145 
of Edinburgh, Session 1880 - 81 . 
violent to justice, tlie senseless to reason?” “Do I now,” lie exclaims, 
“appear to think meanly of your king? Do I represent him as loaded 
with chains and confined in a prison house of laws? Do I not bring 
him out into the theatre of the human race?” The rest is conceived 
and expressed with such spirit that I give it in Buchanan’s own words : 
“Non superbo spiculatorum coetu, sericatisque nebulonibus stipa- 
tum, sed sua tutum innocentia, nec armorum terrore, sed populi 
amore, munitum; nec modo liberum et erectum, sed honoratum, 
sed venerabilem, sacrosanctum, et augustum ; cum bonis ominibus 
et faustis acclamationibus prodeuntem, et quocunque progrediatur, 
omnium ora, et oculos, et animos in se convertentem.” “Not sur- 
rounded by a proud escort of javelin men, or an imposing band of 
knaves, but secure in his own innocence; guarded not by the terror of 
arms, but by the love of his people ; not only free and erect, but 
honoured, venerable, sacred, and august; going forth with all good 
omens, and happy acclamations, and, wherever his steps are directed, 
turning all faces, and eyes, and hearts towards him.” This noble 
passage quite melts the heart of his friend Maitland, who assures 
him that nothing more magnificent could be conceived. This was 
his ideal in 1580. In 1880, I think we may say that Buchanan 
only lived before his time, and that the ideal has changed into reality. 
Buchanan has some views on the powers of parliament, and the 
obligation of laws passed by them, which would hardly find accept- 
ance in the present day, and which were sharply canvassed at the 
time. He had a notion that the tacit assent of the people was 
necessary to give efficacy to the laws passed by parliament ; from 
which it would follow that at the time the law was passed it was 
not binding. But we must remember this was but the dawn of 
C onstitutionalism. 
If Buchanan hoped to raise his immediate reputation by this 
masterly performance, he must have been greatly disappointed. He 
died in 1582, and before his history was in the hands of the public. 
But he was assailed from all quarters, abroad and at home. Every 
calumny that malignity could suggest was levelled at his private 
character. He had been a Franciscan friar, they said, and therefore 
was a renegade. He was in private life one of the vilest of men. 
His book was a scandal to his race. The Scottish Parliament in 
1584, two years after Buchanan’s death, condemned it and his 
