other hand, to adopt the quaint language of Drummond of Hawthornden, "conceived that noblemen, like the coin, were of his predecessors' making; and why he might not put his stamp upon the same metal, or, when those old metals were defaced, that he might not refound them, and give them a new print, he could not well conceive. On many points, therefore, the Scottish nobles differed from their sovereign, though none exasperated them more than a new creation of their order, and the exaltation of paltry minions to the honours and the privileges of nobility. Proud to a proverb of their ancestors, and tenacious of their dignity, the Scottish nobles of that age were not the men to submit with patience to those infringements on their rights as peers, and to proceedings which they deemed as insults to their families, whose antiquity they boasted could be traced to the very foundation of the monarchy. A series of intestine broils, caused for the most part by the imprudent conduct of James, ensued; which ended in their appearing in arms against their sovereign, on a spot sacred in the annals of Scottish story, where their ancestors boldly encounter. ed the English host,-where Bruce, the great restorer of the monarchy, obtained his most signal victory, where the song of national enthusiasm was raised by many a gallant warrior, and appalled the effeminate Edward of England. On that very spot-the well known field of Bannockburn-the indignant and exasperated confederates opposed their lawful sovereign, and were successful with less bloodshed than when Bruce, after he had cleft to the chin with his battle-axe the boasting Henry de Bohun, rode triumphant over the tent

ed field, won by his skill, and the valour of his warriors.

We have seen, in the case of James I., that the policy which that prince adopted in endeavouring to humble the exorbitant power of the aristocracy, was attended with disastrous consequences; and the Dominican Monastery at Perth witnessed the indomitable spirit of disappointed ambition. His son and successor, James II., when he came of age, had to oppose the flood of aristocratic tyranny and violence which had been restrained by temporary barriers under the stern administration of his father; and the House of Douglas, during his reign, was so powerful, as to contend with royal authority, and assert its independence with the utmost insolence and haughtiness. The fall of that House, however, which James himself accelerated, by stabbing Douglas with his own hand in Stirling Castle, freed him not only from a turbulent peer, whose retainers were numerous, and who lived in a sort of regal splendour, creating knights, and convening senatorial assemblies, but even from a dangerous rival; yet the assassination of Douglas, a breach of good faith and kingly pledge,— was regarded by his subjects with horror; and it hindered not the successor of that same Douglas, with other nobles, to enter into a dangerous association against James, and exhibit manifestoes on the doors of the principal churches, declaring, "that they were resolved never to obey, command, or charge, nor answer any citation for the time coming; because the King, so far from being a just master, was a bloodsucker, a murderer, a transgressor of hospitality, and a surpriser of the innocent. But the rigorous measures of James

frustrated the intentions of this association; nor was it long before he effected the complete and irrecoverable fall of the House of Douglas. Misfortune, however, overtook him, as well as his father; and his brilliant career soon set in the fatality which attended the princes of his house. Rash curiosity prompted him to examine too cautiously one of the rudely contrived cannons of that age at the siege of Roxburgh Castle; and Scotland was again to bewail the untimely death of an accomplished monarch, for whose loss the demolition of that calamitous fortress was but a sorrowful consolation.

The progeny of James II. were, his son who succeeded him, Alexander Duke of Albany, John, afterwards Earl of Mar, and two daughters-all infants; James III. being only in the eighth year of his age. A regency administered the government till the King attained his eighteenth year, during which, from the silence of our annals, little is known of the internal state of the kingdom, The disposition of James differed from that of his two predecessors, and rendered him incapable of governing a turbulent people in a rude and turbulent age. In person he was elegant, but weak in mind, without dignity or prudence. His habits were not those which were calculated to ensure respect and attachment; his pursuits were characterized by the ignorance of the times, his proneness to superstition, love of retirement, and attachment to favourites, disgusted his nobles, and accelerated his downfal. Avarice was a prominent feature in his disposition, while he was capricious, averse to public business, abandoning the government to minions, who oppressed the people, and flattered

him in his indolence. His virtues were thus counterbalanced by failings which approximated to vices; and though his reign is characterized by few acts of injustice on his own part, hia inclination to despotism was not the less conspicuous;-his impatience of moderate courses too often prompting him to hasty and imprudent outrages. A sovereign thus constituted was liable to the intrigues of opposing factions, who would not fail to improve the advantages his own remissness afforded, and evince their dissatisfaction by exploits of boldness and decision.

But from the years 1469 to 1476, James III. had been uniformly successful in his government, and fortune had been more liberal to him in her favours than to his more immediate predecessors. In his minority, the executive government appears to have been intrusted to his mother, Mary of Gueldres, assisted by the prudence, ability, and wisdom of James Kennedy, Bishop of St Andrew's, (for the See was not then archiepiscopal), a prelate as illustrious for his piety and learning, as he was for his royal birth and ancient lineage. To this princely prelate, a grandson of Robert III., Scotland is indebted for her first establishment of learning; and the University of St Andrew's is a noble memorial of Bishop Kennedy's episcopal piety and munificence. * The reduction and de

It may be remarked, en passant, in allusion to the Scottish Universities, that Scotland is indebted solely to Bishops for the establishment of her Universities. Glasgow was founded by the pious Bishop Turnbull; King's College, Aberdeen, by Elphinstone, Bishop of that See; St Andrew's, by Bishop Kennedy; St Mary's, in that University, by Archbishop James Beaton, and farther endowed by Cardinal David Beaton and Archbishop Hamil

molition of the calamitous Castle of Roxburgh; the surrender of Berwick to the Scots, an acquisition often in vain attempted from the days of Edward Baliol; the cessation of the Orkneys to Scotland, by the marriage of James to Margaret of Denmark, daughter of Christian I., and the possession of the Shetland Islands, sold by the same monarch to James, to enable him to carry on his war with Sweden; the treaty with

ton. Even the University of Edinburgh owes its original foundation to Robert Reid, Bishop of Orkney. The Marischal College, Aberdeen, founded by the Earl Marischal, is the only Scottish University founded by a lay

man.

* Before that period (1468 and 1469), the Orkney and the Shetland Islands belonged to Denmark, and they were sold, or rather pledged, to James III. by Christian, at the marriage of James and Margaret of Denmark, as part of the marriage-portion of that princess. The portion which James received with Margaret, was 60,000 florins, 10,000 of which were to be paid by the Danish King to the Scottish ambassadors, and the Orkney Islands were assigned to James as a pledge for the 50,000, until redeemed by him or any of his successors. But Christian's affairs rendered him unable to pay the remaining 10,000 florins, and his Swedish war served as an apology for his offering the Shetland Islands as part of that sum. He proposed them in pledge to James for 8000 florins, while he agreed to pay the remaining 2000, (a sum now nearly equal to about 20,000. Sterling), and the proposal was accepted. As the pledge was never redeemed, the Islands, since the above period, have belonged to the British Crown. It may be mentioned, that Torfaeus, a Danish writer, who wrote in 1697, attempts to prove that these islands may still be redeemed by Denmark. They were claimed in 1549, 1558, and 1560, during the reign of Mary; in 1585, during the reign of James VI., on occasion of his marriage with Anne of Denmark; in 1640, during the reign of Charles I.; in 1660 and 1667, after the Restoration.