of Edinburgh, Session 1880-81. 
147 
scripsit, quamvis interdum libertate genti innata contra regium 
fastigium acerbior, ut ea scriptio non bominem in pulvere literario 
versatum, sed in media hominum luce, et in tractandis reipublicae 
negotiis tota vita exercitatum redoleat.” 
II. 
I propose to-night, with the leave of the Society, to conclude the 
paper the first part of which I submitted to them on a former 
occasion. My theme, as I expressed it, was to consider some 
famous and forgotten treatises on government and their authors, 
with the view of elucidating the rise, nurture, and maturing of the 
constitutional principle in this island. I confined myself in that 
paper to the consideration of Buchanan’s treatise “ De jure Regni 
apud Scotos,” along with some passages in the career of that 
remarkable man. I now part from him and his period and, 
stepping over half a century, come to the eventful year of 1644. 
The interval, however, counts for a great deal in the political 
education of this country. In Buchanan’s time, constitutional 
liberty was little known in our end of the island. We had our 
nominal representation in parliament, but as far as any real popular 
control was concerned, it was little but a name. What with 
intrigue, political faction, and family feuds, the phantom of repre- 
sentative government flitted round the Parliament House, but the 
real principle of power resided in the favourites and satellites of 
the palace. I showed in my last paper that Buchanan, although 
bold and outspoken, was by no means anti-monarchical, although 
deducing, as all constitutional writers have done since his time, the 
regal power from the popular will. But, considering the temper of 
the times, and the arbitrary tone of the Scottish monarchs, it is 
creditable to Buchanan’s courage, as well as to his foresight, that he 
did not hesitate to proclaim the distasteful doctrine in ears to 
which he knew its sound would be unpalatable. 
As it was, however, and as often happens, the force and earnest- 
ness with which the preceptor of James YI. had laboured to bend 
this stubborn and ungainly royal branch, proved to have inclined 
it strongly in another direction. Of his preceptor’s learning, 
James YI. had imbibed a considerable share. His own intellect. 
