

1482  The king’s favourites have been hanged as being bad influences on him. The king has been put in Edinburgh Castle.

“Albany soon after came to Edinburgh and procured the freedom of his brother; but being suspected of designs against the independence of the kingdom, he left Scotland, went over to the English, and placed Dunbar Castle in English hands. He and Douglas made a raid into Scotland in 1484, but they were defeated. Albany escaped into France, Douglas was taken prisoner, but on his agreeing to spend the remainder of his days in Lindores his life was spared.

The English army, which the Scottish host that stopped at Lauder was designed to meet, being unopposed, took the town of Berwick.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. X; James III, 1460-1488.

1490  “… five English ships came into the Scottish seas and plundered the Scottish merchantmen. Wood attacked them with his two ships, the Flower and Yellow Carvel, took the whole of them, and carried them into Leith. This roused the indignation of the English, and Stephen Bull, a renowned commander, was sent with three strong ships to bring him to England dead or alive. They met off St. Abb’s Head on a May morning. A terrible fight began at once, and so intent were the mariners on the battle that, during its progress, they permitted the ships to be drifted into the mouth of the Tay. Wood’s superior tactics enabled him to gain the victory. The three English ships were captured and carried into Dundee. Wood presented Bull to the king, who magnanimously sent him back to England without a ransom.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XI; James IV, 1488-1513.

1502  James IV.’s marriage to Margaret, Henry VII. of England’s daughter, was of huge importance to both England and Scotland as their great grandson was crowned on the throne of England accomplishing the Union of the Crowns 101 years later.

“Dunbar, a great Scottish poet of that time, sang of it as ‘the union of the Thistle and the Rose.’”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XI; James IV, 1488-1513.

1513  Norham and Wark castles are taken by the Scots who were then defeated at Flodden, where James IV. was killed in battle.

“There was scarcely a Scottish family of note that did not mourn the loss of a relative on Flodden Field, and we still bewail the disaster when we sing “The Flowers of the Forest are a’ wede away.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XI; James IV, 1488-1513.

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), p.93.

1514  James IV.’ widow marries the Earl of Angus, whose father was one of the many nobles killed at Flodden.

1515  Albany, son of the exiled duke, returns from France after being sought as a suitable regent during the James V.’s minority. He takes custody of the royal children from the widowed queen. Her husband, Angus was arrested and sent to France. She fled, pregnant, to England where she gave birth to a daughter.

“Angus soon after managed to escape from France, and joined her at the court of England, where he was welcomed by Henry VIII. as one who might be used for the purpose of furthering his selfish ends with respect to Scotland.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XII; James V, 1513-1542.

1522  “[The Scots] hatred of Albany might have resulted in his dismissal and a closer connection with England, had not King Henry threatened war against the Scots if they did not dismiss him. The Scots might have sent away Albany of their own accord, but a threat from England made them determine to do the very opposite. There was danger of an invasion from England, but the Scots would rather keep the man they hated and resist invasion, than be dictated to by the English.

The Scots hastily raised an army of 80,000 men, and in September, 1522, moved towards the western Border. The Earl of Surrey and Lord Dacre, to whom the protection of the Border had been committed, were not prepared to meet such a force. When the mighty host reached Annan Lord Dacre came to Albany, withdrew the insulting demand of England, and obtained a cessation of arms, whereupon the army dispersed. The conduct of Albany on this occasion was much deplored. When he wanted to return to France the Scots made a show of reluctance, but allowed him to go.

Lord Dacre had secured the dismissal of the Scottish army without the renewal of the truce between the two countries. This was an advantage to England, for as the countries were technically still at war, Lord Dacre next year led 10,000 men into Scotland by the eastern marches, and burned the town of Jedburgh (1523).”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XII; James V, 1513-1542.

1524  “It was now the great aim of Wolsey, the minister of Henry VIII., to detach Scotland from the French alliance. He proposed that the King of Scots should marry the English princess Mary, and talked in his correspondence of the likelihood of James becoming King of England. The Beatons, James, and his nephew David who afterwards became cardinal, opposed the policy of Wolsey.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XII; James V, 1513-1542.

1531  “The king next directed his attention to the West Highlands, where disturbances had arisen. Argyle had been made Lieutenant of the West, and had asked the government for aid in quelling the disorders. The privy council refused to put the array of the Lowland counties at the disposal of Argyle, and decided that the king himself should lead an army to put down the disturbances. The council opened communications with the heads of the clans, which led to such revelations that Argyle was deprived of his lieutenancy, and was even for a time imprisoned. The crown then took to itself the government of the Western Highlands, and made John of Isla and other chiefs responsible for the collection of feudal dues and other taxes. The nobles regarded this treatment of Argyle as a blow aimed at their order, and some of them were so offended that they agreed to transfer their allegiance to England.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XII; James V, 1513-1542.

1537  James was looking for a wife and the formerly proposed union with Henry VIII.’s daughter, Mary,

“now that a son had been born to Henry VIII., was not so attractive a match as she had once been; but some were still in favour of such a union.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XII; James V, 1513-1542.

Instead he married Magdalen, daughter of the king of France, before then marrying Mary, the Duke of Guise’s daughter, on Magdalen’s demise.

1541  James V.’s eldest, followed shortly after by the youngest, sons both die. James’

“uncle, Henry VIII., grew more dictatorial, and again desired a conference at York, to which James agreed. Henry travelled in state to York, but the King of Scots did not come to meet him. Henry was furious, and declared war. He also asserted the old claim of supremacy, and in 1542sent Norfolk to Scotland with an army to lay waste the country.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XII; James V, 1513-1542.

1542  “On the 7th of December tidings were brought to him that the queen had given birth to a daughter at Linlithgow. Thinking of the crown of Scotland, and the dangers that beset a female heir, the dying man murmured, ‘It cam wi’ a lass and it will gang wi’ a lass.’” He died on the 14th of December. Mary, Queen of Scots, was his heir. Almost immediately Henry VIII. began his forceful campaign in order to have her pledged in marriage to his son Edward. This would mean Edward then taking the throne of Scotland, accomplishing the English, centuries old, desire to annex Scotland.

Henry VIII. thought that he had now a good opportunity of uniting the two kingdoms by the marriage of the young Queen of Scots to his only son, Edward, Prince of Wales; and had he been less impatient, and more moderate in his demands, he might have succeeded. Henry had in his possession the Earl of Angus and a number of the Scottish nobility who had been taken prisoners at Solway Moss. These men, who afterwards were called the “Assured Scots,” or the “English Lords,” he agreed to send home on condition that they would endeavour to get the young queen and the fortresses of the country placed in his hands. They promised what Henry demanded, and gave their sons or other near relations as hostages for their fidelity. The forfeiture against Angus was reversed by the Scottish Parliament, and he and his brother, Sir George Douglas, together with the Lords Cassilis, Glencairn, Fleming, Maxwell, Somerville, and Oliphant, returned to Scotland, pledged to carry out the wishes of Henry VIII. They had, however, promised more than they were able, perhaps more than they were quite willing, to perform. The great body of the Scottish people were jealous of England, because the English policy seemed always directed towards the annexation of Scotland.

The Scots had no such jealousy towards France, because though the French were sometimes insolent they had often sided them in times of danger, and had never as yet threatened their independence. So strong was the Scottish love of independence that the “Assured Lords,” when suspected of being Henry’s emissaries, could not even count on the support of their own vassals. They could neither induce the Scots to give up the child to Henry, nor to abandon the French league. Treaties, however, were drawn up for an alliance between England and Scotland, including their allies, and for the marriage of Prince Edward to the Queen of Scots. The queen was to be given up after ten years, and then the marriage ceremony was to be performed. There were careful stipulations for the independent sovereignty and name of Scotland being preserved, even though the two countries should come to have one king.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XIII; Mary Queen of Scots, 1542-1560.

1543  “Meanwhile the Queen was hardly a month old, when Henry VIII began his boisterous courtship of the heiress of Scotland, for his infant son. Corruption and threats, wars and devastation, were the odious means of that intemperate sovereign, to gain his wished-for object. Every one must approve of what the Earl of Huntley said, while he was a prisoner, in England, when he was asked, for his support: I mislike not so much the match, said he, as the way of wooing. In pursuance of Henry’s passion, gross as it was, treaties of peace, and marriage, were made, at Greenwich, on the first of July 1543. With his usual violence, Henry violated the recent treaties, by seizing the Scotish ships, before those treaties were ratified. A war with England now began, which endured, for six years; and which was noted for the vileness of its means, the barbarity of its conduct, and the futility of its conclusion.”

‘Life of Mary, Queen of Scots’ (1822), From her Birth, till her arrival in France.

“In September, Arran, the governor, repented of what he had done, joined the cardinal’s party, and agreed to co-operate with them in opposing the English policy. The Scots now said that the treaties had been ratified in a packed Parliament, and that a full meeting of the Estates would require to be held before they were finally confirmed. This delay and the conduct of Arran enraged King Henry. He swore that he would seize the child and drag her out of the strongest fortress the Scots could put her in. In his fury he ordered certain Scottish merchant vessels, that had taken refuge in English ports, to be seized and detained. This the Scottish Estates declared to be a violation of the truce, and in December the treaties were repudiated as having been broken by King Henry, and the ancient leagues with France were renewed.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XIII; Mary Queen of Scots, 1542-1560.

1544  Henry VIII. declares war and sends Hertford, directing him,

“to wanton devastation and destruction rather than to victory or conquest… Leith was sacked and burned. Edinburgh was set on fire; and the beautiful city on its mountain ridge blazed for three days and three nights in sight of Fife and the Lothians, and kindled in the hearts of the people a deeper hatred than ever against the King of England. After attacking the towns on the coast of Fife the English forces retired by the east coast, destroying and plundering as they went.

Sir Ralph Evers and Sir Brian Latour, who had done great service in Hertford’s burning and slaying expedition, got a grant of territory, comprising the counties of Berwick and Roxburgh. They entered this territory to subdue and take possession with a force of 5000 men. Angus, whose lands they encroached on, and whom they meant to punish for his failure to fulfil his promises to the King of England, had the mortification of seeing them burn Jedburgh, destroy Melrose, and break up the tombs of his ancestors there. In his indignation at the insult done to the ashes of the Douglases he recklessly attacked the sacrilegious invaders, and was repulsed; but he was reinforced by Leslies and Lindsays from the north, and by Buccleuch the chief of the Scots, and other Border chiefs with their followers. Near Ancrum he fell upon the English, who had not been aware of the gathering of such forces, and completely defeated them, 1544. Evers and Latour were found among the slain.

This success encouraged the Scots to make further resistance, and a considerable army was sent to the Border; but as part of it was composed of the “Assured Lords” and their followers, who could not be depended on, it did no effectual service. The defeat at Ancrum was very exasperating to Henry. In the following year another expedition was fitted out and sent under Hertford to complete the ruin of the Border districts. This time the raid was not from the sea, but from the English Border. September was the month chosen for the work of devastation, because then the corn would be cut, and gathered, and ready for destruction. Scarcely ever was there so much wanton mischief done in Scotland as in that autumn of 1545. Kelso Abbey made some resistance, but it was attacked and a breach made in it with cannon. Of towns, towers, and parish churches, 192 were destroyed, of villages 243. Seven monasteries and friar-houses were battered down and sacked, including Kelso, Melrose, Roxburgh, Dryburgh, and Coldingham. These buildings were never restored, and it should be remembered that their ruin is due to the Earl of Hertford, and not to John Knox and the Reformers.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XIII; Mary Queen of Scots, 1542-1560.

1547  King Henry VIII. dies and Hertford, now Duke of Somerset, accepts the regency during Edward VI.’ minority. He is set on continuing aggressions against the Scots. The Battle of Pinkie Cleugh takes place. This proved to be a defeat for the Scottish faction.

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), p.115.

1548  It was decided to enter into an arrangement for Mary to be married to the Dauphin of France and she was sent with D’Essé, the French ambassador, to France for safety.

“When the English heard of this they made arrangements for intercepting D’Essé and his precious charge. The French squadron sailed down the Forth, but instead of sailing southward with the young queen as the English expected, turned suddenly northwards, and went round Scotland by the Pentland Firth to Dumbarton. Mary had been brought from her island home to that fortress. There, having embarked, she was conveyed southward along the west coast, and landed safely at Brest on the 30th of August.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XIII; Mary Queen of Scots, 1542-1560.

1550  “Scotland was included in a treaty of peace between France and England. The old boundaries were restored, and peace was for a short time established.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XIII; Mary Queen of Scots, 1542-1560.

1557  Many Scottish nobles go into league with each other in a bid to defend the Protestant religion calling themselves “Lords of the Congregation.”

1558  “Mary Queen of Scots was married to the Dauphin of France. Six commissioners were sent from Scotland to Paris on that occasion. They stipulated for the preservation of the separate nationality of Scotland. The dauphin was allowed to take the title of King of Scots, but when he demanded the regalia, his demand was refused.”

“Mary, Queen of England, had died in 1558, and her sister Elizabeth had succeeded her. As Henry VIII. had not been divorced by the pope from his first wife Catherine, and as the pope had declared the marriage of Henry with Anne Boleyn null and void, the Catholic powers refused to acknowledge that Anne Boleyn’s daughter Elizabeth was legitimate, and that she could be the rightful heir to the crown of England. They held that the Queen of Scots was the true heir, and she at once assumed the title of Queen of England, and quartered the arms of France and Scotland with those of England.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XIII; Mary Queen of Scots, 1542-1560.

This was done at request of her husband and his father. In Throkmorton’s charge against Mary in 1561 of her,

“challenge of the crown of England, by her using of the arms, and style of England;”

was succinctly answered by her in the statement,

“I was then under the commandment of King Henry my father, and of the king, my lord, and husband; and whatsoever was then done, by their commandments, the same was, in like manner continued till both their deaths; since which time, you know, I neither bore the arms, nor used the titles of England: Methinks, these my doings, continued she, might ascertain the Queen, your mistress, that what was done before, was done, by the commandment of them, who had power over me; and also she ought to be satisfied, seeing I order my doings, as I tell you.”

‘Life of Mary, Queen of Scots’ (1822), Lord Burghley’s Charges Against Mary, Queen of Scots and the Answers thereto.

1559  Henry II., king of France, dies and Mary’s husband Francis takes the throne making the pair sovereigns of both France and Scotland.

“As it was necessary for the safety of Elizabeth that Scotland should not combine with France and Spain against England, her great minister, Cecil, directed all his efforts to make friends with the Scots, and to get them to contract an alliance with England.

The relation of Scotland to France and England was gradually becoming the reverse of what it had been at the beginning of Mary’s reign. The conduct of Mary of Guise, and the overbearing attitude of the court of France, had alienated the minds of the Scots from their ancient ally, and the conciliatory policy of England led them not only to regard the more friendly feelings their old enemies on the other side of the Border, but even to look to them for aid. The dread of French supremacy, and the spread of Protestant doctrines, brought the Scots into closer relations with Protestant England, and hastened on that crisis in our history called the Reformation.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XIII; Mary Queen of Scots, 1542-1560.

1560  “The Lords of the Congregation obtained aid from Queen Elizabeth, in terms of a treaty made at Berwick, in January, 1560. The Scots, assisted by an English force of 6000 men, laid siege to Leith. The garrison held out bravely, but suffered much from famine. While the siege was going on Mary of Guise, the regent, died in Edinburgh Castle. Troubles in France not only prevented the French from sending more troops to Scotland, but required the withdrawal of those that were already there. The French were therefore compelled to agree to a treaty which was ratified at Edinburgh in July, 1560. By this treaty it was agreed that both the French and the English forces should retire to their own countries, and that Mary Queen of Scots should acknowledge Elizabeth as Queen of England.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XIII; Mary Queen of Scots, 1542-1560.

Mary’s husband Francis dies and she returns to Scotland the same year. It was decided she needed to marry again.

“Queen Elizabeth interested herself in the matter, and urged that Mary should not marry a foreign king, but should look near home for a husband well disposed to the cause of religion, and friendship with England… Queen Elizabeth, for some unaccountable reason, proposed her own favourite, the Earl of Leicester, as a husband for the Scottish queen, but Mary showed great irritation at such a proposal. She, the widow of the greatest sovereign in Christendom, scorned to mate with a mere subject of the English queen…

The Treaty of Edinburgh, by which the Queen of Scots was to abandon her claims on England and acknowledge Elizabeth as queen, had not yet been ratified. The ambassadors of Elizabeth endeavoured in vain to get Mary to ratify the treaty. Mary requested Elizabeth to grant her a passport to her kingdom of Scotland, either by sea or through England. Elizabeth refused, except on condition that Mary should abandon her claim to the throne of England by signing the Treaty of Edinburgh. Mary preferred to run the risk of capture rather than do this.1

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XIV; Mary Queen of Scots (Continued), 1560-1567.

1  Mary didn’t want to sign as there were clauses that effected her rights negatively, as detailed in Chalmers’ ‘Life of Mary, Queen of Scots’ (1822). She was next in line to a queen who was set on not marrying and, therefore, of having heirs to succeed her so there was no fear that she’d be ousted from the line of succession. The Treaty of Edinburgh, drawn up by agents in Scotland without input from Mary, had as its 6th clause that;

“[…] it was agreed, and concluded, that the King and Queen of France should, in all times coming, abstain, from using, and bearing the arms, and title, of the kingdoms of England and Ireland: Now; this agreement denuded the Scotish Queen, who was heir presumptive to the crown of England, of all future pretensions to the crown: The stipulation ought to have been, not in all times coming; but during the life of Elizabeth. Considering, moreover, the defective powers of the French negotiators, to treat of a matter of that importance, in addition to the wording of the clause, those circumstances created an insuperable objection to the ratification of such a treaty.”

‘Life of Mary, Queen of Scots’ (1822), During her Residence in France.

Now, Elizabeth absolutely refused to allow for a modification of a treaty she believed had been agreed upon and pursued Mary to the very end for her ratification of it. That Mary didn’t want her future rightful titles denied to her is to be expected. It’s unlikely the majority put in the same position would. She just kept giving her measured, and quite correct, responses to the unceasing repeated demands for the Treaty to be ratified. This shows us Elizabeth wanted to deny Mary the crown of England far more than Mary wanted it. From all appearances, especially her letters, Mary wanted to get on with her cousin who she never stopped seeing as an ally and friend, as they should have been. She even made Elizabeth her son’s godmother and persisted in calling her “sister” in correspondence. Her response is given in her response reported by Throkmorton.

‘Life of Mary, Queen of Scots’ (1822), Throkmorton’s Letter to Elizabeth, from Abbeville, 11th August 1561.

1561  Having avoided capture by the English, Mary arrives safely at Leith.

“Elizabeth hastened to congratulate the Scotish Queen, on her safe arrival; assuring her cousin, on the word of a Queen, though contrary to facts, that she had never entertained a thought of opposing her voyage, or intercepting her person. The bearer of such wordy congratulations was the notorious Randolph, who had resided, during the late insurrection, under various names, at the pseudo court of Hamilton; and was now accredited, as a proper resident, at Holyrood-house. He was received, and admitted with good humour, by the Queen, though she knew his character: as he was still better known to the minister, and secretary. She was highly pleased with Elizabeth’s congratulations on her arrival: And the Scotish Queen showed by her answer, “that she desired heartily, that she might live with Elizabeth, like good friends, and neighbours; and desired nothing so much, as amity.” She, at the same time, sent Secretary Maitland to her good cousin of England, to avow the same spirit of amity, and to cultivate peace, in the true tone, and sentiment of peace. From the tenor of his instructions, it is easy to perceive, that Secretary Maitland had a very easy task to perform, at the court of Elizabeth, where he was a stranger. In his audience with that jealous Queen, he had only to return the compliments of his mistress, to profess her ardent wishes for peace, and to give her assurances of her concurrence in every measure, which could promote an end, so desirable: But, Maitland went beyond his instructions, and his prudence, when he proposed to Elizabeth, towards the conclusion of his audience, “that the Queen of England should, by act of Parliament, declare the Scotish Queen rightful heiress of the English crown, failing Elizabeth, and her issue.” This proposal was even contrary to his instructions; as it tended to irritate Elizabeth, and to create constant enmity, between the two Queens. Had this offensive proposal come from an envoy of less talent, it might have been attributed to officious folly: But, such a proposal, from such a statesman, must be attributed to the treacherous purpose of villainy. Elizabeth seems thus to have been induced to send Sir Peter Mewtas to the Scotish Queen, to solicit the ratification of the treaty of Edinburgh. This last circumstance might lead those, who knew how intimate Cecil, and Maitland, were, to suspect, that the two secretaries had concerted the above proposal, in order to produce Mewtas’s journey to Edinburgh.

… Cecil found artifices, for many a weary year, to vex the two Queens, from recollections of this subject; and even sometimes to criminate the Scotish Queen, whose arguments, with all his abilities, he could not answer; as they were unanswerable. But, the Scotish Queen was too well bred, to give her good cousin a short, or prompt answer, which might have furnished offence to Elizabeth, when she perceived that, Mary was too powerful for her, in such an argument, though she had affected to consider her cousin, as young: Yes, said Mary, on that occasion, you might call me a fool, as well as young, if I were to assent to a treaty, which gave away my birthright, without my knowledge. The Queen was now nineteen years of age, when she was thus called upon, to answer the suggestions of Cecil, and the requests of Elizabeth.”

‘Life of Mary, Queen of Scots’ (1822), From the Queen’s Return to Scotland, till her Northern Journey, in August 1562.

1563  “At the end of this year 1563, the Queen’s attention was wholly engaged, with the lovers, whom Elizabeth had found for her: Many were importunate to know, what person Elizabeth meant: Whether Lord Ambrose Dudley, whether the Earl of Leicester, whether Lord Darnley. It was, no doubt, excellent Christmas pastime, to decypher the enigmas of Elizabeth, who was the greatest enigmatist of her age. The Queen mother of France, and the Cardinal of Lorraine, meantime, urged the Scotish Queen “that it was not safe to trust Elizabeth’s council in her marriage, who means, merely, to serve her own turn.’”

‘Life of Mary, Queen of Scots’ (1822), From her Return to Edinburgh, till Randolph visited her, at St. Andrews.

1564  “The commissioners seemed to have diverged to a former proposal of the two Queens, a meeting in England: But, the Queen of Scots seems to have declined, to meet Elizabeth, unless her eventual right to the succession of England, were first settled, by Parliament.

With a view to those discussions, as to her presumptive title to the crown of England, the Scotish Queen, as early as May 1564, gave the Earl of Lennox leave, to come into Scotland, for the recovery of his forfeited rights.

… The commissioners, who were to settle this courtship, which Elizabeth meant, sincerely, assembled, at length, at Berwick, on the 19th of November: Bedford, and Randolph, on the side of Elizabeth; and Murray, and Maitland, on the part of Mary. The English commissioners proposed inviolable amity, perpetual peace, and assured hope of succession, if the Scotish Queen would marry Leicester. For, upon this condition, Elizabeth had promised, to declare her, by act of Parliament, her adopted daughter, or sister, as soon as she should be married. The Scotish commissioners, maintained, that it stood not with the dignity of a Queen, who had been sought unto, by so many princes, to condescend to the marriage of a new created earl, a subject of England, upon hope only, without dowry; neither stood it with the Queen of England’s honour, to commend such a husband to so great a princess, her kinswoman: But, it would be a most certain argument of her love, if she would permit their mistress to choose, for herself, a proper personage at her pleasure, which would embrace peace with England, and withal assign unto her some annual pension, and confirm the title of succession, by act of Parliament. Thus ended this conference, on a very serious subject, without any fruitful issue. And thus, was Elizabeth disappointed, in her dubious purpose, of marrying the Scotish Queen to the noble, without whom she could not live: in the hope of perplexing the Queen whom she hated: But, without obtaining her object, if such it were, she exhibited her own dissimulation to the eyes of those, who, from their situation, could not but see, that she did not mean honestly.”

‘Life of Mary, Queen of Scots’ (1822), From her Return to Edinburgh, till Randolph visited her, at St. Andrews.

1565  Mary decides who she’s to marry and completes that union.

“Now is it plainly, discovered, that the Queen will have Lord Darnley! The wind now shifted: And Darnley’s bark, which had of late sailed, with favourable gales, and lucky currents, ran aground on some shoal, or some sand, at every tack. Elizabeth declared, with her usual duplicity, that she had never contemplated such a purpose, though she knew, that Lady Lennox had opened a treaty, for her son, before Mary left France; though she perceived Lady Lennox’s object, in soliciting passports, for her son, to carry him into Scotland; though she had given Darnley letters of good offices to the Scotish Queen, in the hope that his presence would entangle her passions of hope, and of apprehension. Elizabeth’s privy councellors gave it as their solemn advice, that such a marriage would be the ruin of England; that it tended to conjoin claims to the crown; that it might probably produce heirs to a kingdom, which wanted none, while the wisdom of wise Elizabeth consisted, in casting such a mist on the succession, as to involve it in a darksome cloud… Every measure was now adopted, to perplex, and oppose the Scotish Queen’s wishes, except actual war; but, a rebellion was incited, in Scotland, by Cecil’s artifices, and Elizabeth’s money: She did not draw her sword, indeed: because France, and Spain, would have drawn theirs. Letters of recal were sent, from Elizabeth, to Lennox, and Darnley: But, as if they had been sent too soon, for the occasion, they were recalled; and again repeated; so fluctuating were the spirits of Elizabeth, who wished to harass a hated object; yet, doubted her means. Towards the end of April, the experienced Throckmorton was sent to Scotland, with Maitland, to traverse Mary’s purpose.”

‘Life of Mary, Queen of Scots’ (1822), From the Arrival of Darnley, till the Assassination of Rizzio.

“Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, her cousin, son of the Earl of Lennox, came from England and paid her a visit at Wemyss Castle in Fife. His mother, Margaret Douglas, was a daughter of Henry VIII.’s sister Margaret, the widow of James IV., who, it will be remembered, married the Earl of Angus. He was the nearest prince of the blood in Queen Elizabeth’s court, and after the house of Hamilton heir to the Scottish crown. The queen fell in love with the handsome but foolish youth, and resolved to marry him. Darnley was a Catholic, and the Protestant lords felt that a crisis with respect to their influence and their religion was at hand. Moray and others of them opposed the marriage, and thereby fell into disfavour…

Moray and the leaders of the opposition were cited to appear before the king and queen with their array to give military service; but they armed in their own defence, and took up their position at Hamilton. Arran did not support them as they expected, and they went on to Edinburgh, where they gained no recruits. They were but 1000 strong, and being unable to cope with the royal army of 5000 that was marching against them they retreated to Dumfries, dispersed, and took refuge in England.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XIV; Mary Queen of Scots (Continued), 1560-1567.

“The Queen’s escape from the various snares that had been laid for her, equally disappointed Elizabeth and Cecil, who were accessories to this conspiracy, the Duke, and Murray, Knox and his disciples, who were too strenuous, however, to be easily pushed aside, from their traitorous designs, on Mary’s sceptre, and Darnley’s life. The conspirators persevered in their criminal pursuits. Relying on Elizabeth’s promises, and Cecil’s protection, Murray, Argyle, and Boyd, on the 1st of July 1565, retired into Lochleven castle, to deliberate on their ulterior measures: They resolved to take arms: And they determined to solicit the aid of Elizabeth, to the extent, at least of 3000l. for which she had engaged. They sent a trusty messenger, to Elizabeth, to communicate their designs, and to solicit her promised aid… The attempt to convert such an insurrection against the Queen’s marriage, into a religious war, was even too shocking, for Cecil. Most of Randolph’s suggestions were adopted, by Elizabeth, though she could not be prevailed on, to make open war.

While Elizabeth thus incited a rebellion in Scotland, she wrote to the Scotish Queen, with her usual duplicity, on the 10th of July; advising her, to regard her subjects with more favour; and her lords would behave, as lovers of the religion, and as good subjects to her: Yes, but did the Christian religion warrant Elizabeth’s dissimulation, much less the rebellious practices of the religious lords.

At that treasonous moment, the Scotish Queen was not inattentive to the interests of her people, or to the suggestions of her own feelings. She issued assurances under her own hand, that as she had never disturbed any of her Protestant subjects, in the exercise of their religion, so would she be careful to protect them, in the complete enjoyment of their worship, according to their own forms. And she not only warned, by proclamation, all her people to attend her in warlike manner, as their duty required, but she wrote, specially, to particular persons, urging them to come to her aid. The rebellious nobles thus foiled, by Mary, and encouraged by Elizabeth, met, at Stirling, on the 17th of July. They, here, entered into a traitorous engagement, which was founded on the analogous demands of the church assembly, in June; and those faithless nobles bound themselves, first to the Lord, their God; secondly, to each other, for the faithful performance of their engagement: And, with consummate hypocrisy, they declared to the whole world, that they meant nothing, in all their proceedings, but humble reverence to Almighty God, and faithful obedience to their sovereign lady. Such audacity of impudence, the world never saw before, except in the proceedings of the same miscreants, in 1560, who called Parliament, under a treaty, which themselves had forged, for the occasion.

… Meantime, Elizabeth, as she persevered in her purpose of distressing Mary, sent Tamworth, as a coadjutor to Randolph, who was sufficiently busy, and seditious. Tamworth brought with him a captious statement of Elizabeth’s objections to the marriage of the Scotish Queen, with other complaints of little moment: But, as Tamworth was not instructed, to acknowledge Darnley, as King, he was not admitted into the Queen’s presence. Elizabeth gained nothing, by sending such a character, as Tamworth, to Mary, who was not in himself the fittest person, to deliver a delicate message, in a delicate manner: as we learn, from Camden. This circumstance only provoked Mary, to repel, with unusual spirit, the assumption of several articles of her cousin’s message; and to desire, that Elizabeth would not any more meddle with the domestic concerns of Scotland; as she had never meddled with the internal affairs of England: Yet, Mary professed a desire, to live in amity with Elizabeth, and to act towards her cousin, as one princess ought to treat another. When Tamworth departed from Edinburgh, on his return, he refused a passport, either from instruction, or from petulance, as it had been signed, by the King: And the English envoy was detained a few days, by Lord Hume, the Scotish warden of the eastern marches.

While Tamworth was thus occupied, at Edinburgh; and it was supposed, by Cecil, from the delusive letters of Randolph, that the rebels would, sufficiently, occupy Mary, Elizabeth sent orders to her lieutenant, at Berwick, to commit open hostility, by seizing Aymouth. Those measures of hostility were only prevented, by the difficulty of the measure, owing to his weakness; and before she could reinforce Bedford, she learnt, with chagrin, that the Scotish rebels were unable to face their sovereign: Thus, was Elizabeth obliged to retrace her steps; to recal her order for war; and to listen, with some patience, to the just remonstrances of the Scotish Queen.

… Meanwhile, Murray, and his insurgents were conducted, on the 4th of September, into Dumfries, by Sir John Maxwell, the Queen’s warden. They were thus left full leisure to intrigue; to correspond with Elizabeth’s officers on the borders; to urge her to declare war against the Scotish Queen: And, to publish, on the 8th of September, a manifesto to the Scotish people, that they took up arms, for the religion; that they draw their swords, for a government by the nobles, according to the ancient laws, and not by strangers: They concealed their original motive of levying war against the Queen’s marriage, and now adopted other causes of revolt, to captivate the populace. In pursuance of those intrigues, and Cecil’s hate, Elizabeth, on the 11th of September, directed Bedford, her lieutenant on the borders ‘to send 300 soldiers to Carlisle, to be near, to aid the lords, at Dumfries.’ In this manner, then, did Elizabeth attempt to unsheath her sword against the Queen, but wanted either strength, or resolution, to effect her half formed purpose.

… the King, and Queen, marched forward to Dumfries, on the 11th of October 1565. And, Murray, with other leaders of this treasonous cause, finding that, with their force, they could not contend against so great an army, fled into England, where they had been assured of the usual safety of Mary’s enemies; and where they were kindly received, by Bedford, Elizabeth’s lieutenant, who had come with some forces, from Berwick to Carlisle. Thus ended Murray’s rebellion, the Duke’s imprudence, Cecil’s artifices, and Elizabeth’s perfidy!”

‘Life of Mary, Queen of Scots’ (1822), From the Arrival of Darnley, till the Assassination of Rizzio.

1566  “The Earl of Bothwell lost no time in raising a force for the queen’s protection, and on the 28th of March he escorted her and her husband back to Edinburgh at the head of 2000 horsemen. Ruthven, Morton, and the other conspirators, who had been denounced by Darnley, fled to England.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XIV; Mary Queen of Scots (Continued), 1560-1567.

James VI. of Scotland, and future king of England, was born this same year.

1567  To make her seem super sectarian some historians like to “forget” Mary passed an Act of Toleration, allowing her subjects to worship their god in whatever way they saw fit. Literally a sweeping allowance to worship whatever faith appealed to her subjects;

“The same Queen, who is charged, by Robertson, with attempting to suppress the reformed discipline, with the aid of the bishops, passed a law; renouncing all foreign jurisdiction, in ecclesiastical affairs; giving toleration to all her subjects to worship God, in their own way; and engaging to give some additional privileges: By the first clause, the papal jurisdiction was renounced, by the second, a toleration was established; and by the third, some other points were promised, which might have led to a liturgy, which was the only thing wanting, to form a complete reformation, in a parliamentary mode. Yet, are there writers, so besotted with prejudice, as to say, that nothing was done, in the Parliament of April 1567, concerning religion.”

‘Life of Mary, Queen of Scots’ (1822), From Darnley’s Murder to the Queen’s Dethronement.

Nothing said over how restrictive, prejudicial and sectarian the laws abolishing Catholicism were to the percentage of the population who still practised the faith of their ancestors.

This same year Mary’s abdication was obtained and her infant son entered his minority as King of Scots with Moray as regent.

“Throkmorton had private instructions, from Cecil, who did not approve of this melting mood of his mistress. Throkmorton slept, on the 11th of July, at Fast castle, within the Scotish border, where he was met, by Maitland, the forger, Lord Home, the insurgent, and Sir James Melvill, the insidious instrument of the perfidious council. We may easily suppose, that the confidential conversation, which ensued, would blazon Morton’s motives, and blacken the Queen’s faults. On the morrow, Thorkmorton was conveyed to Edinburgh, by Lord Home, at the head of 400 horsemen.

One of the great objects of Elizabeth, in sending this experienced statesman to Edinburgh, was, ‘to deal with the lords, and Queen, for sending the young Prince, into England.’ But, Elizabeth did not divine, that the baby James, at the age of twelve months, and forty days, had been destined, at the rise of the insurrection, by the most flagitious of men, as the snake, which was to sting the bosom, that had fostered him into life; by his coronation, as sovereign, in supersedence of his mother.”

‘Life of Mary, Queen of Scots’ (1822), From Darnley’s Murder to the Queen’s Dethronement.

1568  Mary escapes to England in the hope of protection from her cousin Elizabeth, who she continued calling “sister” in all correspondence, in the belief family looked out for each other. She then began her 19 year imprisonment between varying English residences and castles.

1586  “Meantime, Henry III. of France, as well by himself, as by his several ambassadors, made the most sincere, and powerful efforts, to save Mary, from the axe of Elizabeth. The Scotish King, who was now twenty, actuated, as well by the constant entreaties of Coursellis, the French ambassador, as by his natural affections, interested himself warmly, for his mother, who had never injured him. But the agents, whom he employed, only betrayed both. What could be expected, from Archibald Douglas, Morton’s agent, in his father’s murder, and the master of Gray, a man of utter profligacy, who whispered in Elizabeth’s ear, mortua non mordet, a dead woman bites not.”

‘Life of Mary, Queen of Scots’ (1822), From Mary’s Removal to Fotheringay, till her Death.

1587  Mary is finally beheaded. She takes the order for execution as relief from her term of imprisonment finally.

“Queen Elizabeth withheld the warrant and made a show of unwillingness to sanction the execution; but on the 1st of February, 1587, she gave the warrant, and on the 8th of the same month the beautiful Queen of Scots, now in her forty-fifth year of her age and the eighteenth of her captivity, was beheaded in the great hall of Fotheringay Castle.”

‘History of Scotland’ (1881), ch. XV; James VI., 1567-1603.

1603  Elizabeth dies and James VI. succeeds to the English throne as James I. Regardless of this, Scotland maintained a separate legislature to England.

1609  Statutes of Iona / Icolmkill. Negotiated by Bishop Andrew Knox at Iona in 1609. In July 1610 the statutes were officially registered, with authorisation from James VI. & I. They included the stipulation for eldest sons to be sent to Lowland schools in order that they be able to speak, read, and write English.

– ‘History of Civilisation in Scotland’ (1895), vol. 3, pp.241-243.

1616  Education Act (Scotland) 1616;


Forsameikle as the Kingis Majestie haueing a speciall care and regaird that the trew religion be advanceit and establisheit in all the places of this kingdome and that all his Majesties subjectis especially the youth be exercised and trayned up in civilitie godlines knawledge and leirning That the vulgar Inglish toung be universallie plantit and the Irische language which is one of the cheif and principall causis of the continewance of barbaritie and incivilitie amangis the inhabitantis of the Ilis and heylandis may be abolisheit and removit And quhairas thair is no meane more powerfull to further this his Majesteis princelie regaird and purpois than the establishing of Scooles in the particular parocheis of this kingdome whair the youth may be taught at least to wreit and reid and be catechised and instructed in the groundis of religioun Thairfoir the Kingis Majestie with aduise of the Lordis of his secreit Counsall hes thocht it necessar and expedient that in euerie parroche of this kingdome whair convenient meanes may be had for interteyning a scoole That a scoole salbe estableishit and a fitt persone appointit to teach the same upoun the expensis of the parrochinaris according to the quantitie and qualitie of the parroche at the fight and be the aduise of the Bishop of the diocie in his visitatioun Commanding heirby all the Bishoppis within this kingdome That they and everie ane of thame within thair severall dioceis deale and travell with the parrochinaris of the particular parrocheis within thair saidis dioceis to condescend and aggree upone some certane solide and sure course how and by quhat meanes the said Scoole may be enterteyned And gif ony difficulteis arryse amongis thame concerning this mater That the said Bishop reporte the same to the saidis Lordis to the effect they may take suche ordour heiranent as they sall think expedient And that letteris be direct to mak publicatioun heirof quhairthrow nane pretend ignorance of the same.”

– ‘Miscellany of the Maitland Club’ (1840), vol. 2., pp.22-23.

1625  Charles I. takes the crown but the general British population were suspicious of his Catholic tendencies.

1637  His Common Book of Prayer did not go down well, leading to Jenny Geddes’ famous hurling of the stool at the Dean of St. Giles’ head when he attempted to make a reading from it in Edinburgh.

1632-1640  Thomas Wentworth was designated Lord Deputy of Ireland by Charles I. and began denying Catholics there any rights while taxing them and giving their lands away to as many English colonists as possible.

1643  Scottish covenanters joined with the English parliamentary forces in opposition to Charles I.

1646  Charles I. surrenders to a Scottish army at Newark.

1649  After being found guilty of Treason against the English commons he was beheaded. Scotland recognised Charles II. as the new king while England set itself up as a Republic.

1650  Oliver Cromwell defeats the Scots at the Battle of Dunbar and occupies Scotland south of the Forth.

1658  Cromwell dies.

1660  Charles II. is accepted as king by the British nations as a whole.

1669  The Earl of Tweeddale attempted to secure a union between Scotland and England. Commissioners for Scotland rejected the plans on the basis there was no guarantee given that “Scottish Estates would remain entire.”

1685  Charles II. dies. James VII. succeeds to the throne.

1688  James VII. unthroned due to his Catholic tendencies with Mary, his daughter, with her husband William being chosen as successors being the nearest Protestant relations.

1692  Glencoe Massacre. The clan Macdonald were targeted for apparently not having responded quickly enough in their pledging of allegiance to the new monarchs. They had delivered their oath to Fort William where it could not be accepted and was diverted to Inverary. This delay was later attributed as the cause of the order to slaughter.

1695  The, now, Marquis of Tweeddale is appointed to supervise the investigation into the massacre at Glencoe.

1696  Education Act (Scotland) reinforced.

1698  Scottish attempts at trade expansion, including the Darien Scheme, was seen as detrimental, competition, and a threat to English trade. With specific regard to the Darien attempt, in a bid to maintain their trading monopoly varying English parties took it upon themselves to persuade and convince those English and Dutch investors in the attempt to back out.

In his introduction to his ‘Domestic Annals of Scotland’ (1885) chapter, Reign of William the Third, 1695-1702, Chambers states the reason for the failure of the Darien scheme as being, “English mercantile jealousy, and the king’s indifference to Scottish interests,” yet fails to explain this.

Let me give a bit more information, courtesy of ‘The Union of England and Scotland: A Study in Anglo-Scottish Politics of the Eighteenth Century’ by P W J Riley (1979), pp.197-198:

“There was no decline in Scottish shipping activity until 1681, when at the privy council there was ominous talk of decaying trade. This was to become almost a routine item of business at the council board, though not altogether justified. On the whole, Scottish merchants were making a living and were quite remote from any prospect of a great crash… They complained, of course, and especially about the navigation act, but their main grievance against it was that in English law Scotland was made a foreign country for the purposes of trade. Official exclusion from the plantation trade was legally rather than commercially resented, being seen as a gratuitous slight to the status of Scotsmen… Any Scotsman with the capacity to trade with the English colonies continued to do so, the navigation act notwithstanding, greatly to the distraction of the English customs service, whose resources were strained in an attempt to stop this illegal trade.”

So not only were we Scots deemed “foreign”, to inhibit our trading capabilities, but we were tagged so regardless of it being detrimental to their own English workforce.

As the Sheriff Guthrie Smith says in the ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), Short History of Events Surrounding the Treaty of Union,

“Between the two nations there was no real sympathy, and now that the desire was rising to found colonies and establish a foreign trade, England seemed less disposed than ever to promote or even to permit any schemes to be carried out which were likely to be to the advantage of this country. Accordingly, when the Darien scheme was started, the English merchants rose against it, and threw every possible obstacle in the way of its accomplishment. Probably, like many another sound enterprises, it was before its time, but we now can appreciate what immense advantages it would have conferred, both on these islands and the continent of America, if it had been allowed to succeed. It failed miserably, solely through the jealous opposition of the English, who were determined that the Scotch should have no lot or part with them, either in founding new settlements or in engaging in foreign commerce. Ultimately our richer and more powerful neighbour, possessing the ear of the Government in London, succeeded in their opposition, and the ruin of the Darien scheme, and practically, also, the ruin of the whole country, was complete. It was in these circumstances that, at the beginning of the century, the question of Union came to be discussed, the English scheming to get rid of their northern neighbour with its troublesome Parliament, and the Scotch prepared to sacrifice something of their independence in order to extend their trade, but never contemplating anything beyond a federal union… Sheriff Smith spoke of the rage and indignation of the people when the terms of the Treaty of Union came to be known, and referred to the petitions sent up by almost every town and parish to parliament protesting against the ratification of the proposed union. Nor was it, he added, difficult to show its apparent unfairness. In 1706, Scotland had a population of two millions, while that of England was really not six millions, and therefore of the 513 members which sat in the English House of Commons, we should have been allowed one-third, or about 170, instead of which it was proposed to give us only 30, a number increased at a later stage of the negotiations to 45. As regards the House of Lords, with its 500 English Peers, Scotland was to be allowed to send only 16. The hollowness of the argument that the treaty could not be legally violated was soon proved by events.”

1701  The English Act of Settlement ensured the line of succession would remain Protestant. They decided on Sophia of Hanover as successor to Anne without any consultation with the Scots.

1702  John Spottiswoode, gave a speech to the freeholders of Berwickshire,

“‘We cannot,’ he says, ‘fancy a more deplorable state than ours has been since King James the Sixth came to the throne of England. Our nation has been despised, our interests neglected both at home and abroad – our princes and statesmen under the influence of the English, who make us partake with them of the calamities of war, but we enjoy none of the conquests, and when peace is made we are not so much as named; so that the benefit of the treaties and leagues of commerce which we had before the year 1603 are lost, and we are more enthralled by the English than if we were conquered by them.’”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), Short History of Events Surrounding the Treaty of Union.

1704  The Scottish Act of Security was in retaliation to the previous Act of Settlement and was to the purpose of ensuring that any heirs should be descendants of the Scottish throne. An English successor would only be chosen should there be no other valid choice.

The Parliament at Westminster were concerned about Scotland as a threat to England. Lord Haversham stated,

“There are two matters of all troubles, much discontent and great poverty; and whoever will now look into Scotland will find them both in that kingdom. It is certain the nobility and gentry of Scotland are as learned and as brave as any nation can boast of; and these are generally discontented. And as to the common people, they are very numerous, and very stout, but very poor. And who is the man that can answer what such a multitude, so armed, so disciplined, with such leaders may do – especially since opportunities do so much alter men from themselves!”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), Factions Responsible for the Incorporating Union.

So, an appeal was made to Queen Anne that Newcastle, Tyne, Hull, and Carlisle should be fortified. But it was felt that a union would sooth all fears.

“On the 20th of December, 1704, their lordships read a third time, and sent down to the Commons, a bill for the entire nation of the two kingdoms. The consideration of the bill was for a time postponed; and, at length, on the 1st of February, the Commons passed a bill of their own framing, which when sent to the Lords, was immediately agreed to without discussion.

The restrictive clauses of this bill, which seemed to savour of intimidation, offended the national pride of the Scots, and tended to alienate the minds of many from the proposed union.”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), Factions Responsible for the Incorporating Union.

1705  Saw the enactment of the Alien Act in response to the Scottish Act of Security. This meant Scots in England were to be treated as foreign nationals, they were also unlikely to inherit any property they had a right to on the decease of English relatives. Scottish produce was banned from importation and no English exports were to cross the border into Scotland, specifically of arms, horses, and any other potentially useful martial supplies. The English agreed to only suspend this act should the Scots enter into a negotiation with the Act of Union as the result. Scots agreed to only enter into negotiations on repeal of this act.

1706  “A protest was drawn up, by way of amendment to Article XXII., assigning Scotland her very inadequate proportion of representatives in the United Parliament. It declared that ‘the members of a legislature are mere temporary administrators of their trust, and not the owners or masters of a people. They are not entitled to bargain away the nation they represent, or make it cease to exist. Therefore, the minority entertaining these sentiments would now secede from the others, protesting against what it was designed to do, and in their secession would consider themselves the centre of a new Scottish Parliament.

Article XXII. was duly reached but no Hamilton appeared to table the protest. the premier peer, the guardian of Scottish honour, could not come to the House that day, so severe were his grace’s sufferings from – toothache! So his grace explained by messenger. His dupes hastened to his lodgings, and upbraided him with ‘double-dealing.’ He thereupon accompanied them to the House, and then, in the most innocent manner, asked who had been chosen to move the protest. He would, if absolutely necessary, second it.

When too late, the patriotic minority beheld the snake in the grass manifestly uncoiled before their eyes. But they were undeceived too late. The grand opportunity of secession was lost, and the vital article of the treaty passed”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), How the Duke of Hamilton Helped Scotland into a Worse Situation.

1707  Act of Union accomplished. Lord Seafield is quoted as saying, “There’s an end o’ an auld sang.”

“There are three methods by which a nation acquires new territory – by Conquest, Cession, or Occupation as a Colony. But neither of these influenced the compact under which Scotland became united to England. The ‘two Kingdoms’ entered under the treaty of Union upon conditions of perfect equality:-

These are the three methods by which a country is supposed to acquire new territory. But by none of these were England and Scotland united. Their union was not an occupation – for Scotland was already peopled by men who could maintain their rights against all comers; it was not a conquest, because England could not conquer, and because Scotland would not yield. It was Union – Union free and independent – on equal terms – with equal duties – with equal responsibilities, and with equal rights. Scotland was not more united to England than England was united to Scotland – she was neither absorbed, nor amalgamated, nor incorporated, nor annexed – any more than England was absorbed, amalgamated, incorporated, or annexed. The two were UNITED – brought together on equal terms – conjoined on a free footing. Neither laid down arms to the other, but both agreed to disarm simultaneously, and to shake hands after long hostility. Scotland, at the period of the Union, was neither suppliant, nor in debt, nor unable to defend herself. She was free and independent, and freely and independently she agreed to unite to England for the common advantage. She agreed to merge her own government for the purpose of forming part of a greater kingdom, on condition that England should form part on the same terms. What Scotland was to do, England was to do – what England was to receive, Scotland was to receive – all in just and due proportions. They were two kingdoms united into one, to be governed by the same rule and the same parliament.”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), Scotland wasn’t Conquered, Ceded to, or Occupied by England.

“The first authority I shall cite is the Edinburgh Review for October, 1854.

It is well to remark that the reviewer is a Unionist, and that consequently his statements may be regarded as admissions:

‘The immediate and palpable loss which she (Scotland) sustained by the removal of her parliaments was compensated by no perceptible advantage; on the contrary, many imposts were suddenly increased, and the inroad of a staff of English Revenue officers, wedded to forms and usages foreign to their habits, naturally became odious to her people. Nor was the abolition of her Privy Council, the introduction of an appeal from the Court of Session to the House of Peers, or the extension to the ‘ancient kingdom’ of English treason-laws and commissions of the peace, in technical language unintelligible beyond the Tweed, looked on otherwise than as a systematic abolition of all her most cherished juridical institutions… From the great expense attending their attendance, many of her representatives were absentees from the United Legislature, or, when present, took little part in proceedings conducted under forms new to them and little understood… Again, the equalisation of trading privileges entirely failed to bring that expansion of commercial activity which had been long and ardently anticipated. The old burghs became more stagnant than ever, and though individual Scotchmen made their way to England and the colonies, where by prudence and persevering sagacity, they generally succeeded to a remarkable degree, such instances only increased the jealousy and added pungency to the sneers of their Anglo-Saxon competitors. Pre-existing discontents were thus to some extent sharpened by disappointment, and the minds of the more impressionable were prepared for those Jacobite intrigues which it had been a main object of the Union finally to defeat.

‘There was, however, a more enduring evil attending the arrangement.’ (The reviewer here quotes from Burton’s ‘History of Scotland.’) “Many of the calamities following on the Union had much encouragement, if they did not spring, soon that haughty English nature which would not condescend to sympathise in, or even know, the peculiarities of their new fellow-countrymen… The pervading historical character of the events immediately following the Union, is, that English statesmen, had they desired to alienate Scotland, and create a premature revulsion against the Union, could not have pursued a course better adapted to such an end. The position of the countries demanded a delicate and cautious policy. Scotland had to go through the immediate perceptible evils of a departed nationality, a decaying retail trade, and increased taxation; the countervailing benefits from extended enterprise lay in the future. A paternal Government would, on such an occasion, have carefully avoided everything that irritated national pride or prejudices, and seemed, however slightly, to sacrifice the interests or independence of the one country to the other… But in almost every one of the changes just enumerated, the offensive act was offensively done, and the country was ever reminded that she was in the hands of ungenial and uninterested, if not hostile strangers.” ’ – (Edin. Review, Oct. 1854; Article, Burton’s Hist. of Scotland from 1689 to 1748.)”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), How much of a Blessing has the Union been for Scotland?

1708  The Scottish Privy Council was abolished by an act, “for rendering the union of the two kingdoms more complete,” by creating one Privy Council for Great Britain as a whole.

1713  The malt tax was introduced to Scotland, “in the direct teeth of an Article of Union expressly prohibiting it.

“As regards stamp duties, window tax, coals, and malt, Scotland was exempted from the English taxation only during the currency of the existing English imposts, all of which expired at latest in 1710. Thereafter, no mercy was shown to the poorer country. The Land Tax remained as it had been, but all other taxes were imposed without regard to the comparative poverty of Scotland. It was invaded by an army of English excisemen – the ‘Gaugers’ – against whom the Scotch fisher-folk and illicit distillers waged ruthless war for more than a century. The imposition, after the war, of a duty on the inferior malt of Scotland, the same as that on the richer malt of England, was one of the four chief grievances which induced Lord Findlater and Seafield, supported by the Duke of Argyll – two of the Scottish statesmen who had done most to bring about the Union – to introduce a motion for its repeal six years afterwards, which was only defeated in the House of Lords by a majority of four. It was not only the severity of the measures, but the manners of the men who introduced them, that added gall to the bitterness of the cup which the Scottish members had to drink at Westminster. Most of them had supported the Union to gratify their own ambition or avarice, but the English statesmen by whom they had been suborned showed little consideration for their tools. ‘A tax upon linen cloth, the staple commodity of Scotland, having been proposed in the House of Commons, was resisted by Mr. Baillie of Jerviswood and other Scottish members, favourers of the Union, until Mr. Harley, who had been Secretary of State during the Treaty, stood up and cut short the debate, by saying: ‘Have we not bought the Scots, and did we not acquire a right to tax them? or for what other purpose did we give the equivalent?’ Lockhart of Carnwath arose in reply and said, he was glad to hear it plainly acknowledged that the Union had been a matter of bargain, and that Scotland had been bought and sold on that memorable occasion; but he was surprised to hear so great a manager in the traffic name the equivalent as the price, since, the revenue of Scotland itself being burdened in relief of that sum, no price had been in fact paid but what must ultimately be discharged by Scotland from her own funds.”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), Financial Cost to Scotland of the Union.

“An attempt was made by some Scotch peers shortly after the Union to have their Union also repealed, and it was curious to compare the two attempts – that of the Earl of Findlater, and that of the hon. and learned member. That peer moved the repeal of the Union in 1713, on the ground that Scotland was more taxed than she ought to be. The hon. and learned member moved the repeal because Ireland had made a bad bargain, and the Earl of Findlater moved the repeal of the Union with Scotland because England had violated the bargain. What did the Duke of Argyll say on the occasion? There are his words:-

‘If the Union is not dissolved no property would be left in the country, and Scotland would be the most miserable country on earth.’”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), Articles 1800-1850.

“The Scotch Parliament, exasperated by some aggressive acts of England, passed the Act of Security in 1704, by which the Imperial connexion with England was to be severed on the death of the reigning Queen. This Act necessarily furnished an argument for legislative Union to all statesmen who desired to preserve the identity of the Crown of Scotland and England. I will not here inquire whether the influence that induced the Scotch Parliament to extinguish itself, could not with much greater ease have induced that assembly to modify the Scotch Constitution by making the identity of the monarch of both countries one of its essential principles. This, I conceive, could have been done by the Scotch legislature, and confirmed by treaty with England. The idea appears to have occurred six years after the Union had taken place, when the Earl of Finlater moved in the United Parliament a bill for its repeal. His lordship, on the 1st of June, 1713, introduced his motion by a speech representing the grievances of the Scotch nation, and concluded by moving, ‘That leave be given to bring in a bill for dissolving the said Union, and securing the Protestant succession to the House of Hanover, the Queen’s prerogative in both kingdoms, and preserving the entire unity and good correspondence between the two kingdoms.’ After an interesting and animated debate, Lord Finlater’s motion was supported by 54 peers, and opposed by 54; there were 17 proxies for the negative, and only 13 for the affirmative; so that the motion was defeated by the small majority of four peers. At subsequent dates, many Scotchmen took up arms to restore the House of Stuart, much more from a belief that their restoration would be followed or accompanied by the restoration of the Scotch Parliament than from love of the fallen dynasty. The insurrections of 1715 and 1745 were, to a great extent, attempts to Repeal the Union by force of arms. Thus the Union had its share in producing the horrors of civil war.”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), How much of a Blessing has the Union been for Scotland?

1715  The ‘15 Jacobite Rebellion.

1716  “An Act for more effectual Disarming the Highlands in that Part of Great Britain called Scotland; and for the better securing the Peace and Quiet of that Part of the Kingdom.”

– Act of Parliament, George I., 1st Year, ch. 54, 1715.

1724  “An Act for more effectual Disarming the Highlands in that Part of Great Britain called Scotland; and for the better securing the Peace and Quiet of that Part of the Kingdom.”

– Act of Parliament, George I., 11th Year, ch. 26, 1724.

1725  “In a letter to Lord Islay Walpole discloses what was the intention of the Government with respect to the management of Scottish affairs. ‘It may not be improper,’ he says, ‘to acquaint you that the scheme is to put an end to the office of Scotch Secretary,’ and accordingly, although it was revived for a time in the person of Lord Selkirk in the year 1731, the office finally disappeared in 1746 with the resignation of Lord Tweeddale along with the rest of the Granville Cabinet. When the Pelham Ministry was formed it appears at one time to have been intended to appoint Duke of Argyle as Secretary; but the Duke of Cumberland, who since his successful suppression of the rebellion on the field of Culloden was allowed an authority in Scottish affairs out of all proportion to his abilities, and for which the disturbed state of the Highlands was the only excuse, gave his voice against it.”

1745  The ‘45 Jacobite Rebellion.

1746  The Act of Proscription.

1747  “An Act to amend and enforce so much of an Act made in the Nineteenth Year of His Majesty’s Reign, as relates to the more effectual disarming the Highlands in Scotland; and restraining the Use of the Highland Dress, and to Masters and Teachers of private Schools and Chaplains; and to explain a Clause in another Act made in the same Year, relating to Letters of Orders of Episcopal Ministers in Scotland; and to oblige Persons allowed to carry Arms, and the Directors of the Banks there, and certain Persons belonging to, or practising in the Courts of Session and Justiciary, to take the Oaths; and to repeal some Clauses in an Act made in the First Year of the Reign of His late Majesty King George the First, whereby certain Encouragements are given to Landlords and Tenants in Scotland, who should continue in their Duty and Loyalty to His said late Majesty; and for other Purposes therein mentioned.”

– Act of Parliament, George II., 21st Year, ch. 26, 1747.

1760  François Thurot attacks Scotland.

“This deficiency is the want of [a militia] establish[ed] in that part of the island called the kingdom of Scotland. For confining the protection by a militia, within the kingdom of England; the whole country north of the Tweed, is left an easy prey to every daring and despicable enterpriser, that can find means to land upon the coast of Scotland.

This was very lately the case: when Thurot’s squadron, that pretty instrument of Gallick insolence, was known to steer a Northern course, how great was the panick in Scotland! The inhabitants, dismayed, fled from their coasts, and more than a million of people, as it were devoted to slaughter, durst not put themselves into a posture of defence, whilst their fellow-subjects in England were prepared against every event, defended by arms, put into the hands of labourers and mechanicks, under the command of fox and stag hunters, &c.

… Why a people, united under one and the same King, and entitled to the same protection in their laws, religion and property, should be neglected in the distribution of arms; should not be admitted to a union of strength, should not be put upon an equal footing of defence against a foreign enemy, and against domestick riots and insurrections: should be denied that privilege, which is the grand criterion of liberty: or, why the inhabitants of South Britain are admitted to bear arms, and those in North Britain are not, is a question not to be slightly answered, and deserves the most serious attention and immediate consideration of the legislature, to prevent the hazard and injustice of so great a partiality.”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), Scots Request a Militia for Home Defence.

1778  It’s made illegal in Scotland to own a slave (Case of Knight, Jan. 15th, 1773). England didn’t follow suit until 1833.

– ‘Sketches of Early Scotch History’ (1861), Note IV. Serfs – Colliers and Salters.

1779  Lord George Gordon stands up in Parliament, giving a 2 hour-long disposition about the feelings of the people of Scotland regarding their rights. One journalist for the Newcastle Chronicle says something that lays Scotland’s relationship with England bare,

“[Lord Gordon] repeated frequently the readiness of his countrymen to take up arms; and in the course of a speech of upwards of two hours long, said a great many good things, a great many strange things, and made use of several expressions, for which in other times, as a reward for his zeal for his countrymen or fellow-subjects, he would have run a tolerable good chance to be complimented gratis with apartments in the Tower.”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), Articles 1750-1800.

1782  “An Act to repeal so much of an Act, made in the Nineteenth Year of King George the Second, (for the more effectual disarming the Highlands in Scotland, and for the other Purposes therein mentioned), as restrains the Use of the Highland Dress.”

– Act of Parliament, George III., 21st Year, ch. 63, 1782.

John F. Campbell elaborates on the effects of these Acts in his Notes at the end of volume 4 of his ‘Popular Tales’ (1893);

“The Acts which relate to the Highland dress are – 1 George I., stat. 2, c. 54. 11 George I., c. 26. 19 George II. c. 39; Enforced 21 George I., c. 34; Explained, Amended, and Continued, 26 George II., c. 39. So far as relates to dress, repealed by 21 George III., c. 63.

The arms forbidden by the first of these Acts, and therefore commonly worn at that time, are “broadsword or target, poignard, whinger or durk, side pistol, gun, or other warlike weapon.”

Section 17 of the 19th George II. provides for the dress. After the 1st of August 1747 it was unlawful for civilians, “on any pretence whatsoever, to wear or put on the clothes commonly called Highland Clothes, that is to say, the plaid, philibeg or little kilt, trowse, shoulder belts, or any part whatsoever of what peculiarly belongs to the Highland Garb; and that no Tartan or party-coloured Plaid, or Stuff, shall be used for Greatcoats or for upper Coats.” The penalty was, for a first offence, six months’ imprisonment; and seven years’ transportation for a second offence.

As no provision was made for clothing those whom the legislature thus stripped, as the climate is severe and unfit for the cultivation of figs, and the people were poor; and as loyal districts were included, this might be called, “the Act for the un-civilization of the Highlands, and the profit of cloth workers.”

1801  Ireland joins in union with Scotland and England.

1838  “In Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine for December, 1838, there is at page 809 a remarkable article entitled ‘REPEAL OF THE UNION – NECESSITY OF LOCAL LEGISLATION,’ in which the writer thus delivers himself:

   ‘No one, we imagine, will be so absurd as to pretend that the affairs of Scotland can be as efficiently managed by a legislative body sitting hundreds of miles from her territory, and having the interests of an empire dispersed over the whole face of the earth, and containing more than a hundred millions of beings, to attend to, as by a Parliament meeting in Edinburgh. The Imperial Parliament is, in truth, unfitted for that department of legislation called ‘local’ and ‘personal.’ Such legislation is best conducted on the spot, or as near as possible to the spot, which is to be affected. Witnesses are then at hand, information can be got with expedition and at little expense; the members of a local parliament can be dismissed and again called together with little inconvenience. The expense at present necessarily incurred for a Road, a Harbour, or a Railway Bill for Scotland is intolerable. The members of an Imperial Parliament, the great majority of whom must naturally feel indifferent regarding the failure or success of any such measure can with the utmost difficulty be got to attend, or even to remain in the House when the matter is under discussion; and it is even not easily accomplished to get a quoram of the committee to whom the bill is remitted to go through their routine duties. Then, all matters relative to Scotland are slurred over in the reports of the debates – first, because the reporters think a ‘Scotch’ bill, though vitally affecting Scotland, is of no public importance; secondly, because they cannot intelligibly report what they, in general, do not understand; and third, because ‘Scotch’ business is generally put off till past midnight, an hour at which, except on extraordinary occasions, the reporters, by a well-organised combination – Whig, Tory, and Radical reporters agreeing in this point –  retire from their labour. The consequence is, that there is hardly a measure, however important, affecting Scotland, of the grounds for passing which her population are duly informed… We have not, at this moment, out of eighty-nine Scotch nobility, one resident in Edinburgh, and very few of our considerable landed proprietors… What is meant by a Repeal of the Union with Ireland, we do not exactly understand; but if all that is intended is, that the Irish should have the management of their own exclusive concerns, we heartily wish them success; and we hope that when the people of Scotland shall see the necessity of a legislature in Edinburgh, the Irish will assist them in obtaining it.’”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), How much of a Blessing has the Union been for Scotland?

1853  Formation of the National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights in order to obtain the representation Scotland deserved in parliament, an end to centralisation, &c. They were determined,

“that Scotland may not be any longer treated as a mere province – ‘a sort of larger Yorkshire appended to England.’”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), Formation of the National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights.

1854  Article from the Edinburgh Review;

“It is well to remark that the reviewer is a Unionist, and that consequently his statements may be regarded as admissions:

… ‘There was, however, a more enduring evil attending the arrangement.’ (The reviewer here quotes from Burton’s ‘History of Scotland.’) “Many of the calamities following on the Union had much encouragement, if they did not spring, soon that haughty English nature which would not condescend to sympathise in, or even know, the peculiarities of their new fellow-countrymen… The pervading historical character of the events immediately following the Union, is, that English statesmen, had they desired to alienate Scotland, and create a premature revulsion against the Union, could not have pursued a course better adapted to such an end. The position of the countries demanded a delicate and cautious policy. Scotland had to go through the immediate perceptible evils of a departed nationality, a decaying retail trade, and increased taxation; the countervailing benefits from extended enterprise lay in the future. A paternal Government would, on such an occasion, have carefully avoided everything that irritated national pride or prejudices, and seemed, however slightly, to sacrifice the interests or independence of the one country to the other… But in almost every one of the changes just enumerated, the offensive act was offensively done, and the country was ever reminded that she was in the hands of ungenial and uninterested, if not hostile strangers.” ’ – (Edin. Review, Oct. 1854; Article, Burton’s Hist. of Scotland from 1689 to 1748.)”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), How much of a Blessing has the Union been for Scotland?

1864  Colonel McMurdo gives offense to Scottish Volunteers he addressed in Glasgow as detailed by William Burns;

“Colonel McMurdo, by name and reputation, is a Scotsman; he was addressing an army of Scottish Volunteers, Lowland and Highland, and he concluded a laudatory address, according to the Herald, as follows:-

   It is a point that I have often remarked among the Volunteers, especially of Scotland, that the pastors of the people are attached to the Volunteer corps. There is seldom a review that I do not see the minister, as chaplain of the corps, marching past in its rear. There was once a time, a long time ago, when pastors assembled their armed congregations on these hill sides to protect their rights and liberties; but now the pastors of the people assembled on these hill sides with the Volunteers of England – (a voice, “of Scotland”) to show that they encourage the Volunteers to maintain the institutions of the country, the integrity of the dominions, and the honour and safety of the crown of England. (Loud applause.)

   You, Mr Editor, and many of your readers are aware that for some years past I have maintained a protest against the growing practice of using the terms ‘England’ and ‘English’ as representing the United Kingdom, its people and institutions – a protest founded upon the practice referred to being in violation of the Treaty of Union, and at the same time dishonouring to the people of Scotland, subversive of their historical traditions and associations, prejudicial to their position (political and social), and so injurious to their material interests. In support of this I sometimes tried argument and at other times ridicule, and I cannot allow the opportunity of Colonel McMurdo’s address to the so-called ‘Volunteers of England’ to pass unnoticed. Not to speak of the utter confusion of ideas exhibited in the passage quoted, no one can read it without seeing how it confirms the ground of my protest, as just stated. For this reason I would call to it the attention of your readers, and particularly those who themselves belong to ‘the service.’ When a Scottish officer can come to Glasgow and address an assembly of Scottish Volunteers in such fashion, amid ‘loud applause,’ or be, as another report has it, ‘rapturously cheered by the Volunteers,’ it is really time our gallant friends were making up their minds as to their real nationality.”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), Collection of Wiliam Burns on the Attempt of English Centralisation.

1875  English legal professor, John Indermaur, writes an English law student’s textbook that states within it,

“Jurisdiction over Scotland acquired by the Articles of Union with Scotland, ratified and confirmed by statute in the reign of James I.

… Mr Justice Blackstone says:- ‘The municipal or common laws of England are, generally speaking, of no force or validity in Scotland.’”

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), Why the English May Feel Free to Usurp Scottish Law.

1891  Harry Gow writes an article based on another entitled, ‘The Union of 1707 viewed financially,’ published in October, 1887, in the Scottish Review. This lays out the facts that at this point in Scotland’s history it was already paying £10m more than it should have been to the UK Treasury. That Scotland was over-taxed and under-served by the UK government.

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), Financial Cost to Scotland of the Union.

1897  The “Britain, Not England’ monster petition against centralisation, with 104,647 signatures and 1430 yards in length, is delivered to Lord Balfour to be forwarded to Queen Victoria.

– ‘Treaty of Union Articles’ (2019), Articles 1875-1900.

Exit mobile version