pounds Scots? It was a cheaper bargain than the fee of iSs. paid "til a man that come to Lythgow to lat the King blud and did it nocht;" cheaper even than the 5^. paid " til a fallow brocht the King ii wolfis at Lythgow." But it is a rash thing to begin quoting from the accounts of James IV. (though Pitcairn sets the example in his de lightful notes and appendices), because it is so difficult to leave off. This chivalrous monarch was so versatile in his pursuits, as liberal in offerings at a saint's shrine as in gifts to a mistress, as ready to lose large sums "playing at the cartis with Lord Dakir" (with whom he was so soon to be at deadly war), as he was to pay small ones to patients who volunteered to let him practice the ama teur leechcraft of which he was so fond. "Feb. 9. 1512. — Item, to ane fallow, because ye King pullet furtht his twtht . . xiijj. Feb. 25. — Item, to Kynnard, ye harbour, for tua teith clrawin furtht of his hed be ye King xiijj."

Or, again, to assistants in field sports, as — "Nov. 15. — /tent, to ane man passit in ane loch, and rasit dukis [wild ducks] to ye halkis [hawks] be ye Kingis com mand . . . iiJ. iiiji/."

The books of adjournal and minutes dur ing this reign are very fragmentary. They have the disadvantage, moreover, of being written in abominable forensic Latin, though here and there occur passages of refreshingly vigorous vernacular. But it is easy to trace in the proceedings that vicious system of taking surety for prisoners, which is one of the least reassuring features of fifteenth and sixteenth century justice in Scotland. In theory it was well enough, corresponding to the modern practice of accepting bail, avoid ing possible injustice in detaining innocent persons, and the inconvenience of maintain ing a vast number of prisoners until the next assize. But inasmuch as it applied to per

sons charged with the most heinous as well as with trivial offences, it acted enormously in favor of the wealthy and powerful, and of their protégés, and with cruel prejudice to poor men who had no influential friends. Take a case at random from the reign of James IV. Peter Hall, in Newbigging, was charged at Jedburgh assizes with stealing a sword and hide target from John and Edmund Hall of the same place; item, for art and part of the slaughter of John Henrisoune in Lintoulee; item, stealing six ewes from Thomas Hen risoune in Jed Forest; item, for the slaughter of the said Thomas; item, for common theft. Here was a case surely, deserving condign punishment. Not according to fifteenth-cen tury lights. David Ainslie was accepted as surety "tosatisfy the parties," and Peter was free to set out on a fresh career. This mode of defeating justice became more frequent as time went on. An example of the advantage easily derived therefrom by a wealthy baron occurs in the trial of Gil bert, second Earl of Cassilis, who is not to be confounded with his grandson Gilbert, fourth earl, the notorious " King of Carrick," of whom the anonymous author of the " Historie of the Kenncdyis" (supposed to be the in famous John Mure of Auchindrane) ob serves that he "was ane particuler manne, and ane werry greicly manne, and cairitt nocht how he gatt land, sa that he culd cum be the samin." This second Earl of Cassilis, then, together with nearly every leading man in the numerous clan Kennedy and their allies, was arraigned before the Earl of Argyle, as Justiciar General, and a jury of fifteen gentle men, in 1525, charged with the slaughter of Martin Kennedy, laird of Lochland. Now, having in view the result of this trial it is not pleasant to remember that Cassilis was brother-in-law to Argyle, having married his sister Isabel. Cassilis and four others were put upon their trial first. It would have been a bold jury that had dared to con vict the chief of this terrible clan.