History of the house and race of Douglas and Angus

HOUSE OF DOUGLAS. 245
Prince? He had been froward to his enemies, why not
gentle to his friends? He had sought to make them smart
that wronged him, why not cherish those that did him good
offices? he had warred on them, that had warred against him,
why should he not keep friendship with those who kept friend-
ship with him? Certainly these are not changes, neither of
nature nor of manners, but are commonly, we see, in one and
the same nature, and proceed from one and the same cause,
which is greatness of courage, and regard of due honour. The
greater despiser of baseness, the greater reverence of true great-
ness; the greater repiner against compulsion, the gentler and
calmer being used courteously; the harder enemy, the faithful-
ler and sweeter friend: so that we may suspect these men's wis-
dom, that did so far mistake his true courage, and accounted
that a change, which was but a continuation of his inbred dis-
position.
Two men are said to have taken umbrage at the matter,
whoso consciences were guilty of what they had deserved,
Alexander Livingston and William Crichton; not for the
change of his manners, but for the change of his credit.
They had traiterously slain three innocent noblemen, his
two cousins and Malcolm Fleming. They had kept him-
self back from his Prince, and his Prince from him, and
were sorry that ever they should have met in a friendly sort.
They would have been glad to have blown the bellows of
dissension, to have irritated the one, and misinformed the
other, made their own quarrel the King's, and so have caused
the King and country to esteem so of it. They were now
disappointed of that, and the Earl had access to inform the
King of their misdemeanours in their office, and to move him
to call them in question for it. They knew he would re-
member the wrong done to his cousins; they knew how unable
they were to answer for many of their facts; and therefore they
retire themselves from court, Livingston to his own house,
Crichton to the castle of Edinburgh, which he had still in
his keeping. Neither was the Earl Douglas negligent on this
occasion, that was thus offered to seek justice by law and by