Skip to main content

Full text of "The Scottish historical review"

See other formats 


UNIV.  OF 

TORONTO 

LIBRARY 


II 


THE  SCOTTISH 
HISTORICAL  REVIEW 


PUBLISHED   BY 

JAMES  MACLEHOSE  AND  SONS,   GLASGOW 
{Jublislurs  to  the  aniUrrsiiB. 

MACMILLAN  AND  CO.,   LTD.,   LONDON. 

New  York,  •  •  The  Macmillan  Co. 

Toronto,  •     •  -  The  Macmillan  Co.  of  Canada, 

London,  •    •  •  Simfkin,  Hamilton  and  Co. 

Cambridge,  •  •  Macmillan  and  Bowes. 

Edinburgh,-  •  Douglas  and  Faults. 

Sydney,    •    •  •  Angus  and  Robertson. 


THE 

SCOTTISH 

HISTORICAL 

REVIEW 


BEING  A  NEW  SERIES  OF 
THE  SCOTTISH  ANTIQUARY 
ESTABLISHED  1886  j»  *  * 


Volume  Third 


'  \ 


GLASGOW 
JAMES    MACLEHOSE   AND    SONS 

PUBLISHERS     TO     THE     UNIVERSITY 
1906 


Dfl 

750 
$13 
.3 


1  ' 


Contents 


A  Restoration  Duel.     With  Notes.     By  Professor  C.  H. 

Firth,  Oxford        -  i 

The  '  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray.     By  The  Right 

Hon.  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,  Bart.    -         -  6,  218,  327,  453 

Presbytery  and  Popery  in  the  Sixteenth  Century.     By  Rev. 

R.  Menzies  Ferguson,  M.A.,  D.D.  -  20 

The  First  Highland  Regiment :  the  Argyllshire  High- 
landers. By  Lt.-Col.  Robert  MacKenzie  Holden, 
F.S.A.Scot.  -  27 

Charles  the  Second  :  His  Connection  with  Art  and  Letters. 

By  W.  G.  Blaikie-Murdoch    -  41 

The  Scottish  'Nation'  at  the  University  of  Padua.     By 

A.  Francis  Steuart,  Advocate  -  ~       53 

Killiecrankie  described   by  an  Eye-Witness.     By  A.   H. 

Millar  -       63 

Scottish    Industrial    Undertakings  before  the  Union.     By 

W.  R.  Scott,  M.A.,  D.Phil.,  Litt.D.,  St.  Andrews      -       71 

Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart.     By  Andrew  Lang. 

With  13  Full-Page  Engravings  of  Portraits  -         -      129,  274 


vi  Contents 

PAGE 

The  Scottish  Nobility  and  their  part  in  the  National  His- 
tory.    By  Professor  Hume  Brown  -  -     157 

*  Charlie  He's  My  Darling,'  and  other  Burns'   Originals. 

By  T.  F.  Henderson     -  -     1 7 1 

Greyfriars  in  Glasgow.     By  John  Edwards.      With  Sketch 

Plan  of  the  place  of  the  Greyfriars       -  -179 

The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony.     By  J.  H.  Round      194,  339 

The  Early  History  of  the  Scots   Darien   Company.     By 

Hiram  Bingham,  Harvard  University       -       2 10,  316,  437 

Ballads  on  the  Bishops'  Wars,  1638-1640.     By  Professor 

C.  H.  Firth,  Oxford      -  -     257 

James  I.  of  Scotland  and  the  University  of  St.  Andrews. 

By  J.  Maitland  Anderson        -  -     301 

The  Connexion  between  Scotland  and   Man.     By  Arthur 

W.  Moore,  C.V.O.,  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Keys    -     393 

The  Cardinal  and  the  King's  Will.     By  Andrew  Lang       -     410 
The  c  Diary '  of  Sir  Thomas  Hope.     By  James  Colville      -     423 

The  Pentland  Rising  and  the  Battle  of  Rullion  Green.     By 

Miss  M.  Sidgwick  -     449 

The  Excavations  at  Newstead  Fort.     Notes  on  some  recent 

Finds.     By  James  Curie.      With  Illustration        -         -471 

The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony  and  Mr.  J.  H.  Round. 

By  J.  H.  Stevenson       -  -  475 

Reviews  of  Books  7^  225,  354,  495 

Record  Room 

Information  against  Jacobites  and  Papists,  121. 


Contents  vii 

PAGE 

Queries      -  -        103,  240,  380,  518 

Replies 

Signatures  to  Royal  Charters,  119.  Campbell  of  Ardkinglass, 
253.  Adder's  Head  and  Peacock's  Tail,  389.  The  First 
Highland  Regiment,  389.  The  Swinton  Charters,  390. 
Mabon,  390.  See  also  Communications  and  Replies. 

Communications  and  Replies  104,  242,  383,  521 

The  Ruthven  Peerage  Controversy.  By  J.  Maitland  Thom- 
son, LL.D.  _______  104,  521 

The    Altar   of  St.    Fergus,    St.    Andrews.     By   J.   Maitland 

Anderson  -         -         -         -         -         -         -         -         -108 

The  Brooch  of  Lorn.     By  Iain  MacDougall.     With  Illustration       1 1 0 

French  Translations  of  The  Wealth  of  Nations.     By   David 

Murray,  F.S.A.  -         -         -         -         -         -         -         -115 

Gretna  Green  and  its  Traditions.     By  Right  Hon.  Sir  Herbert 

Maxwell,  Bart.  --------       242 

The  Andreas  and  St.  Andrew.     By  A.  M.  Williams     -        245,  523 
The  Scots  Darien  Company        ______       253 

The  Andreas  and  St.  Andrew.  By  Professor  Walter  W.  Skeat  383 
The  Scottish  Church  Militant  of  1640-3.  By  George  Lorimer  385 
The  Campbell  Arms.  By  Geo.  Will.  Campbell  -  -  388 

The  Andreas  and  St.  Andrew.     By  Professor  George  Philip 

Krapp       ---------       522 

Solomon's  Even  in  Shetland.  By  J.  M.  Mackinlay  -  -  524 
Scots  in  Poland.  By  A.  Francis  Steuart  -  524 


viii  Contents 

Notes  and  Comments.     With  Illustrations 

Ancient  Roman  Wheel,  found  at  Bar  Hill,  123.  Gretna 
Green,  125.  Roman  Station  at  Newstead,  126.  D. 
Hay  Fleming,  LL.D.,  254.  Congress  on  Facsimiles, 
254.  Coldingham  and  Fast  Castle,  254.  Saint  Andrews 
University,  255.  Early  Grammar  used  in  Scotland,  255. 
James,  2nd  Marquis  of  Hamilton,  391.  Robert  the 
Bruce,  391.  Separation  of  Church  and  State  in  France, 
392.  Transactions  of  the  Royal  Historical  Society,  392. 
Excavations  at  Rough  Castle,  526.  George  Buchanan 
and  his  Quater-Centenary,  527.  Colonial  History,  528. 
The  Rymour  Club,  528. 


Illustrations 

PAGE 

The  Arms  of  the  Marquis  of  Breadalbane  80 

Portrait  of  Richard  Burton         -------88 

Portrait  of  John  Milton    --------88 

The  Brooch  of  Lorn         -         -         -         -         -         -         -         -113 

Ancient  Wheel  Unearthed  at  Bar  Hill,  June  1905        -         -  122 

The  Clochmabenstane       -         -         -         -         -         -         -         -124 

The  Johnstone  Crest  Over  Gretna  Hall  Front  Entrance        -         -       124 
Mary  and  the  Dauphin.     Bridal  Medal,  1558       -  134 

Mary  as  Dauphine,  1559.     By  Clouet         _____       136 

Mary  Stuart  in  1559-1560,  from  Jones  Collection         -         -         -       138 
Mary  Stuart  from  Miniature  at  Welbeck     -         -         -         -         -       140 

Mary  Stuart.     Le  Deuil  Blanc,  1560-1561.     By  Clouet       -         -       142 
Mary  Stuart  as  a  Mermaid,  1567.     Contemporary  Caricature          -       146 

Mary  as  Captive  Queen  of  England,  Scotland  and  Ireland,  1572. 

Mrs.  Anstruther  Duncan's  Miniature  -----       148 

Mary  Stuart.     Sheffield  Portrait.     By  P.  Oudry.      1578  -  -       150 

Mary  Stuart.     Morton  Portrait           -         -         -         -  -  -152 

Mary  and  James  VI.     Penicuik  Jewel.        -         -         -  -  154 

Sketch  Plan  of  the  Place  of  the  Greyfriars  of  Glasgow  -  -  182 


Illustrations 


PAGE 


Priory  Church  of  St.  Mary,  Coldingham      -----  252 

Seal  of  Priory  of  Coldingham 252 

Fast  Castle,  Berwickshire,  from  the  West    -----  254 

Coast  Line  looking  North  from  Fast  Castle          -  254 

Lady  Milford's  Miniature  of  Mary  Stuart  in  a  Reliquary        -         -  274 

Mary  Stuart  from  the  Earl  of  Leven  and  Melville  Portrait     -         -  280 

Mary  Stuart  from  Edgar  Miniature,  Hamilton  Type     -         -         -  292 

James,  Marquis  of  Hamilton.     1589-1624-         -  390 
Roman  Helmet  found  at  Newstead     -         -         -         -         -         -472 

Plan  of  the  Roman  Fort  on  the  Antonine  Vallum,  at  Rough  Castle  520 

Inscribed  Tablet  found  in  Rough  Castle      -         -         -         -         -  524 

The  Pits  (Lilia)  to  north-west  of  north  gate  of  Rough  Castle  Fort  528 


Contributors  to  this  Volume 


F.  J.  Amours 

Rev.  John  Anderson 

Joseph  Anderson 

J.  Maitland  Anderson 

Mrs.  M.  M.  Banks 

Hiram  Bingham 

Miss  Mary  Bateson 

Rev.  Sir  D.  O.  Hunter  Blair, 

Bart. 

Professor  P.  Hume  Brosvn 
J.  T.  T.  Brown 
Richard  Brown 
Thomas  H.  Bryce 
A.  W.  Gray  Buchanan 
Rev.  Dugald  Butler 
George  W.  Campbell 
James  Colville 
W.  B.  Cook 
Rev.  Professor  Cooper 
Percy  Corder 
W.  A.  Craigie 
A.  O.  Curie 


James  Curie 
Prof.  Macneile  Dixon 
Bishop  Dowden 
Etienne  Dupont 
Henry  Dyer 
J.  P.  Edmond 
John  Edwards 
F.  C.  Eeles 
George  Eyre-Todd 

C.  Litton  Falkiner 

Rev.  R.  Menzies  Fergusson 
Professor  C.  H.  Firth 

D.  Hay  Fleming 
Hon.  Vicary  Gibbs 
Gilbert  Goudie 

E.  Maxtone  Graham 
J.  Cuthbert  Hadden 
T.  F.  Henderson 

R.  Oliver  Heslop 
R.  M.  Holden 
J.  M.  Irvine 
S.  Douglas  Jackson 


Xll 


Contributors 


Professor  Henry  Jones 

Prof.  Graham  Kerr 

Prof.  George  Philip  Krapp 

Andrew  Lang 

Professor  Latta 

Sir  Archibald  C.  Lawrie 

Kenneth  Leys 

George  Lorimer 

C.  C.  Lynam 

Alexander  Macbain 

George  Macdonald 

Iain  MacDougall 

William  S.  M'Kechnie 

J.  M.  Mackinlay 

Magnus  MacLean 

James  MacLehose 

Sophia  H.  MacLehose 

Rev.  W.  H.  Macleod 

Ludovic  M.  Mann 

Andrew  Marshall 

Sir  James  D.  Marwick 

Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,  Bart. 

Professor  Dudley  J.  Medley 

A.  H.  Millar 

J.  L.  Morison 

W.  G.  Blaikie-Murdoch 


Arthur  William  Moore 
David  Murray 
J.  A.  H.  Murray 
George  Neilson 
Henry  Paton 
David  Patrick 
Sir  J.  Balfour  Paul 
Professor  J.  S.  Phillimore 
Robert  Renwick 
J.  H.  Round 
Henry  A.  Rye 
W.  R.  Scott 
Miss  M.  Sidgwick 
Hon.  George  A.  Sinclair 
Professor  W.  W.  Skeat 
Professor  D.  Nichol  Smith 
A.  Francis  Steuart 
J.  H.  Stevenson 
Rev.  W.  B.  Stevenson 
William  Stewart 
George  S.  C.  Swinton 
Professor  C.  Sanford  Terry 
J.  Maitland  Thomson 
Professor  T.  F.  Tout 
A.  M.  Williams 
Rev.  James  Wilson 


The 

Scottish    Historical    Review 

VOL.  III.,  No.  9  OCTOBER  1905 

A  Restoration  Duel 

IN  August,  1660,  James,  second  Earl  of  Southesk,  killed  the 
Master  of  Gray  in  a  duel.  Of  the  dispute  which  led  to 
it  the  following  account  is  given  by  a  contemporary  diarist. 

'Eftir  the  Kinges  Majesteis  return  from  Breda,  quhilk  wes 
upone  the  25  day  of  Maij  1660  yeiris,  and  eftir  his  restoration 
to  his  thrie  kingdomes  and  dominionnes,  diveris  and  sindry 
persones,  alsweill  nobles,  gentrie,  as  utheris,  repairit  to  his 
Majestic,  being  than  at  Lundon,  for  offices,  places,  and  prefer- 
ment ;  quha,  being  mony  in  number,  and  his  Majestic  not  being 
able  to  satisfie  all,  thair  did  arryfe  great  hartbirninges,  animositie, 
and  envy  among  thame,  everieane  contendand  aganes  utheris 
for  preference.  And  among  these  and  utheris  seikaris,  thair  did 
arryse  contention  betuix  the  Erie  of  Southesk  and  the  Maister 
of  Gray,  for  the  schirrefship  of  Forfar ;  and  in  that  contention, 
they  drew  to  parteis  and  provoked  utheris  to  duellis,  in  the 
quhilk,  the  Erie  of  Southesk  did  kill  the  Maister  of  Gray  upone 
this  syde  of  Lundon.' — NicolFs  Diary  (ed.  1836),  p.  300. 

Of  the  two  combatants  Gray  appears  to  have  been  most 
deserving  of  the  King's  favour.  He  was  the  son  of  William 
Gray  of  Pittendrum,  '  the  most  successful  merchant  in  Edinburgh 
of  his  day,'  had  married  Hume,  Mistress  of  Gray,  daughter  of 
Andrew,  seventh  Lord  Gray,  and  had  commanded  a  regiment  in 
the  army  of  Charles  II.  during  1650-51.  James,  second  Earl  of 
Southesk,  who  succeeded  to  his  father's  title  in  1658,  had,  as 
Lord  James  Carnegie,  accepted  the  proposed  union  of  Scotland 
and  England,  and  had  been  one  of  the  representatives  chosen 
to  carry  it  into  effect  (Douglas,  Peerage  of  Scotland,  ed.  Wood, 

S.H.R.  VOL.  III.  A 


2  A  Restoration  Duel 

ii.  515;  Fraser,  History  of  the  Carnegles,  Earls  of  Southesk,  i.  140; 
Terry,  The  Cromwellian  Union,  pp.  47,  183).  This  acquiescence 
in  the  establishment  of  the  English  government  must  have  stood 
in  Southesk's  way  when  it  was  compared  with  the  steady  loyalty 
of  his  rival. 

The  duel  took  place  near  London  in  August,  1660  (Lament's 
Diary,  ed.  1831,  p.  126).  No  account  of  it  is  to  be  found  in 
the  newspapers  of  the  time,  but  a  contemporary  ballad,  preserved 
in  Anthony  Wood's  collection  in  the  Bodleian  Library,  supplies 
a  detailed  narrative  of  the  incident  (Wood,  401.  f.  100). 

A  NOBLE  DEWEL 


An  unmatchable  Combate  betwixt  Sir  William  .  .  .  and  the  Earl  of 
Southast.  Being  a  true  relation  how  this  b  .  .  .  E.  of  Southast 
murthered  Sir  William  Gray,  Son  to  the  Right  Ho  .  .  .  the  Lord 
Gray,  which  news  is  sad  to  the  Nacion  of  Scot/ana1,  and  how  the  .  .  . 
waites  for  trial  for  the  same.  Tune  of,  Sir  George  Wharton. 

My  heart  doth  bleed  to  tell  the  wo 

or  chance  of  grief  that  late  befel 
At  Biglesworth  in  Bedfordshire, 

as  I  to  you  for  truth  will  tell, 
There  was  two  valliant  Noble  men, 

that  very  rashly  fell  at  words, 
And  nothing  could  appease  their  wraths 

till  they  betook  them  to  their  Swords. 

The  one  was  called  Sir  William  Gray, 

the  good  Lord  Gray  his  Son  and  Heir, 
The  other  Sir  James  as  they  him  call, 

or  Earl  of  Southeist  as  I  hear, 
It  seems  their  quarrel  they  began, 

within  the  house  of  Parliament, 
And  till  this  Earl  had  kild  Sir  Gray, 

he  could  not  rest  nor  be  contend, 

About  Religion  they  out  fell, 

the  Earl  he  was  a  Presbyteir, 
Sir  William  did  his  ways  deny, 

he  being  a  Loyall  Cavelier, 
For  our  late  King  as  I  am  told, 

in  Scotland  often  kept  his  court, 
At  the  house  of  Sir  William  Gray, 

he  and  his  Nobles  did  their  resort. 


A  Restoration  Duel 

And  for  his  true  obedience  then, 

as  I  do  wrightly  understand 
He  made  was  the  chiefest  Governor, 

in  the  Northern  part  of  fair  Scotland 
It  seems  the  Earl  of  Southeist  calld, 

did  kill  Sir  William  for  this  thing, 
Because  he  Governor  was  made, 

and  much  advanced  by  the  King. 

This  Earl  was  governor  before, 

out  of  Commission  late  was  thrown, 
Even  by  this  present  Government, 

so  that  he  could  not  call  't  his  own, 
And  good  Sir  Gray  put  in  his  place, 

and  truth  it  brought  him  into  thrall, 
For  through  that  cruel  bloody  Earl, 

his  rise  was  causer  of  his  fall. 

You  see  the  bloody  minds  of  those, 

which  lately  had  the  Sword  in  hand, 
And  if  they  had  it  so  again, 

they  quickly  would  confound  the  Land 
For  to  find  opportunity 

this  wicked  Earl  he  did  invent, 
How  he  might  Murther  Noble  Gray, 

for  truth  it  was  his  full  intent. 


The  second  part,  to  the  same  Tune. 

Within  the  house  of  Parliament, 

the  Earl  fell  out  with  Noble  Gray 
But  yet  before  they  did  depart, 

they  loving  friends  then  went  away, 
It  was  not  known  the  Earl  did  ow, 

the  least  ill  will  at  that  same  time 
To  noble  Gray  or  unto  his, 

or  any  of  his  Royall  line. 

They  rod  together  thirty  Miles, 
to  Beglisworth  from  London  town, 

And  in  the  way  was  no  distast 
until  they  sat  there  at  the  Crown. 

They  supped  together  too  that  night, 
as  peacefully  as  man  could  do, 

But  yet  a  sudden  accidance 
betime  the  morning  did  insue, 


A  Restoration  Duel 

The  Earl  he  rose  ith  morn  betime, 
with  mischief  harbored  in  his  brest, 

He  came  into  the  Chamber  where, 
sir  William  Gray,  he  lay  at  rest, 

And  call'd  Sir  Gray  to  go  with  him, 

unto  the  Fields  to  take  the  Ayr, 
And  he  God  wot  not  thinking  ill, 

did  with  him  to  the  Fields  repair, 
Like  to  a  Lamb  that  went  to  dy, 

not  thinking  death  to  be  so  near, 
Even  so  befel  the  same  ye  see, 

to  noble  Gray  as  doth  appear. 

He  left  his  man  abed  that  morn, 

because  he  came  in  late  at  night, 
Desiring  them  to  let  him  lye, 

till  he  returned  back  with  the  Knight, 
His  bedfellow  and  Kindsman  too, 

went  as  a  second  in  the  place, 
If  that  the  Earl  should  offer  him, 

any  abuse  or  eke  disgrace. 

He  did  no  sooner  come  in  field, 

but  both  the  seconds  and  the  Earl, 
Do  plot  contrive  against  Sir  Gray, 

his  courage  purposel  to  queal, 
The  Earl  began  the  quarrel  then, 

and  noble  Gray  did  so  outdare, 
And  said  he  was  a  better  man, 

then  all  the  Grays  in  Scotland  were. 

And  said  to  him  come  fight  with  me, 

thou  cowardise  which  art  no  man, 
Which  forced  Valiant  Gray  to  take, 

his  glitering  Sword  within  his  hand, 
And  so  the  battle  fierce  began, 

and  Noble  Gray  he  plaid  his  part, 
But  yet  at  length  unhappily, 

the  Earl  he  thrust  him  to  the  heart, 

This  being  done  they  dragd  him  too 

a  stinking  ditch  which  there  was  by, 
And  robbed  him  of  his  Jewels  rich, 

and  then  they  presently  did  fly, 
Unto  the  Crown  whereas  their  coach, 

stood  ready  for  their  safe  convay, 
But  by  a  man  it  was  found  out, 

which  did  them  presently  betray. 


A  Restoration  Duel  5 

When  they  was  took  they  did  them  search 

whereas  they  found  them  full  of  gold, 
A  golden  watch  and  ring  which  cost, 

five  hundred  pounds  his  man  thus  told, 
They  had  them  to  the  Justice  straight, 

and  he  did  send  them  to  the  Gaol, 
Whereas  they  wait  for  trial  now, 

I  think  there's  no  man  will  them  bail. 
And  thus  I  will  conclude  my  song, 

I  wish  all  Traytors  to  beware, 
And  not  to  murder  as  they  do, 

lest  they  fall  in  the  hang-man's  snare. 

London,  Printed  for  John  Andrews  at  the  White-Lyon  neer 
Py-corner. 

Blackletter.          3  cuts. 

Though  it  is  impossible  to  test  the  truth  of  the  story,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  the  ballad  represents  the  version  current 
at  the  time.  For  according  to  the  list  of  printers  and  pub- 
lishers of  ballads,  contained  in  the  Catalogue  of  Lord  Crawford's 
Collection  of  Ballads,  p.  535,  John  Andrews  was  in  business  from 
1655  to  1666.  The  ballad  is  not  in  Lord  Crawford's  collection 
nor  in  the  Roxburghe  Ballads. 

C.  H.  FIRTH. 


The  £  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray. 

TN  August,  1355,  Sir  Thomas  Gray  of  Heton,1  son  and  heir  of 
a  knight  who  bore  the  same  name  with  great  distinction  in  the 
Scottish  Wars  of  the  first  and  second  Edwards,  was  Edward  III.'s 
constable,  or  warden,  of  Norham  Castle.  This  fortress,  standing 
just  within  the  English  Border,  and  commanding  an  important 
ford  on  the  Tweed,  was  a  perpetual  offence  to  the  Scots,  and  the 
object  of  their  incessant  attack.  In  the  month  aforesaid,  Patrick, 
Earl  of  March,  laid  an  ambuscade  on  the  Scottish  side  of  the 
river,  and  sent  Sir  William  Ramsay  of  Dalwolsey  (which  we  now 
write  Dalhousie)  with  a  party  of  four  hundred  spears  to  raid  the 
English  farms.  Ramsay,  in  returning  with  his  booty,  rode  within 
view  of  Norham  Castle.  Sir  Thomas  sounded  'Boot  and  saddle ! ' 
sallied  out  briskly  in  pursuit,  with  a  following  of  only  fifty  men,2 
and  fell  into  the  trap  prepared  by  March.  The  English  being 
taken  in  front  and  rear,  defended  themselves  stoutly,  but  were 
overpowered  by  superior  numbers.  Gray,  with  his  son,  also 
called  Thomas,  was  taken  prisoner,  and,  being  unable  to  raise  the 
ransom  demanded,  lay  for  two  years  a  captive  in  Edinburgh 
Castle.  Luckily  for  him,  and  for  us,  he  had  the  run  of  the  library 
there,  which  was  better  furnished  than  might  have  been  expected. 
He  found  such  good  and  suggestive  material  there  that  he  under- 
took to  compile  a  history  of  Britain,  an  enterprise  which  very 
few  knights  in  that  age  were  competent  to  attempt.  He  offered 
in  his  prologue  the  usual  apology  of  an  inexperienced  writer. 

<  How  it  was  that  he  [the  author]  found  courage  to  treat  of 
this  matter,  the  story  tells  that  when  he  was  prisoner 
in  the  town  Mount  Agneth  (formerly  Chastel  de  Pucelis,  now 
Edynburgh),  he  perused  books  of  chronicles,  in  verse  and  prose, 
in  Latin,  in  French,  and  in  English,  about  the  deeds  of  the 

1  Direct  ancestor  of  the  present  Earl  Grey  and  Sir  Edward  Grey  of  Falloden, 
Bart.,   M.P.     He  wrote    his    name    '  Gray,'    a    form    which    now    distinguishes 
Scottish  from  English  families  of  that  surname. 

2  Wyntoun  says  fourscore,  besides  archers. 

6 


The  £  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray     7 

ancestors,  at  which  he  was  astonished ;  and  it  grieved  him  sore 
that,  until  that  time,  he  had  not  acquired  a  better  knowledge  of 
the  course  of  the  age.  So,  as  he  had  hardly  anything  else  to  do 
at  the  time,  he  became  curious  and  thoughtful,  how  he  might  deal 
with  and  translate  into  shorter  sentences  the  chronicles  of  Great 
Britain  and  the  deeds  of  the  English.' 

Then  follows  the  description  of  a  dream,  in  which  the  Sibyl 
and  a  Cordelier  Friar  appeared  to  Gray,  and  provided  him  with  a 
ladder  to  scale  a  great  wall  withal.  Arrived  at  the  top,  he 
obtained  access  to  a  mighty  city,  and  beheld  a  number  of 
allegorical  phenomena  with  which  we  have  no  concern,  save  that 
they  inspired  him  with  the  resolve  to  carry  out  the  project  of  a 
chronicle.  The  Sibyl  bade  him  call  his  work  Scalacronica — the 
Ladder  Chronicle ;  but  whereas  one  can  only  regard  this  fanciful 
introduction  as  purely  fictitious,  the  real  allusion  probably  is  to 
the  crest  adopted  by  the  Gray  family — namely,  a  scaling  ladder.3 

The  scheme  of  the  work  was  a  survey  of  history  from  the 
Creation  to  the  date  of  compilation ;  and,  as  may  be  imagined, 
the  earlier  part  is  not  worth  much  attention,  being  merely,  as 
Gray  candidly  explains  in  his  prologue,  a  transcript  of  passages 
in  the  writings  of  Gildas,  Walter  of  Exeter's  translation  of  the 
Brut,  Bede's  Ecclesiastical  History,  the  Historia  Aurea  of  John 
of  Tynemouth,  Higden's  Polychronicon,  and  such  like.  Coming 
to  the  reigns  of  the  Norman  Kings,  there  are  passages  of 
undoubted  value,  describing  events  not  recorded  elsewhere ;  such 
as  the  means  whereby  King  John  caused  the  death,  in  1203,  of  his 
inconvenient  nephew,  Arthur  of  Brittany,  whom  he  had  sup- 
planted on  the  throne  of  England.  But  it  is  when  Gray  is  dealing 
with  a  period  covered  by  the  actual  experience  of  his  father  and 
himself  that  the  chronicle  has  been  recognised  as  being  of  incom- 
parable value  to  the  student  of  Scottish  and  English  history 
during  the  reigns  of  the  first  three  Edwards.  Incomparable — 
because,  alone  among  the  chronicles  of  the  time,  it  was  written 
by  a  soldier,  who  naturally  viewed  affairs  from  a  different  stand- 
point to  that  of  the  usual  clerical  annalist.  Even  Froissart, 
prince  of  chivalrous  writers,  was  a  priest — cure  of  Lestines — 
though  it  must  be  admitted  that  his  survey  of  men  and  manners 
was  of  more  than  parochial  breadth. 

Knowledge  of  the  Scalacronica  and  its  treasures  was  scarcely  to 

3  Crests  were  a  novelty  in  heraldry  in  the  fourteenth  century.  Barbour 
says  that  they  were  first  seen  in  the  campaign  of  Weardale,  1327,  and  mentions 
them  as  one  of '  twa  novelryis,'  the  other  being  'crakis  of  wer,'  i.e.  cannon. 


8     The  '  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray 

be  obtained,  except  through  the  brief  English  abstract  made  by 
John  Leland  in  the  i6th  century,  until  Joseph  Stevenson 
edited,  from  the  original  MS.  in  the  library  of  Corpus  Christi 
College,  Cambridge,  the  portion  of  it  beginning  with  the 
Norman  Conquest,  and  this  was  privately  published,  with 
a  masterly  introduction  from  the  editor,  by  the  Maitland 
Club  in  1836.  Even  so,  it  cannot  be  considered  easy  of 
access  to  general  readers,  first,  because  the  edition  consisted  of 
only  120  copies;  and  second,  because  it  requires  some  applica- 
tion* to  master  the  obscurities  and  ambiguities  of  the  Norman 
French  in  which  Sir  Thomas  Gray  wrote.  It  seems,  then,  that  it 
may  be  interesting,  and  perhaps  useful,  to  those  who  care  for  the 
history  of  their  country,  to  have  a  translation  of  the  portion  of 
Scalacronica  covering  the  reigns  of  Edward  I.,  II.,  and  III.,  when 
the  author  either  was  personally  engaged,  in  the  scenes  described, 
or  heard  of  them  from  those  who  had  been  actors  in  the  same. 

The  Cambridge  MS.  being  the  only  copy  known  now  to  exist, 
we  have  to  deplore  its  mutilation,  which  has  taken  place  since 
Leland  made  his  abstract,  supposing  that  it  was  from  this  copy 
that  he  worked.  The  loss  of  some  of  the  earlier  folios  might  be 
borne  with  equanimity,  but  it  is  exceedingly  tantalising  that  the 
missing  sheets  covered  the  period  of  the  author's  chief  activity, 
namely,  from  the  capture  of  Roxburgh  Castle  by  Sir  Alexander 
Ramsay,  in  1342,  down  to  the  capture  of  Gray  himself  by  the 
Earl  of  March,  in  1355.  Of  Gray's  observations  upon  these 
eventful  years  we  can  only  judge  by  Leland' s  exceedingly 
succinct  notes. 

For  the  purpose  of  the  present  translation  the  Maitland  Club 
edition  has  been  carefully  collated  by  Miss  Bateson  with  the 
original.  Words  of  obscure  or  ambiguous  meaning  are  given  in 
footnotes. 

HERBERT  MAXWELL. 


The  '  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray     9 


The  Reign  of  Edward  I.  as  chronicled  in  1356  by  Sir 
Thomas  Gray  in  the  '  Scalacronica^  and  now  trans- 
lated by  the  Right  Hon.  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,  Bart. 

IN  the  year  of  grace  1274,  on  the  feast  of  the  Assumption  of 
Our  Lady^1)  Edward  the  son  of  Henry,  with  his  wife  Eleanor, 
were  crowned  and  anointed  at  Westminster  by  Friar  Robert  of 
Kilwardby,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  The  great  street  of 
Cheap  and  the  others  through  which  this  Edward  rode  to  his 
coronation  were  covered  with  carpets  and  silken  tapestry.  The 
citizens  flung  gold  and  silver  from  the  windows  for  anybody  who 
cared  to  take  it.  The  conduit  on  one  side  of  Cheap  ran  with  white 
wine,  on  the  other  side  with  red.  King  Alexander  of  Scotland  was 
there,  and  the  Duke  of  Brittany  (who  was  the  premier  duke  after 
the  earls  present),  the  wives  of  both  being  sisters  of  the  said 
Edward,  and  also  the  Queen-mother.  Which  seigneurs,  with 
all  the  other  Earls  of  England,  were  clothed  in  garments  of 
gold  and  silk,  with  numerous  retinues  of  knights,  who,  on 
dismounting,  turned  their  horses  loose  for  anybody  to  take  who 
chose,  in  honour  of  the  coronation  of  this  Edward,  who  at  this 
time  was  thirty-six  years  of  age.  Alexander,  King  of  Scotland, 
did  him  homage  at  this  time,  then  went  to  his  own  country,  where 
soon  after  Margaret,  his  wife,  Edward's  sister,  died.  She  had 
two  sons,  Edward  and  David,  and  a  daughter  Margaret,  who 
afterwards  was  Queen  of  Norway.  The  two  sons  died  during 
their  father's  lifetime,  at  the  age  of  twenty  years. 

Soon  afterwards,  in  the  year  following  this  coronation, 
Llewelyn,  Prince  of  Wales,  sent  beyond  seas  for  the  daughter  of 
the  Earl  of  Montfort  to  make  her  his  wife.  She  was  captured 
by  the  seamen  of  Bristol  on  her  way  to  Snowdon  and  taken  before 
King  Edward,  who  suspected  from  this  treaty  of  marriage  that 
Llewelyn  bore  him  no  good  will.  Moreover,  because  Llewelyn 
had  not  come  to  his  coronation,  whither  he  was  summoned  for 
his  homage,  he  [  ?  Edward]  took  offence  and  declared  war.  The 
King  entered  Wales,,  captured  the  castle  of  Rhuddlan,  driving 
thence  the  said  Llewelyn  and  forcing  him  to  seek  terms,  who 

(*)  i  gth  August. 


io    The  '  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray 

yielded  himself  to  the  King  for  50,000  marks,  upon  condition 
of  becoming  the  King's  liege.(2)  Then  he  [Llewelyn]  took  away 
with  him  the  said  damoisel. 

Next  year  (3)  the  King  caused  Llewelyn  to  be  summoned  by 
brief  to  his  Parliament,  but  he  refused,  and  again  took  up 
arms ;  but  he  did  not  persist,  but  once  more  reconciled  with 
the  King,  upon  condition  that  he  would  be  guilty  of  no  contempt 
from  that  time  forward,  on  pain  of  the  punishment  which  was 
due. 

David,  brother  of  Llewelyn,  Prince  of  Wales,  was  of  the  King's 
household.  The  King  had  bestowed  Trodsham  upon  him  and  his 
heirs.  Which  David  was  crafty,  a  spy  upon  the  King's  counsels, 
biding  his  time.  He  joined  the  Welsh  who  once  more  were 
beginning  war  under  his  brother. (4)  The  King  moved  a  great 
army  to  Wales,  and  caused  a  bridge  of  barges  to  be  thrown  across 
an  arm  of  the  sea  towards  Snowdon,  because  the  passes  in  the 
woods  and  mountains,  which  the  Welsh  had  occupied,  made  the 
other  route  a  difficult  one.  The  King's  troops  foolishly  began 
the  said  crossing  before  the  bridge  was  complete,  and  were 
repulsed  by  the  Welsh  who  were  formed  in  ambush  on  the  other 
side.  Here  Roger  de  Clifford,  William  de  Lindsey,  John  fitz- 
Robert,  'and  Lucas  de  Towny  were  drowned,  and  many  others 
perished  in  the  crush  of  their  repulse.  At  low  tide  John  de 
Vesci,  who  had  lately  come  from  over  sea,  passed  across  into 
Snowdon  with  Basques  (5)  and  brigands  of  Aragon,  whom  he  had 
brought  with  him,  and  these  wasted  the  country  lamentably. 
David,  the  brother  of  Llewelyn,  took  to  flight,  which  threw  the 
prince,  his  brother,  into  such  a  panic  that  he  lost  all  confidence 
and  went  off  with  a  few  followers.  Suddenly  he  encountered 
John  Giffard  and  Edmond  de  Mortimer,  with  their  companies, 
who  had  left  the  King's  army  in  search  of  adventure.  These 
slew  him  and  his  people,  and  presented  his  head  to  the  King, 
which  was  fixed  on  the  Tower  of  London. 

At  the  same  time  Friar  John  of  Peckham  was  consecrated 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  by  the  Pope.(6)  And  Roger  de 
Mortimer  held  the  Round  Table  with  a  hundred  knights  at 
Kenilworth;  to  which  peaceable  revel  of  arms  came  knights 
errant  from  many  foreign  countries.  At  the  same  time  began 
the  sheep  scab  (7)  in  England ;  for  knights  returning  from  the 

(2)A.D.    1276-7.  (3)A.D.    1277. 

(4)A.D.  1282.  (5)Baskles.  (6)  A.D.  1279. 

(7)  La  roingne  des  berbis. 


The  Reign  of  Edward  I.  1 1 

Holy  Land  brought  home  sheep  with  great  tails  from  Cyprus, 
which  first  carried  hither  the  said  scab. 

At  the  same  time  the  coinage  was  changed,  and  was  called 
pollardes. 

Soon  afterwards  David  the  brother  of  Llewelyn  was  taken  near 
Denbigh,  and  was  hanged  and  drawn  by  decree  of  the  King,  his 
quarters  being  sent  to  divers  places.  The  King  bestowed  the 
lordships  of  Wales  upon  divers  seigneurs  of  England,  on  con- 
dition that  they  should  dwell  there,  which  they  did,  and  led  a 
jolly  life,  and  took  much  delight  in  hounds  and  hawks,  and  in 
horse  racing  and  leaping,  and  especially  in  killing  deer  by  hunting 
them  on  horseback. 

In  the  year  of  grace  1284,  his  [King  Edward's]  son,  Edward, 
was  born  in  the  castle  of  Carnarvon,  in  Wales,  and  in  the  same 
year  his  other  son,  Alfonso,  died  at  Windsor,  being  the  King's 
eldest  son ;  and  his  daughter,  Mary,  became  a  nun  at  Amesbury. 
King  Alexander  of  Scotland  after  the  death  of  the  King's  sister,(8) 
took  to  wife  the  daughter  of  the  Count  of  Flanders,  by  whom  he 
had  no  offspring. 

This  King  Edward  caused  the  Jews  to  be  expelled  from  his 
realm,  wherefore  he  took  [a  tax  of]  a  fifteenth  from  the  laity  and 
a  tenth  from  the  clergy. (9) 

The  King  passed  into  Gascony  to  compose  the  war  between 
the  King  of  Aragon  and  the  Prince  del  More,  who  had  submitted 
all  their  dispute  to  his  award.  While  the  King  was  over  there, 
the  Earl  of  Cornwall  remained  Guardian  of  England. 

Rhys-ap-Merodach,  a  seigneur  of  Wales,  rose  in  arms  on 
account  of  injury  which  Payn  Tiptoft  had  done  him  by  haughti- 
ness and  malice,  which  Rhys-ap-Merodach  refused  to  put  up 
with  at  the  commandment  of  the  King ;  wherefore  he  was  after- 
wards hanged  and  drawn  at  York  when  the  King  returned  from 
over  sea. 

King  Edward  discovered  such  default  during  his  absence  on 
the  part  of  his  justices  and  officers  that  he  caused  some  to  be 
exiled,  as  Thomas  de  Weyland,  Rafe  de  Engham,  and  Hugh  del 
Chauncelery ;  Adam  de  Stratton  was  fined ;  the  faithful  ones 
were  continued  in  their  offices,  as  Elys  de  Ethingham  and  Johan. 
de  Meckingham. 

At  this  time  Acre  was  lost  by  the  Christians. 

Also  in  this  year  Queen  Eleanor  died.(10) 

(8)  Queen  Margaret  of  Scotland,  sister  of  Edward  ;  d.  1275. 
(9)  A.D.  1280.  (10)  z8th  Nov.,  1290. 


12    The  c  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray 

King  Alexander  of  Scotland,  riding  one  night  to  [visit]  his 
aforesaid  wife,  fell  from  his  palfrey,  near  Kinghorn,  and  broke  his 
neck,(u)  to  the  great  inconvenience  of  the  two  realms ;  his  sons 
were  dead,  and  he  had  no  issue  save  the  daughter  of  his  daughter, 
Queen  Margaret  of  Norway.  The  lords  of  Scotland — prelates, 
earls  and  barons,  and  the  comune,  foresaw  trouble  afar  from  a 
disputed  succession.(12)  They  sent  to  King  Edward  of  England 
in  Gascony  a  request  that,  in  order  to  secure  peace,  he  would 
consent  to  his  eldest  son,  Edward  of  Carnarvon,  taking  to  wife 
Margaret,  the  daughter  of  Queen  Margaret  of  Norway,  daughter 
of  the  said  Alexander  who  broke  his  neck.  To  which  [proposal] 
the  councils  of  both  realms  consented  on  the  condition  that  the 
said  Edward  of  Carnarvon  should  dwell  in  Scotland  during  his 
father's  life,  and  that  after  his  [father's]  death,  he  should  always 
dwell  one  year  in  one  realm  and  the  next  in  the  other,  and  that  he 
should  leave  behind  him  all  his  officers  and  ministers  of  one 
realm  when  he  entered  the  marches  of  the  other  realm,  so  that 
his  council  should  always  be  of  that  nation  in  whose  realm 
he  was  dwelling  for  the  time  being. 

Assent  was  given  [to  this]  by  the  King  on  arriving  at  his  house 
and  [a  request]  was  sent  to  Rome  for  dispensation,  and  an 
embassy  to  Norway  to  ask  for  the  said  Margaret.  This  envoy 
was  a  cleric  of  Scotland,  Master  Weland,  who  perished  with  the 
said  maiden  upon  the  coast  of  Buchan,  in  returning  to  Scotland. 

At  this  same  time  King  Edward  of  England,  who  was  without 
a  wife,  and  had  only  one  son,  hearing  tell  of  Blanche,  daughter  of 
King  Philip  of  France,  demanded  her  in  marriage, (13)  on  condi- 
tion that  the  King  of  England  should  enfeoff  the  King  of  France 
in  Gascony,  and  that  the  King  of  France  should  re-enfeoff 
the  King  of  England  in  Gascony  with  his  daughter  in  marriage, 
which  was  agreed. (14)  But  the  said  King  of  France  refused  to 
re-enfeoff  to  the  said  English  King  in  his  territory  of  Gascony,  but 
retained  it  as  his  own  demesne ;  neither  would  he  give  the 
aforesaid  daughter,  but  pretended  summons  upon  the  King 
of  England  to  come  before  his  Parliament  [to  answer]  for 
depredations  committed  by  the  Cinque  Ports  (15)  upon  the 
Normans ;  designing,  in  disregard  or  treaty,  to  deprive  the 
said  Edward  of  his  territory  of  Gascony  by  process  in  his 
[Philip's]  Court.  Whereupon  the  said  Edward  prepared  a  great 
array  against  Gascony,(16)  renouncing  his  homage  to  the  King  of 

(n)  i  yth  March,  1286.          (")  Ctalange  du  realme.  (13)  A.D.  1293. 

(14)  qi  ceffat.        (15)  Let  Fiportz.       (16)  Se  adressa  de  grant  aray  deuen  Gascoin. 


The  Reign  of  Edward  I.  13 

France  for  Gascony  by  the  Cordelier,  William  of  Gainsborough, 
and  the  Jacobin,  Hugh  of  Manchester;  which  friars  the  Count 
d'Artois,  having  seized  them  as  they  passed  through  his  land  on 
their  errand,  caused  to  be  imprisoned  for  a  long  time. 

King  Edward  had  prepared  a  great  expedition  against 
Gascony,  and  had  reached  Portsmouth  in  setting  out,  when 
news  arrived  that  Madock  and  Morgan,  believing  that  he  had 
passed  beyond  sea,  had  raised  the  commonalty  of  Wales  against 
him  in  war.  Wherefore  the  King  abandoned  his  voyage  at  that 
time,  and  marched  into  Wales.  But  already  he  had  sent  into 
Gascony  several  barons  of  his  realm,  who,  upon  their  arrival, 
found  not  so  much  land  in  the  obeisance  of  their  lord  the  King 
as  they  could  make  good  their  footing  upon.  But  before  long 
the  people  of  Bordeaux  rose  and  joined  them  [the  English],  and 
drove  out  the  French  whom  King  Louis  of  France  had  placed 
there.  The  English  recovered  much  land  in  that  country  to  the 
use  of  the  King,  wherefore  this  King  Edward,  as  it  was  said, 
ever  afterwards  showed  special  favour  to  the  knights  who  took 
part  in  this  voyage  to  Gascony. 

The  aforesaid  English  barons  encountered  Charles  of  Valois, 
with  the  power  of  France,  at  Belgard,  where  many  English  were 
slain  and  taken,  but  not  thoroughly  defeated ;  they  held  the 
field  all  day,  but  retired  during  the  night,  while  the  French  kept 
their  ground  upon  the  field  all  night,  wherefore  they  claimed  to 
have  won  the  victory.  And  truth  to  tell,  the  English  suffered 
the  heavier  loss,  for  there  were  taken  Monsire  John  de  Saint 
John,  father  and  son,  Monsire  Rafe  de  Touny,  and  many  others, 
most  of  whom  never  recovered  from  their  sufferings  in  a  horrible, 
villainous  prison. 

Meanwhile  the  King  had  destroyed  and  scattered  the  Welsh 
rebels,  and  had  taken  Madock  and  Morgan  and  caused  them  to 
be  hanged  and  drawn,  and  then  addressed  himself  to  the  rescue 
of  his  people  in  Gascony.  He  sent  thither  his  brother, 
Edmond,(17)  who  there  met  with  a  noble  death.  He  himself 
[King  Edward]  went  to  Flanders  in  support  of  Count  Robert, 
who  was  at  war  with  the  French. 

The  said  King  Edward  sent  Master  John  de  Glantoun,  Arch- 
deacon of  Richmond,  to  the  Pope  to  complain  of  the  bad  faith  of 
the  King  of  France,  and  of  his  intention  to  take  his  heritage 
from  him.  By  other  envoys  he  made  alliance  with  the  King  of 
Germany,  and  with  the  King  of  Aragon,  with  the  Archbishop  of 

(17)  '  Crouchback,'  Earl  of  Lancaster. 


14    The  c  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray 

Cologne,  and  with  the  Count  of  Burgundy,  with  the  Count  of 
Savoy,  and  with  several  princes  of  Germany,  who  all  failed 
him  at  need ;  which  when  he  perceived,  he  made  peace 
with  the  King  of  France,  who  at  the  same  time  gave  him  his 
sister,  Margaret,  to  wife,(18)  on  account  of  the  youth  of  Blanche, 
and,  in  making  peace,  surrendered  [to  Edward]  a  great  part  of 
Gascony. 

While  King  Edward  lay  at  Ghent,  the  townspeople  began 
rioting  and  quarrelling  with  the  King's  people.  The  Welsh  who 
were  there  swam  across  the  Scheldt,  robbed  houses  and  did  much 
mischief.  King  Edward  sent  to  seek  the  Count  of  Flanders  and 
said  to  him — *  Sir  Count,  keep  your  people  quiet,  or  I  shall  cause 
it  to  be  said  that  "  here  once  stood  Ghent  "  ' ! — upon  which  order 
was  restored. 

While  King  Edward  was  at  Ghent,  (19)  honourable  envoys 
came  on  behalf  of  the  commons  of  Scotland,  and  of  the  prelates, 
earls  and  barons,  to  inform  him  that  Margaret,  daughter  of  the 
Queen  of  Norway,  who  was  the  daughter  of  their  King 
Alexander,  had  died  at  sea  on  the  voyage  to  Scotland,  and 
beseeching  his  lordship  that  he  would  interfere  in  the  interests  of 
the  country's  peace  to  secure  for  them  that  King  who  had  most 
right  to  be  so ;  because  they  apprehended  great  disputes  among 
divers  puissant  lords,  both  of  the  realm  and  of  elsewhere,  who 
should  claim  the  succession,  and  also  on  account  of  sundry  dis- 
turbances which  had  broken  out  in  the  country,  for  every  one  of 
these  great  lords  behaved  like  a  king  on  his  own  lands.  The  King 
replied  that  he  would  return  to  his  realm  and  travel  towards  the 
Border,  and  that  he  would  take  their  request  into  consideration. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that,  according  to  the  chronicles  of  Scot- 
land, there  was  never  such  a  difficulty  [as  to]  who  should  be 
their  kings  of  the  right  line,  which  had  completely  failed  at  the 
time  of  three  successive  kings,  each  one  son  of  the  other.(20)  And 
for  that  reason  this  chronicle  aims  at  explaining  the  descent  of 
the  kings  and  the  pedigree  of  those  who  have  reigned  in  Scotland 

[Here    follow    six    folios    reciting    the    well-known    mythical 
(18)A.D.  1299. 

(19)  There  is  a  confusion  in  dates  here.     Edward  married  Margaret  of  France 
in  1299  ;  the  Scottish  dispute  was  referred  to  him  in  1291. 

(20)  The  meaning  here  is  very  obscure.     '  Et  fait  asauoir  qe  solonc  lez  cronicles 
Descoce  nestoit  vnqes   tiel  difficoulte  qi  enserroit   lour  roys  de  droit  ligne,  qe 
outrement  estoit  failly  en  le  hour  de  troys  roys  succiement,  chescun  fitz  dautre.' 


The  Reign  of  Edward  I.  15 

descent    of    the    Scots    from    Gaidel,    who    married    Scota,    the 
daughter  of  Pharaoh.] 

About  this  time  the  bridge  of  Berwick  across  the  Tweed  fell 
in  a  great  flood,  because  the  arches  were  too  low,  which  bridge 
had  lasted  only  nine  years  since  it  had  been  erected.  Soon  after 
this(21)  William  de  Vesci  gave  the  Honor  of  Alnwick  to  Antony 
Beck,  Bishop  of  Durham,  who,  because  of  the  hot  words  of  John, 
bastard  son  of  the  said  William,  sold  it  to  Henry  de  Percy.(22) 

By  the  time  that  King  Edward  of  England,  the  First  after  the 
Conquest,  had  performed  that  which  he  had  to  do  in  Flanders  in 
the  aforesaid  manner,  he  repaired  to  England  and  travelled  to  the 
march  of  Scotland,  where  he  caused  a  parliament  to  be  summoned 
at  Norham ;  whither  came  all  the  magnates  (23)  of  Scotland, 
requesting  him  as  sovereign  lord  to  cause  it  to  be  tried  who  should 
be  their  rightful  king ;  but  he  would  take  no  part  in  the  matter 
until  they  had  surrendered  all  the  fortresses  of  Scotland  to  him  as 
to  their  sovereign,  which  they  did,  and  he  placed  therein  his 
ministers  and  officers.  Now  all  the  magnates  of  Scotland  recog- 
nised this  sovereignty  by  overt  declaration,  and  all  those  who 
claimed  right  to  the  realm  of  Scotland  placed  themselves  entirely 
at  his  judgment,  to  which  all  set  their  seals  in  affirmation  of  the 
matter  to  be  debated.  This  parliament  of  Norham  was  [held] 
after  Easter  in  the  year  of  grace  1291,  whence  they  adjourned 
until  the  octave  of  Saint  John  (24)  in  the  same  year,  in  order 
that  whosoever  claimed  right  [to  the  throne]  in  Scotland  should 
come  to  Berwick  upon  the  said  day  and  receive  true  judgment. 

King  Edward  travelled  south,  and  sent  in  the  meantime,  by  his 
honourable  envoys,  to  all  the  universities  of  Christendom  to 
ascertain  the  opinions  and  advice  upon  this  matter  of  all  the 
experts  in  civil  and  canon  law.  The  said  King  Edward  returned 
on  the  said  day,  and  on  the  appointed  day  when  all  the  magnates 
of  the  two  realms  were  assembled  under  summons,  and  several 
[knights]  came  to  claim  their  right  upon  divers  grounds  to  the 
realm  of  Scotland ;  that  is  to  say — Florence,  Count  of  Holland, 
John  de  Balliol,  Robert  de  Brus,  John  de  Hastings,  John  de 
Comyn,  Patrick  Earl  of  March,  John  de  Vesci,  Nicholas  de 

(21)  Not  before  A.D.  I  297. 

(22)  The  sale  did  not  take  place  till    1 309.     See  De  Fonblanque's  dnnah  of 
the  House  of  Percy,  \.  64,  where,  however,  no  mention  is  made  of  the  dispute  with 
John  de  Vesci. 

(23)  Lez  grauntz.  (24)  ist  July. 


1 6    The  c  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray 

Soulis,  William  de  Ros  and  Patrick  Galightly.  All  these  put  in 
claim  by  different  challenge  in  form  of  petition  before  the  said 
King  Edward.  Then  it  was  decreed  by  the  said  King,  that 
twenty  of  the  most  eminent  persons  of  England,  and  twenty  other 
persons  of  Scotland,  very  eminent  and  discreet,  elected  by 
common  [assent],(25)  should  try  their  challenge ;  which  [persons] 
were  elected,  nominated,  attested  and  sworn,  and  received  time  to 
consider  [the  matter]  until  the  feast  of  Saint  Michael  (26)  next 
following. 

King  Edward  returned  into  England,  and  came  back  to  Ber- 
wick on  Saint  Michael's  day,  when  judgment  was  pronounced  in 
the  church  of  the  Trinity  that  the  right  of  succession  to  the  realm 
of  Scotland  [was  confined]  solely  to  the  issue  of  three  daughters  of 
David,  Earl  of  Huntingdon,  who  was  brother  of  King  William 
[the  Lion] ;  the  others  were  nonsuited. (27)  But  great 
difficulty  arose  in  regard  to  the  issue  of  the  two  elder 
daughters  of  the  said  Earl  David,  that  is  to  say,  between  John  de 
Balliol,  who  was  the  son  of  the  daughter  Margaret,  eldest 
daughter  of  the  said  earl,  and  Robert  de  Brus  the  elder,  who  was 
the  son  of  Isabel,  second  daughter  of  the  said  David  Earl  of 
Huntingdon;  and  between  these  there  were  great  pleadings. 
The  right  of  John  de  Hastings  issue  of  the  youngest  daughter, 
failed  entirely.(28)  Gilbert  de  Clare,  Earl  of  Gloucester,  vigor- 
ously supported  the  contention  of  Robert  de  Brus,  because  he  had 
married  his  [Clare's]  sister.  The  Earl  of  Warren  and  Antony 
Bishop  of  Durham  [were]  of  John  de  Balliol's  party.  The 
pleaders  and  advocates  urged  for  Robert  de  Brus  that  he  was  the 
nearest  heir  male,  inasmuch  as  he  was  the  son  of  Isabel,  daughter 
of  the  said  Earl  David  of  Huntingdon,  one  degree  nearer  to  the 
said  earl  than  was  John  de  Balliol,  who  was  the  son  of  Dervorguile, 
daughter  of  Margaret,  the  daughter  of  the  said  Earl  of  Hunt- 
ingdon [and]  wife  of  Alan  of  Galloway ;  wherefore  he  demanded 
the  royal  right  as  the  nearest  heir.  The  advocates  of  John  de 
Balliol  said  that,  as  his  mother  could  not  reign,  he  claimed  the 
right  in  succession  to  his  ancestor  as  his  lawful  lineal  descendant, 
and  according  to  the  law  of  their  judge,  whereunto  they  were  in 
submission,  agreement  and  assurance.  So  it  was  found  by  the 
forty  persons  of  both  realms,  upon  their  oath,  that  the  right  lay 
with  John  de  Balliol,  as  being  the  issue  of  the  eldest  daughter  of 
David,  Earl  of  Huntingdon. 

(25)  Per  comun  eleccioun.  (2<5)  2gth  September. 

(27)  Foriugez.  (28)  q/fe  (?  Oste)  de  tout. 


The  Reign  of  Edward  I.  17 

In  accordance  with  which  verdict,  King  Edward  of  England 
awarded  the  right  to  the  realm  to  John  de  Balliol,  whereupon, 
in  presence  of  the  said  King  Edward,  all  the  magnates  of  Scot- 
land yielded  allegiance  to  John  de  Balliol  with  oath  and  homage, 
except  Robert  de  Brus  the  elder,  who  persisted  in  his  claim,  and 
declared  in  the  hearing  of  King  Edward  that  he  would  never  do 
homage.  He  surrendered  the  land  he  owned  in  Scotland,  the 
Vale  of  Annan,  to  his  son,  the  second  Robert,  and  son  of  the 
daughter  of  the  Earl  of  Gloucester,  who  was  no  more  willing 
than  his  father  to  make  allegiance  to  the  said  John  de  Balliol; 
therefore  he  said  to  his  son,  the  third  Robert,  who  was  son  of 
the  daughter  and  heiress  of  the  Earl  of  Carrick,  and  was  after- 
wards King  of  Scotland — '  Take  thou  our  land  in  Scotland,  if 
you  desire  it,  for  never  shall  I  become  his  man.5  This  third 
Robert,  who  was  at  the  time  a  bachelor  of  King  Edward's 
chamber,  did  homage  to  John  de  Balliol;  which  John  was 
crowned  after  the  manner  of  the  country  at  Scone  on  Saint 
Andrew's  day,  in  the  year  of  grace  1292. 

This  John  de  Balliol  had  three  sisters;  the  first,  Margaret, 
lady  of  Gilsland  ;  the  second  was  lady  de  Quenci ;  the  third  had 
John  Comyn  for  husband,  father  of  him  whom  Robert  Brus 
killed  at  Dumfries;  and  the  said  John  de  Balliol  had  but  one 
son,  named  Edward. 

This  John  de  Balliol,  King  of  Scotland,  came  to  Newcastle-on- 
Tyne  at  Christmas  next  after  his  coronation,  and  there  did  royal 
homage  for  his  realm  of  Scotland  to  King  Edward  the  First 
after  the  Conquest ;  also  he  was  seized  anew  of  all  the  strong 
places  of  Scotland  which  were  in  possession  of  the  King  of 
England.  Shortly  afterwards  an  appeal  was  lodged  in  the  court 
of  the  King  of  England  by  a  gentleman  of  Scotland,  because  he 
could  not  obtain  justice,  as  it  appeared  to  him,  in  the  court  of  the 
King  of  Scotland  against  one  of  his  neighbours;  wherefore 
King  John  of  Scotland  was  summoned  by  writ  of  the  King  of 
England  to  do  justice  to  the  said  person  ;  on  account  of  which  the 
Council  of  Scotland  was  immediately  disturbed. 

At  this  same  time  war  broke  out  afresh  between  the  King  of 
England  and  the  King  of  France,  arising  out  of  doings  by  the 
Bayonnaises  and  the  Cinque  Ports,(29)  mariners  at  Saint  Mahu, 
against  the  shipping  of  Normandy ;  wherefore  the  Council  of 
Scotland  appointed  four  bishops  and  four  earls  and  four  barons 
to  rule  (30)  the  land  of  Scotland,  by  whose  advice  rebellion  was 

(29)  Fyportes.  (30)  reauler. 


1 8    The  c  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray 

planned  against  the  King  of  England.  Also  they  sent  as  envoys 
to  the  King  of  France  John  de  Soulis  and  others,  who  made  with 
him  an  alliance  against  the  King  of  England;  which  King  of 
England,  being  by  no  means  sure  about  the  Scots,  appointed 
Antony,  Bishop  of  Durham,  to  treat  with  them,  and,  during  the 
ensuing  negotiations  at  Jedworth,  one  of  the  cousins  of  the  said 
Bishop  of  Durham,  Buscy  by  name,  was  killed  in  a  mellay  among 
petty  chiefs.  Which  Bishop  of  Durham,  on  the  part  of  the  King 
of  England,  demanded  of  the  Scots  hostages  from  the  four 
castles  of  Berwick,  Roxburgh,  Edinburgh,  and  Stirling,  so  that  he 
might  have  security  for  them  [the  Scots]  during  the  war  with 
France.  Thereafter  he  presented  the  King's  writ  summoning 
their  King  John  to  appear  in  person  before  the  King  of  England's 
parliament  at  Newcastle-on-Tyne  at  mid  Lent ;  at  which  place 
and  time  neither  the  King  of  Scots,  nor  anybody  representing 
him,  appeared.  Wherefore  King  Edward  of  England  marched  to 
Scotland  with  a  great  army,  [and]  kept  the  feast  of  Easter  at 
Wark,  of  which  castle  Robert  de  Ros  was  lord,(31)  who  deserted 
the  service  of  the  said  King  of  England  on  the  third  day 
before  the  King's  coming,  left  the  castle  empty,  and  betook 
himself  to  Sanquhar,(32)  a  small  castle  which  he  had  in 
Scotland,  all  on  account  of  the  love  paramours  which  he  bore 
to  Christian  de  Moubray,  who  afterwards  would  not  deign  to 
take  him.(33) 

At  this  time  seven  earls  of  Scotland,  Buchan,  Menteith, 
Strathearn,  Lennox,  Ross,  Athol  and  Mar,  with  John  Comyn 
and  many  other  barons,  invaded  England  in  force,  spared  nothing, 
burnt  the  suburbs  of  Carlisle  and  laid  siege  to  that  place.  King 
Edward,  hearing  of  this,  took  up  a  position  before  Berwick,(34) 
and  the  first  day  he  was  there,  when  the  King  sat  eating  in  his 
tent,  one  of  his  provision  ships,  by  a  blunder  of  her  crew,  went 
aground  upon  the  Scottish  shore  close  to  the  town,  which  at  this 
time  was  not  walled  but  enclosed  by  a  high  embankment.  The 
townspeople  rushed  down  to  the  ship,  set  her  on  fire  and  cut  to 
pieces  the  crew.  At  the  cry  "  Every  man  to  arms ! "  in  the 
King's  host,  the  fierce  y9ung  fellows,  spurring  forth  mounted 
the  banks  on  horseback.  Then,  where  the  townsfolk  had 
made  a  path  along  the  fosse,  they  [the  English]  entered  pell- 
mell  with  those  on  horseback,  whoever  could  get  in  first.  Inside 

(31)  Sires.  (32)  Senewar. 

(33)  Qe  apres  ne  le  delgna  auoir.  (84)  a8th  March,  1296. 


The  Reign  of  Edward  I.  19 

a  great  number  of  people  of  Fife  and  Forfar,(35)  who  were  in 
garrison  of  the  town,  were  killed.  That  same  night  the  said 
King  Edward  wholly  captured  the  town  and  the  castle,  where  he 
made  his  abode,  and  whither  came  to  him  a  Minorite  friar,  warden 
of  the  friars  of  Roxburgh,  by  authority  of  King  John  of  Scotland 
bringing  him  letters  renouncing  the  homage  of  the  King  of  Scot- 
land by  letters  patent  (36)  from  the  King  and  the  Community  of 
Scotland,  which  letters  the  King  received  and  caused  them  to  be 
notarially  registered. 

At  the  same  time(37)  the  aforesaid  earls  of  Scotland  re-entered 
England,  burnt  the  priory  of  Hexham  and  wrought  great  damage 
to  the  country.  The  Earl  of  March,  Patrick-with-the-Black- 
Beard,  who  alone  of  all  the  lords  of  Scotland  had  remained 
obedient  to  the  King  of  England,  and  was  with  the  King  at  the 
taking  of  Berwick,  came  to  announce  to  the  King  that  his  wife 
had  received  into  his  castle  of  Dunbar  her  kinsmen,  enemies  of 
Scotland,  who  had  imprisoned  (38)  his  officers  and  held  the  castle 
against  him.  He  therefore  asked  assistance  from  the  King,  and 
wished  to  set  out  that  very  night.  The  King  gave  him  the  Earls 
of  Warren  and  Warwick,  with  great  supplies  by  sea  and  land,  so 
that  before  sunrise  next  day  he  [March]  had  laid  siege  to  the 
castle  of  Dunbar. 

The  lords  of  Scotland  who  were  assembled,  hearing  of  the  siege, 
marched  by  night  upon  the  place  and  came  in  the  morning  to  Spott, 
between  which  place  and  Dunbar  they  gave  battle  to  the  said 
English  besiegers,  when  the  Scots  were  defeated  [in]  the  first 
battle  of  this  war.(39)  There  were  taken  prisoners  in  the  castle 
the  Earls  of  Menteith,  Athol  and  Ross,  and  seven  barons — John 
Comyn  the  younger,  William  de  Saint  Clare,  Richard  Syward 
the  elder,  John  of  Inchmartin,  Alexander  de  Moray,  Edmund 
Comyn  of  Kilbride,  with  nine  and  twenty  knights,  eighty 
esquires,  who  were  all  sent  to  prisons  in  different  parts  of 
England. 

(To  be  continued.) 

(35)  De  Fyffe  et  de  Fontherlk.     Fife  and  Fothreve  formed  one  of  the  seven 
territorial  divisions  of  Scotland,  comprising    the   modern    counties  of   Fife  and 
Kinross.     This  is  a  very  mild  description  of  the  ferocious  sack  of  Berwick  perpe- 
trated by  Edward,  3Oth  March,  I  296. 

(36)  Par  lettres  pupplls. 

(37)  This  refers  to  the  expedition  of  the  earls  from  Carlisle.     Hexham  was 
burnt  8th  April,  1296. 

(38)  Embote^  perhaps  attacked  or  overpowered.  (39)  z8th  April,  1296. 


Presbytery  and  Popery  in  the  Sixteenth  Century 

AFTER  the  Reformation  had  ousted  the  Church  of  Rome 
from  her  place  of  influence  and  authority  in  Scotland,  the 
Presbyteries  of  the  Church,  which  were  set  up  in  1581,  had  many 
cases  of  suspected  popery  brought  before  them.  This  period  of 
alarm  and  diligence  in  rooting  out  popery  began  in  1596.  The 
proceedings  of  the  Assembly,  which  met  in  Edinburgh  on 
Tuesday,  3Oth  March,  of  that  year,  when  the  National  Covenant 
was  renewed,  is  summed  up,  by  Calderwood,  in  the  words, 
c  Here  end  the  sincere  General  Assemblies  of  the  Kirk  of 
Scotland.'  The  favour  James  VI.  showed  to  the  popish  Lords 
fed  the  flame  of  alarm,  and  the  leaders  of  the  Church  set 
themselves  to  counteract  the  hostile  influence.  The  nature  of 
these  proceedings  may  be  understood  from  certain  doings  which 
are  recorded  in  the  Minute  Books  of  the  Presbytery  of  Stirling. 

I.     LADY  LIVINGSTONE. 

Lord  and  Lady  Livingstone  were  justly  suspected  of  favour 
for  the  Roman  Catholic  faith,  and  at  the  General  Assembly,  held 
at  Burntisland  on  I2th  May,  1601,  among  the  causes  of  defection 
which  had  '  entered  in  this  Kirk  from  the  puritie,  zeall,  and 
practise  of  religion,'  was  '  the  education  of  their  Majestie's 
children  in  the  companie  of  professed,  avowed,  and  obstinate 
papists,  such  as  Ladie  Livingstone,'  etc.  '  The  King  promised  to 
transport  his  awin  daughter  fra  my  Ladie  Livingstone  before 
Martinmas  nixt '  (Row's  History,  pp.  206,  208).  The  Presby- 
tery of  Stirling  endeavoured  to  win  Lady  Livingstone  over  to 
the  true  faith,  and  their  dealings  with  her  present  interesting 
features  of  their  own.  The  extracts  given  show  how  difficult  it 
was  to  bring  her  into  obedience  to  the  Kirk.  She  was  Helinor 
Hay,  the  wife  of  Alexander,  last  Lord  Livingstone,  who  was 
created,  in  1 600,  Earl  of  Linlithgow. 


Presbytery  and  Popery  21 

1596.  July  7.  'The  qlk  day  the  minister  of  Falkirk  was 
desyrit  to  report  my  lady  levingstones  behaveor  (gif  she  be  in 
his  paroche)  and  quhow  she  keipis  the  conditionis  appointed  be 
ye  last  generall  assemblie,  he  anseres  that  she  hes  neuir  keipit  any 
ane  of  ye  saids  conditionis,  Bot  rather  it  appeiris  that  the  delay  of 
the  kirk  hes  wroght  in  hir  ane  greatar  obstinacie  &  contempt  of 
ye  evangell,  Inrespect  Rol  diksone  ane  alledgit  Jesuit  & 
trafficquar  was  receavit  in  ye  plaice  of  Callendar  besyd  falkirk 
quhair  he  remainit  ane  lang  spaice  expres  contrar  ye  act  of 
parliament,  And  on  ye  first  day  of  his  receaving  yair  quhilk  was 
sonday  my  lord  levingstone  remainit  all  day  fra  the  kirk.  My 
lady  hes  as  zit  on  ye  ruif  of  hir  bed  monuments  of  Idolatrie, 
haid  a  beanfyr  biggit  besyd  ye  plaice  of  Callendar  on  midsomer 
evin  last,  done  be  Christane  hay  hir  gentill  woman  (as  is 
reported).  My  lady  prophanit  ye  last  Sabboth  quhair  on  the 
holie  communione  was  ministrat  &  the  new  covenant  maid  in  all 
the  kirks  within  thir  bounds  be  ryding  to  Edr.  Off  ye  quhilks 
the  brethrein  thinks  meit  that  ye  presbytrie  of  Edr  be  advertesit 
and  thair  Judgment  cravit  quhat  yai  think  meit  salbe  done  with 
ye  said  lady.'  Lord  Livingstone  was  at  the  same  time  ordered 
*  to  communicate  on  Sonday  nixt  with  the  remanent  parochinars 
of  falkirk  that  hes  not  zit  communicat  and  to  mak  the  new 
covenant  with  the  rest  of  Gods  pepill.' 

The  Communion  was  held  at  that  period  generally  on  two 
successive  Sabbaths,  so  as  to  overtake  the  whole  of  the  people, 
and  also  to  afford  an  opportunity  of  gathering  in  those  whose 
faith  might  be  suspected. 

1596.  July  28.  Lady  Livingstone  was  summoned  to  this 
day  to  state  why  the  sentence  of  excommunication  should  not 
be  pronounced  against  her.  There  compeared  David  Murray 
in  Stirling  and  Alexr  Livingstone  in  Burnsyd  who  gave  in 
some  paltry  excuse,  such  as  ill  health  &c.  The  Presbytery 
ordained  Mr  Patrick  Simsone  (minister  of  Stirling)  and  Mr 
Adam  'Bellenden  (minister  of  Falkirk,  who  afterwards  became 
Bishop  of  Dunblane)  '  to  pass  to  my  lord  and  lady  Levingstone 
on  the  2d  August  to  try  the  trewth  of  the  said  excuse. 
2.  To  admoneis  my  ladie  for  not  keeping  of  ye  conditionis 
Injonit  to  hir  be  the  last  generall  assemblie.  .  .  .  and  gif  thay 
ar  not  keipit  in  tyme  tocum  the  brethrein  will  proceid  to 
excommunication  against  hir  without  any  admonitionis.  3.  To 
ask  hir  quhow  she  is  resoluit  to  thais  four  artickilis  delyverit 
to  hir  in  wret  and  confermit  be  testimoneis  of  holie  scriptur 


22  Presbytery  and  Popery 

and  ancients.  To  desyr  My  lord  to  remove  that  monument 
of  Idolatrie  To  wit,  the  piktar  of  ye  crucifix  at  ye  ruif  of  his 
ladeis  bed.  2.  admoneis  his  lo.  for  not  hanting  the  preichings 
ilk  sabboth  in  tymes  bygane  and  that  he  amend  ye  samin 
in  tymes  coming.  3.  Qwhy  he  cawsit  men  withdraw  thame 
selfis  from  ye  holie  communione  to  ryd  with  Iwm  on  ye 
Sabboth  expres  against  gods  law.  4.  Qwhy  he  absented  him 
self  fra  ye  holie  communione  the  last  tyme  of  ye  ministratione 
yairof  in  his  paroche  kirk  twa  divers  sondays.  5.  Qwhen  & 
quhair  he  last  communicat.  6  Qwhy  he  sufferit  ane  beanfyr 
to  be  sett  out  besyd  his  lo.  plaice  on  midsomer  evin  last  to 
ye  dishoner  of  god  and  evill  exampill  to  all  the  cuntrie. 

7.  To  confer  with  his  lo.  on  ye  points  of  religione  mentionat 
in   ye   confessione  of  faith    and    finding   his   lo.    fullie    resoluit 
in    all    be    his   great    aith    to    receave.  his    subscriptione    yairto. 

8.  To    desyr    his    lo.    to    present    Robart    diksone    befoir    ye 
presbytrie  according  to  his  lo.  promeis  reported.     And  last  to 
desyr    his    lo.    quhat   he    will    voluntarlie   give    to    support    ye 
Repairing  of  Allwn  brig.'     The  said  Commissioners  to  report. 

On  26th  August,  Lady  Livingstone  was  decerned  to  be  ex- 
communicated { as  ane  profest  papist.'  On  her  behalf  '  compeired 
Thomas  Callendar  brother  to  Wm-  Callendar  of  Banclo1  procurator 
for  ye  said  Ladie  and  alledgit  in  hir  name  that  she  was  lyand  seik 
and  my'  not  travell  to  this  plaice  this  day  without  dainger  of  hir 
lyf.  .  .  .  Andro  miln  chirurgean  in  Linlythgow  deponit  ye 
samin  be  his  great  aith.  .  .  .  and  alleged  farther  that  she  had 
been  continually  sick  since  last  General  Assembly.  *  Inrespect  of 
the  qlk  alledgeance  of  Inhabilitie  the  brethrein  appoints  Mr 
Patrik  Simsone,  Mr-  Wm-  Stirling  (minister  of  Kincardine)  and 
Mr<  Jone-  Millar  (minister  of  Logic)  to  pas  to  ye  said  Lady  in  ye 
plaice  of  Callendar  at  falkirk  and  thair  to  try  quhow  thais  condi- 
tionis  conteinit  in  ye  said  act  ar  keipit  be  the  said  Lady  and  con- 
fer with  hir  upone  ye  contraverted  heads  of  Christiane  religione.' 

The  brethren  reported,  on  4th  November,  that  they  passed  as 
instructed,  but  to  find  *  that  the  said  Ladie  was  removit  towards 
Edr  on  the  day  preceiding,'  of  which  the  brethren  of  the  presby- 
tery of  Edinburgh  were  immediately  apprised.  Thus  by  pre- 
tended sickness  and  by  moving  from  place  to  place,  her  ladyship 
managed  to  evade  the  brethren.  However,  on  I5th  December,  a 
deputation  passed  to  her  at  Linlithgow,  and  after  long  conference 
reported  some  signs  of  amendment,  and  she  was  ordained  '  to 
frequent  the  heiring  of  gods  word  prechit  in  ye  Kirk  ot 


in  the  Sixteenth  Century  23 

Linlithgow  seing  she  dwells  in  the  plaice  yairof  qlk  is  verie  neir 
to  ye  kirk  and  that  she  have  reiding  of  gods  word  ilk  day 
in  hir  chambir.' 

She  continued  a  Roman  Catholic,  and  was  ultimately  excom- 
municated. Her  husband,  Lord  Livingstone,  always  seemed  to 
be  more  pliable.  At  the  General  Assembly  held  at  Holyrood 
House,  on  loth  November  1602,  over  which  Mr.  Patrick  Galloway 
presided  as  Moderator,  the  King  being  personally  present,  *  Alex- 
ander, Earle  of  Linlithgow  gave  in  a  supplication,  regraiting  that 
his  Ladie  Dame  Helenor  Hay  had  not  obeyit  what  was  injoyned 
hir  at  the  tyme  of  hir  relaxation  from  excommunication,  so  that 
he  saw  nothing  but  that  she  deserved  to  be  excommunicat  againe  ; 
and  seing  he  resolved  to  abyde  constantlie  with  the  trueth,  and  to 
doe  what  he  could  for  hir  reclameing,  he  intreated  that  he  might 
be  pitied  in  spairing  of  hir,  whom  he  could  not  forgoe  or  quyt, 
being  his  married  wife.  The  Assemblie  resolves  to  superseed  hir 
excommunication  till  the  nixt  Assemblie,  provyding  the  king's 
daughter  be  taken  out  of  hir  companie  ;  papists  haunt  not  that 
house  ;  that  she  be  catechized  in  the  true  religion  ;  and  that  his 
Lordship  cause  deall  with  hir  at  all  tymes  carefullie  for  hir  con- 
version '  (Row). 

II.     LADY  CROMLIX. 

Another  lady,  who  came  under  suspicion  as  a  papist,  was  Lady 
Cromlix,  the  wife  of  Sir  James  Chisholm  of  Dunderne.  She  was 
more  easily  dealt  with  than  Lady  Livingstone. 

1596.  July  14.  The  minister  of  Dunblane  reported  that  he 
f  requyrit  and  admonishit  Dame  Anna  beattoun  spous  to  Sir 
James  Chisholme  of  Dunderne  kny1  to  Repair  ather  to  ye  kirk  of 
Logic  or  S.  ninian  kirk  to  receave  the  holie  sacrament  of  ye  lordis 
Suppar  the  last  sonday  seing  she  receavit  not  ye  samin  in  hir  awin 
kirk  the  sonday  preceiding,  as  he  was  appointed  the  last  day. 
Quha  gave  him  na  direct  anser  nayer  affirmative  nor  negative, 
And  siclyk  the  ministers  of  S.  Ninian  Kirk  &  Logy  Reports  that 
she  came  not  to  ather  of  yair  kirks  this  last  sonday.'  .  .  .  She 
was  ordained  to  be  summoned  under  the  pain  of  disobedience  to 
answer  therefor. 

1596.  August  4.  {Dame  Anna  beattoun'  (Lady  Cromlix)  did 
not  appear  in  answer  to  the  summons  but  'Sir  James  Chisholme 
of  Cromlix '  sent  by  his  servant  a  letter  of  excuse,  '  bearand  that 
his  wyf  is  disaisit  of  ane  great  humor  in  hir  head  that  she  is  not 
abill  to  com  furth  of  the  hous  to  the  air  bot  ye  said  humor. 


24  Presbytery  and  Popery 

ordinarlie  ingenereis  ane  extraordinar  paine  to  hir  qlk  is^  the 
occasione  that  she  may  on  nawayes  com  heir  to  yis  assemblie.' 

At  next  meeting,  on  nth  August,  Sir  James  compeared  and 
declared  that  he  and  his  wife  were  fully  resolved  to  subscribe  and 
give  their  great  '  aiths.' 

It  appears  that  Sir  James  Chisholm  had  been,  previous  to  this, 
excommunicated  for  his  apostacy  to  Popery,  as  at  the  General 
Assembly,  held  at  Montrose  on  24th  June  1595,  '  Sir  James 
Chisholme  of  Cromlicks,  upon  his  humble  repentance,  is  relaxed 
fra  his  excommunication  for  his  apostasie  to  Poperie'  (Row, 
p.  167.).  This  was  the  reason  why  special  oversight  was  taken 
by  the  Presbytery  of  his  conduct  and  that  of  his  lady.  They 
adhered,  however,  to  the  reformed  faith,  and  so  the  matter  ended 
for  the  time.  But,  on  i4th  November,  1604,  Lady  Cromlix, 
now  designed  'Dame  Anna  beattone  relict  of  vmq11  Sir  Ja65 
Chisholme  of  Dundern  kny1,'  is  accused  of  'hir  absenting  from 
the  word  and  sacrament.'  Amendment,  however,  is  promised. 
On  the  2 1  st  of  the  same  month,  '  the  brethrein  ordainis  Mr  Wm 
Stirling  &  Mr  Andro  Zung  (minister  of  Dunblane)  to  confer  with 
Dame  Anna  beattone  relict  of  vmq11  Sir  James  Chisholme  of 
Dunderne  kny1  anent  hir  absenting  from  ye  word  and  Sacrament, 
and  quhat  she  will  promeis  for  amending  yairof  in  tymes  cuming 
and  that  thay  report  thair  diligence  heirin  to  the  brethrein  on 
ye  xxvin  of  this  instant.'  They  reported  that  <thay  receavit 
promeis  of  hir  that  she  sail  frequent  to  the  preaching  of  god  his 
word  in  tymes  cunning  quhen  she  is  in  the  toun  that  seikness  will 
permit  hir  and  sail  communicat  quhen  soevir  hir  minister  sail 
requyr  hir,  and  incaice  she  dois  not  or  absents  hir  self  any  wayes 
yairfra,  she  is  content  to  be  ludgit  ane  papist.' 

III.     OTHER  PAPISTS. 

1600.  November  19.  'The  brethrein  understanding  thair  is 
sindrie  Jesuitis  and  papists  leatlie  comit  to  this  cuntrie  to  subvert 
Chrysts  trew  religion e  publictlie  professit  within  ye  samin,  quhair- 
of  Mr  George  elphingstone  son  to  Rol  lord  Elphingstone  and 
Alexr  elphingstone  sone  to  Allexr  maister  of  Elphingstone  and 
Mr  Edward  drummond  sone  to  vmq11  henrie  drummond  of 
Rickartoun  hes  residence  within  the  bounds  of  this  presbytrie, 
And  yairfor  the  brethrein  ordanis  thame  to  be  summond.  To 
give  the  confessione  of  thair  faith  &  religione  according  to  god 
his  word  and  that  confessione  of  faith  subscryvit  be  the  Kingis 


in  the  Sixteenth  Century  25 

Majestic  and  houshold  and  to  subscryve  ye  samin,  To  give  thair 
great  aithis  in  maner  &  forme  thairin  conteinit,  Be  participant  of 
the  holie  Sacramentis  as  thay  ar  publictlie  ministrat  in  this  cuntrie 
according  to  god  his  word,  &  to  submit  thame  selfis  to  ye 
discipline  of  the  trew  kirk  within  this  cuntrie  establishit  be  our 
soverane  lord  and  his  esteats  vndir  ye  paine  of  disobedience.' 

1 60 1.  February  18,  Mr  Edward  Drummond,  above  referred 
to,  was  decerned  to  be  excommunicated  for  disobedience,  by  Mr 
Andro  Zung,  minister  at  Dunblane,  where  Drummond  had  his 
residence. 

1608.  November  9.  Intimation  was  received,  from  the 
Presbytery  of  Perth,  that  Francis,  Earl  of  Errol,  had  been  excom- 
municated for  apostacy. 

IV.     LADY  URCHILL. 

1604.  July    1 8.     '  Mr    Patrik    Simsone    minister    at    Stirling 
reports    that    Dame    Elizabeth    Maxwall    spous    to    Sir    Johnne 
grahame   of  Vrchill  hes  maid   residence  in   this   toun   thir    twa 
moneths  bygaine  or  yairby  and  hes  at  na  tyme  repairit  to  the 
Kirk.     And  aftir  she  was   admonesit   yairof  be    sum    brethrein 
direct    from    the   eldarship    of  Stirling    Kirk   and    the    minister 
yairof  beand  send  for  he  fand  na  thing  in   to  hir  bot  taikins 
of  papistrie.     The    brethrein   ordainis   ye    said   dame  Elizabeth 
to   be  summond   to  compeir   befoir  this  presbytrie  and   be  ad- 
monesit in   the  name  of  god  and  his  Kirk    to  mend    the    said 
fault    be    frequenting    to  ye   heiring  of  gods  word  .  .  .    vndir 
paine  of  disobedience.' 

1605.  November   27.     'Dame   Elizabeth   Maxwall  spous    to 
Sir   John    Grahame  of  Vrchill   confessit    that    she    hes    red    the 
confession e  of  fayth  delyverit  to  hir  be  the  brethrein  .  .   .  and 
fullie  aggreis  yairto  in  all  points.' 

These  were  the  days  when  the  discipline  of  the  Kirk  was 
thorough,  and  ministers  did  their  duty  without  respect  of 
persons.  We  live  in  different  times,  but  it  is  doubtful  if  we 
are  possessed  with  the  like  spirit  of  zeal  for  God's  truth  and 
the  purity  of  His  Church. 

Note.  The  General  Assembly  met  at  Edinburgh  on  2oth  June  1587,  and  noted 
'  [certaine]  Greives  of  the  Kirk  [of  Scotland]  assembled  in  Edinburgh,  givin 
in  to  His  Majestic  [the  20  of  February  1587].  'In  Striveling — Walter 
Buchanan,  sonne  to  the  Goodman  of  Auchinpryour,  [and]  a  Flemis  woman 
his  wyfe,  [both]  indurat  Papists,  and  hes  causit  a  preist  latelie  to  baptize  thair 


26  Presbytery  and  Popery 

bairne  ;  Helen  Hay,  Mistres  of  Levingstoun,  a  malicious  Papist  ;  the  Sabboth 
ther  is  everie  quher  abused  and  profained  ;  the  Kirks  ill  plantit  ;  scarcelie  3 
hes  Ministers.  Superstitious  ceremonies,  pilgrimages  to  Chrysts  Well  (in 
Menteith),  fasting,  [festives]  benfyres,  girdles,  carrells,  and  such  lyke.' 

'  Of  Dumblaine — The  Bishop  of  Dumblaine  restored,  and  latelie  came 
home,  and  accompanied  with  a  stranger,  Frenchman,  or  Italian,  supposed  be 
many  probable  appearances,  by  men  of  great  judgment,  to  be  imployed  here 
in  some  strange  turne.  His  coming  hath  encouraged  all  suspected  papists, 
and  brought  the  simple  in  great  doubts,  for  by  his  authority  he  draweth  all 
with  him  in  the  old  dance.  The  ministers  are  hereby  despised  and  troubled 
in  their  livings  ;  and  the  Kirks  ruined  and  desolat.' — Booke  of  the  Universal! 
Kirk,  p.  721.  Among  those  excommunicated,  and  given  up  by  the  brethren 
to  the  General  Assembly  on  26  April  1593,  at  Dundee,  were  'Sir  Henrie 
Oswald,  within  the  parochin  of  Strageith,  excommunicat  for  papestrie,  be  Mr. 
James  Burton  in  Peblis,  the  fourth  of  March  1 592  ;  Sir  William  Blakwod  in 
Dumblane,  excommunicat  for  papestrie  ;  Robert  Clerk  in  Ochterardour,  ex- 
communicat for  incest  with  Elspet  Scot,  be  Mr.  Johne  Bondroune,  Superin- 
tendent of  FyfF.' — Ibid.  p.  803.  At  this  time  there  were  the  following  '  Kirkis 
vacand  within  the  Presbiterie  of  Dumblane  :  Abirfuill,  Kilmahuge,  Callendar, 
Leny,  Port,  Kilbryd,  Balquhidder,  Comrie,  Tullicheddilly,  Sowan  [Strowan], 
Monivard,  Stragethe,  Kinkell,  Abirruthven.'  The  Bishop  of  Dunblane,  above 
referred  to,  was  Andrew  Graham,  youngest  son  of  William,  Earl  of  Montrose, 
who  was  consecrated  in  1575,  and  in  the  following  year  the  charge  of  the  Kirk 
of  Dunblane  was  assigned  him  by  the  Assembly  ;  but  he  was  ordained,  in 
1588,  to  repair  his  Church,  which  was  ruinous,  and  he  was  deposed  from  the 
ministry  24th  July  1594,  being  non-resident,  and  having  'at  na  tyme  preichit 
God's  word,  ministrat  the  sacraments,  nor  execut  discipline  (at  Dunblane)  the 
space  of  sevin  zeiris  bygane.' — Scott's  Fasti.  IV.  839. 

R.  MENZIES  FERGUSSON,  M.A. 


The  First  Highland  Regiment 

The  Argyllshire  Highlanders 

WHEN  King  James  vacated  the  throne  of  England  and 
Scotland,  and  the  Revolution  of  1688  was  an 
accomplished  fact,  William  of  Orange  found  himself  confronted 
with  a  war  in  Flanders,  a  war  in  Ireland,  open  mutiny  amongst 
the  troops  in  England,  and  an  almost  certain  Jacobite  insurrection 
in  Scotland — a  train  of  circumstances  which  necessitated  an 
increase  in  the  army. 

Amongst  those  who  accompanied  the  new  King  to  England 
was  Archibald  Campbell,  who,  since  the  execution  of  his  father, 
the  ninth  Earl  of  Argyll  in  1685,  nad  been  an  exile  in  Holland, 
but  had  since  been  restored  to  the  property  and  family  dignities. 
To  shew  his  gratitude  to  the  new  Government,  and  not  without 
an  eye  to  his  own  further  interests,  the  new  Earl,  in  view  of  the 
trouble  in  Scotland,  proposed  to  raise  a  regiment  of  600  men 
from  among  his  tenants  in  the  Western  Highlands.  The  offer 
being  readily  accepted,  the  following  order1  was  issued  to  raise 
the  regiment :  *  The  Estates  of  the  Kingdome  of  Scotland, 
considering  that  the  Earl  of  Argyle  Hes  made  ane  offer  to  Levie 
one  Regiment  of  six  hundred  foot  to  be  commanded  by  him  as 
Collonell,  And  to  be  Imployed  in  the  service  of  His  Majestic 
William,  By  the  Grace  of  God  King  of  Great  Britain,  Ffrance, 
and  Ireland ;  And  the  Estates  Reposing  speciall  trust  and 
confidence  in  the  fidelitie,  couradge,  and  good  conduct  of  the  said 
Earl  of  Argyle,  Have  therefor  nominated,  constitute,  and 
appointed,  And  by  these  presents  Doe  nominat,  constitute,  and 
appoynt  The  said  Earl  of  Argyle  to  be  Collonell  of  a  Regiment 
of  foot,  appointed  by  the  act  of  the  said  Estates  of  dait  of  these 
presents,  to  be  levied  by  him  as  said  is,  consisting  of  ten  companies 

1  Acts  of  the  Parliament  of  Scotland,  vol.  ix. 
27 


28  The  First  Highland   Regiment 

and  sixtie  men  in  each  company;  with  full  power  to  the  said 
Earl  of  Argyle  to  nominat  the  Livetennant  Collonell  and  Major 
of  the  said  Regiment,  and  the  Captaines  and  inferior  officers  of 
the  several  companies,  and  to  grant  commissions  accordingly; 
And  to  command  and  exercise  the  said  regiment,  both  officers 
and  souldiers,  carefully  and  dilligently ;  and  to  keep  them  in 
good  order  and  discipline ;  And  to  do  and  act  all  things  competent 
and  incumbent  for  any  collonell  of  foot  to  doe  and  performe ; 
Requiring  and  commanding  thereby  all  officers  and  souldiers  of 
the  said  Regiment  to  give  due  obedience  to  the  said  Earl  of 
Argyle  as  their  collonell,  and  to  their  respective  commanding 
officers ;  and,  further,  the  Estates  doe  hereby  command  and 
require  the  said  Earl  of  Argyle  to  observe  and  prosecute  such 
orders  and  directiones  as  he  shall  receive  from  tyme  to  tyme  from 
them,  or  from  Major  Generall  M'Kay,  present  Commander  in 
Chiefe  of  the  forces  of  this  Kingdome,  or  any  other  commander 
in  chiefe  for  the  tyme,  or  any  superior  officers,  according  to  the 
rules  and  discipline  of  warr;  and  the  Estates  Doe  Declair  that 
each  company,  both  officers  and  souldiers,  is  to  enter  in  pay  after 
the  same  is  mustered  compleat,  and  the  field  officers  after  the 
wholl  regiment  is  mustered;  and  that  this  commissione  shall 
continue  untill  the  King's  most  excellent  Majestic  shall  be  pleased 
to  grant  new  commissions  for  the  said  regiment,  or  otherwayes 
dispose  thereof.  Signed  by  Warrand,  and  in  the  name  of  ye 
Estates, 

HAMILTON. 

zznd  April,  1689.  President.' 

No  definite  information  regarding  the  uniform  worn  by  this 
regiment  of  Argyllshire  Highlanders  is  at  present  obtainable ; 
but  it  is  believed  that  it  was  similar  to  that  of  an  English  line 
regiment  of  the  period,  substituting  the  round  blue  bonnet  for 
the  English  cocked  hat.  Above  the  door  of  Dunstaffnage  House 
is  a  coat  of  arms,  carved,  which  formerly  stood  over  the  door  of 
the  old  castle.  It  has  for  supporters  what  are  believed  to  be  two 
privates  of  Argyll's  Regiment  in  1692.  I  am  indebted  to 
Dunstaffnage  for  a  steel  engraving  done  from  the  stone  carving 
over  his  door.  With  the  exception  of  the  head-dress,  which  is 
a  Scottish  round  flat  bonnet  such  as  is  now  worn,  the  uniform 
closely  resembles  the  uniform  of  an  ordinary  line  regiment  of  the 
period. 

Campbells  were,   naturally,   a  predominating   element   in   the 


The  Argyllshire  Highlanders  29 

regiment :  of  the  first  nine  principal  officers  appointed  six  bore 
that  name.2  The  Earl  of  Argyll,  colonel  also  of  the  Dumbarton 
and  Bute  Militia,  was  the  colonel  and  captain,  and  Sir  Duncan 
Campbell,  Bart.,  M.P.,  of  Auchenbreck,3  the  lieutenant-colonel 
and  captain ;  the  field  officers,  as  was  customary  in  those  days, 
also  commanding  companies.  The  other  captains  appointed  were 
Archibald  M 'Aulay  of  Ardincaple  ;4  James  Campbell,  younger 
of  Ardkinglass  ;5  Archibald  Lamont  of  Lament  ;6  Archibald 
Campbell  of  Torrie  ;7  Archibald  Campbell  of  Barbreck  ;8  Hector 
Bannatyne,  younger  of  Kames  ;9  and  John  Campbell  of  Airds.10 

2  State  Papers,  Domestic  Series  ;  and  Dalton's  Army  Lists  and  Commission  Registers, 
1661-1714,  a  most  valuable  and  accurate  work,  to  which  I  am  much  indebted. 

3  Lieut.-Colonel  Sir  Duncan  Campbell,  4th  Bart.,  and  9th  Laird,  of  Auchin- 
breck.     Late  Captain  Wauchope's  Regt.  in  Holland,  16^88-89.      Son  of  Archibald 
Campbell  of  Knockmillie,    and  grandson  of  Sir  Duncan  Campbell,   7th  Laird. 
Succeeded  his  uncle  as  4th  Bart.;  married  Henrietta,   daughter  of  1st  Earl   of 
Balcarres.     Became  Lieut.-Colonel  Buchan's  Regt.,  1691. 

4  Eldest  son  of  Aulay  M'Aulay  of  Ardincaple,  Dunbartonshire  ;  his  younger 
brother,  Robert,  was  afterwards  a  captain  in  the  regiment.     The  property  was 
sold  by  Aulay  M 'Aulay,  the   1 2th  and  last  of  the  chiefs,  to  the  4th  Duke  of 
Argyll,  about  the  year  1 760. 

5  Son   of  James    Campbell    of  Ardkinglass,  descended  from  the  Campbells  of 
Lorn.     His  elder  brother,  Sir  Colin  Campbell,  Bart.,  became  Sheriff  of  Argyll, 
to  whom  Glencoe  took   the  oath.     The  property   passed  into  the    Livingstone 
family,  and  thence  to  Colonel  James  Callender,  afterwards  Sir  James  Campbell. 

6  Of  Lamont,  Argyllshire,  a  clan  which  seems  to  have  undergone  at  one  time 
some  persecution  at   the  hands  of  certain  chiefs  of  the  clan  Campbell,  for  the 
massacre  of  the  Laments  formed  one  of  the  charges  brought  against  the  Marquis 
of  Argyll  in  1661,  although  he  does  not  seem  to  have  been  any  party  to  it. 

7  Of  Torrie,  Dunbartonshire.     Eldest  son  of  Archibald  Campbell,  7th  Captain 
of  Dunstaffnage,  by  his  second  marriage. 

8  Of  Barbreck,  Craignish  ;  also  in  Dunbarton  and  Bute  Militia.     Eldest  son  of 
Donald    Campbell   of  Barbreck,    Colonel    of  Horse    in    Argyllshire,    1648.       A 
descendant  of  Colin,  natural  son  of  the  4th  Earl  of  Argyll.     The  estate  passed  to 
the  Duke  of  Argyll  in  1732. 

9  Of  Kames,  Isle  of  Bute.     The  property  passed  in  the  female  line  to  the  wife 
of  Roderick  MacLeod,  W.S.,  whose  son,  Sir  William  MacLeod  Bannatyne,  a  well- 
known  judge,  assumed  the  name  of  Bannatyne,  and  was  created  Lord  Bannatyne 
in  1799.     He  sold  the  property. 

10  Sir  John    Campbell    of  Airds,   3rd    Bart.,    son    of  Sir    George    Campbell, 
2nd    Bart.,   who  succeeded  his   uncle   Sir  John,  1st  Bart.,  of  Airds  and  Ardna- 
murchan.      But  neither  he  nor  his  father  assumed  the  baronetcy,  which  was  taken 
up,  however,  by  the  6th  Bart,  of  Airds.      He  left  the  regiment  in  1694. 

I  am    indebted    to    Sir    Duncan    Campbell,   Bart.,   of  Barcaldine,  for  kindly 
assisting  me  in  identifying  these  officers. 


30  The  First  Highland  Regiment 

The  recruiting  of  the  regiment  was  fairly  quickly  completed 
in  the  Western  Highlands,  but  not  before  the  battle  of  Killie- 
crankie  had  restored  to  James  the  whole  country  beyond  the 
Forth.  And,  looking  to  the  probabilities  of  the  case,  nothing 
saved  the  rest  of  Scotland  from  a  similar  fate  but  the  death  of 
the  gallant  Dundee.  However,  the  regiment  is  soon  found 
engaged  in  its  unenviable  duty  of  coercing  its  fellow  countrymen  ; 
no  doubt  hoping  to  be  even  with  some  of  the  clans,  for  the 
Campbells  had  some  old  scores  to  wipe  out.  The  Lowlands  at 
this  time  were  peaceful  and  progressive  enough  under  the  new 
Government,  but  the  emblems  of  civil  war  still  smouldered  in 
the  Highlands.  There  the  poverty  of  the  people  and  the  want 
of  industrial  employment  made  peace  anything  but  welcome  to 
the  chiefs  or  their  retainers.  There  was  ample  occupation,  there- 
fore, for  the  Argyll  Highlanders  in  reducing  the  strongholds  of 
those  who  still  held  out  for  King  James,  in  suppressing  cattle 
stealing  and  other  raids,  and  in  otherwise  maintaining  order 
among  rival  clans.  If  there  was  little  love  lost  between  the 
Campbells  and  the  Jacobite  clans,  and  if  the  duties  of  the 
regiment  were  sometimes  carried  out  in  a  manner  which  would 
now-a-days  be  considered  unnecessarily  severe,  allowance  must  be 
made  for  the  custom  of  the  times,  and  for  the  manner  in  which 
the  Campbells  had  themselves  suffered.  Only  five  years  back 
the  head  of  their  clan,  the  ninth  Earl,  had  been  put  to  death, 
his  property  confiscated,  and  his  sons  exiled.  Within  the  same 
period  their  lands  had  been  overrun  by  ten  of  the  Jacobite  clans, 
who  drove  the  population  into  the  woods,  and  pillaged  and  burned 
their  homes. 

Deprived  of  their  one  capable  leader  in  Dundee,  the  High- 
landers after  Killiecrankie  were  helpless.  His  death,  in  the 
moment  of  victory,  broke  the  only  bond  which  held  them 
together,  and  in  a  few  weeks  the  host  which  had  spread  terror 
through  the  Lowlands  melted  hopelessly  away.  The  clans 
returned  to  their  mountains,  not  forgetting  to  load  themselves 
with  plunder  on  the  way.  The  opportunity  was  not  lost  on 
<  Coll  of  the  Cows,'  as  Macdonald  of  Keppoch  was  called  on 
account  of  his  lifting  propensities.  With  his  own  men  and 
the  Macdonalds  of  Glencoe  he  made  his  way  through  Perthshire, 
spoiling  the  lands  and  goods  of  Campbell  of  Glenlyon,  a  man 
who  could  ill  afford  the  loss.  By  this  raid,11  which  was  carried 
out  in  violation  of  the  Protection  order  which  Glenlyon  had 

11  The  Lairds  of  Glenlyon.     Priv.  pub.  1886. 


The  Argyllshire  Highlanders  31 

received  from  the  Commander-in-Chief  of  King  James'  Army, 
Glenlyon  and  his  few  dependents  lost  their  whole  stock — all  they 
had  in  the  world — estimated  at  some  ^"8000  of  Scots  money — a 
large  sum  in  those  days.  To  the  unfortunate  Laird,  who  had 
already  suffered  considerable  misfortune,  it  meant  such  complete 
ruin  that,  driven  in  his  advancing  years,  for  he  then  bordered  on 
sixty,  to  earn  his  daily  bread,  he  was  glad  to  accept  a  company 
in  the  Argyllshire  Highlanders,  in  which  he  was  destined  to 
achieve  an  unfortunate  notoriety. 

By  the  end  of  1689  the  Argyllshire  Highlanders — as  the 
regiment  may  properly  be  called — were  busy  at  work,  one 
detachment  under  Captain  John  Campbell  of  Airds  being  specially 
employed  in  an  effort  to  reduce  what  was  clearly  his  own  property 
— Castle  Stalcaire  or  Island  Stalker,  between  Lismore  and  Appin, 
but  which  was  then  held  for  the  young  Laird  of  Appin  by  his 
tutor  John  Stewart  of  Ardsheal  fresh  from  leading  the  clan  at 
Killiecrankie.  The  castle,  which  was  strongly  placed  and  well 
fortified,  had  been  disposed  of  by  the  Stewarts  of  Appin  some  years 
before,  but  as  Hereditary  Keepers  they  had  seized  and  held  it 
for  the  King.  In  July,  1690,  the  headquarters  of  the  regiment 
were  at  Perth,  whence  they  marched  to  Stirling  in  anticipation 
of  a  descent  of  the  Jacobites,  but  as  that  never  came  off  the 
regiment  was  moved  into  Argyllshire,  with  Glencairn's 
Regiment,12  for  the  purpose  of  reducing  the  Isles,  the  Earl  of 
Argyll  specially  devoting  himself  to  the  strongholds  in  Mull. 
The  castle  of  Island  Stalker  surrendered  to  him  on  the  9th 
October,  1690,  and,  to  his  credit,  he  treated  the  defenders 
considerately,  and  gave  them  honourable  terms.  After  this  he 
tried  his  hand  hard  at  the  castles  of  Duart  and  Cairnburgh, 
strongholds  of  the  young  Sir  John  Maclaine,  the  chief  of  that 
clan.  Though  the  Highlands  were  comparatively  quiet  at  this 
time,  the  war  still  smouldered,  and  the  pacification  of  the  clans 
was  slow  work.  The  attempt  at  bribing  the  chiefs  had  failed, 
and  the  Government  were  getting  impatient,  for  they  wanted  the 
troops  in  Flanders.  This  was  the  situation  when  a  suspension  of 
arms  between  the  3Oth  June  and  ist  October,  1691,  was  agreed 
upon,  during  which  time  negotiations  for  a  permanent  pacification 
went  on.  In  August  a  proclamation  was  issued  promising  an 
indemnity  to  all  Jacobites  who  should  swear  allegiance  to  William 
and  Mary  before  the  ist  January,  1692,  and  threatening  with  the 

12  Raised  in  Scotland,  1689,  and  commanded  by  John,  nth  Earl  of  Glencairn. 
Disbanded  1690. 


32  The  First  Highland  Regiment 

severest  penalties  those  who  should  neglect  the  offer.  And  it  is 
in  connection  with  the  enforcement  of  this  order  that  occurs  the 
one  dark  spot  in  the  history  of  the  Argyllshire  Highlanders. 
The  story  of  the  Massacre  of  Glencoe  has  often  been  repeated, 
though  rarely  with  strict  regard  to  accuracy  in  detail,  but  it  is 
impossible  to  avoid  reference  to  it  in  this  account  of  the  regiment. 

Most  of  the  chiefs  took  the  alarm  at  the  proclamation,  and 
escaped  the  threatened  danger  by  tendering  their  allegiance  before 
the  appointed  day,  except  Macdonald  of  Glencoe,  whose  pride 
delayed  his  taking  the  oath  till  after  the  latest  date  fixed  by  the 
proclamation ;  and,  even  then,  the  fact  of  his  having  sworn 
allegiance  was  not  permitted  to  save  him  and  his  clan.  Glencoe 
is  a  wild  and  somewhat  gloomy  vale  in  the  district  of  Lorn, 
Argyllshire,  but  for  beauty  and  grandeur  is  excelled  by  few  passes 
in  Scotland.  Mists  and  storms  brood  over  it  through  a  great 
part  of  the  finest  summer,  while,  even  on  those  days  when  the 
sun  is  bright  and  the  sky  cloudless,  the  impression  made  by  the 
landscape  is  somewhat  sad,  though  not  quite  such  a  Valley  of  the 
Shadow  of  Death  as  Macaulay  so  picturesquely  describes  it. 

Sentence  of  extermination  against  the  clan  having  gone  forth 
from  the  King,  through  the  influence  of  the  Earl  of  Breadalbane 
and  the  Master  of  Stair,  the  instructions  for  the  carrying  out  of 
the  same  were  made  clear  and  unmistakable.  They  were  issued 
by  Brigadier-General  Sir  Thomas  Livingstone,13  Commander-in- 
Chief  in  Scotland,  through  Colonel  John  Hill,14  Governor  of 

13  Eldest  son  of  Sir  Thomas  Livingstone,  1st  Bart,  of  Newbigging.     Succeeded 
the  Earl  of  Dunmore  as  Colonel  of  the  Royal  Scots  Dragoons,  3  ist  December,  1688. 
Gained  a  decisive  victory  over  the  Highland  army  at  Cromdale,  in  May,  1690. 
Appointed    Brigadier-General,    and    Commander-in-Chief    in     Scotland,     1691. 
Created  Viscount  Teviot,    4th   December,    1696.       Commanded   a   brigade    in 
Flanders  in  1697.     Lieut.-General,  ist  January,  1704.     Disposed  of  his  regiment 
to  Lord  John  Hay,  1704.     Died  in  London,   14th  January,  1711,  aged  60,  and 
was  buried  in  Westminster  Abbey. 

14  Colonel,  afterwards  Sir  John  Hill,  was  an  old  soldier  who  had  commanded  at 
Inverlochy  under  Cromwell,  and  knew  the  Highlands  well.     At  the  time  of  the 
Revolution  he  was  serving  in  Belfast,  and  had  performed  good  service  to  the  Protes- 
tant cause  in  Ireland.      He  returned  to  Scotland  in  1690,  raised  the  regiment  which 
bore  his  name,  became  Governor  of  Fort  William,  which  was   built  under  his 
direction  on  the  site  of  the  old  fort  at  Inverlochy.     He  is  said  to  have  been  a 
kind   hearted  man,  and  not  disposed  to  favour  the  massacre,  the  arrangements 
for  which  were  therefore  left  to  his  second  in  command,  Lieut.-Colonel  James 
Hamilton.     He  was  placed  on  half  pay,    1698.      In   the    Dictionary  of  National. 
Biography  he  is  described  incorrectly  as  of  Argyll's  Regiment,  to  which  he  never 
at  any  time  belonged,  and  is  also  confused  with    the  Governor  of  Montserrat 
who  died  in   1697. 


The  Argyllshire  Highlanders  33 

Fort- William,  to  Lieutenant-Colonel  James  Hamilton,15  each  of 
whom  perfectly  understood  the  treachery  about  to  be  practised. 
*  The  work,'  wrote  the  Master  of  Stair  to  Lieutenant-Colonel 
Hamilton,  who  willingly  undertook  it,  c  must  be  secret  and 
sudden.'  The  troops  were  chosen  from  Hill's  Regiment1?  and 
the  Argyllshire  Highlanders — the  latter  not  on  good  terms  with 
the  clansmen  of  Glencoe.  On  the  I2th  February,  1692,  400 
of  Hill's  Regiment  under  Lieutenant-Colonel  James  Hamilton, 
and  a  similar  number  of  the  Argyllshire  under  Major  Robert 
Duncanson,17  were  ordered  to  Glencoe  to  co-operate  on  the 
following  morning  with  Captain  Robert  Campbell  of  Glenlyon's 
company  of  the  Argylls,  which  had  been  quartered  peacefully 
in  the  Glen  among  the  Macdonalds  for  some  twelve  days  till 
all  suspicion  of  their  errand  had  disappeared.  Indeed,  during 
that  time,  he  and  his  men  had  been  living  on  the  most  friendly 
terms  as  the  guests  of  those  who  were  soon  to  be  their  victims ; 
and  so  that  there  should  be  no  inkling  of  what  was  intended,  his 
men  were  not  informed  of  the  duty  on  which  they  were  bent  until 
the  company  paraded  while  still  dark  on  the  fatal  morning  of 
Saturday,  the  i3th  February.  Tradition  says  that  the  tune 
known  as  the  Breadalbane  March,  the  '  Carles  with  the  Breeks,' 
and  the  <  Wives  of  the  Glen,'  was  played  by  Glenlyon's  piper  on 
this  occasion  in  the  hope  of  warning  the  M'lans  of  their  danger. 
It  is  said  that  one  M'lan  wife  heeded  the  warning,  and  fled  to  the 
hills  with  her  child,  saving  his  life  : 

'Wives  of  wild  Cona  Glen,   Cona  Glen,  Cona  Glen, 

Wives  of  wild  Cona  Glen  wake  from  your  slumbers ; 
Early  I  woke  this  morn,  early  I  woke  this  morn, 
Woke  to  alarm  you  with  music's  wild  numbers.' 

Without  waiting  for  Hamilton's  and  Duncanson's  detachments, 
which  had  been  delayed  by  a  storm  of  unusual  severity,  the 
troops,  as  arranged,  fell  upon  their  unarmed  and  unsuspecting 
hosts,  and  in  a  few  minutes  thirty  of  the  clansmen  with  their 
chief  lay  dead — Hamilton's  and  Duncanson's  parties  arriving  later 

15  Lieut.-Colonel  James  Hamilton  was  Lieut.-Colonel  and  second  in  command 
of  Hill's  Regiment,  1690,  and  Deputy  Governor  of  Fort- William.     The  arrange- 
ments for  the  massacre  were  placed  in  his  hands.     He  left  the  service  in  1694. 

16  Raised  2nd  September,  1690,  to  garrison  Fort- William  by  Colonel,  afterwards 
Sir  John  Hill:  disbanded   i8th  February,  1698. 

17  Of  the  family  of  Duncanson  of  Fassokie,   Stirlingshire,  noted  adherents  of 
the  house  of  Argyll.     Appointed  Lieut.  Beveridge's  (i4th)  Foot,  I  6th  February, 
1689;  Capt.-Lieut.,  24th  September,    1689;    left,    1st  July,    1690.     Appointed 
Major,  Argyllshire  Highlanders,  1691  ;  Lieut.-Col.,  1695-1698.     See  also  page  40. 


34  The  First  Highland  Regiment 

and  completing  the  tragedy ;  the  rest  of  the  Macdonalds,  sheltered 
by  the  storm,  escaped  to  the  mountains  to  perish,  for  the  most 
part  of  cold  and  hunger.  It  fell  to  the  lot  of  Campbell  of 
Glenlyon  and  his  two  subalterns — Lieutenant  Lindsay  and 
Ensign  John  Lundie — with  a  Captain  Thomas  Drummond,  to 
act  the  principal  parts  in  the  tragedy,  though  Lieutenant-Colonel 
Hamilton  and  Major  Duncanson  acted  with  great  brutality  when 
they  did  arrive. 

Glenlyon  has  been  credited  with  perhaps  an  undue  amount  of 
the  odium  which  very  properly  attaches  to  the  massacre.  If 
anything  can  be  permitted  to  condone  the  breach  of  hospitality, 
treachery,  and  murder  of  which  he  was  guilty,  it  is  to  be  found 
in  the  positive  orders  he  received  from  his  superior  officer,18  and 
in  the  provocation  which  he  had  received  at  the  hands  of  the 
Macdonalds.  With  the  Macdonalds  of  Keppoch  they  had 
completely  ruined  him  and  his  clan :  indeed  his  wife  and  family 
were  at  that  very  time  struggling  at  home  against  the  severest 
poverty.  Glenlyon's  life  had  been  an  unfortunate  one.  He  was 
originally  a  man  of  prepossessing  appearance  and  fine  physique. 
He  it  was  who  in  1680  marched  with  the  Breadalbane  and 
Glenlyon  men  into  Caithness  in  hostile  array  to  reduce  the 
refractory  Sinclairs  to  obedience — the  occasion  on  which  tradition 
says  that  his  piper  improvised  the  well-known  pibroch  of  *  The 
Carles  with  the  Breeks,'19  also  known  as  the  Breadalbane  march. 
In  his  youth  he  was  unfortunately  addicted  to  gambling  and 
display,  to  which  in  later  days  he  added  an  excessive  love  for 
wine.  With  his  wife's  extravagance  his  misfortunes  increased, 
until  his  affairs  were  brought  to  a  climax  and  ruin  by  the 
Macdonald  raid  in  1689.  After  this  he  appears  to  have  existed 
on  the  charity  of  Breadalbane,  who  had  to  supply  his  outfit  to 
enable  him  to  accompany  the  regiment  to  Flanders.20  He  died 
at  Bruges  on  the  2nd  August,  1696,  in  the  sixty-fifth  year  of  his 
age — a  broken  man. 

18  In  an  official  letter  received  from  Major  Duncanson  of  his  regiment,  dated 
the  1 2th  February,  1692,  he  was  warned  at  the  peril  of  losing  his  commission 
and  the  good  will  of  the  Government  to  carry  out  his  instructions  to  the  letter. 

19  The  tune  has  also  been  attributed  to  Breadalbane's  piper,  Finlay  M'lvor, 
on  the  occasion  of  the  Caithness  raid  in    1680.     But  it  has  an  earlier  association 
with  Coll  Kitto  (MacDonald)  or  Left-handed  Coll  at  the  time  of  some  raid- 
ing and  plundering  on  a  considerable  scale    about    the  year   1645,    when    it  is 
said  to  have  been  played    by  his    piper,  then  a  prisoner    in   the  hands  of  the 
Campbells,  as  a  warning  to  his  master  not  to  approach. 

20  The  Lairds  of  Glenlyon.     Priv.  pub.,  1886. 


The  Argyllshire  Highlanders  35 

The  degree  of  the  Earl  of  Argyll's  complicity  in  the  massacre 
is  not  easy  to  determine.  As  commanding  officer  of  the  regiment, 
he  must  have  been  aware  of  the  sentence  of  extermination  which 
had  been  pronounced  against  the  Macdonalds,  but  there  is  no 
evidence  of  his  being  a  party  to  the  treachery  by  which  it  was 
accompanied.  Lockhart21  describes  him  as  'in  outward  appear- 
ance a  good  natured,  civil,  and  modest  gentleman,'  whose  actions 
were  quite  otherwise ;  while  in  Lochiel's22  eyes  he  appears  a  man 
of  a  frank,  noble,  and  generous  disposition.  Judging  from  his 
conduct  generally  in  the  awkward  duty  upon  which  he  was 
employed  in  the  Highlands  as  colonel  of  his  regiment,  one  is 
disposed  to  view  his  character  in  the  more  favourable  light.  The 
chief  blame  surely  lies  with  those  who  conceived  the  massacre — 
the  Earl  of  Breadalbane  and  the  Master  of  Stair,  and  with  the 
King,  who  so  readily  acquiesced  in  the  scheme.  Nor  is  it  to  the 
credit  of  King  William  that,  when  the  affair  became  public  and 
the  prosecution  of  the  chief  offenders  was  recommended  by  the 
Committee  of  Enquiry,  he  made  no  effort  to  move  in  the  matter. 
The  subordinates,  remorseless  tools  though  they  were,  merely 
obeyed  the  orders  of  their  superior  officers.23 

Within  a  few  weeks  of  these  events  the  Argyllshire  High- 
landers received  orders  to  march  to  Leith,  with  a  view  to  early 
embarkation  to  join  the  army  in  Flanders.  The  order  was  far 
from  popular  with  the  men,  who  with  difficulty  concealed  their 
aversion  to  leaving  their  country.  The  feeling  was  not,  however, 
accompanied  with  anything  like  insubordination.  It  was  merely 
the  outcome  of  that  pardonable  devotion  to  their  homes  and  those 
dear  to  them  which  characterised  all  the  Highlanders  of  Scotland ; 
feelings  such  as  inspired  Allan  Ramsay's  words  in  'Farewell  to 
Lochaber ' : 

'The  tears  that  I  shed  they're  a'  for  my  dear, 
And  no  for  the  dangers  attending  on  weir ; 
Though  borne  on  rough  seas  to  a  far  bloody  shore, 
Maybe  to  return  to  Lochaber  no  more.' 

We  find  the  regiment,  however,  at  Brentford  in  the  summer  of 
1692,  and  it  did  not  for  various  reasons  sail  for  Flanders  till  the 

21  Lockhart's  Memoirs.  22  Memoirs  of  Sir  Etven  Cameron  ofLochiel. 

28  A  very  able  criticism  of  Lord  Macaulay's  account  of  the  massacre  appeared 
in  Blackwood's  Magazine  for  July,  1859.  But  t^e  writer  is  not  free  from 
inaccuracy.  For  instance  Colonel  Hill  was  not  knighted  on  account  of  his 
connection  with  the  massacre,  nor  did  Glenlyon  ever  become  a  Colonel,  as  is 
stated. 


36  The  First  Highland  Regiment 

following  spring,  about  the  time  King  William  was  preparing  to 
confront  the  superior  numbers  of  the  French  under  Louis  XIV. 
William  was  at  his  best  as  a  soldier :  indeed  he  never  appeared 
quite  at  ease  except  in  the  field  of  battle,  where  he  repeatedly 
proved  his  high  personal  courage.  Lieutenant-Colonel  Robert 
Jackson  24  took  the  regiment  out,  and  if  bravery  in  the  field  could 
atone  for  their  unfortunate  connection  with  the  Glencoe  affair, 
it  will  be  found  that  the  Argyll  men  did  their  utmost  to  wipe 
away  the  stain  which  attached  to  their  name. 

In  May,  1693,  the  regiment  was  encamped  at  Parck,  with  the 
army  under  King  William  covering  Brussels  and  Upper  Brabant, 
and  formed  part  of  the  Scots  Brigade  under  Brigadier-General 
Ramsay.  On  the  ist  July  it  was  detached  with  a  force  of  8,000 
Infantry  and  600  Cavalry  under  the  Prince  of  Wiirtemburg,  and 
bore  the  brunt  of  the  fighting  on  the  9th  July,  when  the  Count 
D'Alfeldt's  Division  played  a  brilliant  part  in  forcing  the  fortified 
lines  between  the  rivers  Scheldt  and  Lys  at  D'Otignies,  and  drove 
the  French  from  their  entrenchments  with  heavy  loss.25  The 
regiment  eminently  distinguished  itself  on  this  occasion,  the 
Grenadier  company  under  Captain  Thomas  Drummond  leading 
the  attack  on  Pont  David.  Without  wincing,  his  Grenadiers 
kept  steadily  on  in  the  face  of  the  enemy's  fire  till  they  gained 
the  parapet  of  the  redoubt.  The  French  fire  was  tremendous. 
Both  the  subalterns  dropped ;  and,  before  the  main  body  could 
reach  the  redoubt,  the  company  was  reduced  to  a  few  scattered 
men,  still  fighting  on  against  thirty  times  their  number.  At  the 
end  of  the  day  more  than  a  quarter  of  Drummond' s  company  lay 
dead  on  the  ground.  The  regiment  afterwards  accompanied 
Wiirtemburg's  Division  of  the  Allied  Army,  destined  for  the 
relief  of  Charleroi ;  but  King  William  abandoned  the  enterprise. 
Charleroi  fell  on  the  ist  of  October,  the  campaign  closed,  and 
the  regiment  went  into  winter  quarters  at  Bruges.  The  year 
1693  had  not  been  a  profitable  one  for  the  Allies.  They  had 
suffered  a  crushing  defeat  at  the  hands  of  the  renowned  Duke  of 
Luxembourg  at  Landen,  as  at  Steinkirk  the  year  before.  '  Am  I 
always  to  be  beaten  by  that  hunchback?'  exclaimed  the  King, 
passionately,  alluding  to  the  victorious  French  Marshal,  who  was 

24Lieut.-Colonel  Robert  Jackson  was  appointed  Captain  in  Tollemache's 
regiment  in  Holland,  1688;  Lieut.-Colonel,  Lord  Cardross'  Dragoons,  1689; 
Lieut.-Colonel,  Argyllshire  Highlanders,  vice  Sir  Duncan  Campbell,  1691  ;  Lieut.- 
Colonel,  Sir  John  Hill's  regiment  at  Fort  William,  1694;  Died,  1696. 

25  D'Auvergne's  Campaign  in  Flanders,   1693. 


The  Argyllshire  Highlanders  37 

somewhat  deformed.  William  III.  was  a  soldier  and  a  general  of 
no  mean  order,  but  in  strategy  he  was  much  inferior  to  Luxem- 
bourg, who  was  known  in  France  as  the  tapissier  of  Notre  Dame, 
from  his  having  upholstered  that  Cathedral  with  so  many  captured 
flags.  Macaulay  has  given  a  vivid  portrait  of  William  at  the 
battle  of  Landen,  and  his  admirable  retreat  from  that  fatal  field. 

Shortly  after  the  arrival  of  the  Argyllshire  Highlanders  in 
Flanders  some  busybody  reported  to  King  William  that  certain 
men  of  the  regiment  were  in  the  habit  of  drinking  to  King 
James's  health  ;  which  was  quite  possible,  seeing  that  many  of  the 
Campbells  were  known  to  have  strong  leanings  in  favour  of  the 
Stuarts  and  hereditary  right,  although,  since  the  restitution  of  the 
MacCailean-Mores  to  their  homes  and  dignities,  they  kept  their 
feelings  quiet.  Turning  to  General  TolTemache — the  Talmash 
of  Tristram  Shandy — the  King  asked  how  they  behaved  in  the 
field.  '  As  well  as  any  troops  in  the  army,'  was  the  reply.  'Well, 
then,'  rejoined  the  sensible  King,  '  if  only  they  fight  for  me, 
why,  let  them  drink  my  father-in-law's  health  as  often  as  they 
please.' 26 

In  March,  1694,  the  Earl  of  Argyll  resigned  the  colonelcy  of 
the  regiment  in  favour  of  his  son  John,  Lord  Lome,  then  a  lad 
of  fifteen,  who  was  duly  appointed  captain  of  a  company  and 
colonel  on  the  yth  April.  The  other  principal  officers  at  this  time 
were  Lieutenant-Colonel  Robert  Jackson,  Major  Robert  Duncan- 
son,  Captains  Neil  Campbell,  Duncan  Campbell,  Thomas 
Drummond  (Grenadiers),  Colin  Campbell,  senior,  Colin  Campbell, 
junior,  Robert  MacAulay,  Alexander  Campbell  of  Finab,27  John 
Louis  de  la  Bene,  George  Somerville,  and  Robert  Campbell  of 
Glenlyon.  The  Earl  of  Argyll,  if  not  a  great  soldier,  had 
performed  useful  service  in  Scotland  since  the  Revolution.  By 
considerable  tact  he  had,  through  the  influence  of  religion, 

26  Colonel  Clifford  Walton,  C.B.,  in  his  History  of  the  Standing  Army,   1660- 
1700,  tells  the  story  of  another  regiment. 

27  Son    of  Robert   Campbell,   and    great   grandson   of  Sir  Duncan   Campbell 
of  Glenorchy,    '  Black  Duncan.'     Appointed  Captain,  Argyllshire  Highlanders, 
1st    August,    1693.      In    1699    went    to    Darien    for    the    African    and    Indian 
Company  of  Scotland    to    regulate  their  affairs  there,   and  for  his  services  was 
presented  with  a  gold  medal  specially  struck  in  his  honour.     Appointed  Captain 
of  an    additional    company    in    the    Cameronians,    24th    June,    1701.      Brevet 
Lieut. -Colonel,    zgth    March,    1703.       Served    with    the    Argyllshire    Militia 
against  the  Jacobites  in  the  '15.      Is  credited  with  having  commanded  one  of 
the  Independent  companies  which  were  incorporated    in    the  Black  Watch   in 
1739,    but    I    am    assured    by    the    Marchioness    of  Tullibardine   that  he  died 
before  they  were  raised. 


38  The   First  Highland  Regiment 

gradually  habituated  his  followers  to  the  new  order  of  things,  till 
the  country  of  the  Campbells  exhibited  a  picture  of  peacefulness 
and  civilization  in  strong  contrast  to  the  rest  of  the  Highlands. 
In  1696  he  was  appointed  Colonel  of  the  Scots  Troop  of  Life 
Guards.  He  was  created  a  Duke  23rd  June,  1701,  became 
Major-General  i2th  May,  1702,  and  died  at  Newcastle,  on  his 
way  to  Scotland,  on  the  28th  September,  1703,  and  was  buried 
at  Kilmun,  the  burying-place  of  the  family  of  Argyll. 

In  1694  the  army  of  90,000  men  which  William  commanded 
did  no  more  than  hold  the  French  successfully  at  bay ;  year  after 
year  he  had  to  fight  against  odds.  Soon  after  the  campaign  of 
1695  opened,  the  regiment,  under  command  of  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  Patrick  Hume,28  recently  appointed  in  place  of 
Lieutenant-Colonel  Jackson,  was  detached  with  a  large  force, 
under  Major-General  Ellenberg,  to  garrison  Dixmude,  which  was 
invested  by  the  French.  This  General,  a  Danish  officer  who  had 
risen  from  the  ranks,  was  in  command.  Of  supplies  and 
munitions  of  all  descriptions  there  were  plenty.  The  works  were 
not  strong,  but  the  place  was  capable  of  a  prolonged  resistance. 
Not  twenty-four  hours,  however,  had  elapsed  after  the  trenches 
were  opened  before  Ellenberg  beat  a  parley  and  called  a  Council 
of  War.  He  laid  before  the  Council  the  condition  of  the  place, 
and  proposed  a  capitulation,  to  which,  after  some  persuasion,  the 
majority  of  the  officers  consented.  But  Lieutenant-Colonel 
Robert  Duncanson,  who  had  succeeded  Lieutenant-Colonel  Hume 
in  the  command  of  the  Argyllshire  Highlanders,  though  the 
youngest  in  the  Council  of  War,  flatly  refused  to  give  his 
adherence.29  With  only  one  supporter,  he  urged  that  as  yet  there 
was  no  breach,  and  the  enemy  had  not  effected  a  lodgement  in 
the  counterscarp,  and  to  talk  of  surrender  was  dishonourable. 
The  General,  however,  obtained  a  majority,  and  the  capitulation 
was  signed  the  next  day — I7th  July,  1695.  It  is  recorded  that 
the  soldiers  forming  the  garrison  were  greatly  exasperated  when 
required  to  lay  down  their  arms  and  surrender  their  colours  as 
prisoners  of  war.  The  Argyll  men  were  loud  in  their  remon- 
strance, and,  to  their  credit  and  honour  be  it  said,  rather  than  the 
colours  under  which  they  had  fought  so  well  should  fall  into  the 
hands  of  the  enemy,  they  tore  them  from  the  poles  and  destroyed 

28  Lieut.-Colonel  Hume,  who  was  appointed  Lieut. -Colonel  of  the  regiment  in 
1695,  only  served  a  few  months.     He  was  mortally  wounded  when  serving  on 
the  staff  of  General  Ramsay  at  the  siege  of  Namur,  and  died  in  July,   1695. 

29  D'Auvergne's  Campaign  in  Flanders,   1695. 


The  Argyllshire  Highlanders  39 

them.30  General  Ellenberg  was  tried  by  Court  Martial,  and 
beheaded ;  O'Farrel  was  cashiered  and  imprisoned ;  while  most 
of  the  others  who  had  signed  the  capitulation  were  broke.  The 
officers  and  men  of  the  garrison  were  shortly  afterwards  released, 
and  the  regiment  went  into  winter  quarters  at  Damme.  The 
year's  campaign  ended  in  a  great  triumph  over  the  French  in  the 
capture  of  Namur,  which  would  have  been  more  marked  had  King 
William  been  able  to  follow  it  up  by  a  victory  in  the  field. 

The  campaigns  of  1696  and  1697  were  uneventful,  the  duty 
of  the  regiment  consisting  chiefly  in  protecting  Bruges,  Nieuport, 
and  the  neighbourhood.  The  war,  in  fact,  was  fast  drawing  to  a 
close,  and  when  King  William  returned  to  Holland  in  the  spring 
of  the  latter  year,  peace  negotiations  were  on  the  point  of  being 
opened  at  Ryswick.  No  further  military  operations  took  place, 
and  it  only  remains  to  add  that  France,  reduced  to  utter 
exhaustion,  was  only  too  ready  to  consent  to  peace,  which  was 
concluded  by  England,  the  United  Provinces,  and  Spain  on  the 
loth  September,  1697:  the  Emperor  definitely  acceded  on  the 
3<Dth  October.  And  so  ended  the  military  service  of  the  Argyll- 
shire Highlanders,  the  first  Highland  regiment  raised  for  the 
British  Standing  Army.  For  though  there  was  an  Independent 
Foot  Company  of  (  Highland  men '  on  the  Scottish  establishment 
in  1678,  and  a  similar  c  Company  of  Highlanders '  was  raised  by 
Lieutenant-General  Hugh  Mackay  in  1689,  there  appears  to  have 
been  no  Highland  Regiment  on  the  establishment  prior  to  the 
raising  of  the  Argyllshire  Highlanders  in  1689.  The  late  Colonel 
Clifford  Walton,  C.B.,  in  his  History  of  the  British  Army>  1660- 
1700,  claims  the  distinction  for  Colonel  George  Hamilton's 
Scottish  Regiment  of  Foot.  But  Hamilton's  Regiment,  though 
raised  in  Scotland,  was  apparently  not  raised  in  the  Highlands. 
Nor  was  it  formed  until  more  than  three  years  after  Argyll's 
regiment.31  The  Argyllshire  Highlanders  were  disbanded  in 

30  Treasury  Papers,  vol.  83. 

31  See  Dalton's    Army    Lists    and    Commission    Registers,     1661-1714,    vol.   iii. 
Hamilton's  Regiment   was  raised,    ist  February,    1693,  by    Colonel    Sir    James 
Moncrieff,  Bart.,  who  died  the  same  year,  when  he  was  succeeded  by  Colonel 
George  Hamilton,  not  to  be  confounded  with  Lieut.-Colonel  James  Hamilton 
who  was    implicated    in    the    massacre    of  Glencoe.     In    February,    1794,    the 
regiment   went  to    England,    and    embarked    shortly    afterwards   for    Flanders, 
serving  there  until  the  Peace  of  Ryswick  when  it  returned  to  Scotland.     In   1701 
it  was  taken   into   the  service  of  the  States   General,  in  which  it  continued  all 
through  the  wars  of  Queen  Anne,  behaving  itself  on  all  occasions  with  unquestion- 
able fidelity.     It  was  disbanded  at  Bergen-op-Zoom,  1st  November,  1714,  when 
the  officers  were  sent  adrift  '  without  half-pay  or  any  allowance  whatsoever.' 


40  The   First  Highland  Regiment 

Flanders,  the  officers  and  men  returning  home  by  the  end  of 
1697,  the  former  being  placed  on  half-pay  in  1698. 

Lord  Lome's  connection  with  the  regiment  had  been  very 
slight,  though  he  nominally  commanded  it  since  April,  1694. 
He  succeeded  his  father  as  second  Duke  of  Argyll  in  1703,  and 
was  created  Duke  of  Greenwich  in  1719.  Pope  immortalized 
him  in  the  well-known  lines : 

'Argyll,  the  State's  whole  thunder  born  to  wield, 
And  shake  alike  the  Senate  and  the  field.' 

But  we  are  concerned  with  him  here  as  a  soldier.  He  served  as 
a  general  officer  under  Marlborough  at  Ramillies,  Oudenarde,  and 
Malplaquet,  in  which  last-named  battle  he  greatly  distinguished 
himself  by  his  extraordinary  bravery.  He  served  also  at  the 
sieges  of  Ostend,  Menin,  Lille,  and  Ghent.  As  Lieutenant- 
General  he  commanded  at  the  siege  of  Tournay,  where  he  was 
wounded.  In  February,  1711,  he  was  appointed  Commander-in- 
Chief  in  Spain,  with  the  rank  of  General.  After  his  return  he 
was  appointed  Commander-in-Chief  in  Scotland  and  Governor  of 
Edinburgh  Castle.  He  commanded  the  Government  troops  at 
Sheriffmuir  against  the  Jacobite  forces.  He  held  at  different 
times  the  colonelcy  of  the  3rd  Foot,  the  Scots  Troop  of  Life 
Guards,  the  2nd  Dragoon  Guards,  and  the  Royal  Horse  Guards. 
He  was  also  Master-General  of  the  Ordnance,  Field  Marshal, 
and  Commander-in-Chief,  besides  being  a  K.G.  and  K.T.  He 
died  in  October,  1743. 

Lieutenant-Colonel  Duncanson,  whose  admirable  conduct  in 
command  of  the  Argyllshire  Highlanders  atoned  in  some  measure 
for  his  unfortunate  connection  with  the  Glencoe  affair,  was 
appointed  Lieutenant-Colonel  of  the  Earl  of  Huntingdon's 
Regiment  (afterwards  the  33rd)  on  I2th  February,  1702  ;  Brevet 
Colonel  in  the  Army,  ist  November,  1703  ;  Colonel  of  Hunting- 
don's Regiment,  22nd  February,  1705;  and  died  as  a  soldier, 
being  killed  at  the  siege  of  Valencia  de  Alcantara  on  the  8th  May, 
1705. 

ROBERT  MACKENZIE  HOLDEN. 


Charles  the  Second:    His   connection  with  Art 
and  Letters 

WE  are  over  ready  to  think  of  the  Restoration  period  as 
one  of  disgrace  merely  in  our  annals ;  we  can  spare  a 
word,  now  and  then,  for  its  wit  and  its  art.  Charles  the  Second 
was  a  typical  nobleman  of  his  time;  he  loved  pleasures  of  all 
sorts,  including  those  of  art.  Horace  Walpole  styles  him  '  The 
only  genius  of  the  line  of  Stuart.' l  Mr.  Cyril  Ransome  credits 
him  with  *  consummate  ability,'  and  calls  him  c  a  man  of  great 
natural  sagacity ' ; 2  and  the  truth  of  the  historian's  comments 
must  be  owned  by  all  acquainted,  either  with  the  political  history 
of  Charles's  reign,  or  with  its  lively  indecorous  memoirs. 

*  Perfectly  a  Friend  to  ease,  and  fond  of  pleasure '  is  the  Merry 
Monarch's  character  as  described  by  Sir  John  Reresby,  who  also 
declares  that  it  was  not  in  Charles'  nature  '  to  think  or  perplex 
himself  much  about  anything.' 3 

On  the  1 6th  of  May,  1663,  Samuel  Pepys  regrets  c  that  the 
king  do  mind  nothing  but  pleasures  and  hates  the  very  sight  or 
thoughts  of  business.'  4  But  many  facts  prove  that  among  the 
pleasures  Charles  loved  were  those  of  Art.  His  boyhood  was 
not  without  intellectual  promise.  c  I  wish  you  could  see  the 
gentleman,'  writes  Henrietta  Maria,  in  an  early  letter  concerning 
her  son,  '  for  he  has  no  ordinary  mien ;  he  is  so  serious  in  all 
that  he  does  that  I  cannot  help  deeming  him  far  wiser  than 
myself.'5  His  own  early  letters  are  bright.  The  following,  to 

1  Catalogue  of  the  Royal  and  Noble  Authors,  by  Horace  Walpole,  art.  James  the 
Second. 

2  A   Short  History   of  England,  by  Cyril    Ransome,  M.A.,  pp.  277   and   264 
(Longmans). 

3  Memoirs  and  Travels  of  Sir  John  Reresby,  Bart,,  pp.   163  and   198  (Dryden 
House  Memoirs  edition). 

4  Pepys'  Diary,  p.  154. 

5  Charles  II.,  by  Osmund  Airy,  p.  3  (Goupil's  edition). 


42  Charles  the  Second  : 

the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  was  written  when  Charles  was  about 
ten  years  of  age : 

1  My  Lord, — I  would  not  have  you  take  too  much  physic,  for 
it  doth  always  make  me  worse,  and  I  think  it  will  do  the  like  with 
you.  I  ride  every  day,  and  am  ready  to  follow  any  other  directions 
from  you.  Make  haste  to  return  to  him  that  loves  you. 

Charles  P.'  6 

The  recipient  of  this  letter,  well-known  as  the  husband  of 
Charles  Lamb's  heroine  ((  that  princely  woman — the  thrice  noble 
Margaret  Newcastle ')  was  Charles  the  Second's  first  tutor. 
Clarendon  describes  the  Duke  as  c  amorous  in  poetry  and  music, 
to  which  he  indulged  the  greatest  part  of  his  time.'7  At  this 
period  also,  the  more  literary  side  of  the  prince's  education  was 
entrusted  to  Brian  Duppa,  a  scholar  of  note.8  In  1641  Charles 
was  removed  to  the  charge  of  the  Marquess  of  Hertford,  who, 
according  to  Clarendon,  t  loved  his  book  above  all  exercises.' 9 
His  third  and  last  tutor  was  the  Earl  of  Berkshire.  Clarendon 
declares  that  this  nobleman  was  unsuited  to  the  charge ;  but  the 
others,  as  has  been  shown,  were  well  qualified  to  teach  a  prince 
who  was  to  become  associated  with  art  and  letters. 

Though  his  love  for  these  things  was  chiefly  noticeable  after 
the  Restoration,  yet  once,  in  the  course  of  his  flight  from 
Worcester,  Charles  showed  an  interest  in  books.  He  was  hiding 
at  Mosely,  the  house  of  one  Thomas  Whitgreave — *  a  very  honest 
gentleman's  house,'  according  to  the  account  Charles  dictated  to 
Pepys.  '  The  morning  after  his  arrival  there,'  so  Whitgreave 
himself  writes,  Charles  came  into  the  *  studie,'  where,  '  looking 
upon  severall  books,  he  saw  Mr.  Turbervill's  Catechisme,  and 
read  a  little  of  itt,  said  itt  was  a  pretty  book,  and  that  he  would 
take  it  with  him.'10 

According  to  Laurence  Echard11  (1670?-! 730)  and  Clarendon, 
Charles,  when  at  Cologne  in  1654-55,  spent  much  time  in  study. 

6  Ellis' 's  Original  Letters,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  286  and  287. 

7  History  of  the  Great  Rebelfton,  by  Edward  Hyde,  Lord  Clarendon,  vol.  iii., 
p.  393  (edition  of  1799). 

8  Dictionary  ofNational  Biography,  art.  Brian  Duppa. 

9  Clarendon,  vol.  i.,  p.  603. 

10  After  Worcester  Fight,  by  Allan  Fea,  p.  166. 

11  Memoirs  of  the  Court  of  England,  by  John  Heneage  Jesse,  vol.  ii.,  p.  453 
(Bohn's  edition). 


His  connection  with  Art  and  Letters      43 

Clarendon  writes:  c  .  .  .  and  he,  being  well  refreshed  with  the 
divertissments  he  had  enjoyed,  betook  himself  with  great  cheer- 
fulness to  compose  his  mind  to  his  fortune,  and  with  a  marvellous 
contentedness  prescribed  so  many  hours  in  the  day  to  his 
retirement  in  his  closet;  which  he  employed  in  reading  and 
studying  both  the  Italian  and  French  languages ;  .  .  .'  12 

This  is  a  flattering  picture!     At  this  time  Charles  was  well 
aware  that  it  was  politic  to  establish  a  good  character. 


II. 

The  name  of  Charles  I.  must  ever  be  associated  with  the  history 
of  painting.  It  did  not  fall  to  his  son's  lot  to  foster  the  genius 
of  a  Vandyke  or  a  Rubens.  Yet  Charles  the  Second  inherited 
some  part  of  his  father's  taste  for  the  plastic  arts,  and  he  patronised 
painting  and  architecture. 

At  the  Restoration  Lely  was  at  once  advanced  in  high  favour 
by  Charles  the  Second,  who  gave  him  a  pension,  and  kept  him 
constantly  employed.  From  that  time  to  his  death,  Lely's  career 
was  one  of  success  and  popularity.  Charles  himself  frequently 
visited  the  artist's  studio,  and  treated  him  as  a  personal  friend. 
Lely  was  knighted  at  Whitehall  on  the  nth  of  January,  1679, 
and  received  a  grant  of  arms.13  Another  artist  patronised  by 
the  king  was  William  van  de  Velde.  A  native  of  Leyden,  he 
was  invited  by  Charles  to  England,  where  he  arrived  in  1675. 
He  became  c  painter  of  sea  fights  '  to  the  crown,  and  received  a 
pension  of  ^100  per  annum.14  His  son  was  also  in  royal  favour. 
William  van  de  Velde  the  younger,  after  gaining  a  reputation  as 
a  painter  in  Holland,  came  with  his  father  to  London.  In  1674 
Charles  granted  the  artist  a  salary  of  ,£100  per  annum,  and 
commissioned  him  to  paint  pictures  of  naval  battles.  Many 
pictures  by  Van  de  Velde  the  younger  represent  actions  between 
the  English  and  Dutch  Fleets.15 

St.  Paul's  Cathedral  was  rebuilt  under  Charles  the  Second's 
auspices,16  and  he  patronised  Christopher  Wren.  The  architect 
had  devoted  his  early  years  to  science.  The  first  definite 

12  Clarendon ',  vol.  v.,  p.  397. 

13  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  art.  Sir  Peter  Lely. 

14  Bryan's  Dictionary  of  Artists  and  Engravers,  art.  Van  de  Velde. 

15  Ibid.,  art.  Van  de  Velde  the  younger. 

16  Jesse,  vol.  ii.,  p.  486.     See  also  After  Worcester  Fight,  p.  244. 


44  Charles  the  Second  : 

information  we  receive  of  his  applying  himself  professionally  to 
architecture,  is  his  accepting,  in  his  twenty-ninth  year  (1661),  the 
invitation  to  act  practically  as  surveyor  general  of  His  Majesty's 
works,  though  nominally  as  assistant  to  Sir  John  Denham.  Wren 
was  knighted  in  1672,  and  in  1684  was  appointed  by  the  King 
to  the  post  of  '  Comptroller  of  the  Works  in  the  Castle  of 
Windsor.'17 

Evelyn,  himself  an  ardent  connoisseur,  testifies  to  Charles'  love 
for,  and  patronage  of  the  plastic  arts.  The  diarist  writes  (nth 
May,  i66i):18 

{  My  wife  presented  to  his  Majesty  the  Madona  she  had  copied 
from  P.  Oliver's  painting  after  Raphael,  which  she  wrought  with 
extraordinary  pains  and  judgment.  The  King  was  infinitely 
pleas'd  with  it,  and  caus'd  it  to  be  placed  in  his  cabinet  amongst 
his  best  paintings.' 

Evelyn  introduced  Charles  to  the  work  of  Grinling  Gibbon, 
sculptor  and  wood-carver,  whose  decorations  may  still  be  seen  in 
many  seventeenth  century  houses.  Evelyn  writes  (ist  March, 
i67i):19  <I  caused  Mr.  Gibbon  to  bring  to  Whitehall  his 
excellent  piece  of  carving,  where  being  come,  I  advertis'd  his 
Majestic,  who  ask'd  me  where  it  was ;  I  told  him  in  Sir  Richard 
Browne's  (my  father-in-law)  chamber,  and  that  if  it  pleas'd  his 
Majestic  to  appoint  whither  it  should  be  brought,  being  large 
and  tho'  of  wood  heavy,  I  would  take  care  of  it ;  "  No,"  says  the 
King,  "shew  me  the  way,  I'll  go  to  Sir  Richard  Browne's  chamber," 
which  he  immediately  did;  walking  along  the  entries  after  me,  as 
far  as  the  ewrie,  till  he  came  up  into  the  room  where  I  also  lay. 
No  sooner  was  he  enter'd  and  cast  his  eye  on  the  work  but  he 
was  astonish'd  at  the  curiositie  of  it,  and  having  consider'd  it  a 
long  time  and  discours'd  with  Mr.  Gibbon,  whom  I  brought  to 
kisse  his  hand,  he  commanded  it  should  be  immediately  carried 
to  the  Queen's  side  to  show  her.' 

Charles  must  have  been  well  pleased  with  the  carver's  work. 
He  purchased  from  Gibbon  a  carving  representing  the  '  Stoning 
of  St.  Stephen,'  containing  seventy  figures,  and  carved  out  of 
three  blocks  of  wood.  Gibbon  executed  two  marble  statues  of 
the  King.  He  was  made  master  carver  in  wood  to  the  crown, 
and  he  also  held  an  office  on  the  Board  of  Works.20 

17  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  art.  Sir  Christopher  Wren. 

18  Evelyn's  Diary,  p.  276  (Chandos  Classics  edition). 

19  Evelyn1!  Diary,  p.  353. 

20  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  art.  Grinling  Gibbon. 


His  connection  with  Art  and  Letters      45 

But  the  example  of  Charles'  patronage  of  the  plastic  arts  most 
worth  remembering  is  as  follows  :  An  artist  called  Streeter  (c  That 
excellent  painter  of  perspective  and  landskip,'  Evelyn  calls  him)  21 
was  to  undergo  a  serious  operation.  The  king  had  a  great  regard 
for  the  artist,  and  he  sent  for  a  famous  surgeon  from  Paris  on 
purpose  to  perform  the  operation.22 

Samuel  Pepys,  himself  a  keen  lover  of  *  musique,'  testifies  to 
Charles'  appreciation  of  the  greatest  of  all  arts.  The  diarist 
writes  (i2th  August,  1660)  :23 

1  After  sermon  a  brave  anthem  of  Captain  Cooke's  which  he 
himself  sang,  and  the  King  was  well  pleased  with  it.' 

And  again  (loth  November,  1660)  :24 

{ And  after  supper  a  play,  where  the  King  did  put  a  great 
affront  upon  Singleton's  musique,  he  bidding  them  stop  and  made 
the  French  musique  play,  which  my  Lord  says,  do  much  outdo 
all  ours.' 

And  the  Count  Grammont  writes : 25 

*  There  was  a  certain  Italian  at  court,  famous  for  the  guitar ; 
he  had  a  genius  for  music,  and  he  was  the  only  man  who  could 
make  anything  of  the  guitar ;  his  style  of  playing  was  so  full  of 
grace  and  tenderness  that  he  would  have  given  harmony  to  the 
most  discordant  instruments.  The  truth  is,  nothing  was  so 
difficult  as  to  play  like  this  foreigner.  The  king's  relish  for 
his  compositions  had  brought  the  instrument  so  much  into  vogue, 
that  every  person  played  upon  it,  well  or  ill.' 

There  was  at  Whitehall  a  concert-room  called  the  King's  music- 
house,26  and  Sir  John  Hawkins,  in  his  History  of  Music,  says 
that  Charles  <  understood  the  notes  and  sang — to  use  the 
expression  of  one  who  had  often  sung  with  him — a  plump  base.' 2r 
In  an  early  letter  to  his  sister  Henrietta,  Charles  writes : 28 

4 1  send  you  this  letter  by  the  hands  of  Janton,  who  is  the  best 
girl  in  the  world.  We  talk  of  you  every  day,  and  wish  we  were 
with  you,  a  thousand  times  a  day.  Her  voice  has  almost  entirely 
returned,  and  she  sings  very  well.  She  has  taught  me  the  song 

21  Evelyn's  Diary,  p.  381.  22  Ibid.,  footnote. 

23  Pepys'  Diary,  p.  50.  24  Ibid.,  p.  60. 

25  Memoirs  of  Count  Grammont,  p.  153. 

26  Rochester  and  other  Literary  Rakes  at  the  Court  of  Charles  11.,  by  the  author  of 
The  Life  of  Sir  Kenelm  Digby,  p.  43. 

27  History  of  Music,  by  Sir  John  Hawkins,  vol.  iv.,  p.  359. 

28  Madame  :  A  Life  of  Henrietta  of  Orleans,  by  Julia  Cartwright,  p.  53. 


46  Charles  the  Second  : 

de  ma  queue,  "I  prithee,  sweet  harte,  come  tell  me  and  do  not 
lie,"  and  a  number  of  others.' 

And  in  another  letter  to  his  sister  he  writes :  *  Thank  you  for 
the  song  which  you  have  sent  me.'29 


III. 

Charles  the  Second  had  a  good  library,  and  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  he  loved  some  of  his  books,  for  Reresby  declares 
that  *  certain  it  is,  he  was  much  better  pleased  with  retirement, 
than  the  hurry  of  the  gay  and  busy  world.'30  The  catalogue  of 
his  books  still  exists,31  and  contains  such  entries  as  the  following : 

Book  of  Homilies. 

Boethius  (Hector),  History  of  Scotland. 

Boileau,  ses  Ouvres,  410. 

Bocaccio  Decameron. 

Boscobell,  the  King's  Escape  there. 

Broom  e's  Horace. 

Hobbs  answered  by  Wallis. 

Homer's  Iliads. 

Hooker's  Policy,  fbl. 

Hudebras,  by  Butler,  vol.   I. 

Idem,  vol.   2. 

Kempis    de    Imitatione    Christi,   par   Graswinckelium,   in   French,   by 

Corneille. 

K.  Charles   1st,  Icon  Basilicon! 

Liberty  and  Necessity,  by  Br.   Bramwell  and  Hobbs. 
Liveing  Holy,  by  Taylor. 
Liberia  Jerusalemma  di  Tasso. 
Queen  Fayry,  by  Spenser. 
Quixot  (Don)  with  Gayton's  notes. 
Questiones  de  la  Naissance  du  Mond. 
Seneque,  ses  Oeuvres,  vol.    I. 

Idem,  vol.   2nd. 

Selden's  Domion  (sic)  of  ye  Sea. 

Many  of  Charles'  Books  were  plays,  contemporary  or 
otherwise : 

Broome's  Northern  Lass,  a  play. 
Hoe  Northward 

Westward 

Eastward 
Honner  and  Riches  Contention,  a  play. 

29  Madame :  A  Life  of  Henrietta  of  Orleans,  by  Julia  Cartwright,  p.  55. 

30  Reresby,  p.  201.  31  ftarleian  MS.,  4180. 


His  connection  with  Art  and  Letters      47 

Kindness,  a  Woeman  Kild  by  it,  a  play. 

Knight  of  the  Golden  Sheild,  a  play. 

Love's  Labour  Lost,  a  play. 

Love  in  a  Maze,  a  play. 

Loves  of  Triolus  and  Cressida,  a  play. 

Seaven  Champions,  a  play. 

Indeed  Charles  the  Second  was  a  keen  patron  of  the  Drama. 
An  immediate  result  of  the  Restoration  was  the  revival  of  the 
theatre.  The  acting  of  plays  had  been  prohibited  during  the 
Protectorate,  but  on  the  King's  accession  permission  was  given 
for  the  establishment  of  two  theatrical  companies — the  King's 
(under  Sir  Thomas  Killigrew)  and  the  Duke's  (under  Sir  William 
Davenant).  When  Davenant's  play  of  Love  and  Honour  was 
first  acted,  Charles  presented  his  coronation  suit  to  Betterton,  the 
actor.32 

IV. 

The  proverb,  '  Know  a  man  by  his  friends,'  holds  true  in  the 
case  of  a  king,  especially  in  regard  to  that  king's  connection 
with  art  and  letters.  It  is  necessary  to  consider  the  tastes  of  his 
court ;  to  note  if  any  courtiers  were  men  of  letters,  and  whether 
such  courtiers  were  in  royal  favour.  And  it  is  necessary  to 
consider  the  amount  of  royal  patronage  extended  towards  men  of 
letters  who  were  not,  strictly  speaking,  courtiers.  Now  the 
Count  Grammont,  versed  in  the  ways  of  the  court  of  Louis 
XIV.  (the  court  of  Racine  and  Boileau)  and  long  restored  to  it, 
speaks  still  in  his  old  age  with  enthusiasm  of  the  court  of  Charles 
the  Second : 

c  Accustomed  as  he  was  to  the  grandeur  of  the  Court  of 
France,  he  was  surprised  at  the  politeness  and  splendour  of  the 
Court  of  England.'33 

The  Merry  Monarch  loved  to  have  poets,  wits  and  scholars 
about  him,  and  it  is  remarkable  how  many  Restoration  authors 
were  born — to  use  the  French  expression.  Of  this  *  mob  of 
gentlemen  who  wrote  with  ease,'  John  Wilmot,  Earl  of  Rochester, 
must  be  reckoned  first,  not  only  on  account  of  his  special  intimacy 
with  the  king,  but  also  because  of  the  excellence  of  his  verse. 

*  He  was  so  much  in  favour  with  King  Charles,'  says  Dr.  Johnson, 

*  that  he  was  made  one  of  the  gentlemen  of  the  bedchamber,  and 
comptroller  of  WToodstock  Park.'34 

32  Jesse,  vol.  ii.,  p.  484.  33  Grammont,  p.  91. 

34  Johnson's  Lives  of  the  Poets,  art.  Rochester. 


48  Charles  the  Second: 

Pepys  deplores  the  intimacy  between  Charles  and  Rochester, 
thinking  it  *  to  the  king's  everlasting  shame,  to  have  so  idle  a 
rogue  his  companion.' 35  And  the  Count  Grammont  writes : 36 
4  Lord  Rochester  is,  without  contradiction,  the  most  witty  man  in 
all  England ;  .  .  .  No  woman  can  escape  him,  for  he  has  her  in 
his  writings,  though  his  other  attacks  be  ineffectual ;  and  in  the 
age  we  live  in,  the  one  is  as  bad  as  the  other  in  the  eye  of  the 
public.' 

Sir  Charles  Sedley  first  appeared  at  Court  about  1667.  The 
king  delighted  in  his  society,  and  once  asked  him  if  he  had  not 
obtained  from  nature  a  patent  to  be  Apollo's  viceroy.37  Sedley's 
poems  were  much  admired  by  his  contemporaries.  Rochester 
spoke  of  their  '  gentle  prevailing  art,'  while  the  *  witchcraft  of 
Sedley'38  was  an  expression  used  by  George  Villiers,  second  Duke 
of  Buckingham,  a  nobleman  who,  for  a  time  at  least,  was  one 
of  Charles'  literary  friends.  The  two  (Buckingham  and  Charles) 
were  educated  together,  and  when  the  King  visited  Scotland  at 
the  invitation  of  the  Covenanters,  the  Duke  of  Buckingham  was 
the  only  personal  friend  who  accompanied  him.  At  the  Restora- 
tion he  received  proofs  of  royal  favour,  being  made  a  Lord  of 
the  Bedchamber  and  a  member  of  the  Privy  Council,  and  after- 
wards Master  of  the  Horse  and  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Yorkshire.39 
Buckingham  was  a  lover  and  composer  of  music.40  A  more 
voluminous  author  than  either  Rochester  or  Sedley,  he  wrote 
many  plays,  notably  The  Rehearsal,  which  ridiculed  the  heroic 
drama  of  Davenant  and  Dryden.  Charles  Sackville,  Earl  of 
Dorset,  was,  after  Rochester,  the  most  attractive  of  Restoration 
courtier  poets.  He  was  a  gentleman  of  the  royal  bedchamber, 
and  in  great  favour  with  the  king.  Dorset  took  part  in  the  great 
naval  fight  at  Lowestoft  in  1665.  The  night  before  the  action 
he  is  said  to  have  composed  his  song  (*  One  of  the  prettiest  that 
ever  was  made,'  according  to  Prior) : 

'To  all  ye  ladies  now  on  land 
We  men  at  sea  indite.'  41 

This  last — verse-making  on  the  eve  of  battle — is  typical  of  the 
Stuart  period. 

35  Pepys1  Diary,  p.  565.  ™  Grammont,  p.  207. 

37  Chambers'  Encyclopedia  of  English  Literature,  art.  Sir  Charles  Sedley. 

38  Jesse,  vol.  iii.,  p.  326.  39  Ibid.,  p.  77. 

40  George  Villiers,  second  Duke  of  Buckingham,  by  Lady  Burghclere,  pp.  1 34  and  1 50. 

41  Jesse,  vol.  iii.,  p.  244,  et  seq. 


His  connection  with  Art  and  Letters      49 

Many  authors  other  than  those  of  noble  birth  enjoyed  favour 
with  Charles  the  Second.  After  the  Restoration,  Thomas  Fuller 
and  Richard  Baxter  were  made  chaplains  to  the  King.  Jeremy 
Taylor  was  appointed  Bishop  of  Down  and  Connor,  and  Hobbes, 
who  in  1647  had  been  mathematical  tutor  to  Charles,  received  an 
annual  pension  of  ^100.  It  was  a  saying  of  Charles'  in  reference 
to  the  opposition  which  the  doctrines  or  Hobbes  met  with  from 
the  clergy  that  {  he  was  a  bear  against  whom  the  Church  played 
their  young  dogs  in  order  to  exercise  them.'  When  the  king 
visited  Norwich  in  1671  he  knighted  Sir  Thomas  Browne,  the 
author  of  Religio  Medici*2  and  when  Abraham  Cowley  died, 
Charles  declared,  *  That  Mr.  Cowley  had  not  left  a  better  man 
behind  him  in  England.'43  Samuel  Butler  also  found  favour  in 
the  royal  eyes.  Hudibras  was  the  king's  favourite  book;44  he 
carried  a  copy  in  his  pocket,  and  referred  to  it  often.45 

'  He  never  ate,  nor  drank,  nor  slept, 
But  Hudibras  still  near  him  kept.' 

Dr.  Johnson  writes  concerning  Butler : 46 

4  In  1663  was  published  the  first  part,  containing  three  cantos, 
of  the  poem  of  Hudibras  which,  as  Prior  relates,  was  made  known 
at  Court  by  the  taste  and  influence  of  Lord  Dorset.  When  it 
was  known,  it  was  necessarily  admired ;  the  king  quoted,  the 
courtiers  studied,  and  the  whole  part  of  the  Royalists  applauded 
it.  ...  It  is  reported  that  the  king  once  gave  him  (Butler)  three 
hundred  guineas.  .  .  .' 

The  case  of  Milton  is  noteworthy.  f  The  wonder  is,' 
says  Professor  Masson  in  his  life  of  the  poet,  *  that,  at  the 
Restoration,  Milton  was  not  hanged.'  The  poet  was  for  some 
time  in  danger.  His  Eikonoklastes  and  Defensio  pro  Populo 
Anglicano  were  ordered  to  be  burnt  by  the  common  hangman. 
But  when  the  Bill  of  Indemnity  passed  the  two  houses  and 
received  the  king's  assent,  Milton  was  not  named  as  one  of  the 
excepted  persons.  The  poet  certainly  had  friends  in  the  House 
of  Commons.  *  It  has  to  be  remembered,  however,'  says 
Professor  Masson,  <  that  the  Indemnity  Bill  had  to  pass  through 
the  Lords,  with  the  strictest  revision  by  that  House  of  every 

42  Cyclopedia  of  English  Literature,  art.    Fuller,   Baxter,   Taylor,   Hobbes   and 
Browne. 

43  Johnson's  Lives,  art.  Cowley. 

44  History  of  England  and  Great  Britain,  by  Professor  Meiklejohn,  p.  501. 

45  Rochester  and  other  Literary  Rakes,  p.  45.  46  Johnson's  Lives,  art.  Butler. 

D 


50  Charles  the  Second  : 

arrangement  made  by  the  Commons,  and  so  that,  if  Chancellor 
Hyde,  as  Prime  Minister  for  Charles,  or  if  Charles  himself,  had 
lifted  a  finger  against  Milton,  his  escape  would  have  been 
impossible.' 

Charles  took  pleasure  in  the  society  of  Andrew  Marvell,  despite 
the  fact  that  the  poet  had  been  assistant  Latin  secretary  to  Milton.48 
The  king  was  also  intimate  with  Edmund  Waller.  He  once  told 
the  poet  that  his  ode  on  Cromwell  was  superior  to  that  on  himself 
(Charles).  c  Poets,  sire,'  was  the  apology,  '  succeed  better  in 
fiction  than  in  truth.'49  Charles  the  Second  gave  Dryden  the 
idea  of  writing  The  Medal.  Walking  one  day  with  Dryden  in 
Pall  Mall,  Charles  said,  *  If  I  was  a  poet,  and  I  think  I  am  poor 
enough  to  be  one,  I  would  write  a  poem  on  such  a  subject  in  the 
following  manner,'  and  then  gave  him  his  idea.  Dryden  took 
the  hint,  carried  the  poem  when  finished  to  the  king,  and  received 
a  handsome  present  for  it.50  In  spite  of  what  he  said  on  this 
occasion,  Charles  the  Second  has  another  claim  than  that  of 
poverty  to  the  name  of  poet.  David  Lloyd  (1635-1692)  men- 
tions '  several  majestick  poems '  written  by  Charles  in  his  youth.51 
Unfortunately  Lloyd's  statements  are  known  to  be  inaccurate  at 
times.52  Yet  if,  as  Sir  John  Hawkins  affirmed,  and  Horace 
Walpole  (an  unfavourable  critic)  thought  probable,  the  following 
lines  are  really  from  the  royal  pen,  the  Merry  Monarch  must 
have  had  some  skill  in  verse : 

'  I  pass  all  my  hours  in  a  shady  old  grove, 
But  I  live  not  the  day  when  I  see  not  my  love  ; 
I  survey  every  walk  now  my  Phillis  is  gone, 
And  sigh  when  I  think  we  were  there  all  alone  ; 
Oh,  then  'tis  I  think  there's  no  hell 
Like  loving  too  well. 

But  each  shade  and  each  conscious  bower  when   I  find, 
Where  I  once  have  been  happy,  and  she  has  been  kind  ; 
When   I  see  the  print  left  of  her  shape  on  the  green, 
And  imagine  the  pleasure  may  yet  come  again  ; 

Oh,  'tis  then  I  think  that  no  joys  are  above 
The  pleasures  of  love. 

47  Memoir  of  Milton,  by  Professor  Masson,  prefixed  to  Macmillan's  edition  of 
the  poet's  works. 

48  Cyclopedia  of  English  Literature,  art.  Marvel. 

49  Charles  /.,  by  Sir  John  Skelton,  p.  1 79. 

50  & pence's  Anecdotes,  p.  43. 

51  Rochester  and  other  Literary  Rakes,  p.  45. 

52  Dictionary  ofNational  Biography,  art.  David  Lloyd. 


His  connection  with  Art  and  Letters      51 

When  alone  to  myself  I  repeat  all  her  charms, 
She  I  loved  may  be  locked  in  another  man's  arms  ; 
She  may  laugh  at  my  cares,  and  so  false  she  may  be, 
To  say  all  the  kind  things  she  before  said  to  me ; 

Oh,  then  'tis,  Oh,  then,  that  I  think  there's  no  hell 
Like  loving  too  well. 

But  when  I  consider  the  truth  of  her  heart, 
Such  an  innocent  passion,  so  kind  without  art, 
I  fear  I  have  wronged  her,  and  hope  she  may  be 
So  full  of  true  love  to  be  jealous  of  me  ; 

Oh,  then  'tis  I   think  that  no  joys  are  above 
The  pleasures  of  love.'  53 

Mr.  G.  S.  Street  once  wrote  that  *  The  Stuart  letters  to  one 
another  are  invariably  delightful  to  read.  Charles  the  Second's 
to  Henrietta,  and  the  few  we  have  of  hers  to  him,  are,  of  course, 
the  most  charming  by  far.'54  The  king's  correspondence  is 
notable  for  an  easy  conversational  style,  a  gift  which  was  as 
rare  in  the  seventeenth  as  in  the  eighteenth  century.  All  the 
letters  to  Henrietta — c  deare  deare  Sister,'  as  he  calls  her — are 
bright  and  readable,  and  breathe  the  most  tender  affection.  *  For 
the  future,'  he  writes  on  one  occasion,  <  pray  do  not  treat  me  with 
so  much  ceremony,  or  address  me  with  so  many  Your  Majesties, 
for  between  you  and  me  there  should  be  nothing  but  affection.' 
At  another  time  he  tells  her :  £  I  am  sure  I  would  venture  all  I 
have  in  the  world  to  serve  you,  and  have  nothing  so  neare  my 
harte,  as  how  I  may  find  occasion  to  expresse  that  tender  affection 
I  have  for  my  dearest  Minette.'  And  again :  <  We  have  the 
same  disease  of  sermons  that  you  complaine  of  there,  but  I  hope 
you  have  the  same  convenience  that  the  rest  of  the  family  has,  of 
sleeping  the  most  of  the  time,  which  is  a  great  ease  to  those  who 
are  bound  to  heare  them.'55  On  several  occasions  Charles  had 
need  of  all  his  skill  as  a  correspondent.  It  must  have  been 
difficult  to  write  to  his  brother  James,  asking  him  to  leave  the 
country  before  the  Exclusion  Bill  was  laid  before  the  House  of 
Commons.  The  king  acquitted  himself  well  in  this  task,  and  the 
following  letter  to  the  Duke  of  York  is  one  of  the  best  letters 
from  the  royal  pen  : 

*  Dear  Brother, — I  have  already  given  you  my  reasons  at  large 
why  I  would  have  you  absent  yourself  for  some  time  beyond  the 

53  Jesse t  vol.  ii.,  p.  485. 

54  'Stewart  Women,'  by  G.  S.  Street,  English  Illustrated  Magazine,  July,  1902. 

55  Henrietta  of  Orleans,  pp.  53,  138  and  228. 


52  Charles  the  Second 

seas.  As  I  am  truly  sorry  for  the  occasion,  so  you  may  be  sure 
that  I  shall  never  desire  it  longer  than  it  will  be  absolutely 
necessary  both  for  your  good  and  my  security.  In  the  meantime, 
I  think  it  proper  to  give  it  you  under  my  hand  that  I  expect  this 
compliance  from  you,  desiring  it  may  be  as  soon  as  conveniently 
you  can.  You  may  easily  believe  with  what  trouble  I  write  this 
to  you,  there  being  nothing  I  am  more  sensible  of  than  the 
constant  kindness  you  have  had  for  me,  and  I  hope  you  will  be  so 
just  as  to  be  well  assured  that  no  absence  nor  anything  else  can 
ever  change  me  from  being  truly  and  kindly. — Yrs, 

C.  R.'56 

Charles  the  Second  was  great  among  kings  and  wastrels  who 
have  loved  and  patronised  art ;  and  after  reading  these  letters  one 
cannot  marvel  at  the  popularity  which  was  his.  c  With  his 
subjects,'  says  John  Richard  Green,57  '  Charles  was  always 
popular:  the  nicknames  Old  Rowley  and  The  Merry  Monarch 
attest  even  now  the  liking  that  they  bore  him.' 

W.  G.  BLAIKIE  MURDOCH. 


66  Cavalier  and  Puritan  in  the  Days  of  the  Stuarts,  by  Lady  Newdigate-Newdegate, 
p.  60. 

57  A  History  of  the  English  People,  by  John  Richard  Green. 


The  Scottish  c  Nation '  at  the  University  of 
Padua 

AFTER  the  thirteenth  century  the  University  in  Italy 
to  which  both  Scottish  and  English  students  were  most 
indebted  was  the  University  of  Padua.  Bologna  previously  had 
been  Alma  Mater  to  a  few  of  the  travelling  Scots,  who  entered 
the  <  Natio  Anglica '  there,  and  of  these  Michael  Scot,  <  the 
wizard,'  was,  it  is  believed,  one.  When,  however,  the  University 
of  Padua  was  founded  in  1222,  during  an  eclipse  of  the  older 
University,  it  attracted  most  of  the  representatives  of  the 
northern  nations.  At  first  at  Padua  the  *  Natio  Anglica ' 
included  all  inhabitants  of  Britain,  English,  Scots,  and  Irish  alike,1 
and  in  1228,  at  the  time  when  there  was  an  abortive  attempt  to 
transfer  the  infant  law  university  from  Padua  to  Vercelli,  we 
find  that  the  '  Natio  Anglica  '  among  the  Ultramontane  c  nations J 
apparently  existed,  and  that  it  was  governed  like  the  French  and 
Norman  *  nations  '  by  a  Rector.2 

The  increased  knowledge  of  the  English  and  the  Scots  students, 
and  probably  their  mutual  dislike,  caused  their  eventual  separation 
into  distinct  Nations.  In  the  new  statutes  of  1331  they  were 
still  enumerated  together,  and  in  1465  the  *  Nation  '  is  called  that 
of  the  English  and  Scots,  but  in  1534  the  Scottish  and  English 
*  Nations '  were  definitely  separated,  nor  did  they  ever  again 
formally  unite  as  long  as  the  '  Nations '  lasted — that  is,  to  1738. 
We  shall  see,  however,  that  after  the  Union  of  the  Crowns 
complete  friendship  existed  between  their  respective  students. 
Although  the  University  gained  greatly  in  renown,  and  drew 
scholars  from  all  parts  of  the  North  after  Padua  fell  under  Venetian 

1  See  De  Natione  Anglica  et  Scota,  luristarium  Universitatis  Patavinae.     Scripsit  lo 
Aloys.  Andrich.     Prefatus  est  Dr.   Blasius  Brugi,  Patavii,    1892  ;  on  which  this 
article  is  based. 

2  The   Universities  of  Europe  in  the  Middle  Ages,  by  Hastings  Rashdall,  M.A. 
Oxford,  1895.     Vol.  ii.,  p.  14. 

53 


54  The  Scottish  <  Nation  ' 

domination  in  1465,  the  Scottish  Jurist  students  were  not  always 
numerous,  and  the  Germans  had  from  early  times  the  right  of 
supplying  vacancies  in  the  Councils  of  the  Ultramontane  Nations 
when  their  own  students  were  wanting,  and  we  find  their  Council 
thus  from  time  to  time  embraced  Germans,  Poles,  Proven9als, 
Cypriotes,  Italians,  and  Burgundians.  This  fact  and  the  mis- 
transcription of  the  Scots  names  in  the  early  Paduan  records  which 
remain,  make  the  identification  of  the  early  Scottish  students 
difficult.  In  1534  we  find  on  the  rolls  the  names  of  Claudius  and 
Andreas  Brocardus,  Bernardus  Giuellus,  Urgetus  Arnuldus,  and 
Georgius  Onis,  in  1535-6  lacobus  Diourges  [or  De  Fouerges]  and 
lacobus  Galien,  and  in  1536-7  loannis  Paulus  Bassinus.  In 
1542-3  there  appear  the  names  Leonardus  Waltrinus,  and 
loannes  Franciscus  Waltrinus,  another  example  of  the  early 
custom  that  two  of  a  family  made  the  course  of  foreign  study 
together.  The  names  of  *  Thibouspt,'  '  Laurenata,'  and 
4  Schrenzer,'  which  follow,  are  even  more  difficult  to  identify, 
though  in  the  last  two  cases  the  students  are  each  definitely  called 
4  Scotus.' 

In  March,  1581,  there  arrived  at  Padua  that  extraordinary 
Scottish  meteor,  James  Crichton,  called  l  the  Admirable.'  Under 
thirty  years  of  age,  he  came  with  a  great  reputation  for  the 
victorious  '  disputations '  which  he  had  held  with  Professors  and 
learned  doctors  both  at  Paris  and  in  the  presence  of  the  Pope. 
The  Professors  of  Padua,  it  is  said,  assembled  to  do  him  honour, 
and  on  his  introduction  he  declaimed  an  extemporary  poem  in 
praise  of  the  city,  the  University,  and  the  persons  present,  then 
sustained  a  '  disputation '  with  them  for  six  hours,  winding  up 
with  an  unpremeditated  and  unexpected  speech  <  in  praise  of 
ignorance,  to  the  astonishment  of  all  who  heard  him.'  This 
somewhat  uncomfortable  guest  seems  to  have  palled  upon  the 
Professors  of  Padua,  and  there  was  a  disposition  to  regard  the 
brilliant  youth  as  a  charlatan,  and  to  obviate  this  he  offered  to 
point  out  before  the  University  the  errors  in  the  Philosophy  of 
Aristotle,  the  ignorance  of  his  commentators,  and  the  wrong 
opinions  of  certain  celebrated  mathematicians.  He  did  this  ;  held, 
of  course  with  success,  a  disputation  with  a  rival  philosopher, 
Archangelus  Mercenarius,  and  then  departed  for  Mantua,  where 
he  was  made  tutor  to  the  Duke's  young  son,  Vincenzo  di  Gonzaga, 
at  whose  hands  he  met  his  death  in  a  carnival  brawl  a  few  years 
later. 

In  1591  (the  year  before  that  in  which  Galileo  began  to  teach 


at  the  University  of  Padua  55 

in  Padua)  the  custom,  which  obtained  coevally  in  the  English 

*  Nation '    also,    of    describing    the    scholars    on    entering    the 
University   commenced.     It    is    very    instructive,    as    it    shows 
how   turbulent   the   times   were,   and   how   even   these   youths, 
students  of  the  laws,  had  all  fought  in  their  turn  already,  and 
that  there  was  hardly  one  student  either  in  the  English  or  Scottish 
Nation  who  was  not  marked  for  life.     Nor  would  their  swords 
rust  at  Padua,  where  the  quarrels  between  the  students  and  the 
townspeople  were  incessant  and  of  world- wide  fame.     In  1591 
we    find    lacobus    Bancasinus    *  with    a    scar    in    the    middle    of 
his  brow  '  on  the  lists.     In  1593-4  Georgius  Ester  '  with  a  scar  in 
his  left  hand.'    In  1 594-5  Archibald  Douglas  'with  a  scar  on  the  left 
side  of  his  brow.'     During  these  years  Gyberthus  Greh  (Gray?) 
was  more  happily  distinguished  as  '  Scotus  cum  capillis  flavis,' 
whereas  Walser  (Walter)  Scotus,  lacobus  Bonadinus  or  Bonatin 
(Buntin  ?),  Georgius  Locardus  (Lockhart),  and  Andreas  Moravius 
were  more  lucky  in  having  no  descriptive  marks  at  all. 

The  year  1596-7  linked  Padua  more  nearly  to  the  history  of 
Scotland  on  account  of  the  matriculation  there  of  John  Ruthven, 
Earl  of  Gowrie.  He  was  then  about  nineteen,  and  we  get  the 
personal  note  that  he  had  '  a  white  mark  on  his  chin.'  His  fellow 
intrants  for  the  next  two  years  were  James  Lindsay  '  with  a  scar 
on  his  brow,'  Andrew  Keith  with  a  scar  on  his  right  hand, 

*  Gulielmus  Reiche '  with  a  scar  on  his  left  leg.     Robert  Kerr 
of  Neubottle  (afterwards  second  Earl  of  Lothian)  '  cum  neo  in 
manu  dextera  in  digito  annulari,'  Patrick  Sandys  with  a  scar  on 
the  left  of  his  brow,  Thomas  Segetus  '  cum  venecula  sub  oculo 
sinistro,'  and  (in  1598-9)  '  lo.  Gramus '  cum  cicatr.  ad  ocul  dext,' 
as  well  as  his  own  tutor,  Mr  William  Rynd — the  unfortunate 
man   who   was   afterwards   tortured   on   account   of   his   pupil's 
conspiracy — who  is  described  as  '  Scotus  cum  ledigine  super  facie.' 
All  these  Scots  were  protected  in  the  exercise  of  their  Protestant 
faith  by  the  Signory  of  Venice,  and  they  owed  their  protection 
not  to  the  favour  of  the  Signory  to  the  reformed  religion,  but 
to  the  Venetian  desire  of  independence  of  the  Pope  and  the 
consequent  fear  of  the  encroachment  of  the  Papal  power. 

In  I597,3  the  Earl  of  Cowrie's  faith  was  still  declared  to  be 
'Protestant,'  and  he  had  about  him  not  only  Rynd,  the 
pedagogue,  but  also  a  tutor,  Sir  Wm.  Keith,  whose  name  does 
not  appear  in  the  Padua  lists.  In  spite  of  their  influence  he 

3  Information  of  Robert  Ferguson,  Harl.  MSS.  588  ;  Brit.  Mus.,  Scottish  Historical 
Review,  vol.  i.  p.  219. 


56  The  Scottish  'Nation' 

coquetted,  we  are  told,  with  the  Catholics,  and  moreover  dabbled 
in  Alchemy  and  the  Black  Art,  so  that  he  too 

'  Learn'd  the  Art  that  none  may  name 
In  Padua,  far  beyond  the  sea,' 

a  course  of  study,  for  which  the  University  town  was  rather  too 
celebrated.  It  was  reported  indeed  that  he  planned  his  con- 
spiracy in  Padua,  and  left  there  on  a  dancing  school,  treasonable 
1  armes  parlantes.'  When  he  was  killed  in  1 600,  he  had  on  his 
body  *  a  little  close  parchment  full  of  magical  characters  and  words 
of  enchantment,'  which  his  tutor,  Rynd,  said  he  had  seen  at 
Padua,  and  which  no  doubt  gave  him  the  reputation  chronicled 
by  Queen  Elizabeth,  that  c  he  had  a  thousand  spirits  his 
familiars.' 

Though  it  has  been  stated  that  Lord  Gowrie  was  elected  Rector 
at  Padua,  his  name  does  not  appear  on  the  lists.  Kerr  of 
Neubottle,  on  the  other  hand,  was  in  1599-1600  on  the  Council 
of  the  '  Nation,'  and  his  arms  with  those  of  countless  other  well- 
known  Scottish  families  still  ornament  the  lo??ia  of  //  B6. 4 

oo 

On  August  2,  1603-4,  an  important  decision  was  given.  The 
Scots  were  insufficient  to  fill  the  vacancy  in  the  Council  of  their 
*  Nation,'  and  the  English  petitioned  to  be  allowed  to  supply 
the  place  with  one  of  their  number,  D.  Simeon  Foschint.  This 
was  granted  '  by  grace  not  by  right,  as  their  kingdom  is  now 
united  with  Scotland  under  the  same  King.'  This  was  the 
beginning  of  a  complete  rapprochement  between  the  two 'Nations,' 
and  though  the  inherent  right  of  the  Germans  to  supply  the 
vacancy  remained  (and  was  recognised  in  1673,  and  again  in 
1 695)5  we  read  in  1661  that  it  is  noted  specially  that  they 
exercised  their  right  '  citra  ullam  contra-dictionem,'  which 
probably  means  without  the  customary  brawl.  The  Cardinal  of 
Padua  (  cui  nemo  contra  dicere  audebat '  in  the  presence  of  the 
Praetor  interfered,  however,  in  1684  to  support  an  English 
candidate  for  a  Scottish  vacancy  during  a  conflict  with  the 
Germans,  stating  that  he  was  of  Scottish  descent,  and  it  was 

4  Besides  those  mentioned  here  I  noted  in  the  Loggle  and  Aula  Grande  of  //  Bo 
many  other  Scottish  coats  of  arms.  Among  them  were  those  of  '  Dom.  Arigus 
Erschen,'  Thomas  Somervelle,  '  Antonius  Lentrorshe  Scotus,'  '  Thomas  Segetus 
Scotus,'  'Pat.  Chalmers,  Cons.  Scotus,'  Wm.  Cranston,  'lac.  Murray,  Scotus,'  Henry 
Leith,  Robert  Bannerman,  David  Dickson,  Alexander  Cranston,  Alexander  Fal- 
coner (' Anglicus'),  Thomas  Setus  (Seton  ?)  There  exists  as  well  a  tablet  erected 
in  1662  to  Robert  Napierus,  'Nob.  Ang.' 


at  the  University  of  Padua  57 

eventually  arranged  on  the  nth  July  of  that  year  that  the  '  right 
of  supply '  should  only  be  exercised  by  the  Germans  in  default 
of  either  English  or  Scots  candidates. 

In  1607  an  incident  occurred  which  must  have  made 
the  Signory  of  Venice  look  somewhat  askance  at  the  Scots 
within  its  gates.  On  October  n,  Fra  Paolo  Sarpi,  who 
had  so  strongly  supported  the  Venetian  Government  in  with- 
standing Papal  aggression,  was  attacked  by  three  bravi  in 
the  pay  of  the  Pope.  One  of  these5  was  styled  Giovanni 
di  Firenza,  son  of  Paolo,  '  a  man  of  medium  height,  eyes 
of  a  different  colour,  red  beard,  enrolled  in  the  Company  of 
Bartolamio  Nievo  of  Vicenza,  destined  to  serve  in  Syria,'  and 
Sir  Henry  Wotton,  the  English  Ambassador,  writes  despairingly, 
during  the  hue  and  cry  raised  on  the  flight  of  the  assassins  to 
Papal  territory,  that  this  Giovanni  *  who  wounded  Master  Paul  is 
really  a  Scot,  who  passed  here  under  the  name  of  a  Florentine, 
and  that  he  had  been  in  my  house  several  times  a  day  or  two 
before  the  event.'  This  circumstance  naturally  turned  the 
attention  of  the  Venetians  to  the  English  and  Scottish  settlers, 
and  the  murder  at  Padua  on  January  20,  1608,  of  Julius  Caesar, 
an  English  student,  aged  20,  and  the  son  of  the  King's  Secretary, 
by  a  fencing  master,  Thomaso  Brochetta,  as  well  as  the  subsequent 
poisoning  of  one  of  the  Catholics  in  the  English  Ambassador's 
suite,  followed.  The  papers  about  this6  show  that  animosity  was 
aroused,  and  that  the  corpse  of  the  murdered  man,  as  that  of  a 
Calvinist,  though  it  lay  in  the  Church  of  S.  Catherine,  was 
refused  burial  until  the  Podesta  ordered  a  public  funeral.  This 
was  given  with  the  proviso  '  to  secretly  exclude  him  from  the 
Church  and  put  him  in  a  separate  place,'  and  it  points  to  the 
fact  that  no  place  of  burial  was  provided  for  the  Protestants,  and 
therefore,  unless  the  Scots  students  resembled  the  <  Allemaigns,' 
who,  irrespective  of  religion,  were  buried  in  the  Eremitana  of 
Padua  with  Catholic  rites,7  their  bodies  must  have  been  committed 
to  the  sea  near  Malamoco,  like  those  of  the  Protestant  English 
who  died  in  Venice. 

In  the  year  1610,  4th  March,  King  James  I.  took  a  little 
interest  in  his  subjects  in  Padua,  and  Francesco  Contarini,  the 
Venetian  Ambassador  in  England,  reports  his  conversation.8  He 
began  by  desiring  a  special  place  of  burial  to  be  assigned  for  his 

5  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Venetian,  1 1,  pp.  43-44.          6 'Ibid.,  pp.  84-86,   174-5. 
1  Ibid.,  p.  437,  note.  *Ibid.,  pp.  426-37. 


58  The  Scottish   £  Nation  ' 

subjects,  that  they  might  not  be  'thrown  into  the  water,' and  finally, 
he  begged  that  at  the  University  of  Padua,  students,  his  subjects, 
be  not  forced  to  take  the  oath.  We  answered  that,  after  finishing 
their  course  and  when  proceeding  to  their  degree,  by  ancient  and 
unbroken  custom  students  took  the  oath,  but  no  one  was  forced 
to  take  the  degree.  His  Majesty  seemed  satisfied,  for  he  added — 
*  It  is  true  that  unless  it  be  necessary  one  does  not  change  an 
ancient  practice.  That  is  a  rule  I  invariably  follow.'  That 
Padua  continued  the  residence  of  the  students  was  solely  owing 
to  the  tolerant  Government,  we  learn  from  an  Italian  copy  of  a 
letter  of  (circa)  1612,  of  Sir  Dudley  Carleton,  Ambassador  at 
Venice,  to  the  Doge.9  The  Ambassador  wrote  that  the  arrest 
of  his  servant  by  the  Inquisition  was  an  injury  to  the  reputation 
of  the  city,  the  liberty  of  which  c  has  attracted  a  congregation 
made  up  of  all  nations,  and  the  resort  of  English  to  this  city 
and  to  Padua  (which  is  the  same  thing)  has  become  so  great  that 
instead  of  four  or  five  as  formerly,  there  are  now  more  than 
seventy  here,  some  of  them  being  young  men  of  the  principal 
houses,  who  cause  no  scandall  in  matters  of  religion,  and  do 
not  offend  against  the  laws,  as  the  Rectors  (Rettori)  can  bear 
witness.  There  are  not  more  than  ten  Englishmen  in  the  rest 
of  Italy.'  Here  no  doubt  English  and  Scots  are  included  under 
the  one  title.  Let  us  glance  then  for  a  moment  at  the  names 
of  the  contemporary  young  men  who  in  the  Scottish  Nation 
caused  no  scandal  in  religious  matters. 

From  1600  to  1612  the  Scottish  students  included  John 
Craig,  probably  the  physician  to  King  James  VI.  (whom  he 
declared  to  have  been  poisoned)  and  later  to  King  Charles  I., 
and  some  names  more  difficult  to  identify — Robert  Clerus, 
Ludovicus  Suanus  (Swan  ?),  Thomas  Leitus,  Nicholas  Gar,  and 
Archibald  Schineassonus.  The  rest,  Thomas  Winstone,  Henri- 
cus  Crofets,  Herculis  Paulet,  loannes  Fiorius  (Flower  ?),  Carolus 
Busy,  George  Samuel,  Fabritius  Suardus,  and  Thomas  Turner, 
who  appear  in  the  Scots  list,  are  all  obviously  Englishmen,  as 
was  Franciscus  Willubi  in  1613-14.  But  'loannes  Wordor- 
bernius,'  who  matriculated  in  1609-10,  was  a  true  Scot.  He  was 
John  Wedderburn,  the  elder  brother  of  James,  Bishop  of 
Dunblane.  He  eventually  became  '  Proto-Medicus '  or  Chief 
Doctor  in  Moravia,  and  was  the  man  of  some  taste  and  wealth 
who,  in  the  year  1637,  presented  the  'sang  scool '  to  his  native 
town  of  Dundee.  William  Lithgow,  the  traveller,  mentions  him 

9  History  MSS.  Comm.     Duke  of  Buccleuch,  Montagu  House,  i.  p.  1 20. 


at  the  University  of  Padua  59 

when  in  Italy.10  c  In  Padua,'  he  says,  <  I  staid  three  months 
lerning  the  Italian  tongue,  and  found  there  a  country  gentleman 
of  mine,  a  learned  mathematician,  but  now  '  (1628)  '  dwelling  in 
Moravia,  who  taught  me  well  the  language  and  (was  in)  all  other 
respects  exceedingly  friendly  to  me.' n 

But  there  were  other  Scots  in  Padua  besides  the  Jurists  who 
made  up  the  Scots  c  Nation,'  who  do  not  appear  in  the  Jurists 
Rolls.  Padua  had  by  the  sixteenth  century  become  a  very 
celebrated  medical  school,  and,  before  Leyden  and  other 
Universities  of  the  Low  Countries  took  its  place,  sent  out  many 
young  doctors  to  England  and  Scotland,  and  among  these  in 
[602  was  William  Harvey,  the  discoverer  of  the  circulation  of 
ic  blood,  who  had  studied  anatomy  there  under  Fabricius  of 
Aquapendente.  In  1610,  the  Latin  poet,  Arthur  Johnston, 

iduated  M.D.  in  Padua.  In  the  <  Poetarum  Scotorum  Musae 
112  we  find  a  sympathetic  poem  by  him,  which  contains 

quaint  conceit,  on  his  teacher  in  anatomy,  Julius  Casserius  of 

^acenza,  and  one  also  on  his  friend  and  compatriot,  George 

>ibbald,    { Rankeilaurius,'    who    was    a    Jurist    and    a    Doctor 

as   well,   receiving   the   latter   degree   both   in   Philosophy   and 

Medicine  at  Padua  on  June  9th,  1614.     He,  it  is  interesting  to 

lote,  was  uncle  to  Sir  Robert  Sibbald,  who  founded  the  Botanic 

Garden  in  Edinburgh  in  1667;   and  one  cannot  help  connecting 

this  with  the  mention  of  John  Evelyn,  the  diarist,  of  the  *  Garden 

of  Simples,  rarely  furnished  with  Plants,'  which  he  saw  when  he 

too  was  a  medical  student  at  Padua. 

It  is  perhaps  not  out  of  place  in  this  context  to  quote  what 
Evelyn  wrote  in  1645  about  //  B6 — for  so  the  University  was 
called  from  an  old  Osteria  ['  The  sign  of  the  Ox  ']  no  doubt 
familiar  to  all  the  students,— describing  the  buildings  erected  in 
1552  by  Jacopo  Sansovino,  which  exist  in  much  the  same  condition 
now  as  they  did  in  his  day.  '  Hence  to  the  scholes,'  he  writes, 
*  of  this  flourishing  and  ancient  University,  especially  for  the 
studie  of  physic  and  anatomic.  They  are  partly  built  in 
quadrangle,  with  cloysters  beneath,  and  above  with  columns. 
Over  the  great  gate  are  the  armes  of  the  Venetian  State,  and 
under  the  Lion  of  St.  Marc. 

*  "  Sic  ingredere  et  teipso  quot-idie  Doctior :   sic  egredere  ut 

10  About  1609.      Wedderburn  was  born  circa  1583,  and  died  between  1647-51. 
V.  the  Wedderburn  Book,  by  A.  Wedderburn,  vol.  i.,  pp.  27-28-29.     His  arms 
still  appear  painted  on  the  walls  of  the  University. 

11  Travels,  1692,  p.  44.  ^Edinburgh,  1739,  p.  xlvi. 


60  The  Scottish   'Nation' 

indies  Patriae  Christianaeq :  Republicae  utilior  evadas ;  ita 
demum  Gymnasium  a  te  feliciter  ornatum  existimabit.  cio.  ix." 

*  About  the  walls  are  carv'd  in  stone  and  painted  the  blazons 
of  the  Consuls  of  all  the  nations  that  from  time  to  time  have  had 
that  charge  and  honour  in  the  Universitie,  which  at  my  being  there 
was  my  worthy  friend  Dr.  Rogers,13  who  here  took  that  degree. 

'  The  Scholes  for  the  lectures  of  the  severall  Sciences  are  above, 
but  none  of  them  comperable  or  so  much  frequented  as  the 
theatre  of  Anatomic,  which  is  excellently  contriv'd  both  for  the 
dissector  and  spectators.  I  was  this  day  invited  to  dinner,  and 
in  the  afternoone  (being  30  July)  received  my  Matricula  .  .  . 
My  Matricula  contained  a  clause,  that  I,  my  goods,  servants  and 
messengers,  should  be  free  from  all  toll  and  reprises,  and  that 
we  might  come,  pass,  return,  buy  or  sell,  without  any  toll,  etc.' 
He  speaks  of  the  constant  dangers  from  the  street  fights  after 
sunset  '  Nor  is  it,'  he  says,  *  easy  to  reform  their  intolerable 
usage,  when  there  are  so  many  strangers  of  several  nations.' 

Evelyn,  however,  was  a  student  who,  if  he  knew  his  privileges 
and  dangers — knew  his  obligations  also ;  thus  we  find  that  on 
3ist  October,  1645,  ne  invited  c  all  the  English  and  Scotts  in 
towne  to  a  feaste '  on  Twelfth-day,  (  which  sunk  our  excellent 
wine  considerably.' 

To  hark  back,  in  the  Scottish  '  Nation '  in  1617  we  find 
William  Leslie — no  doubt  the  William  Leslie,  fourth  son  of 
the  third  Popish  Laird  of  Balwhaine,  and  a  Jesuit,  who  was 
Professor  of  Philosophy  in  Padua  (the  Macfarlane  MS.  says 
4  Perugia,'  no  doubt  by  mistake),  and  was  then  Rector  of  the 
Scots  College  at  Douay.  '  D.  Jacobus  Eschinus  (Erskine) 
comes,'  who  was  Conciliarius  in  1622-3,  and  was  perhaps  the 
first  Earl  of  Buchan  of  that  family.  Robert  Bodius  or  Boyd  has 
left  the  familiar  fess-chequer  on  the  loggia  with  the  statement  that 
he  was  *  Scotus  Aberdonensis.'  In  1633-7,  the  names  are  fairly 
representative,  including  Thomas  Halybursonus  (Haliburton), 
Archibald  Douglas,  Robert  Hume,  James  Drummond,  James 
Hammistan  (Hamilton?),  Alexander  and  David  Carnegie,  James 
Pedy,  Thomas  Dalzell,  and  « James  Betonius ' — no  doubt  a 
Fifeshire  Beatoun.  In  1638-9  there  is  an  Andricus  Svinton, 
and  in  1645-6  a  Henry  Swinton,  and  in  the  former  year  the 
noble  *  Henricus  Lindisy,  latine  Lindisaius,  italice  ut  se  sup- 
scripsit  Lindisai,'  was  admitted,  who  in  1641  became  under  that 
description  Prorector  and  Syndic  of  the  English  and  Scottish 

13 George  Rogers,  M.D.,  died  Jany.  22,  1697. 


at  the  University  of  Padua  61 

Nations.  In  1652,  Thomas  Forbes,  son  of  William  Forbes  of 
Cotton,  the  boars'  heads  and  crescent  on  whose  shield  still  decorate 
the  Aula  Grande,  graduated  Doctor  of  Medicine,  and  later,  before 
returning  to  Scotland,  was  Professor  of  Medicine  at  Pisa,14  and 
that  Aberdeen  was  well  represented  we  find  by  the  names  in 
1640-50  of  '  lacobus  Scadenedes '  (Cadenhead),  'lacobus 
Cadendus,'  and  '  lacobus  Cadenellus.'  Many  of  the  Scottish 
students  entered  Padua  very  young.  In  1639-40  William  Gray 
is  mentioned  as  '  pupillus,'  so  were  William  Borthwick  and 
Nathaniel  Kennedy  in  1665-6,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  in  1636-7 
John  Neutton  is  mentioned  as  being  '  Scotus  cum  barba  castanea.' 
The  Civil  Wars  in  Britain  and  the  constant  brawls  between 
citizens  and  students  in  Padua  made  the  supply  of  students  fall  off 
towards  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  ;  still  in  1672  the  north 
sent  Charles  Ramsay,  and  next  year  Robert  Bannerman.  In 
1684-5  *  Dominus  Henricus  Leith  '  is  described  both  as  *  Anglus  ' 
and  *  Nob :  Aberdonensis.'  Bishop  Burnet  writes  in  1685  that 
the  University  '  sinks  extreamly,'  and  that  '  the  quarrels  among 
the  students  have  driven  away  most  of  the  strangers  that  used 
to  come  to  study  here,  for  it  is  not  safe  to  stir  abroad  here  after 
sunset.'  Yet  in  1692-3  his  kinsman,  Thomas  Burnet,  '  filius 
quondam  D.  Thomae,'  entered.  In  1697-8  the  name  of  'John 
Walkinsheun'  may  be  another  link  between  Italy  and  the  fortunes 
of  the  exiled  Stuarts,  being  most  likely  that  of  John  Walkinshaw 
of  Barrowfield,  who  liberated  '  Queen  '  Clementina  Sobieska  from 
Innsbiuck  for  her  marriage,  and  whose  daughter,  the  unlucky 
Clementina  Walkinshaw,  followed  Prince  Charlie  'whither  fortune 
might  lead  him.'  The  eighteenth  century  students'  names  are 
interesting  as  they  are  the  last.  They  sometimes  give  the  name  of 
the  father  or  the  town,  and  they  included  from  1700-1709  loannes 
Inglis,  Paulus  Mayler,  James  Maneschell,  and  Edward  Smithson, 
*  a  Scottish  noble  '  on  the  Council,  who  were  from  Edinburgh  ;  (A 
John  Marshall  '  fil.  Georgii  Edinburgensis '  matriculated  in 
1716-17  also)  and  David,  son  of  '  D.  Alex:  Conningam.'  In 
1714-15  Henry  Leslie,  son  of  Charles — probably  the  Jacobite 
polemic  writer,  came,  and  in  1717-18,  Hugh,  son  of  Charles 
Baillie,  James  Kennedy,  son  of  George,  '  Eduardus  Beancroft 
fil.  Eduardi  scotus,'  and  William,  son  of  George  Douglas. 
Edward  Robinson,  son  of  Tancred,  entered  in  1721-22,  William 
Robertson,  son  of  Archibald  Robertson,  was  on  the  Council  next 
year,  and  Patrick  Wood,  son  of  Thomas,  appears  in  1726-7. 

14  Macfarlane  Genealogical  Collections.     Scof.  Hist.  Socy.,  ii.  p.  480. 


62 


The  Scottish  'Nation' 


At  this  time  one  Mingo  was  Bidellus  of  the  English  and 
Scots,  and  also  librarian  of  the  library,  which  Tomasinus  says  they 
had  possessed  since  1649.  The  Consiliarii  prayed  the  Literary 
Triumvirs  in  1727  to  transfer  the  librarianship  to  Francis  Callin, 
alleging  that  the  former  official  had  not  spent  the  money  entrusted 
to  his  care  on  the  upkeep  of  the  library,  and  desired  that  he 
should  refund  the  money  into  the  treasury  of  the  Nations.  The 
Literary  Triumvirs,  however,  on  the  26th  of  April  confirmed 
the  former  librarian,  though  they  at  the  same  time  promised  to 
appoint  Francis  Callin  c  quamprimum.' 

The  last  two  definitely  Scottish  names  I  find  upon  the  list  are 
those  of  Philippus  Cullin,  fil.  Jacobi,  in  1728-9,  and  Alexander 
Wemyst  [Wemyss]  {  fil.  Davidis,  Scotus-Britannicus,'  in  1733-4, 
and  in  1738  the  Venetian  Republic  abrogated  the  ancient  constitu- 
tion of  the  University,  and  the  c  Nation '  ended.  Thus  for  the 
northern  peoples  at  least  Padua's  '  lamp  of  learning '  no  longer 
burned,  and  the  University  ceased  to  be  the  place  of  pilgrimage 
it  had  been  when  Coryate  in  1 608  could  write :  *  More 
students  of  forraine  nations  doe  live  in  Padua  than  in  any  one 
universitie  of  Christendome.  For  hither  come,  many  from 
France,  high  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  England,  etc.,  who  with 
great  desire  flocke  together  to  Padua  for  good  letters  sake,  as 
to  a  fertile  nursery  and  sweet  emporium  and  mart  town  of 
learning.' 

A.  FRANCIS  STEUART. 


Killiecrankie  described  by  an  Eye- Witness 

THE  chief  authority  for  details  of  the  Battle  of  Killiecrankie 
is  Lieut-General  Hugh  Mackay  of  Scourie,  who  led  the 
army  of  William  of  Orange  against  the  Jacobite  troops  under 
Viscount  Dundee.  There  are  passing  allusions  in  various  letters 
of  the  period  which  give  clues  to  the  order  of  battle  ;  but  no 
detailed  history  of  Killiecrankie  as  seen  by  the  Jacobites  is  known 
to  exist.  This  is  unfortunate,  as  Mackay  could  not  know  the 
disposition  of  Dundee's  army  save  by  conjecture  and  defective 
observation,  and  there  is  consequently  much  dubiety  as  to  the 
events  of  the  day.  Professor  C.  Sanford  Terry,  in  his  John  Graham 
of  C  lav  er  house,  Viscount  of  Dundee ',  gives  a  very  graphic  and 
probable  account  of  the  battle,  founded  principally  upon  Mackay's 
Memoirs.  No  writer  on  the  subject,  however,  seems  to  have 
utilised  the  poems  of  Iain  Lorn  MacDonald,  the  renowned  Bard 
of  Lochaber,  who  was  with  the  Jacobite  forces,  and  who  com- 
posed two  ballads  about  the  battle  while  the  scene  was  fresh  in 
his  memory.  These  have  been  traditional  since  his  time,  and 
are,  no  doubt,  corrupted  or  altered  from  the  original ;  but  they 
are  interesting  as  giving  vivid  glimpses  of  the  Jacobite  feeling  of 
the  period,  and  of  the  enthusiasm  which  pervaded  the  army  of 
Dundee. 

Iain  Lorn  MacDonald  is  described  by  John  Mackenzie x  as  '  a 
poet  of  great  merit  as  well  as  a  famous  politician.'  He  was 
known  as  '  Lorn  '  =  bare,  because  he  had  no  beard  ;  and  some- 
times he  is  designated  '  Manntach '  from  an  impediment  in  his 
speech.  He  belonged  to  the  Keppoch  family,  and  was  born  in 
the  Braes  of  Lochaber.  The  Rev.  A.  Maclean  Sinclair2  states 
that  he  was  great-great-grandson  of  Iain  Alainn,  fourth 
Mac-Donald  of  Keppoch,  and  was  a  Roman  Catholic.  The 
exact  date  of  his  birth  is  not  known,  but  it  may  be  surmised 

1  The  Beauties  of  Gaelic  Poetry,  1904  edition,  p.  32. 

2  Grain  le  Iain  Lorn  Mac-Dhomhnuill,  1895,  Antigonish,  Nova  Scotia. 

63 


64    Killiecrankie  described  by  an  Eye- Witness 

that  he  was  born  about  1620,  for  his  earliest  poem  is  a  lament 
for  his  chief,  Angus  Mac-Donald,  and  his  own  father,  Domhnull 
Mac  Iain  mhic  Dhomhnuill  mhic  Iain  Alainn,  who  were  slain  at 
the  skirmish  of  Stron-a-chlachain  in  1640.  Mackenzie  declares 
that  '  the  first  occurrence  that  made  him  known  beyond  the 
limits  of  Lochaber  was  the  active  part  he  took  in  punishing  the 
murderers  of  the  heir  of  Keppoch,'  which  event  occurred  in 
1663  ;  but  long  before  that  time  Iain  Lorn  had  composed  a 
memorial  poem  on  Sir  Donald  Mac-Donald  of  Sleat  (Domhnull 
mac  Dhomhnuill  Ghuirm)  who  died  in  1643.  From  another 
poem  of  his  it  seems  certain  that  he  was  present  at  the  Battle  of 
Inverlochy  on  2nd  February,  1645,  when  Montrose  vanquished 
Argyll ;  and  still  another  poem  by  him  describes  the  Battle  of 
Auldearn,  fought  in  the  following  May,  as  though  the  poet 
has  also  witnessed  that  encounter.  Iain  Lorn  was  apparently 
associated  with  Montrose  throughout  his  campaign,  and  he 
commemorated  in  verse  the  capture  of  Sir  Lachlan  MacLean 
of  Duart,  the  surrender  of  Dunaverty,  and  the  betrayal  and 
execution  of  the  Marquess  of  Huntly,  which  events  took  place 
in  1647  '•>  while  he  lamented  in  pathetic  language  the  execution 
of  the  Marquess  of  Montrose  on  2yth  May,  1650,  and  the  death 
in  battle  of  Sir  Lachlan  MacLean  in  1651.  All  these  poems 
precede  in  date  the  Mart  na  Cea-pich  which  Mackenzie  quotes  as 
Iain  Lom's  first  poem.  Even  the  song  of  welcome  to  Charles  II. 
at  the  Restoration  in  1661  was  earlier  than  the  poem  on  the 
murder  of  MacDonald  of  Keppoch. 

The  comprehensive  little  volume  by  the  Rev.  A.  Maclean 
Sinclair,  to  which  reference  has  been  made,  contains  41  poems 
by  Iain  Lorn,  arranged  chronologically ;  and  these  cover  the 
period  from  1640  till  1707,  the  last  undisputed  poem  dealing 
with  the  Union  of  the  Parliaments.  His  final  warlike  poems 
are  those  that  describe  the  Battle  of  Killiecrankie,  (or  Raon- 
Ruari,  as  the  Highlanders  call  it),  and  they  are  usually  accepted 
as  the  productions  of  an  eye-witness.  Iain  Lorn  lived  to  an 
extreme  old  age.  His  death  took  place  in  1709  or  1710,  when 
he  was  probably  in  his  9<Dth  year.  He  was  buried  at  Dun- 
Aingeal,  in  the  Braes  of  Lochaber,  and  a  few  years  ago  a 
monument  was  erected  to  mark  his  last  resting-place.  Dr. 
Magnus  MacLean 3  thus  characterises  the  venerable  bard  : — <  A 
man  of  great  force  of  character,  he  combined  in  his  personality 
the  ardent  poet  and  the  keen  politician,  the  intuitive  dreamer  and 
3  The  Literature  of  the  Celts,  p.  270. 


Killiecrankie  described  by  an  Eye- Witness     65 

the  restless  man  of  action.  This  is  the  wonderful  schemer  whom 
some  regard  as  the  real  genius  of  the  Montrose  Campaign 
during  the  Civil  War.  Were  it  not  for  him,  it  is  certain, 
events  could  not  have  developed  so  favourably  and  so  brilliantly 
for  the  victorious  Marquess  as  they  did.  Keen  Jacobite  as  he 
always  was,  he  accompanied  the  latter  on  most  of  his  marches.' 

The  two  poems  here  literally  translated  into  unrhymed 
stanzas,  are  of  interest  historically  and  philologically.  Some  of 
the  expressions  are  obscure,  probably  because  of  alterations  that 
have  taken  place  in  the  course  of  oral  tradition.  The  poems 
must  be  taken  by  the  historian  for  what  they  are  worth  ;  but 
they  are  interesting  as  the  record  of  an  eye-witness  of  the 
fatal  victory  of  Killiecrankie  :  it  is  believed  they  have  not  been 
translated  before  : 

King  James1  Army  Marching  to  the  Battle  of  Killiecrankie. 

It  is  high  time  that  we  were  now  on  the  march  from  this  region, 

Since  we  have  made  scarce  beef. 

After  being  a  while  in  order  with  our  host, 

Our  hardy  young  warriors  advanced  forward. 

O,  kind  young  darling,  hast  thou  been  wounded  ? 
May  the  Great  King  look  on  thee  wherever  thou  art. 
'Twas  on  Tuesday  morning  commenced  our  move  onward, 
The  sergeants  passing  on  to  us  the  word  of  command. 

Near  the  shore  the  warriors  halted  ; 

The  resolute  brigades  parading  in  good  order. 

As  the  shades  of  evening  were  falling,  we  encamped. 

Our  strong  commander  surveyed  our  lines. 

The  word  of  our  Colonel4  to  Sir  Donald,6 
As  also  our  order  to  be  in  our  keeping, 
*  Make  no  delay  in  posting  sentries, 
And  keep  your  enemies  at  a  distance.' 

Wet  was  the  morning  when  we  donned  our  plaids, 

And  travelled  to  the  house  (where  our  transport  carts  awaited  us). 

When  we  arose  we  put  on  our  garb  ; 

Each  one  hurriedly  strapped  on  his  knapsack. 

There  was  little  sign  of  weariness  when  evening  came  ; 
As  soon  as  a  little  flame  was  kindled  of  many  sparks. 

4  Coll  MacDonald  of  Keppoch,  the  famous  «  Coll  of  the  Cows.' 

5  Sir  Donald  MacDonald  of  Sleat,  third  Baronet.     He  set  out  from  Lochaber 
to  join  Dundee,  but  fell  ill  and  had  to  return  home.      His  son,  Donald  Gorm,  is 
mentioned  in  the  second  poem  on  Killiecrankie. 


66     Killiecrankie  described  by  an  Eye- Witness 

From  the  head  of  Loch  Eil6  we  marched, 

And  when  the  sun  set  we  halted. 

At  the  head  of  Loch  Lochy  we  pitched  our  camp, 

A  day  before  Sunday  and  two  days  thereafter 

Our  friends  all  gathered  on  the  spot, 

And  lifted  up  their  hands  in  the  presence  of  God's  Son. 

Gold  and  silver  they  despised, 

And  we  left  behind  us  our  wives  and  children 

Absolutely  defying  whatever  injury  our  persons  might  suffer; 

Little  rest  will  we  take  until  we  slaughter  Lowlanders. 

Said  the  Graeme,  the  man  of  excellent  disposition, 

'Sons  of  the  Gael,  do  not  let  me  see  your  gloom  ; 

Lift  up  your  courage  (minds),  the  time  for  you  has  arrived, 

It  is  high  time  for  us  to  be  marching  into  the  country  before  us.' 

We  marched  out  elated  and  stately, 

Until  we  reached  the  head  of  Glenroy. 

Up  through  Glen  Turrit  and  the  pass  of  Drummond 

Marched  the  men  that  were  eager  for  the  fray. 

Over  the  heights  of  Druimuachder  marched  the  gallants, 

Of  great  hardihood  and  hard  to  weary  ; 

When  we  reached  Atholl,  we  found  none  but  women, 

The  men  kept  out  of  our  way  for  fear  we  would  put  them  under  tribute. 

After  mid-day,  marching  at  ease, 

We  proceeded  down  by  the  bank  of  the  river  ; 

A  horseman  came  in  thro'  the  head  of  the  valley 

To  tell  us  that  Colonel  Mackay  and  his  company  had  arrived. 

Short  the  consultation  made  by  the  King's  people, 
Up  the  side  of  the  hill  they  went  ; 
Copiously  poured  the  sweat  from  each  brow, 
As  thro'  the  north  side  of  the  pass  they  climbed. 
The  leader  of  the  troop  went  before  his  men, 
It  would  be  cause  for  regret  if  he  were  absent ; 
Stubborn  and  proud  was  the  spirit  of  the  Macdonalds, 
Though  they  suffered  severely,  they  welcomed  the  hour. 

Each   Clan   moved  without   (showing  any  signs  of)   being  damped  or 
daunted, 

6  This  poem  gives  an  itinerary  of  the  march  of  the  MacDonalds  of  Keppoch. 
Leaving  Loch  Eil  (Inverlochy)  on  Tuesday,  l8th  July,  they  marched  northwards 
to  Loch  Lochy,  where  they  camped  on  Saturday,  22nd  July,  and  waited  till 
Tuesday,  25th,  for  the  MacDonells  of  Glengarry,  and  other  portions  of  the 
clan.  On  that  Tuesday  they  marched  by  Glenroy,  Glenturrit,  the  Pass  of 
Drummond,  and  Druimuachder,  to  Atholl,  arriving  there  on  the  forenoon  of 
Wednesday,  26th  July.  Proceeding  along  the  banks  of  the  Alt  Chluain,  they 
were  met  on  Thursday,  zjth  July,  by  a  horseman,  who  warned  them  that 
Mackay's  troops  were  advancing  from  Dunkeld  by  the  Pass  of  Killiecrankie. 
The  MacDonalds  then  formed  in  order  of  battle  under  Dundee's  command. 


Killiecrankie  described  by  an  Eye-Witness    67 

Without  fear  or  tumult  they  fell  into  their  own  places  ; 

Stately  we  breasted  our  enemies, 

And  not  an  arrow  was  discharged  that  day  needlessly. 

At  the  close  of  the  day7  we  drew  our  swords, 

We  began  our  chopping  as  the  sun  set. 

In  spite  of  their  thrusting,  and  though  their  hopes  were  strong, 

They  lost  their  ground,  and  their  souls  after  it. 

O  heroic  leader,  thou  didst  fall  in  the  fight, 

And  dreadful  was  thy  arm,  till  thy  hour  came, 

'Tis  thy  death,  O  Dundee,  that  left  me  in  a  nightmare, 

Transfixed  my  heart,  and  bedewed  my  cheek. 

'Tis   small   reparation  for   thy  loss  what  fell  of  the  beasts  in  the  war 

of  King  James, 

Although  victory  rested  with  us  ; 
But  dispersed  like  flies  are  King  William's  men, 
And  we  are  in  grief  though  we  chased  them  away. 

Colonel  Ramsay,8  great  was  his  disgust  at  the  time  of  being  taken, 
We  were  so  wicked,  and  venomous  towards  our  enemies, 
That  we  wouldn't  let  go  our  hold  of  a  single  Lowlander. 

0  Colonel  Balfour,  worthless  man, 

1  think  you  got  all  you  wanted  of  warfare  : 

They  smashed  your  crown,  and  brought  your  hat  over  your  ears, 
And  they  cut  your  boots  at  the  back. 

Killiecrankie. 

In  the  name  of  Good  I  will  begin 
On  the  theme  I  have  fancied  ; 
The  close  of  our  fame  is  not  yet. 

See  ye  not  the  sloops  of  the  King 
Pour  their  strength  on  the  beach — 
'Tis  not  William  that  I  prefer, 

But  King  James  and  his  seed, 

Whom  God  ordained  for  our  defence. 

No  borrowed  King  is  worthy  of  our  homage. 

But  if  thou  comest  not  soon, 

And  thy  defenders  getting  fewer, 

I  would  as  well  thou  wert  over  in  Egypt. 

7  This  agrees  with  the  statements    of  Mackay,  'halfan-hour   before   sunset,' 
and  of  Balhaldy,  '  the  sun  being  near  its  close.'     Indeed,  the  text  of  the  poem 
confirms  Professor  Terry's  account  of  the  battle  in  every  particular. 

8  Colonel  George  Ramsay  and  Colonel  Bartholomew  Balfour  commanded  two 
regiments  of  the  Scots  Brigade  from  Holland.     Balfour  was  slain  at  Killiecrankie. 


68     Killiecrankie  described  by  an  Eye-Witness 

Behold  that  unstable  vapid  crew 

Who  now  in  the  place  of  state  sit, 

Branded  by  Satan  with  the  seal  of  cowardice. 

The  sly  scheming  pack 

In  whom  guile  is  innate, 

The  raven  with  the  dirt  of  injustice  hath  fouled  them. 

'Twas  not  the  traitor,  worthy  man, 

That  set  fire  to  the  peat, 

But  the  head  of  a  house,  whom  natural  ties  barred — 

Became  their  beacon  light.9 

In  the  tender  birch  copse, 
Near  the  farm  of  MacGeorge,10 
Full  many  a  gay  cloak  lies  torn. 

Many  a  helmet  and  skull 

Lay  in  splinters  on  the  knolls, 

Blood  ran  in  waves  through  the  grass. 

Ye  got  a  ruffling  in  the  wood 

From  the  steel  blades  of  Conn's  seed 

That  sent  ye  over  the  hillocks  sore  wounded. 

On  Killiecrankie  of  thickets 

Are  many  graves  and  stiff  corpses. 

A  thousand  shovels  and  spades  were  requisitioned  for  covering  them. 

Gallant  Claverhouse  of  the  steeds, 

True  leader  of  hosts, 

Wae's  me,  thou  should'st  fall  at  the  opening  of  the  fray. 

Like  flaming  fire  to  them  (the  foe)  thy  wrath, 

Till  fate  crossed  thy  path  ; 

'Neath  the  folds  of  thy  clothing  the  bullet  pierced  thee. 

Great  was  the  slaughtering  by  thy  hand 

'Neath  thy  white  helmet. 

Alas  !  thy  naked  white  corpse  is  being  enshrouded. 

Not  one  of  your  enemies  would  be  up 

From  Orkney  to  Tweed, 

Were  it  not  for  the  stub  that  pierced  thee  in  front. 

When  thy  followers  burst  forth, 

No  crowd  of  herd  boys  they, 

But  men  used  to  facing  death-dealing  arms. 

9  This  verse  is  obscure.     It  may  mean  that  it  was  not  the  traitor  (or  bastard) 
Duke  of  Monmouth   that  had   usurped    the    place  of  state,   but  the  legitimate 
Prince  of  Orange,  '  whom  natural  ties  barred '  because  of  his  marriage  to  Mary, 
the  daughter  of  King  James. 

10  This  may  be  the  farm  of  Lettoch,  immediately  adjoining  the  true  site  of  the 
battle. 


Killiecrankie  described  by  an  Eye- Witness     69 

On  the  crest  of  the  hill, 

Above  the  dark  of  the  thicket, 

Stood  the  men  who  could  rout  the  evil-doers. 

The  successful  MacDonalds, 

Ever  victors  in  the  fray, 

Ne'er  by  rebels  have  they  been  dismayed. 

Many  a  fellow  of  mettle 

'Neath  thy  banner  went  forth, 

Not  of  tow,  but  of  flax,  thy  regiment. 

Many  a  valiant  youth 

Who  though  meagre  in  flesh 

Were  cleavers  of  skulls,  bones,  and  sinews. 

My  love  on  young  Donald  Gorm,11 
From  the  towers  of  Sleat  and  Ord, 
'Tis  a  pity  how  sore  he  was  dealt  with. 

My  love  on  the  young  laird, 

A  tender  plant  was  he, 

But  no  camp-lingerer  when  lines  were  arrayed  for  combat. 

My  love  on  Black  Alastair,12 

From  Ardgarry  of  the  rills, 

Who  brought  confusion  to  the  renegades. 

And  his  brother  Iain  Og,13 

A  ball  passed  through  his  flesh, 

Very  narrowly  he  survived  the  ordeal. 

11  Donald  Gorm  MacDonald,  eldest  son  of  Sir  Donald,  and  afterwards  fourth 
Baronet  of  Sleat.       He  greatly    distinguished  himself  at    Killiecrankie,  where, 
according   to   the  poem,  he  was  wounded.     In  the  Rising  of  1715   he  took  a 
prominent    part,  and  was    attainted.      His   death  took    place    in    1718,  and  he 
is  remembered  in  tradition  as  '  Donald  of  the  Wars.' 

12  Alastair  Dubh  MacDonell  of  Glengarry,  who  is  said  to  have  carried   the 
Royal  Standard  at  Killiecrankie.     Macaulay  gives  a  brilliant  description  of  this 
hero's  conduct  during  the  battle.      After    the    battle   Alastair  joined    Generals 
Buchan  and   Cannon   in   an  attempt  to  rally   the  Jacobites,   but   the   enterprise 
failed.      He  led   500  of  his  clan  to  Sheriffmuir  in   1715,  but  afterwards  made 
his  submission  to  General  Cadogan  at  Inverness.      He  died  in  1724.     His  eldest 
son,  Donald  Gorm,  was  at  Killiecrankie,  and  'fell  gloriously  after  having  killed 
eighteen  of  the  enemy  with  his  broadsword.'    (Mackenzie,  Hist,  of  the  MacDonalds, 
P-  348.) 

13  Black  Alastair  had  four  younger   brothers, — Angus,  who  succeeded  to  the 
lands  of  Scotus  ;  John,  (Iain  Og),  progenitor  of  the   MacDonells  of  Lochgarry, 
now    represented    by    Arthur    Antony    MacDonell    of  Corpus    Christi   College, 
Oxford  ;    Donald,  who    fell    at    Killiecrankie  ;    and   Archibald,   founder  of  the 
MacDonells  of  Barrisdale,  now  extinct.     Iain  Og,  who  was  wounded  at  Killie- 
crankie  according   to    the   poem,   was   married  to    Helen,  daughter  of  Donald 
Cameron  of  Lochiel. 


70    Killiecrankie  described  by  an  Eye- Witness 

'Tis  Prince  William  and  his  men 

Steeped  this  country  in  woe, 

When  they  banished  o'er  seas  King  James  from  us. 

Let  me  invoke  ruin  and  plague, 

Famine,  malice,  and  death 

On  their  race,  as  on  the  children  of  Egypt. 

Each  day  that  doth  pass 

May  swords  gnaw  through  their  skin, 

And  dogs  devour  their  remains  on  the  hillside. 

The  French  will  come  in 

With  their  mighty  camps  and  their  horses, 

And  thy  feast  and  thy  trout-steak  will  be  broiled  for  thee. 

To  Hanover  thou'lt  go  back, 

And  thy  coat  will  quickly  come  off. 

'Tis  the  old  grey  dog's  ring  would  serve  you  best. 

Very  bitter  is  this  war, 

Relentlessly  waged  ; 

With  a  snake's  head  it  will  have  a  peacock's  tail.14 

Dispute  has  arisen  regarding  the  order  of  battle  at  Killie- 
crankie. Mackay  gives  one  version,  Balhaldy  gives  another, 
and  Professor  Terry  is  inclined  to  accept  Mackay's  statement. 
The  following  is  the  description  given  by  the  Rev.  A.  Maclean 
Sinclair,  who  apparently  follows  Balhaldy  : 

1  At  the  battle  of  Killiecrankie,  Dundee's  men  were  ranged  in  one  line, 
and  in  the  following  order  from  right  to  left  :  the  Macleans,  Colonel 
Cannon's  Irish  regiment,  the  MacDonalds  of  Moydart,  the  MacDonells 
of  Glengarry,  the  cavalry,  the  Camerons,  a  battalion  under  Sir  Alexander 
Maclean,  and  the  MacDonalds  of  Skye.  The  Grants  of  Glenmoriston  were 
with  the  MacDonells  of 'Glengarry.  Dundee  had  about  2500  men,  and 
M'Kay  about  4000.  The  battle  began  about  seven  o'clock  in  the  evening, 
or  half  an  hour  before  sunset.  The  Highlanders,  whilst  moving  down  the 
hill,  received  three  successive  volleys  from  M'Kay's  line.  When  they  got 
to  close  quarters  and  drew  swords,  the  battle  lasted  only  a  few  minutes. 
They  gained  as  complete  a  victory  as  could  be  won.' 

While  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  place  Iain  Lom's  poems 
in  a  superior  position  as  an  authority  on  Killiecrankie  to  the 
technical  description  of  an  expert  like  Mackay,  it  is  interesting 
to  find  so  many  confirmations  of  Mackay's  history  of  the  event 
in  poems  that  have  been  preserved  by  continuous  tradition. 

A.  H.  MILLAR. 

14  This  obscure  metaphor  implies  that  the  war,  though  begun  in  danger,  would 
have  a  brilliant  end. 


Scottish  Industrial  Undertakings  before 
the  Union 

V 

THE  SOCIETY  OF  THE  WHITE-WRITING  AND   PRINTING  PAPER 
MANUFACTORY  OF  SCOTLAND  (ESTABLISHED  IN   I694).1 

AS  early  as  1590  an  attempt  was  made  to  establish  a  paper 
manufactory  in  Scotland,  but  without  success.2  It  was 
not  till  the  year  1675  that  it  could  be  said  that  paper- works  were 
actually  founded.  Mills  were  built  at  Dairy,  on  the  Water  of 
Leith,  within  easy  reach  of  Edinburgh.  Under  the  Acts  of  1661 
and  1662  foreigners  were  brought  into  the  country,  and  the  usual 
privileges  granted  to  the  manufacturers.  The  founders  of  this 
industry  had  the  misfortune  to  have  to  re-build  their  mills  owing 
to  a  fire  having  destroyed  the  original  building.  By  1679  the 
works  were  able  to  produce  c  grey  and  blue  paper  much  finer  than 
ever  this  country  formerly  offered.'3  On  March  7th  of  the  same 
year  a  petition  was  presented  to  the  Privy  Council  stating  that  not 
only  did  the  manufactory  supply  good  paper  which  had  hitherto 
been  imported,  but  also  it  was  deserving  of  encouragement 
through  its  use  of  rags,  *  which  formerly  were  put  to  no  good 
use.'  The  gathering  of  rags  gave  employment  to  numbers  of 
poor  people,  and  already  many  Scotsmen  had  been  instructed  in 
the  art  of  making  paper.  The  owners  of  the  mills  asked  that 
they  should  receive  encouragement  by  the  Privy  Council  sup- 
pressing *  the  faulty  custom  not  practised  anywhere  else '  of 

1See  Scottish  Historical  Review,  vol.  i.  p.  407,  and  vol.  ii.  pp.  53,  287, 
and  406. 

*The  Domestic  dnnals  of  Scotland,  by  R.  Chambers,  i.  p.  195,  ii.  p.  398. 

3  Ibid.,  ii.  p.  398.  In  1679  another  paper  work  was  established  by  Nicholas 
de  Champ  on  the  banks  of  the  Cart.  His  apprentice  erected  a  larger  factory 
at  Milnholm.  Glasgow  Past  and  Present,  p.  1224;  Smiles'  Huguenots,  p.  338. 

71 


72  Scottish  Industrial  Undertakings 

employing  fine  rags  for  the  making  of  wicks  for  candles.  It  was 
represented  that  cotton  wicks  should  be  used  by  the  candlemakers, 
which,  though  dearer,  would  give  better  light.  In  reply  to  this 
petition,  the  Privy  Council  prohibited  the  use  of  rags  for  making 
candle-wicks.4 

Another  paper-mill  had  been  established  by  Peter  Bruce  about 
1685  in  conjunction  with  the  working  of  a  monopoly  he  had 
obtained  for  the  making  of  playing-cards.  Bruce  fell  into 
monetary  difficulties,  as  he  alleged,  through  a  bill  of  suspension 
*  surreptitiously  stolen  forth  against  him  '  by  some  merchants  of 
Ayr  whom  he  had  prosecuted  for  contravention  of  his  monopoly.5 
Eventually  the  exclusive  grant,  together  with  the  paper-mill,  was 
transferred  to  James  Hamilton  of  Little  Earnock,  who  petitioned 
for  a  confirmation  of  the  privileges  enjoyed  by  Bruce.  He 
obtained  an  Act  of  Parliament  in  1693,  which  gave  the  privilege 
of  a  manufacture  as  defined  by  the  Act  of  1681  to  his  various 
undertakings.6 

These  works  confined  themselves  to  the  production  of  coarse 
grey  and  blue  paper,  the  attempts  made  to  manufacture  writing 
paper  having  failed.7  As  in  several  other  cases,  local  efforts  to 
found  new  industries  did  not  succeed  through  want  of  capital,  and 
because  (as  recorded  in  the  Act  founding  the  Scots  Paper 
Company)  '  such  undertakings  cannot  be  managed  otherwise  than 
by  a  Society  and  incorporation.'8  Nicholas  Dupin,  a  French 
refugee,  who  had  already  founded  Paper  Companies,  which  were 
so  far  successful,  in  England  and  Ireland,  was  encouraged  by 
several  noblemen  to  introduce  English  capital  into  Scotland  for 
the  manufacture  of  white  paper.  He  had  already  had  experience 
of  Scottish  industry  through  his  connection  with  the  promotion 
of  the  Scots  Linen  Company,  of  which  he  was  Deputy-Governor.9 
Accordingly  he  petitioned  the  Privy  Council  on  July  ^th,  1694, 
asking  for  the  c  privileges  of  a  manufacture  '  according  to  the  Act 
of  1 68 1.  He  stated  that  c  he  had  arrived  at  the  art  of  making 

4  Domestic  Annals  of  Scotland,  ut  supra,  ii.  pp.   398,  399. 

5  Privy     Council     Papers,     1685-6     (General    Register     House,     Edinburgh). 
'Petition    to  the  Privy  Council  by    Peter   Bruce,    Master  of  the    Manufactory 
of  Playing  Cards.' 

6  Acts  of  the  Parliaments  of  Scotland,  ix.  p.  340. 

7  Petition  of  Nicholas  Dupin  to  the  Privy  Council,  Domestic  Annals,  ut  supray 
iii.  p.  86. 

8  Acts  of  the  Parliaments  of  Scotland,  ix.  p.  429. 

9  See  Scottish  Historical  Review,  ii.  p.   53. 


before  the  Union  73 

all  sorts  of  fine  paper  moulds  as  good  or  better  as  any  made 
beyond  seas  and  at  a  far  cheaper  rate,  insomuch  that  one  man 
may  make  and  furnish  more  moulds  in  one  week  than  any  other 
workman  of  other  nations  can  finish  in  two  months'  time.'  He 
and  his  associates  '  have  arts  to  make  the  greatest  mortar  and 
vessel  for  making  paper  without  timber,'  and  they  have  also 
provided  '  several  ingenious  outlandish  workmen  to  work  and 
teach  their  art  in  this  kingdom.'10  The  Privy  Council  granted 
permission  for  the  establishment  of  paper-mills  in  Scotland,  <  but 
without  hindering  any  persons  already  set  up,'  and  also  '  to  put 
the  coat  of  arms  of  this  kingdom  upon  the  paper  which  shall  be 
made  at  these  mills.'11  On  July  loth,  1695,  by  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment, Dupin  and  his  partners  were  granted  the  privileges  of  a 
manufactory,  with  the  right  to  incorporate  themselves  under  the 
title  of  the  *  Scots  White  Paper  Manufactory.' 12 

On  the  Act  of  the  Privy  Council  being  obtained  in  1694,  the 
first  steps  towards  starting  works  had  been  made,  on  a  small 
capital  outlay.  The  mills  appear  to  have  been  at  Tester,13  and 
there  was  later  a  warehouse  for  storing  paper  in  Edinburgh  at 
Heriot's  Bridge,  in  the  Grass-market.14  A  month  after  the 
passing  of  the  Act  in  favour  of  the  Company,  articles  of  partner- 
ship were  signed,  on  August  I9th,  1695,  which  prescribed  the 
internal  management  of  the  undertaking  and  fixed  the  terms  for 
a  new  issue  of  shares.  At  the  first  general  meeting  every  year 
thirteen  shareholders  were  to  be  chosen  to  act  as  a  governing 
body,  and  these  should  elect  from  their  own  number  a  Praeses.15 
The  capital  already  paid  in,  together  with  that  now  offered  for 
subscription,  amounted  to  ^5000  sterling.  This  was  divided 
into  1400  shares.16  No  one  person,  except  by  an  act  of  the 
general  meeting,  was  allowed  to  subscribe  for  more  than  twenty 
shares,  so  that  the  minimum  number  of  shareholders  would  have 

10  Chambers'  Domestic  Annals,  lit  supra,  iii.  p.  86. 

^Ibid.,  iii.  p.  87. 

12  Acts  of  the  Parliaments  of  Scotland,  ix.  p.  429. 

13 Parliamentary  Papers,  1698  (General  Register  House,  Edinburgh),  'Over- 
ture for  an  Act  for  the  Improvement  ...  of  the  White  Paper  Manufactory.' 

14  Advertisement  in  Edinburgh  Gazette,  No.  8,  March  23,  1699,  Advocates' 
Library  (bound  with  Scots'  Postman). 

^Articles  concluded  and  agreed  upon  by  the  Society  of  the  White  Writing  and 
Printing  Paper  Manufactory  at  Edinburgh,  the  \<)th  of  August,  1695,  in  the  terms 
•whereof  partners  were  to  be  assumed  [Edin.,  1695],  British  Museum,  1391,  c.  21,. 
p.  2. 

™Ibid.,  p.  6. 


74  Scottish  Industrial   Undertakings 

been  seventy,  if  the  issue  had  been  taken  up.17  Each  five  shares 
entitled  the  owner  to  one  vote.  The  shares,  like  those 
of  the  King's  and  Queen's  Corporation  for  the  Linen 
Manufacture  in  England,  with  which  Dupin  was  associated, 
were  offered  at  ^4  sterling,  or  a  premium  of  12  per  cent. 
In  addition,  each  shareholder  was  to  pay  a  further  premium  of 
1  8s.  sterling  of  'subscription  money'  to  Dupin  at  the  time  of 
application.18  At  the  same  time  one-third  of  the  £4.  sterling 
was  to  be  paid  to  the  treasurer,  and  the  remainder  <  whensoever 
the  same  shall  be  judged  necessary  by  the  general  meeting  or  a 
Committee  of  seven  persons,  to  be  chosen  out  of  their  number 
for  that  effect.'19  In  1697  Dupin  stated  that  the  project  was 
likely  to  have  failed  for  want  of  enough  subscribers,  unless  the 
promoters  had  taken  up  the  shares  themselves,  which  at  that  date 
they  were  prepared  to  offer  *  at  a  reasonable  rate.'  20 

In  1696  the  producing  stage  had  been  reached,  and  according 
to  contemporary  evidence,  enough  paper  was  being  produced  to 
supply  the  country.21  The  next  year  the  company,  in  support  of 
a  petition  to  the  Privy  Council,  was  able  to  provide  evidence  of 
having  produced  good  white  paper,  but  it  required  *  a  little  further 
encouragement  to  be  an  advantage  to  the  whole  kingdom.' 

Mention  was  made  of  the  great  expense  incurred  in  securing 
foreign  workmen,  and  the  fact  that  the  making  of  paper  had  now 
been  brought  to  perfection.  The  other  industries  that  had 
received  special  privileges  were  less  generally  advantageous  than 
this  one,  because  they  depended  on  foreign  raw  material,  whereas 
paper  not  only  was  made  from  something  found  at  home,  but 
utilized  what  would  otherwise  have  been  a  waste  product.  The 
company  was  able  to  undersell  foreign  paper,  but  in  view  of 
having  introduced  the  manufacture  of  white  paper,  it  asked  the 
sole  privilege  of  this  trade  in  Scotland  for  a  term  of  years,  '  because 
it  was  unjust  that  others  should  reap  the  reward  of  their  labours,' 
especially  as  the  books  for  subscriptions  had  remained  open  for 
such  a  long  time.  It  was  also  urged  that  there  was  some  danger 
that  their  servants  might  be  enticed  away,  and  therefore  they  asked 
further  powers  similar  to  those  conferred  upon  the  Newmills  Com- 
pany.22 The  latter  concession  was  granted  by  the  Privy  Council, 


.,  p.  5.  **I  bid.,  p.  7.  w  /#</.,  p.  7. 

20  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council  of  Scotland,  under  July   15,   1697. 

21  Chambers'  Domestic  Annals,  ut  supra,  iii.  p.  88. 

22  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  under  July    15,    1697. 


before  the  Union  75 

but  in  view  of  the  existence  of  other  paper-mills,  the  monopoly  of 
white  paper  making  was  withheld.  Having  failed  to  obtain  the 
monopoly,  an  overture  of  an  Act  was  presented  to  Parliament  in 
1698  asking  encouragement  in  other  directions.  Apparently  the 
demand  for  paper  made  by  the  Company  had  increased  consider- 
ably, for  there  was  some  difficulty  in  obtaining  a  sufficient  supply 
of  rags.  An  Act  was  asked  prohibiting  candlemakers  from  using 
wicks  made  of  rags,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Dairy  Mills.23  The 
candlemakers  of  Edinburgh  petitioned  against  the  draft  Act, 
claiming  that  they  had  a  prescriptive  right  to  use  rags  in  their 
trade.  The  Paper  company  had  '  in  a  most  clandestine  manner ' 
obtained  an  Act  of  the  Privy  Council  preventing  them  from  using 
rags  as  heretofore,  and  the  candlemakers  had  raised  a  process  of 
reduction.  The  company  '  fearing  the  reduction  would  prevail,' 
had  brought  in  the  overture  with  a  view  to  monopolising  the 
supply  of  rags,  reducing  the  wages  of  rag-pickers,  and,  in  fact, 
obtaining  the  raw  material  at  an  artificially  low  price  by  abolition 
of  the  competition  of  the  candlemakers.24  The  company  also 
complained  that  not  only  did  the  Government  abstain  from  using 
home-made  paper,  but  that  those  who  imported  for  official 
purposes  ordered  much  larger  quantities  than  were  required,  which 
were  sold  to  the  public.  The  draft  Act  also  recited  that  '  the 
importing  from  Holland  and  the  vending  here  of  many  English 
books  which  are  usually,  or  may  be,  printed  or  reprinted  here,  is 
not  only  a  manifest  prejudice  to  the  improvement  of  printing  and 
the  paper  manufactory  in  this  kingdom,  but  may  also  be  the  means 
of  corrupting  and  leading  the  common  people  of  this  kingdom 
into  dangerous  errors  by  their  reading  such  imperfect  Bibles,  New 
Testaments,  Psalm-books,  and  Confessions  of  Faith.'  Therefore 
it  was  proposed  to  levy  a  duty  of  a  fixed  percentage  on  all  writing 
or  printing  paper  imported,  but  this  Act  did  not  become  law.25 

In  the  next  year  (1699)  the  company  advertised  a  considerable 
stock  of  Imperial  writing,  printing,  pressing,  and  packing 
papers.26  After  1699  tnere  is  no  further  direct  information  as 
to  the  fortunes  of  the  company.  From  a  curious  series  of  events 
it  would  appear,  however,  that,  before  1705,  the  undertaking 

23  Parliamentary   Papers,    1698,  'Overture    for  an   Act   for   the   Improvement 
.   .  .  of  White  Paper.' 

^Ibid.,  '  Representations  of  the  Candlemakers  of  Edinburgh  against  the  White 
Paper  Manufacture.' 

25  Ibid.,  '  Overture  of  an  Act,'  etc. 

26  Edinburgh  Gazette,  No.  8. 


j6  Scottish  Industrial  Undertakings 

had  ceased  to  manufacture,  and  that  the  mills  had  been  let  to 
Evander  M'lver.  At  that  date  there  were  two  Edinburgh  news- 
papers, the  Gazette  and  the  Courant.  For  some  time  there  had 
been  a  keen  rivalry  between  the  proprietors.  It  happened  that 
in  1705  Evander  M'lver,  who  was  described  as  the  c  tacksman 
of  the  Scots-Manufactory  Paper-Mills,'  had  petitioned  the  Privy 
Council  to  complete  the  reprinting  of  an  English  book,  entitled 
War  "betwixt  the  British  Kingdoms  Considered.  The  Courant 
published  this  petition,  and  the  Privy  Council,  disapproving  of  the 
work  in  question,  suspended  the  publication  of  both  newspapers. 

W.  R.  SCOTT. 


Reviews  of  Books 

THE  LIFE  OF  St.  PATRICK,  AND  HIS  PLACE  IN  HISTORY.  By  J.  B.  Bury, 
M.A.,  Regius  Professor  of  Modern  History,  and  Fellow  of  King's 
College,  in  the  University  of  Cambridge,  etc.  Pp.  xv,  404.  Demy 
8vo.  London  :  Macmillan  &  Co.  1905.  I2s.  nett. 

THE  last  twelve  months  have  seen  the  issue  of  two  most  important  works 
dealing  with  the  Patrician  documents.  The  first  to  appear  was  The  Latin 
Writings  of  St.  Patrick,  edited  by  Dr.  N.  J.  D.  White,  and  published  in 
the  Proceedings  of  the  Royal  Irish  Academy  (1904).  This  is  the  first 
critical  edition  of  the  Latin  texts  of  the  *  Confession '  and  of  the  (so-called) 
*  Epistle  to  Coroticus.'  It  quite  supersedes  Dr.  Whitley  Stokes's  exhibition 
of  the  texts  as  they  appear  in  his  Tripartite  Life  of  St.  Patrick,  edited  for 
the  Master  of  the  Rolls,  in  1887.  Dr.  White's  is  a  really  scholarly  piece 
of  work.  And  now,  a  few  months  later,  comes  Professor  Bury's  new 
volume. 

Dr.  Bury's  work  consists,  first,  of  a  reconstruction  of  the  life  of  St. 
Patrick,  after  the  sifting  of  the  materials  :  and,  secondly,  very  elaborate 
appendices,  containing  a  critical  inquiry  into  the  sources,  notes  illustrative 
of  the  biography,  and  a  series  of  learned  Excursus,  dealing  with  particular 
points,  which  were  only  briefly  noticed,  or  but  slightly  treated,  in  the 
earlier  part  of  the  work. 

For  several  years  by  the  articles  on  Patrician  subjects  which  have 
appeared  in  Hermathena,  the  English  Historical  Review,  and  in  the  columns 
of  the  Guardian,  Dr.  Bury  has  been  preparing  the  small  circle  of  scholars 
interested  in  the  early  history  of  Christianity  in  Ireland  to  expect  from  him 
a  great  work  ;  and  the  expectation  has  not  been  disappointed.  We  have 
here  unquestionably  the  most  important  and  valuable  discussion  of  Patrician 
problems  which  has  appeared  since  Dr.  Todd's  St.  Patrick  Apostle  of 
Ireland,  published  more  than  forty  years  ago,  a  work  which  Professor  Bury 
does  not  overrate  when  he  says  that  '  in  learning  and  critical  acumen  it 
stands  out  pre-eminent  from  the  mass  of  historical  literature  which  has 
gathered  round  St.  Patrick.'  While  in  arrangement,  lucidity,  enlarged 
outlook,  and  even  in  thoroughness,  Dr.  Bury  distinctly  surpasses  his  dis- 
tinguished predecessor.  It  may  be  true  that  Todd,  as  observed  by 
Dr.  Bury,  was  not  without  an  ecclesiastical  bias  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  (as 
Dr.  Bury's  volume  proves)  that  a  writer  who  has  shaken  off  ecclesiastical 
prejudices  is  necessarily  wholly  free  from  prejudices  of  another  kind. 

77 


78  Bury :    The  Life  of  St.   Patrick 

Hitherto  the  soundest  scholars  have  been  disposed  to  attach  but  little 
value  to  the  traditionary  notices  of  St.  Patrick  which  appear  for  the  first 
time  in  writings  dating  some  hundreds  of  years  after  the  death  of  the  saint. 
They  have  relied  almost  exclusively  on  the  scanty  authentic  writings  of 
St.  Patrick  himself.  And  here  at  least  they  were  on  sure  ground.  For,  if 
anything  is  certain  in  the  higher  criticism  of  literature,  it  is  certain  that  the 
Confession  and  the  Epistle  are  the  work  of  the  Irish  Saint.  That  Professor 
Zimmer  should  for  a  time  have  impugned  the  authenticity  of  the  Confession 
seems  to  me  only  to  prove  that  a  man  may  be  a  brilliant  philologist  and  a 
very  bad  critic.  But  Zimmer  has  recanted, — a  hard  thing  to  do, — so  his 
arguments,  such  as  they  were,  need  not  be  considered  further.  I  doubt 
whether  any  reader,  properly  equipped,  and  with  no  prepense,  could  study 
these  two  documents,  and  not  be  profoundly  impressed  with  the  sense  of 
their  genuineness.  It  need  not  be  said  that  Dr.  Bury  throws  the  whole 
weight  of  his  learning  and  critical  acumen  in  support,  we  may  add,  even 
ardent  support,  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Confession  and  Epistle.  He  dis- 
misses Pflugk-Harttung's  recent  attack  on  their  genuineness  with  the  brief 
remark,  '  a  piece  of  extraordinarily  bad  criticism.' 

The  value  to  be  attached  to  the  Patrician  tradition  embodied  in  later 
writings  is  a  very  different  and  difficult  question,  and  one  upon  which 
there  is  legitimately  room  for  a  large  variety  of  opinion.  Prof.  Bury 
attempts  the  extremely  arduous  task  of  weighing  the  evidence  for  the 
details  of  the  later  tradition,  and  works  into  his  biography  of  the  saint  the 
results  at  which  he  has  arrived.  Here  is  the  point  at  which  there  will  be 
the  largest  amount  of  hesitancy  and  doubt  in  following  our  author. 
Certainly  Prof.  Bury  is  not,  at  least  consciously,  guilty  of  the  fatal  fault  of 
many  modern  hagiologists,  who  after  they  have  discarded  the  miraculous  in 
the  narratives,  accept  the  residue  as  authentic.  He  expresses  himself 
admirably  when  he  says,  'The  most  striking  parts  of  it  [the  Ulidian 
tradition]  are  pure  legend,  but  they  are  framed  in  a  setting  which  might 
include  some  literal  facts  .  .  .  But  the  difficulty  which  meets  the  critic 
here  is  due  to  the  circumstance  that  he  has  no  sufficient  records  of  a 
genuine  historical  kind  to  guide  him  in  dealing  with  this  mixed  material. 
Most  of  those  who  have  undertaken  to  deal  with  it  have  adopted  the  crude 
and  vain  method  of  retaining  as  historical  what  is  not  miraculous.'  It  is 
impossible  in  this  short  notice  to  examine  Prof.  Bury's  work  upon  the 
traditional  sources;  but  it  is  no  small  matter  that  he  approaches  the  task 
with  a  full  sense  of  its  extraordinary  difficulty. 

The  attention  of  students  of  ecclesiastical  history  may  be  specially  called 
to  the  valuable  Excursus  (pp.  375-380)  on  the  organisation  of  the  Episcopate 
in  the  early  Irish  Church.  The  author  gives  weighty  reasons  for  believing 
that  bishops  of  Ireland  were  originally  diocesan  bishops,  and  that  it  was  only 
gradually  (perhaps  never  universally)  that  bishops  appear  as  without  sees, 
and  as  members  or  heads  of  monastic  houses. 

The  time  and  labour  expended  by  Prof.  Bury  on  the  Irish  topographical 
questions  raised  by  the  place  names  of  the  Patrician  literature  deserves 
especial  notice.  Maps  are  supplied  of  part  of  Ulidia  (Ulster),  and  of  the 
kingdoms  of  Meath  and  Connaught.  All  future  enquirers  are  bound  to 


Bury :    The  Life  of  St.   Patrick  79 

avail  themselves  of  these  researches,  even  though  they  may  be  unable  to 
accept  them  in  every  detail. 

Dr.  Bury  has  given  us  a  really  important  and  valuable  work  ;  but  it 
seems  to  me  that  its  value  would  not  have  been  diminished  by  the  excision 
of  the  occasional  (though  happily  rare)  sneers,  covert  or  open,  directed  at 
what  many  Christians,  especially  among  the  writer's  fellow-countrymen, 
regard  with  reverence.  The  editing  of  the  Decline  and  fall  of  the  Roman 
Empire  has,  it  would  seem,  infected  the  editor  with  a  tendency  which  is 
not  among  the  many  great  merits  of  Gibbon. 

We  cannot  conclude  without  noticing  that,  in  the  judgment  of  Dr. 
Bury,  Scotland  must  surrender  the  distinction  which  has  been  so  long 
generally,  though  not  universally,  accorded,  of  containing  the  birth-place  of 
St.  Patrick.  We  have  reluctantly  to  confess  that  Dr.  Bury  seems  to  us  to 
have  made  a  strong  case  against  Bannauemtaberniae  being  placed  in  Strath- 
clyde.  But  the  recent  investigations  of  Roman  remains  in  the  province  of 
Valentia,  exhibiting  ample  proofs  of  a  long-settled  civilization,  go  at  least 
some  way  to  detract  from  the  force  of  the  argument  that  we  have  no 
evidence  that  there  were  towns  with  municipal  constitutions  in  Strathclyde. 
Some  place  in  south  Britain  near  the  western  coast  is  all  that  at  present 
Prof.  Bury  can  determine  as  to  the  spot  which  gave  birth  to  the  Apostle  of 
Ireland. 

JOHN  DOWDEN. 

THE  SCOTS  PEERAGE.  Edited  by  Sir  James  Balfour  Paul,  Lyon  King 
of  Arms.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  xv,  575  ;  Vol.  II.,  pp.  vi.  602.  Edinburgh: 
David  Douglas,  1904-5.  155.  nett  each.  (To  be  completed  in 
about  six  volumes.) 

SIR  JAMES  BALFOUR  PAUL  is  warmly  to  be  congratulated  on  the  issue 
of  a  second  volume  of  the  Scots  Peerage.  The  general  appearance  of 
the  volumes  is  excellent ;  the  printing  is  clear,  and  as  to  the  merits  of 
the  woodcuts  readers  of  this  magazine  can  judge  from  the  examples  which 
appeared  in  a  previous  number,1  and  which  offer  a  marked  contrast  to  the 
simple  and  homely  appearance  of  the  Complete  Peerage,  whose  compiler  is  a 
Gallic  in  matters  of  book  production. 

However,  in  genealogical  works  the  substance  is  incomparably  more 
important  than  the  form,  and  in  this  regard  it  seems  sufficient  to  say 
that  there  is  hardly  an  article  here  which  does  not  constitute  a  marked 
advance  on  any  previous  account  of  the  family  concerned.  An  immense 
amount  of  matter  has  been  brought  to  light  and  made  available  of  late 
years  which  was  unknown  to  old  Peerage  writers.  Although  this 
increases  the  labours  of  preparation,  it  renders  possible  the  advance  we 
have  mentioned  both  towards  accuracy  and  completeness. 

There  is  much  to  be  said  both  for  and  against  a  work  of  this  kind 
being  produced,  as  in  the  present  case,  by  a  number  of  collaborators. 
On  the  one  hand,  by  getting  a  Kennedy  to  treat  of  Cassillis  and  a 
Lindsay  of  Balcarres,  the  special  knowledge  of  particular  families  and 

1  See  Scottish  Historical  Review,  vol.   ii.,  pages  4,  8,  and   12. 


8o  The  Scots  Peerage 

unrestricted  access  to  their  charters  and  archives  is-  secured,  to  which  it 
would  be  quite  impossible  for  a  single  editor  to  attain,  unless  he  were 
prepared  to  devote  a  lifetime  to  preparation  ;  on  the  other  hand,  there 
is  bound  to  be  some  falling  off  in  that  uniformity  of  treatment  which 
is  so  desirable.  On  the  whole,  however,  the  advantages  outweigh  the 
drawbacks. 

The  extent  to  which  recourse  must  have  been  had  to  original  docu- 
ments is  striking,  the  result  being  that  many  venerable  errors  which 
have  been  passed  on  from  one  peerage  writer  to  another  are  here  for 
the  first  time  expunged.  I  have  been  able  to  test  the  truth  of  this 
very  completely,  as  I  have  been  for  many  years  collecting  genealogical 
data  correcting  and  amplifying  the  received  peerage  accounts,  from 
non-peerage  sources — such  as  Records,  Memoirs,  Letters,  etc. — and  it  is 
surprising  to  find  in  how  many  cases  these  manuscript  notes  are  incor- 
porated in  the  Scots  Peerage. 

The  Editor  makes  some  apology  in  his  forewords  for  having 
curtailed  in  certain  cases  the  historical  matter,  but  this  he  need  not  do. 
No  one  goes  to  a  book  of  this  kind  to  learn  the  history  of  a  country, 
but  that  of  a  particular  family  ;  and  though  the  two  are  often  inseparably 
connected,  there  should  be  as  little  swelling  of  the  bulk  by  the  former  as  is 
consistent  with  making  clear  the  feats  and  conduct  of  the  latter. 

•  Indeed,  with  all  reverence  for  the  Lyons,  Unicorns,  and  other  dignified 
mammals,  who  have  lent  their  services  to  this  publication,  I  should  say  that 
the  purely  genealogical  statements  are  sometimes  overlaid  and  obscured  by 
superincumbent  historical  matter  ;  and  one  would  willingly  trade  away  a 
page  or  two  about  English  intrigues,  or  accounts  which  might  be  found  in 
Robertson,  for  the  name  of  a  peer's  mother-in-law  and  the  place  of  his 
marriage.  In  the  future  volumes  these  two  facts  should  invariably  be 
given,  when  known.  Taking  as  an  illustration  the  article  on  Cassillis 
(otherwise  an  excellent  performance  though  slightly  too  diffuse),  the  place 
of  marriage  is  not  given  in  the  writer's  own  account  of  himself,  and  yet  he 
must  be  presumed  to  have  known  it  ! 

People  often  fail  to  realise  the  importance  of  stating  the  place  of  birth, 
marriage  and  death,  especially  where  no  authority  is  given  for  the  date — 
e.g.  if  Scots  Peerage  states  that  a  man  was  married  Aug.  1733,  and 
another  Peerage  records  the  same  event  as  occurring  in  1738,  there  is 
practically  no  clue  to  help  one  in  deciding  in  which  work  the  common 
printer's  error  of  interchanging  3  and  8  has  occurred.  But  if  the  words 
'  at  St.  Anne's,  Soho,'  are  added,  a  reference  to  the  register  will  probably 
solve  the  difficulty.  It  may  also  be  suggested  that  where  an  error  of  any 
importance  has  obtained  general  currency,  it  is  well  worth  while  not 
merely  to  correct  it,  but  to  contradict  it.  Thus,  if  in  all  previous  accounts 
we  have  been  told  that  'Lord  Lackland  m.  in  1738  Alice,  da.  of  Robert 
Shepherd,'  and  read  in  the  accurate  pages  before  us  for  the  first  time  that 
'He  m.  20  Aug.  1733  Agnes,  da.  of  Roger  Sheppard,'  we  may  feel  sure 
that  there  is  an  advance  towards  perfect  accuracy,  but  may  still  be  uneasy 
lest  one  or  other  of  the  changes  has  arisen  through  oversight  or  printer's 
errors.  If,  however,  we  should  read,  '  He  m.  20  Aug.  1733  (not  1738) 


BREADALBANE 
From  The  Scots  Peerage,  edited  by  Sir  James  Balfour  Paul 


Facing  page  80 


The  Scots  Peerage  81 

Agnes  (not  Alice),  da.  of  Roger  Sheppard  (not  Robert  Shepherd),'  we 
should  know  that  they  were  all  considered  emendations  in  the  light  of 
fuller  knowledge. 

In  some  of  the  accounts  there  is  a  tendency  to  vary  the  form  of  words  in 
which  the  peer's  death  or  marriage  is  stated  ;  sometimes  it  is  even  thrown 
in  parenthetically  at  the  end  or  in  the  middle  of  a  long  paragraph  dealing 
with  other  matters.  This  is  probably  done  with  a  view  to  obtaining  a 
better  literary  effect,  just  as  newspapers  talk  of  a  man  'handling  the 
willow '  at  cricket  instead  of  c  batting,'  but  it  is  to  be  regretted.  However 
brightly  and  ably  this  peerage  may  be  treated,  it  is  impossible  to  imagine 
the  most  patriotic  Scot  taking  it  up  for  a  little  light  reading  as  he  would 
Blackwood.  Those  who  consult  it  will  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  do  so 
in  search  of  precise  dates  or  information  as  to  relationship,  and  for  the 
convenience  of  such  students  the  birth,  death  and  marriage  of  the  subject 
of  each  memoir  should  be  as  nearly  as  possible  in  the  same  form,  in 
the  same  place,  and  isolated  from  other  matter. 

It  is  inevitable  where  so  many  different  writers  are  employed  that 
the  standard  of  excellence  should  vary.  The  '  Buchan '  articles  are 
perhaps  below  the  general  average  of  the  work,  while  in  that  on 
4  Coupar '  the  new  and  valuable  facts  bear  about  the  same  proportion 
to  trivial  anecdote  and  quotation  of  doggerel  as  the  bread  did  to  the 
sack  in  Falstaff's  bill,  and  the  contrast  between  it  and  the  workmanlike 
treatise  by  Mr.  Harwood  on  '  Cramond '  which  immediately  follows  is 
most  striking.  Genealogical  narrative  cannot  be  too  precise,  and  baldness 
is  preferable  to  vagueness,  or  diffuseness. 

The  fact  that  the  change  of  style  for  New  Year's  day  from  24th  March 
to  ist  January  did  not  take  place  in  England  till  1752,  while  in  Scotland  it 
occurred  some  150  years  earlier,  has  naturally  led  many  of  the  writers 
in  this  work  to  regard  the  double  spring  date  as  unnecessary  after  1600, 
but  it  can  be  clearly  shown  that,  if  dubiety  is  to  be  avoided,  it  should  be 
used  until  1752.  Opening  the  second  volume  at  random  at  page  236, 
there  appears  the  statement  that  the  third  wife  of  David,  second  Earl  of 
Wemyss,  died  in  February  1688,  and  no  authority  or  reference  is  given 
for  the  date.  Now  if  this  fact  comes  from  a  Scotch  source  it  would 
mean  that  she  died  in  1687-8,  if  from  an  English  one  that  she  died  in 
1688-9  5  an^  yet  she  may  have  died  in  Piccadilly,  and  the  source  may 
be  an  English  news-letter,  in  which  case  there  can  be  no  certainty  as  to 
whether  the  compiler  has  reduced  an  English  date  to  its  Scotch  equivalent 
or  left  it  as  he  found  it.  If  there  is  to  be  one  plan  for  writing  in  English 
of  a  Scot  who  died  in  the  spring,  between  1600  and  1752,  and  another 
for  writing  of  an  Englishman,  we  shall  arrive  at  the  paradox  that  Charles 
the  First,  King  of  Scotland,  died  in  January  1649,  and  that  Charles  the 
First,  King  of  England,  died  in  January  1648  ! 

Leaving  now  the  consideration  of  the  work  as  a  whole  and  examining 
more  closely  some  of  the  parts,  it  seems  strange  in  the  c  Buccleugh  '  notice 
that  the  writer  should  merely  record  the  restoration  in  favour  of  the  Duke 
of  Buccleuch  in  1743  of  the  Barony  of  Scot  of  Tindal  and  Earldom 
of  Doncaster  without  any  comment  on  its  unjust  and  illogical  character. 


82 


The  Scots  Peerage 


It  seems  unjust  to  reverse  an  attainder  passed  on  account  of  a  rebellion 
which  was  entered  on  without  justification  by  a  bastard  fighting  on 
his  own  behalf,  and  to  leave  unreversed  attainders  on  Scotch  peers  who 
had  fought  in  support  of  their  de  jure  sovereign — as,  for  example,  the 
Duke  of  Berwick,  though  in  this  case  the  now  (1905)  heir  is  an 
alien  and  Spanish  subject.  It  seems  illogical  to  reverse  an  attainder 
in  respect  of  a  Barony  and  Earldom  and  to  leave  standing  one  of  the 
Dukedom  of  Monmouth  incurred  at  the  same  date  and  for  the  same 
cause.  Partial  and  unreasonable  as  this  restoration  was,  it  was  not  so 
inequitable  as  the  action  of  Parliament  in  1858,  which  restored  the  Barony 
of  Herries  of  Terregles  in  favour  of  William  Maxwell  of  Everingham  Park, 
while  leaving  under  attainder  the  Earldom  of  Nithsdale,  which  would  have 
vested  in  William  Maxwell  of  Carruchan,  although  both  peerages  had  been 
forfeited  by  the  same  man  for  his  share  in  the  '15.  It  may  be  assumed 
that  if  a  proved  heir  of  any  of  the  titles  forfeited  in  1 7 1 6  or  1 746  were  to 
come  forward  he  would  now  probably  be  able  to  secure  a  reversal  of  the 
attainder,  and  in  this  way,  if  it  were  worth  his  while,  the  Earl  of  Errol  for 
instance  could  add  the  Barony  of  Kilmarnock  to  his  titles.  In  this  connec- 
tion also  it  may  be  mentioned,  though  it  be  not  strictly  germane  to  a 
discussion  on  the  Scots  peerage,  that  the  reversal  of  Queen  Mary's 
attainder  of  the  Duke  of  Suffolk  in  1554  would  vest  the  Marquessate 
of  Dorset,  held  by  that  nobleman,  in  the  present  Earl  of  Stamford. 

Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  policy  of  reversing  old  attainders, 
it  seem  obvious  that  if  they  are  to  be  reversed  in  favour  of  one  man  or  one 
title  they  should  be  reversed  in  favour  of  all,  where  the  conditions  are  the 
same. 

It  is  much  to  be  wished  that  the  scheme  of  this  Peerage  had  admitted  of 
showing  the  descent  of  families  under  attainder,  and  consequently  who  are, 
and  who  have  been,  the  men  who  but  for  that  disability  would  have  been 
peers.  As  far  as  I  know  this  has  never  been  attempted  except  in  isolated 
cases,  and  it  would  furnish  much  valuable  information  ;  indeed,  to  make 
room  for  it  such  articles  as  those  on  Brechin  of  Brechin  and  Comyn 
of  Badenoch  might  have  been  sacrificed.  They  never  were  peers  of 
Parliament,  and  are  surely  quite  out  of  place  in  a  peerage.  The  only 
explanation  of  their  inclusion  must  be  that  the  example  of  the  original 
1  Douglas '  has  in  this  case  been  too  slavishly  followed.  Yet  if  this  is 
to  be  the  line  of  defence,  how  does  Rothesay  Herald  justify  in  his  article 
on  Erskine  Lord  Cardross,  p.  366,  the  suppression  of  the  names  of  the 
children  of  John,  4th  son  of  the  2nd  Lord,  which  are  to  be  found  in 
full  in  Wood's  Douglas  (vol.  i.  p.  274)  ? ;  and  why  in  the  case  of  his  elder 
brother  William,  when  the  old  work  carries  on  his  offspring  down  to 
the  year  1816,  is  this  valuable  matter  compressed  in  the  new,  into  the 
jejune  statement  '  with  issue '  ?  The  principle  on  which  such  omission 
is  made  is  undiscoverable,  and  where  we  looked  for  amplification  behold 
a  blank.  It  is  indeed  hard  on  the  impecunious  genealogist  that  he  should 
be  forced  to  buy  Wood's  Douglas  to  supplement  Scots  Peerage! 

In  the  notice  of  Buchan  no  reference  is  made  to  the  marriage  of 
the  widow  of  an  early  Earl  of  Buchan  with  Sir  William  Lindsay, 


The  Scots  Peerage  83 

although  the  fact  that  such  a  match  took  place  is  clearly  shown  by 
Sir  William  Lindsay  of  Symington  (younger  son  of  Sir  David  Lindsay, 
Regent  of  Scotland,  1255)  having  founded  masses  for  his  two  wives,  Alicia 
and  M.,  Countess  of  Buchan. 

With  great  respect  for  the  capacity  of  the  writer  of  the  treatise  on 
Colville  of  Culross  as  shown  here  and  elsewhere,  I  am  surprised  at  the 
leniency  which  (as  contrasted  with  Riddell  and  with  G.  E.  C.)  he  displays 
in  dealing  with  the  audacious  and  inaccurate  claimant,  and  the  lax  and  ill- 
informed  tribunal  of  the  House  of  Lords,  in  May  1723.  He  offers  no 
remark  on  the  eccentricity  of  finding  a  man  entitled  to  the  dignity  of  Lord 
Colville  of  Culross  with  the  precedency  of  a  patent  which  did  not  create, 
and  never  mentions,  that  title.  With  regard  to  the  petition  itself  he 
carries  his  benevolence  to  an  extreme  point  when,  after  admitting  that 
the  petitioner  professed  to  descend  from  a  non-existent  brother  of  the 
first  Lord,  he  goes  on  to  allege  in  a  note  that  the  other  statements 
were  accurate,  although  in  fact  two  of  them  (and  one  of  them  of 
cardinal  importance)  were  false.  The  second  Lord  did  not  die  about  fifty 
years  before  the  date  of  the  petition,  but  about  seventy.  The  second 
Lord  did  not  die  without  male  issue,  but  left  two  sons,  both  of  whom 
succeeded  to  the  title.  Now  here  we  have  a  peerage  claim  allowed 
where  material  facts  are  misrepresented  or  withheld  from  the  Court, 
where  no  attempt  is  made  to  prove  the  bastardy  of  the  fourth  Lord 
or  his  death  without  lawful  male  issue,  or  the  extinction  of  the  same, 
although  such  proof  was  absolutely  essential  before  the  claim  could 
properly  have  been  admitted. 

Does  the  Editor  not  think  on  re-consideration  that  such  inaccuracy,  if 
not  fraud,  on  one  side,  and  such  carelessness  and  slovenliness,  on  the 
other,  should  be  exposed  and  should  receive  reprobation  ? 

A  few  minor  blemishes  may  be  pointed  out  scattered  through  the 
two  volumes,  which  incuria  fudlt.  Under  <  Abercorn '  the  surname 
(Gore)  of  the  third  wife  of  the  first  Marquess  is  omitted.  Under  '  Argyll,' 
on  p.  336,  Archibald,  second  son  of  the  second  Earl,  married  firstly 
Janet,  da.  of  James  Stewart,  Sheriff  of  Bute,  from  whom  he  was  divorced  ; 
he  had  by  her  a  son,  John,  who  married  Marion,  da.  of  Hugh  Mont- 
gomery, widow  of  Crawford  of  Auchinames,  and  of  William,  second 
Lord  Sempill.  This  John  had  a  grant  as  heir  to  his  father.  Under 
'Argyll,'  p.  382,  Mary,  Lady  Rosebery,  did  not  die  in  1756,  but  3rd 
December,  1783,  at  Bath;  and  on  p.  385  of  the  same  article  the  first 
da.  of  Capt.  William  Campbell,  R.N.,  is  wrongly  called  Anne,  instead 
of  Louisa.  Under  '  Campbell,  Earl  of  Atholl,'  the  compiler  has  become 
tired  of  enumerating  the  many  matches  of  Joanna  Menteith  and  has 
omitted  her  fourth  husband,  William,  fourth  Earl  of  Sunderland,  for 
which  union  Papal  dispensation  was  granted  5  Id.,  Nov.  1347.  In 
vol.  ii.,  p.  109,  the  battle  of  Ancrum  Moor  was  not  fought  in  March, 
but  on  27th  February,  1544-5.  Under  'Brechin,'  on  p.  224,  it  is  stated 
that  Margaret,  Lady  of  Brechin,  married  Walter  Stewart,  and  it  should 
be  added  that  this  Walter  was  afterwards  created  Earl  of  Atholl. 

However,  there  is  no  need  to  put  one's  finger  on  any  more  of  such 


84  The  Scots  Peerage 

little  blots,  from  which  no  work  on  this  scale  can  be  altogether  free, 
and  it  is  pleasant  to  be  able  to  end  this  review  on  the  same  note  of 
praise  with  which  it  began,  by  awarding  special  commendation  to  the 
articles  on  Angus  and  (Murray)  Atholl  in  vol.  i.,  and  on  Borthwick 
and  Bothwell  in  vol.  ii.  VICARY  GIBBS. 

RECORDS  OF  THE  BOROUGH  OF  LEICESTER.  Edited  by  Miss  Mary 
Bateson,  and  revised  by  W.  N.  Stevenson,  M.A.,  and  J.  E.  Stocks, 
M.A.  3  Vols.  Ry.  8vo.  Cambridge:  University  Press.  1899, 
1901,  and  1905.  255.  nett  per  vol. 

THESE  volumes  reflect  credit  on  the  Corporation  of  Leicester,  by  whose 
authority  they  are  published,  and  on  the  editor  and  revisers,  who  have 
performed  their  several  duties  with  an  efficiency  which  leaves  nothing 
to  be  desired. 

Vol.  i.  contains  extracts  from  the  Archives  of  the  Borough  from 
1103  till  1327,  vol.  ii.  from  1327  to  1509,  and  voL  iii.  from  1509 
till  1603. 

By  all  persons  interested  in  the  burghal  history  of  Scotland  it  has 
long  been  recognised  that  while  in  some  respects  the  Scottish  burghs 
were  freer  in  their  constitution  than  those  of  England,  where  the 
monarchial  power  was  stronger  than  in  Scotland,  they  were  largely 
modelled  after  the  old  boroughs  of  England.  The  Leges  Quatuor 
Burgorum,  which  are  given  in  full  in  the  first  volume  of  the  folio 
edition  of  the  Acts  of  Parliament  of  Scotland,  and  more  recently  by 
Professor  Cosmo  Innes  in  one  of  the  early  volumes  of  the  Scottish  Burgh 
Records  Society,  were  compiled  and  operative  in  Berwick-on-Tweed, 
whence  they  were  taken  to  define  the  right  duties  and  privileges  of 
the  Burghs  and  burgesses  of  the  Northern  Kingdom  as  early  as  the 
reign  of  David  I.  That  Code,  as  it  now  exists,  no  doubt  contains 
additions  of  later  date,  but  its  English  origin,  and  the  similarity  of  the 
early  constitution  of  the  Northern  with  that  of  the  Southern  Burghs,  are 
evidenced  by  the  identity  of  the  phraseology  of  the  clauses  of  the  oldest 
Scottish  Charters  with  the  earlier  Charters  of  England. 

The  publication  of  these  interesting  records,  along  with  other  works  of 
Miss  Bateson,  in  which  she  has  utilised  the  contributions  to  burghal  history 
of  Professor  Maitland  and  other  eminent  English  writers  of  modern  times, 
suggests  the  desirability  of  endeavouring  to  trace  points  of  resemblance 
between  the  boroughs  of  Scotland  and  England,  and  to  notice  some  of 
their  dissimilarities.  This  we  hope  to  do  at  an  early  date. 

JAMES  D.  MARWICK. 

THE  COLLEGE  OF  ST.  LEONARD  :  being  documents  with  translations, 
notes,  and  historical  introductions,  prepared  and  edited  by  John 
Herkless  and  Robert  Kerr  Hannay.  Pp.  233,  med.  8vo.  Edinburgh 
and  London:  William  Blackwood  &  Sons.  1905.  75.  6d.  nett. 

CURRENT  questions  regarding  property  and  other  rights  in  connection 
with  St.  Andrews  University  were  the  occasion  of  the  historical  inquiry 


The  College  of  St.   Leonard  85 

which  has  resulted  in  this  interesting  and  scholarly  book.  Old  com- 
promises, which  worked  tolerably,  though  always  with  more  or  less 
friction,  in  many  easy  years  of  the  past,  have  been  strained  to  breaking 
by  the  new  vigour  of  academic  life  ;  and  it  became  necessary  for  the 
University  to  examine  its  early  records  and  documents  in  order  that 
the  re-opened  problems  might  be  considered  in  as  full  light  as  possible. 
Perhaps  the  chief  of  these  problems  was  that  of  the  position  of  St. 
Leonards  Church.  There  is  a  parish  of  St.  Leonards ;  but  it  has  never 
had  a  manse  or  a  glebe  (although  in  the  igth  century  it  was  found  to 
be  entitled  to  these),  no  part  of  its  minister's  stipend  comes  from 
the  teinds  of  the  parish,  its  church  (until  last  year)  was  also  the  chapel 
of  the  College,  and  until  the  first  half  of  last  century  its  minister  was 
always  the  Principal  or  a  Professor  of  the  College.  The  church,  though 
the  date  of  its  foundation  is  unknown,  is  certainly  much  older  than  the 
College  of  St.  Leonard.  The  earliest  reference  to  it  occurs  in  a 
document  of  1413,  which  records  a  meeting  held  in  ecclesia  parochiali 
sancti  leonardi  infra  civitatem  sancti  Andree.  It  was  originally  the  church 
of  a  hospital  of  six  beds,  founded  by  an  abbot  of  the  ancient  Celtic 
monastery  at  St.  Andrews,  for  the  entertainment  of  pilgrims  to  the 
shrine  of  St.  Andrew.  This  hospital,  with  its  endowment,  was  in 
1144  transferred  by  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews  to  the  canons  of 
the  newly  erected  priory,  who  made  it  large  enough  '  for  all 
comers.'  The  canons  were  confirmed  in  their  possession  by  royal 
charters  and  papal  bulls,  and  the  hospital  received  further  endowments, 
including  a  gift  of  land  from  David,  '  the  sair  sanct.'  It  was  at  first 
described  as  the  hospital  of  St.  Andrew,  and  in  1248  Pope  Innocent 
IV.  styled  it  the  hospital  of  St.  Andrew,  and  also,  in  another  bull,  the 
hospital  of  St.  Leonard.  The  change  of  name,  Professor  Herkless 
thinks,  may  have  been  due  to  David  de  Bernham,  Bishop  of  St. 
Andrews  (died  1253).  St.  Leonard,  as  the  patron  of  prisoners  and  also 
of  hospitals,  was  reverenced  in  England  from  the  time  of  the  Norman 
Conquest,  and  from  the  1 2th  century  there  were  in  Scotland  many 
foundations  in  his  name. 

In  the  sixteenth  century  the  hospital,  or  what  remained  of  it,  was 
transformed  into  the  College  of  St.  Leonard  at  the  instance  of  John 
Hepburn,  prior  of  the  monastery.  In  1512,  the  youthful  Archbishop, 
Alexander  Stuart,  who  with  his  father,  James  IV.,  was  to  fall  at  Flodden, 
granted  a  charter  in  which  he  'sets  up  and  constitutes  the  hospital 
and  the  church  of  St.  Leonards  joined  to  it  as  St.  Leonards  College, 
to  be  called  the  college  of  poor  clerks  of  the  church  of  St.  Andrew.' 
In  this  charter  the  Archbishop,  who  was  a  pupil  of  Erasmus,  indicates 
the  causes  of  the  decay  of  the  hospital,  saying  that  c  in  the  lapse  of 
time,  when  the  number  of  the  miracles  and  the  pilgrimages  had  decreased, 
through  the  faith  of  Christ  being  established  (jirmata  Christi  fide\  there 
were  lodged  in  the  hospital  certain  women,  chosen  on  account  of  their 
years,  who,  however,  showed  none  of  the  fruits  of  devotion  and  virtue.' 
The  hospital,  in  short,  had  ceased  to  be  of  use  either  as  a  guesthouse 
or  as  an  almshouse,  and  the  object  of  the  new  foundation  was,  as  the 


86  The  College  of  St.  Leonard 

Archbishop  declares,  *  not  that  men  be  supported  there  for  their  poverty  but 
the  rather  that  in  the  Church  persons  learned  in  doctrine  and  of  excellent 
instruction  may  be  multiplied  to  the  glory  of  God  Almighty  and  the 
spiritual  edification  of  the  people.'  Mr.  Hannay  suggests  that,  while 
the  archbishop  and  the  prior  acted  together  in  the  founding  of  the  college, 
there  was  probably  some  difference  in  their  motives.  The  thoughts  of 
the  pupil  of  Erasmus  *  must  have  dwelt  mainly  upon  the  fascinations  and 
the  possibilities  of  the  new  learning,'  while  the  prior,  '  with  his  accepted 
belief  in  the  efficacy  of  a  life  according  to  rule,  and  with  the  conviction 
of  a  practical  man  that  something  must  be  done  for  the  education  of 
the  clergy,'  was  primarily  concerned  with  the  revival  of  his  monastery 
and  his  order. 

In  the  early  history  of  the  college  we  can  see  something  like  a  struggle 
between  these  different  tendencies.  In  his  introduction  to  the  documents 
Mr.  Hannay  unravels  with  much  skill  the  '  chaotic  history '  of  the  relations 
between  the  monastery,  the  college,  and  the  church.  It  is  impossible, 
in  a  summary  fashion,  to  give  any  clear  idea  of  this.  But  it  may  briefly 
be  said  that  the  college  appears  at  first  to  have  been  practically  under 
the  dominance  of  the  monastery  (Hector  Boece  describes  it,  during  the 
first  ten  years  of  its  existence,  as  an  4  appendix '  of  the  monastery,  where 
4  novices '  and  '  many  others  of  like  age '  are  trained  '  in  habits  of  obedience 
to  rule ') ;  but  that  very  early  there  arose  within  the  College  itself  move- 
ments towards  greater  independence.  The  monastery  was  drifting  away 
from  the  ideals  of  the  monastic  life,  the  strong  hand  of  John  Hepburn 
was  removed,  and  the  college  consequently  sought  more  and  more  'to 
manage  its  own  affairs  and  pursue  its  own  ends.'  The  college  also,  which 
at  first  had  only  two  Regents,  had  to  fight  for  its  full  recognition  in  the 
University. 

In  this  controversy  Gavin  Logic,  one  of  the  Regents,  took  a  conspicuous 
part,  and  apparently  it  became  necessary,  in  order  that  full  recognition  might 
be  obtained,  to  increase  the  number  of  Regents  to  four.  This,  with  other 
causes,  involved  a  decrease  in  the  number  of  students  on  the  foundation, 
and  at  one  time  it  seemed  as  if  the  college  might  become  extinct.  But 
in  1545  the  college  received  from  Cardinal  Beaton  an  Apostolic  Charter  of 
Confirmation,  which  enabled  it  to  meet  in  chapter  and  thus  to  become 
a  corporate  body.  Thus  in  less  than  thirty-five  years  from  its  foundation 
the  college  had  outgrown  to  a  great  extent  the  purposes  of  its  real 
founder,  John  Hepburn.  The  Reformation  was  approaching,  and  the 
attempt  to  revive  the  monastic  life  came  too  late.  This  appears  in  another 
way  when  we  consider  the  teaching,  as  well  as  the  administration  of  the 
college.  '  The  rapidity,'  says  Mr.  Hannay,  *  with  which  St.  Leonards 
acquired  the  character  of  a  college  specially  devoted  to  Arts  teaching  is  a 
feature  in  its  history  which  should  not  pass  unnoticed.'  The  new 
learning  no  doubt  had  its  share  in  this,  and  St.  Leonards  soon  gained  the 
reputation  of  Protestantism.  Knox  in  his  History  (i.  p.  36)  says  that 
*  within  schort  space  many  begane  to  doubt  that  which  befoir  thei  held  for 
a  certaine  veritie,  in  so  much  that  the  Universitie  of  Sanctandrose,  and 
Sanct  Leonardis  Colledge,  principallie,  by  the  labouris  of  Maister  Gawin 


The  College  of  St.  Leonard  87 

Logy,  and  the  novises  of  the  Abbey,  by  the  suppriour '  [Wynram],  '  begane 
to  smell  somewhat  of  the  veritie,  and  to  espy  the  vanitie  of  the  receaved 
superstitioun.'  And  Calderwood,  the  church  historian,  tells  us  that  *  Mr. 
Gawin  Logic  instilled  into  the  scholars  the  truthe  secreitlie,  which  they,  in 
processe  of  time,  spread  through  the  whole  countrie,  wherefrom  did  arise  a 
proverbe,  "  Yee  have  drunken  of  Sanct  Leonards  well "  '  (Historie  of  the 
Kirk  of  Scotland,  i.  pp.  82-83).  Calderwood  declares  that  in  1533  Gavin 
Logic  was  forced  to  flee  the  country.  Dr.  Laing,  however,  in  his  edition 
of  Knox's  History,  points  out  that  Logic  was  elected  Dean  of  the  Faculty 
of  Arts  in  November,  1534,  and  he  suggests  that  the  flight  took  place 
before  the  close  of  1535.  In  1536  Logic  did  not  act  either  as  regent 
or  principal ;  but  Professor  Herkless  shows  that  '  neither  Calderwood's 
statement  nor  Dr.  Laing's  suggestion  about  Logic's  flight  for  heresy  can 
be  accepted.  Among  the  documents  in  possession  of  the  University  is 
a  charter  connected  with  the  altar  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist  and  St.  Mary 
Magdalene  in  the  Church  of  St.  Leonard.  The  charter,  which  is  dated 
8th  August,  1537,  nas  Logic's  seal  among  others  appended  to  it.  It 
bears  that  the  new  chaplain  to  be  appointed  is  to  train  the  youths  of 
the  college  in  good  manners,  virtues,  and  liberal  arts,  to  the  honour  of  the 
University  and  the  whole  realm,  and  to  the  advantage  of  the  common- 
wealth, "quern  admodum  fecerat  modernus  possessor  Magister  Gavinus 
Logye  dum  ei  corporis  vigor  suppeditabat  et  nunc  per  alium  facit  cum 
(ut  constat)  morbo  et  egritudine  correptus  per  seipsum  facere  non  possit." 
The  implication  from  these  words  is  that  Logic  had  worked  to  the  honour 
of  the  University  and  the  advantage  of  the  commonwealth,  and  they 
certainly  suggest  no  charge  of  heresy.'  There  can  be  no  doubt,  however, 
of  Logic's  adherence  to  the  new  faith,  and  Calderwood  speaks  in  particular 
of  his  influence  on  the  Wedderburns  of  Dundee.  That  he  was  not 
prosecuted  may  have  been  due  to  the  religious  indifference  of  Patrick 
Hepburn,  prior  of  the  monastery,  who  appointed  him  to  the  principalship 
in  1523.  The  whole  story  illustrates  the  decay  of  the  monastery  and  the 
slackening  of  its  hold  upon  the  college. 

It  is  impossible  in  this  notice  to  do  more  than  mention  Professor 
Herkless's  interesting  account  of  the  later  history  of  the  college,  and  the 
valuable  information  which  the  book  affords  regarding  details  of  academic 
life  before  the  Reformation.  The  various  charters  and  statutes  of  the 
college  have  been  carefully  edited  and  admirably  translated  by  Mr.  Hannay. 
The  early  '  visitations '  are  also  printed  with  notes,  and  there  is  an 
interesting  appendix,  containing  a  number  of  illustrative  documents  from 
the  records  of  the  University.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  editors  will 
continue  their  researches,  and  that  some  day  we  may  have  from  their 
hands  a  history  of  St.  Andrews  University.  Meanwhile  they  are  to  be 
congratulated  on  the  excellent  work  they  have  done. 

R.  LATTA. 


88      Annandale:    The   Faroes  and  Iceland 

THE  FAROES  AND  ICELAND  :  Studies  in  Island  Life.  By  Nelson  Annan- 
dale.  With  24  Illustrations.  Pp.  viii,  238.  Oxford :  Clarendon 
Press,  1905.  43.  6d.  nett. 

THIS  is  an  interesting  book,  and  has  the  merit  of  dealing  with  subjects 
not  too  familiar  to  most  readers.  Mr.  Annandale  has  spent  several 
summer  and  autumn  holidays  in  the  Faroes  and  some  parts  of  Ice- 
land, and  has  made  good  use  of  his  opportunities  for  observing  what 
is  most  characteristic  in  these  islands  and  their  inhabitants.  His  account 
of  the  Faroes  and  Faroese  is  the  fuller  of  the  two,  and  his  obvious 
preference  of  them  to  Iceland  and  the  Icelanders  may  be  partly  due 
to  a  less  intimate  knowledge  of  the  latter  in  some  respects.  The 
only  strictly  historical  chapter  is  the  third,  which  gives  at  some  length 
the  story  of  the  descents  made  by  Algerian  pirates  in  1627  on  some 
parts  of  Iceland,  especially  on  the  Vestmannaeyjar,  or  Westmen  Islands, 
off  the  south  coast.  The  first  chapter,  however,  touches  to  some 
extent  on  the  history  of  the  Faroes  :  here  the  author  perhaps  makes 
a  little  too  much  of  the  contact  between  Scandinavia  and  the  Gaelic 
lands  in  early  times.  The  idea  that  Iceland  was  largely  peopled  from 
the  Gaelic  districts  in  Scotland  and  Ireland  has  very  little  basis  in  the 
historic  records,  and  as  to  the  Faroes  we  have  practically  no  evidence 
at  all  on  this  point. 

Of  the  other  chapters,  which  form  the  main  part  of  the  book,  the 
second  and  fifth  deal  with  life  in  the  Faroes  and  Iceland  respectively. 
In  the  former  there  is  much  information  about  the  sea-birds  of  the  Faroes, 
while  those  of  the  Vestmannaeyjar  have  the  fourth  chapter  to  themselves. 
The  domestic  animals  form  the  subject  of  the  sixth  chapter,  and  there 
is  an  appendix  on  the  Celtic  pony  by  Dr.  Marshall,  besides  a  section 
on  '  Agriculture  in  the  Islands.' 

As  the  above  brief  summary  will  show,  there  is  sufficient  variety  in 
the  book  to  make  it  readable  throughout,  and  the  illustrations  are  not 
only  ornamental  but  give  real  aid  to  the  understanding  of  the  text. 
They  show  not  only  characteristic  pieces  of  island  scenery,  but  various 
household  articles  which  have  some  culture-interest  attaching  to  them. 
A  few  inaccuracies  in  the  forms  of  native  words  and  names  are  of  slight 
importance  compared  with  the  general  merit  of  Mr.  Annandale's  work, 
which  will  probably  help  towards  a  wider  knowledge  of  these  northern 
isles.  W.  A.  CRAIGIE. 

ILLUSTRATED  CATALOGUE  OF  A  LOAN  COLLECTION  OF  PORTRAITS  OF 
ENGLISH  HISTORICAL  PERSONAGES  WHO  DIED  BETWEEN  1625  AND 
1714.  Exhibited  in  the  Examination  School,  Oxford,  April  and 
May,  1905.  Oxford  :  At  the  Clarendon  Press.  1905.  6s.  nett. 

THE  Exhibition  of  Historical  Portraits  this  year  at  Oxford,  while 
artistically  contrasting  in  many  ways  with  that  of  last  year,  may  be  said  at 
least  to  vie  with  it  in  personal  and  historical  interest.  It  embraces  what 
may  be  described  as  constitutionally  the  most  critical  and  pregnant  period 
of  English  history.  The  more  prominent  influences  in  the  earlier  period 


Portraits  of  English  Historical  Personages     89 

were  ecclesiastical  ;  but  it  was  not  till  this  later  period  that  the  political 
and  social  results  of  the  great  ecclesiastical  revolution  were  fully  manifested. 
Practically  it  was  the  ecclesiastical  revolution  that  gave  birth  to  the 
political  revolution  of  which  the  culmination  was  the  protectorate  of 
Cromwell.  The  reaction  from  the  protectorate  and  from  the  dominance 
of  Puritanism  produced  the  Restoration,  followed  finally  by  the  almost 
peaceful  revolution  which  heralded  the  successful  reign  of  William  and 
Mary.  The  political  England  of  to-day  properly  dates  from  the  arrival 
of  William  of  Orange,  but  it  was  created  not  merely  by  his  timely  arrival, 
but  by  the  preceding  years  of  political  storm  and  stress  by  which  the 
nation  had  been  educated  and  disciplined.  Even,  therefore,  had  this  period 
produced  no  names  of  first  rank,  it  was  bound  to  embrace  many  names  to 
which  there  must  attach  a  never-dying  interest.  Amongst  its  greatest 
names  are,  of  course,  Cromwell,  Milton — here  represented  by  a  rare  copy  of 
a  picture  of  him  in  his  youth,  which  has  been  lost — Dryden,  Harvey, 
Hobbes,  Locke,  and  William  of  Orange  ;  and  among  others  of  prominent 
interest  and  importance  are  those  of  Richard  Burton — whose  smiling 
countenance  at  the  age  of  62  suggests  that  in  writing  of  melancholy  he 
had  succeeded  in  his  aim,  that  of  avoiding  it — Clarendon,  Prince  Rupert, 
Archbishop  Laud — represented,  however,  only  by  copies  of  Van  Dyck — 
Falkland,  Pembroke,  Shaftesbury,  Selden,  Sydenham,  Jeremy  Taylor,  to 
name  no  more,  though  many  well-known  persons  of  the  period  are  of 
course  absent,  and,  as  may  be  supposed,  Oxford  is  lamentably  deficient  in 
portraits  of  Puritan  leaders — neither  Fairfax,  Hampden,  Lambert,  Pym, 
nor  Vane  being  represented :  Pope,  Marlborough  and  Newton,  who 
survived  till  after  1714,  are  necessarily  omitted. 

The  leading  artists  of  the  period  are,  of  course,  Van  Dyck,  Sir  Peter  Lely, 
and  Sir  Godfrey  Kneller,  the  characteristics  of  whom  and  their  principal 
contemporaries,  are  instructively  pointed  out  in  Mr.  Lionel  Gust's  admir- 
able introduction.  The  Catalogue  is  illustrated  by  over  fifty  reproductions, 
evidently  selected  mainly  for  their  artistic  interest. 

T.  F.  HENDERSON. 

STUDIES  ON  ANGLO-SAXON  INSTITUTIONS.  By  H.  Munro  Chadwick. 
Pp.  xiii,  422.  Crown  8vo.  Cambridge  :  University  Press.  1905. 
8s.  nett. 

THIS  small  volume  will  be  found  by  advanced  students  of  legal  and 
constitutional  origins  to  be  valuable  out  of  all  proportion  to  its  size. 
Several  of  the  fundamental  problems  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  period  are 
here  discussed  with  fairness,  thoroughness  and  moderation  by  a  scholar 
who  shows  himself  well-equipped,  more  especially  on  the  philological 
side,  for  the  onerous  task  he  undertakes.  Among  the  topics  treated  in 
separate  chapters  are  'The  Monetary  System,'  "the  key  to  which  is 
found  in  the  varying  value  of  the  shilling,  equated  as  a  unit  of  reckon- 
ing to  four  pennies  in  Mercia,  to  five  pennies  in  tenth-century  Wessex, 
and  to  20  pennies  in  Kent ;  *  The  Social  System,'  in  which  the  wergeld 
of  the  Kentish  ceorl  is  reckoned  as  100  oxen  and  that  of  the  ceorl  in 


90        Studies  on  Anglo-Saxon  Institutions 

Wessex  (and,  approximately,  in  the  rest  of  England)  at  200  sheep  or 
33  oxen,  and  ingenious,  if  unconvincing,  attempts  are  made  to  show 
why  the  one  is  thus  so  much  higher  than  the  other  ;  « The  Earl,'  in 
which  it  is  maintained  that  each  southern  county  of  England,  except 
Cornwall,  had  its  separate  Earl,  until  Edward  the  Elder  made  a  drastic 
reduction  of  their  number,  while  the  individual  midland  counties  never 
enjoyed  Earls  of  their  own  after  they  had  been  subjected  to  Wessex  ; 
'The  Administrative  System,'  in  which  it  is  argued  with  much  force 
that  the  shire-system  of  the  south  fell  completely  into  abeyance  after 
the  reforms  of  Edward  the  Elder,  who  superseded  it  by  an  arrange- 
ment of  burghal  districts,  each  under  one  of  his  new  great  Earls  ;  '  The 
History  of  the  Older  Counties,'  'The  Constitution  of  the  National 
Council,'  and  'The  Origin  of  the  Nobility,'  all  of  which  will  be 
found  compact  with  historical  material  handled  with  knowledge  and  skill. 

This  very  short  summary  will  serve  its  purpose  if  it  calls  attention 
to  the  great  value  of  Mr.  Chadwick's  treatise  for  advanced  scholars,  for 
whom  alone  it  is  likely  to  prove  profitable  reading.  Tyros,  on  the 
other  hand,  who  may  attempt  to  make  their  way  unaided  through  its 
pages,  rendered  obscure  in  places  by  the  very  wealth  of  the  author's 
erudition,  should  be  warned  that  they  will  find  hardly  a  single  proposi- 
tion that,  rightly  or  wrongly,  is  not  contradicted  by  writers  of  equal 
authority.  Mr.  Chadwick,  indeed,  seems  more  successful  in  under- 
mining the  positions  held  by  Mr.  Seebohm  and  others  than  in  establish- 
ing his  own  rival  theories.  Two  careful  perusals  of  the  mass  of  learned 
argument  and  subtle  suggestion  tightly  compressed  into  this  little  volume 
tend  to  strengthen  the  impression  that,  in  our  present  stage  of  knowledge,  a 
sufficiently  learned  and  skilful  debater  may  show  fair  grounds  for  maintain- 
ing any  theory  whatsoever  upon  any  one  of  the  fundamental  institutions  of 
Anglo-Saxon  England.  If  Mr.  Chadwick's  valuable  contribution  to  the 
study  of  origins  seems  meanwhile  to  have  made  darker  than  before  some 
questions  already  sufficiently  dark,  such  darkness  may  still  be  welcomed 
as  showing  progress  towards  the  dawn.  Future  investigators,  grappling 
with  any  of  the  questions  here  discussed,  will  be  unwise  to  neglect  the 
help  which  this  conscientious  and  scholarly  treatise  would  undoubtedly 
afford  them.  WM.  S.  M'KECHNIE. 

THE  HERALDRY  OF  THE  JOHNSTONS,  WITH  NOTES  ON  THE  DIFFERENT 
FAMILIES,  THEIR  ARMS,  AND  PEDIGREES.  By  G.  Harvey  Johnston. 
Pp.  56.  Cr.  410.  Edinburgh :  W.  &  A.  K.  Johnston.  1905. 
i  os.  6d.  nett. 

As  only  a  hundred  copies  of  this  work  are  issued  to  the  public,  it  will 
probably  get  scarce,  if  not  valuable.  It  has,  however,  a  value  of  its  own, 
and  the  author  is  to  be  congratulated  on  having  brought  together  the 
armorial  bearings  of  upwards  of  thirty  families  of  the  name  of  Johnston. 
Between  eighty  and  ninety  representations  of  shields  are  given,  most  of 
them  coloured;  and  there  are  some  half-dozen  sketch  pedigrees  giving 
the  descent  of  the  heads  of  the  principal  families.  Within  the  limits 


Johnston  :   The  Heraldry  of  the  Johnstons     91 

prescribed  there  is  not,  of  course,  much  room  for  any  very  extended 
treatment  of  either  genealogy  or  heraldry,  but  Mr.  Johnston  has  put 
together  in  a  condensed  and  readable  form  a  great  deal  of  interesting 
and  useful  information  which  may  save  many  a  student  from  a  weary 
hunt  through  the  records  of  the  widely-spread  clan  of  which  the  book 
treats.  What  is  better  still,  the  information  given  is,  so  far  as  we  have 
been  able  to  test  it,  accurate,  and  much  care  has  evidently  been  given  to  its 
compilation.  The  illustrations  are  of  varying  degrees  of  merit :  most  of 
them  are  satisfactory,  some  of  them  very  good,  and  a  few  only,  such  as  the 
Caskieben  achievement  on  Plate  VI.,  decidedly  weak.  Mr.  Johnston  has, 
unfortunately  we  think,  adopted  the  fashion  recently  introduced  by  some 
writers  who  ought  to  know  better,  of  blazoning  the  arms  in  colloquial 
language  and  abandoning  the  well  defined  and  crisp  nomenclature 
sanctioned  by  long  usage.  c  Silver  a  black  saltire,  between  a  black  crescent 
in  chief  and  a  red  heart  crowned  gold  in  base  :  on  a  red  chief  three  gold 
cushions,'  is  surely  not  a  bit  more  lucid  than  '  Argent  a  saltire,  between  a 
crescent  sable  in  chief  and  in  base  a  heart  gules  imperially  crowned  proper : 
on  a  chief  gules  three  cushions  or.'  In  the  latter  blazon  we  get  rid  of  the 
cumbrous  repetition  of  the  words  red  and  gold.  And  the  new  system 
is  not  carried  out  consistently  :  '  Silver  three  red  cushions  within  a  red 
double  tressure  flory  counter-flory '  is  a  mixture  of  the  old  and  new 
styles.  '  Flory  counter-flory '  certainly  expresses  in  two  words  what  is 
meant,  but  to  carry  out  the  system  it  should  be  rendered  as  *  pierced  with 
lily  flowers  looking  alternately  inwards  and  outwards.'  But  this  '  blazonry 
for  babes'  is  really  not  a  bit  better  than  the  old  'jargon.'  We  should 
not,  however,  take  leave  of  this  pretty  book  in  a  spirit  of  fault  finding  :  it 
is,  within  its  limitations,  quite  a  good  piece  of  work,  and  much  credit  is  due 
to  its  author.  J.  BALFOUR  PAUL. 

THE  RATHEN  MANUAL.  Edited  with  Translation  and  Notes  by  the 
Rev.  Duncan  MacGregor  (Minister  of  Inverallochy,  Aberdeenshire). 
Aberdeen,  1905.  Printed  for  the  Aberdeen  Ecclesiological  Society. 
55.  nett. 

BEFORE  its  amalgamation  with  its  younger  sister  in  Glasgow,  and  their 
union  into  the  Scottish  Ecclesiological  Society  (1894),  the  Aberdeen 
Ecclesiological  Society  had  undertaken  the  publication  of  the  unique  MS.  to 
which  its  discoverer  and  editor  has  given  the  name  of  the  Rathen  Manual, 
and  which  he  has  now  presented  in  a  form  which  leaves  nothing  to  be 
desired  ;  and  both  he  and  the  Aberdeen  Society  are  much  to  be  com- 
plimented on  this,  the  final,  publication  of  its  separate  existence. 

The  Manual  (or  Ritual,  as  it  is  sometimes  called)  was  that  one  of  the 
numerous  service-books  of  the  medieval  Church  which  contained  what 
we  may  call  the  'Occasional  Offices' — certain  religious  services  which 
it  was  convenient  for  a  parish  clergyman  to  have  together  in  one  small 
volume,  so  as  to  be,  as  the  name  implies,  '  ready  to  his  hand.'  This  is 
the  only  copy  of  a  Manual  prepared  for  use  in  medieval  Scotland  now 
known  to  be  in  existence  ;  it  helps,  with  the  Aberdeen  Breviary,  the 
Arbuthnott  Missal,  the  Kalendars  published  by  the  late  Bishop  A.  P. 


92         MacGregor:    The  Rathen  Manual 

Forbes,  and  the  Pontifical  of  David  de  Bernham,  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews 
(1239-1253),  to  make  up  the  somewhat  scanty  list  of  the  liturgical  books 
of  our  pre-Reformation  Church. 

The  MS.  of  which  we  have  here  a  transcript  and  translation  was 
discovered  in  1894  in  the  library  of  the  late  Rev.  John  F.  M.  Cock,  D.D., 
minister  of  the  Parish  of  Rathen,  in  Aberdeenshire  ;  but  there  seems  to  be 
nothing  in  the  volume  to  connect  it  with  that  part  of  Scotland.  Dr. 
Cock  was  of  old  clerical  descent,  and  it  may  have  been  an  ancestral 
possession  of  long  standing  ;  however,  there  were  no  data  forthcoming 
for  its  history.  Neither  is  it  complete  :  a  leaf  or  two  at  the  beginning, 
and  some  other  leaves  elsewhere,  have  disappeared.  It  consists  of  98 
pages  of  parchment,  8  inches  long  by  5^  inches  broad.  The  writing  is  in 
black-letter  characters  with  red  rubrics,  and  red  and  black  initials.  It  is 
neatly  enough  done,  but  the  editor  has  detected  numerous  mistakes. 
Internal  evidence  indicates  clearly  enough  that  it  is  Scottish,  and  that 
it  dates  from  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century. 

The  contents  of  such  books,  being  determined  by  the  wish  of  the  priest 
for  whom   they  were   severally  prepared,   vary  considerably.      This   one 
contains  (i)  the  latter  portion  of  the  Order  for  making  holy  water;    (2) 
the  form  for  blessing  the  Eulogia  (the  rite  of  the  Pain  benity  so  familiar 
to  the  tourist  in  the  churches  of  France) ;  (3)  the  Marriage  Service  ;  (4) 
Churching  of  Women  ;  (5)  the  preliminary  parts  of  the  Baptismal  Service — 
the  Order  for  Baptism  itself  is  wanting  ;  (6)  part  of  the  Service  for  the 
Dead  ;  (7)  the  peculiar  office  said  before  Mass  on  the  Feast  of  Candlemas  ; 
(8)  the  additions  to   the  Liturgy  on  Ash  Wednesday ;  (9)   the  additions 
to  the  Liturgy  on   Palm   Sunday  ;    (10)   the  Reproaches,  etc.,  on   Good 
Friday  ;  (u)  the  special  features  of  the  Mass  of  Holy  Saturday;  (12)  the 
Great  Curse  (in  Scots).     Of  these  the  first  eleven  are  according  to  the  Use 
of  Sarum,  which   prevailed   over  well-nigh   the  whole   of  Scotland ;  and 
while  they  are  all  more  or  less  interesting,  they  contain  little  or  nothing 
peculiarly  Scottish.      With  the  last  item,  however,  it  is  different.      The 
Great  Curse,  unknown  out  of  Scotland,  was  a  great  institution  here,  as  all 
readers  of  John  Knox's  History  must  remember ;  but  the  Reformation  rather 
changed  its  form  than  abolished  it,  if  we  may  accept  Mr.  MacGregor's 
statement  that  '  the  practice  was  the  parent  of  our  fencing  of  the  Tables.' 
Like  many   old   *  fencings,'  this  Curse  is   terrible  enough    at    the  outset, 
but   closes  with  a  saving  clause,   4bot  gyff'   (i.e.  unless)    'thai  cum  till 
amendis  befoir  or  thai  dee,  the  quhilk  almychty  gode  grant  thaime  to  do 
foir  his  mekil  mercye  and  his  greite  grace.'     The  mention  in  the  Cursey 
as   it  appears  in   the  Rathen  Manual^  of  '  Sanct  Cutbert,  Mungo,  and  all 
haly  confessours'    supplies    perhaps    the   sole   clue   in   the  volume  to  the 
parish  in  which  the  original  owner  of  the  MS.  was  priest,  for  it  points 
to  a  church  in  whose  dedication  the  Saint  of  Tweeddale  and  the  Saint 
of   Clydesdale  were   conjoined  ;    but  we  fear  it  must  be  added  that  the 
fact  of  their  conjunction  is  most  easily  explained  by  the  existence  of  a 
doubt  in  the  mind  of  the  dedicator  as  to  whether   S.  Mungo  was  quite 
orthodox,    or    his    ordination    (which    was    by    one    bishop    only)  quite 
canonical,  according  to  strict  Roman  standards. 


MacGregor :    The  Rathen  Manual         93 

Mr.  MacGregor's  translation  of  the  various  Offices  with  its  hymns  is 
admirably  done  ;  his  notes  show  competent  liturgical  learning :  they  are 
full,  lucid,  succinct,  and  to  the  point.  This  important  publication  assures 
Mr.  MacGregor's  standing  as  a  real  scholar  in  such  matters. 

JAMES  COOPER. 

THE  REGENCY  OF  MARIE  DE  ME"DICIS,  A  STUDY  OF  FRENCH  HISTORY 
FROM  1610  TO  1616,  by  Arthur  Power  Lord,  Ph.D.  With  five 
portraits.  Pp.  x,  180.  London  :  George  Bell  and  Sons.  1904. 
75.  6d.  nett. 

THE  period  covered  by  this  c  Study '  opens  with  a  murder  and  closes  with 
a  murder  ;  and  during  the  intervening  years,  mean  intrigue,  shameless 
bribery,  sordid  ambition  are  so  rampant  as  to  be  hard  to  match  in  any 
other  seven  years  of  French  history.  The  author  has  mastered  thoroughly 
his  rather  depressing  subject,  but  it  must  be  admitted  that  he  has  also 
been  overmastered  by  the  abundance  of  his  material.  The  reader,  carried 
away  at  the  very  outset  by  a  crisp  and  picturesque  style,  soon  becomes 
bewildered.  It  is  the  old  story  of  the  forest  that  cannot  be  seen  for 
the  trees  ;  there  is  too  much  in  the  foreground.  The  chief  characters, 
Marie  de  M6dicis,  the  Prince  of  Conde",  Concini,  Sully  himself,  who,  from 
the  preface,  is  the  main  object  of  the  author's  labours,  do  not  stand 
out  in  clear  perspective  ;  they  are  smothered  in  the  throng  of  the  sub- 
sidiary actors  that  plot  and  scheme  for  their  own  profit,  just  like  their 
betters.  In  spite  of  this  overcrowding,  the  volume  can  be  recommended 
to  the  historical  student,  who  will  find  it  a  full  and  inspiriting  guide 
for  the  first  years  of  the  reign  of  Louis  XIII.  Whenever  his  memory 
is  overtaxed,  he  should  consult  the  comprehensive  Index,  in  which  every 
item  is  carefully  calendared.  The  portraits  are  remarkably  good,  and 
the  spelling  of  French  names  is  free  from  fault,  except  for  a  few  trouble- 
some accents.  One  cannot,  however,  help  noting  a  new  reading  of  the 
Vulgate  :  Err  at  autem  Barrabas  latro  \  It  should  have  been  somebody's 
business  to  correct  it,  as  it  spoils  a  good  story. 

F.  J.  AMOURS. 

RECORDS  OF  THE  SHERIFF  COURT  OF  ABERDEENSHIRE.  Edited  by  David 
Littlejohn,  LL.D.,  Advocate  in  Aberdeen,  Sheriff  Clerk  of  Aberdeen- 
shire.  Vol.  i.  (Records  prior  to  1600),  pp.  xlvi,  456.  Aberdeen: 
Printed  for  the  University.  410.  1904. 

THIS  volume — forming  No.  n  of  the  series  of  Aberdeen  University 
Studies — contains  (i)  an  edition  of  the  six  oldest  extant  books — all 
belonging  to  the  sixteenth  century — of  the  Sheriff  Court  of  Aberdeen- 
shire,  and  (2)  biographical  notices  of  the  officials  of  that  Court — 
sheriffs,  sheriffs-depute,  sheriff  clerks,  and  procurators  fiscal — prior  to 
1600. 

The  six  books  record  the  proceedings  of  the  Sheriff  Court  during 
fragmentary  periods — amounting,  in  all,  to  seventeen  or  eighteen  years — 
of  the  sixteenth  century.  In  the  case  of  each  book  the  editor  furnishes 


94    Records  of  Sheriff  Court  of  Aberdeenshire 

a  brief  descriptive  introduction,  a  table  of  the  contents  of  the  book, 
and  a  series  of  excerpts,  selected  to  illustrate  the  contents  of  the 
book  and  classified  according  to  the  subjects  to  which  they  relate. 

These  Sheriff  Court  books  undoubtedly  contain  much  matter  interesting 
and  valuable.  In  particular  the  first  book — recording  apparently  the 
whole  proceedings  of  the  Court  from  July,  1503,  to  September,  1511 — 
is,  in  some  respects,  unique,  and  is  invaluable  as  presenting  a  picture 
of  the  every-day  work  and  procedure  of  a  Sheriff  Court  during  a 
period  preceding  by  thirty  to  twenty  years  the  date  of  the  institution 
of  the  Court  of  Session.  At  that  period  the  proceedings  of  the  local 
courts  still  ran  in  the  ancient  grooves.  The  relations  between  the 
central  courts  and  the  local  courts  were  undefined.  The  great  bulk 
of  the  jurisdiction,  indeed,  was  exercised  by  the  local  courts,  and 
there  were  no  definite  rights  of  appeal. 

One  outstanding  feature  of  the  earliest  of  these  books  is  the  evidence 
it  affords  of  the  continuance  of  the  old  supremacy  of  the  assize  or 
jury.  The  entries  run  4The  Assize  fand'  or  'It  was  fundin  be  the 
said  Assize' — and  that  whether  the  matter  in  dispute  was  a  question 
of  law  or  a  question  of  fact.  The  Sheriff,  as  president,  saw  to  the 
orderly  conduct  of  business  and  acted  in  formal  procedure ;  but  in 
any  matter  of  fact  or  law,  involving  substantial  decision,  the  Sheriff's 
position  was  apparently  still  nothing  more  than  that  of  a  mere  adviser. 
This  is  a  survival  of  the  time  when  the  Sheriff's  Court  had  the 
character  of  a  popular  assembly — all  the  free  holders  being  bound  to 
attend  it  and  deciding  all  questions,  civil  and  criminal.  In  comparatively 
late  historic  times  the  Sheriff  was  not  even  one  of  the  judges,  for 
he  was  obliged  to  leave  the  Court  while  the  members  deliberated.1 

In  the  period  covered  by  the  earlier  books  we  find  that  the  number 
of  jurors  varied  considerably,  and  that  it  was  allowable  for  them  to 
use  their  personal  knowledge,  and  act  to  all  intents  and  purposes 
as  witnesses.  It  seems,  too,  to  have  been  competent  for  the  jurors 
to  give  their  verdict  by  sections,  some  on  one  day  and  some  on  other 
days,  and,  during  the  course  of  a  case,  the  composition  of  a  jury 
might  be  materially  changed.  The  procurators  appear  to  have 
been  churchmen,  but  there  is  scarcely  a  trace  of  argument.  The 
Scoto-Norman  feudal  law,  which  still  held  sway  at  that  era,  was  an 
unlearned  law,  consisting  of  a  congeries  of  customs,  rigid,  technical, 
and,  at  this  period — when  the  original  reasons  for  the  rules  had  been 
largely  lost  sight  of — imperfectly  understood.  In  some  countries  these 
customs  had  been  to  some  extent  systematised  and  had  even  attained 
the  dignity  of  jus  scriptum,  but,  in  Scotland,  in  the  early  years  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  the  law  was  purely  customary — a  mos  majorumy 
vaguely  formulated,  untempered  by  equitable  considerations,  and  having 
little  basis  in  principle. 

When  we  turn  to  the  later  books — relating  respectively  to  the  periods 
1557-60;  1573-6;  June  to  November  of  1584;  1595-6;  1597-9 — 

lf  Assize  of  King  David,'  Acts  Parl.  Scot,  (fol.),  vol.  i.,  p.  5  (red  ink,  p.  317). 


Records  of  Sheriff  Court  of  Aberdeenshire    95 

we  find  noteworthy  marks  of  the  great  legal  development  which  marked 
the  sixteenth  century  in  Scotland.  The  institution  of  the  Court  of 
Session  and  the  awakening  of  a  new  zeal  for  legal  learning — for  in 
the  opening  years  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  Scots  had  already 
begun  to  frequent  in  large  numbers  the  law  schools  of  the  continent — 
soon  exercised  a  powerful  influence  on  the  law  administered  in  the 
local  courts  as  well  as  on  the  process  of  its  administration.  More 
advanced  juridical  conceptions,  principles,  and  methods  were  gradually 
introduced.  Simultaneously  with  this  revival  of  legal  learning,  which 
meant  the  reception  of  Roman  law  in  Scotland,  occurred  the  change 

?  which  the  judicial  power  passed  into  the  hands  of  trained  lawyers. 
he  decisions  "of  the  local  courts  became  more  subject  to  review  on 
letters  of  advocation.  In  the  fragmentary  book  of  1557-60,  we  find 
that  already  the  Sheriff  and  his  deputes  have  taken  the  place  of  the 
jurors  as  judges.  Trained  lawyers  and  fuller  pleadings  are  much  in 
evidence.  The  old  complaints  to  the  Lords  Auditors,  which  were 
directed,  not  against  the  decisions  of  the  Sheriffs,  but  against  the 
verdicts  of  the  juries,  had  been  superseded  by  letters  of  advocation  to 
the  Court  of  Session  against  the  decisions  of  the  Sheriffs.  The  pro- 
cedure of  the  local  courts,  moulded  on  the  pattern  set  by  the  Supreme 
Court,  had  become  more  uniform.  Contemporaneously  with  these 
changes,  the  extensive  jurisdiction  formerly  exercised  in  the  Sheriff 
Courts  began  to  be  curtailed  by  the  Court  of  Session.  As  early  as 
1563  the  Court  of  Session  held  in  Bishop  of  Aberdeen  v.  Qfikne,  as 
recorded  in  Morrison's  Dictionary  (M.  7324)  '  The  Lordis  of  Sessioun 
allanerlie,  and  na  uther  judge,  ar  jugeis  competent  to  actiounis  of 
reductioun  of  infeftmentis,  evidentis  or  sasines,  and  of  all  actiounis 
of  heritage  betwix  all  the  liegis  of  this  realme,  spiritual  or  temporal, 
and  to  all  obligatiounis  and  contractis  followand  as  accessory  thair- 
upon  .  .  .'  In  this  way,  step  by  step,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Supreme 
Court  was  increased  and  that  of  the  local  courts  curtailed. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  these  books,  there  are  instances  of  the 
serious  limitations  set  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Sheriff  Court  from 
a  very  ancient  date,  arising  from  the  rights  of  the  Lords  of  the  Regalities 
who,  within  their  districts,  had  equal  power  with  the  court  of  the 
Sheriff  as  well  as  privative  jurisdiction  where  they  chose  to  exercise 
it.  The  Courts  of  the  Regalities  were  of  course  the  direct  descendants 
of  the  ancient  courts  of  the  baronies,  dating  from  the  times  when 
central  courts  did  not  exist.  The  manner  in  which  the  lord  of  a 
regality  checked  an  attempt  to  obtain  justice  in  the  Sheriff  Court  on 
a  man  subject  to  a  regality  is  illustrated  by  the  proceedings,  recorded 
of  date  nth  January,  1558,  in  the  action  of  spulzie  at  the  instance 
of  Andro  Glenny  against  Johnne  Meldrum,  where  there  *  comperit  James 
Gordoun  of  Haldoch  baize  of  the  regalitie  of  Tarves  within  the 
quhilk  regalitie  the  said  Johnne  remanis  and  be  vertew  of  the  quhilk 
regalitie  replegit  him  to  the  court  and  prevelege  of  said  regalitie  and 
effixt  and  sait  ane  Court  to  be  haldin  be  him  at  the  towne  of  Tarves 
on  Setterday  the  xxj  day  of  Januar  instant  for  administratioun  of 


96     Records  of  Sheriff  Court  of  Aberdeenshire 

justice  in  the  said  mater.'  Caution  was  given  that  the  court  should 
be  held  on  the  said  day  and  at  the  said  place  'with  sufficient  Juge 
and  all  membris  of  Court  effeirand  tharto  and  justice  as  effeirit,'  and 
failing  thereof  to  enter  the  said  John  Meldrum  again  before  the  Sheriff 
or  his  deputes  on  a  day  named  to  answer  the  charge.  The  regalities 
were  not  extinguished  till  the  passing  of  the  Heritable  Jurisdictions 
Act  of  1748  ;  and  not  till  then  did  the  Sheriff  become,  in  practice 
as  well  as  in  theory,  the  Judge  Ordinary  in  the  county. 

The  biographical  notes  on  the  officials  of  the  court  prior  to  1600 
have  been  compiled  with  much  care,  and  bear  evidence  of  much 
genuine  research.  The  volume  is  a  valuable  contribution  to  Scots 
legal  history,  put  together  with  admirable  care  and  on  a  plan  whose 
clearness  makes  reference  simple.  J.  M.  IRVINE. 

MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS,  HER  LIFE  STORY,  by  A.  H.  Millar,  F.S.A.Scot. 
Pp.  227.  Fcap  8vo.    Edinburgh  :  William  Brown.     1905.     2s.  6d.  nett. 

IN  spite  the  number  of  books  on  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  another  care- 
fully constructed  study  of  her  tragic  life  is  always  welcome,  and  for  this 
reason  we  are  pleased  to  see  the  little  volume  before  us.  Mr.  Millar  has, 
we  are  glad  to  find,  not  striven  for  originality  in  his  view  of  the  Queen's 
actions,  but  he  has  weighed  carefully  the  opinions — usually  divergent — of 
her  other  biographers,  and  has  attempted,  as  he  says,  to  place  the  events  of 
her  chequered  career  faithfully  before  the  reader,  so  that  he  may  draw  his 
own  conclusions. 

Perhaps  the  account  he  gives  of  Queen  Mary's  early  life  errs  not  so 
much  on  the  side  of  length  as  on  that  of  brevity.  We  think  that  the 
hatred  of  Catherine  de  Medicis  to  la  petite  reinette  is  exaggerated,  and 
that  more  might  have  been  said  of  the  ambition  of  the  Guise  family 
which  had  so  great  an  influence  on  the  Queen's  childhood.  We  notice 
that  at  the  time  of  James  V.'s  death  Queen  Mary's  mother  had  still  a 
son  by  her  first  husband,  as  Francois  III.,  Due  de  Longueville  survived 
until  1551  ;  that  a  serious  slip  is  made  in  regard  to  the  degree  of 
relationship  between  the  Queen  and  Lord  Darnley,  her  second  husband, 
and  that  genealogy  in  the  book  needs  slight  revision. 

Mr.  Millar  makes  a  decided  point  in  his  view  of  the  '  settlements ' 
between  Mary  and  the  Dauphin.  Whatever  double-dealing  was  intended 
by  the  secret  document  signed  on  April  4th,  1558,  it  was  superseded  legally 
by  the  public  signature  of  the  Scottish  proposals  on  April  1 5th,  as  both 
were  ante  matrimonium.  Although  he  narrates  the  Queen's  marriage 
with  Bothwell  by  protestant  rites,  Mr.  Millar  does  not  mention  the 
interesting  circumstance  that  on  the  day  of  the  wedding  the  Queen 
wrote,  asking  for  the  Abbacy  of  Kelso  for  her  nephew  (and  Bothwell's 
as  well,  though  this  was  not  stated),  Francis  Stewart,  to  the  Pope, 
styling  herself  sanctitatis  vestrae  devotissima  filia,  thus  showing  another 
example  of  favour  (perhaps  by  fear)  to  Bothwell  and  of  her  coquetting 
with  both  religions  at  the  same  time. 

With  regard  to  the  Norfolk  and  Hunsdon  proposals  for  the  Queen's 


Millar  :  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  her  Life  Story    97 

hand,  we  think  that  Mr.  Millar,  by  citing  them,  strengthens  our  doubt 
whether,  in  the  general  contemporary  belief,  the  « Casket  Letters '  added 
much  to  the  vaguer  charges  against  the  Queen.  We  are  glad  to  see  also 
that,  though  he  only  reviews  Queen  Mary's  life  in  captivity  shortly,  he 
points  out  a  new  fact  (a  rare  thing  in  a  life  so  often  written)  as  he 
shows  the  refusal  of  the  Regent  Mar  to  have  the  captive  Queen  handed 
over  to  him  that  she  might  be  '  removed '  in  Scotland,  in  order  to 
prevent  the  odium  of  her  execution  falling  upon  her  astute  cousin 
Elizabeth  of  England. 

A.  FRANCIS  STEUART. 

THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION.  By  the  Right  Hon.  Sir  George  Otto 
Trevelyan,  Bart.  Cheap  edition  in  three  volumes.  Vol.  i.  pp.  xviii, 
400 ;  Vol.  ii.  pp.  ix,  353  ;  Vol.  iii.  pp.  ix,  350.  London :  Long- 
mans, Green  &  Co.  1905.  5s.  nett  per  vol. 

IN  this  new  edition  of  his  chief  historical  work  Sir  George  Trevelyan  has 
made  it  his  aim  to  give  his  treatment  of  the  American  Revolution  a  more 
systematic  and  logical  form.  On  its  first  appearance  the  earliest  volume  of 
his  American  Revolution  showed  plainly  that  it  was  a  continuation  of  Sir 
George's  Early  Life  of  Chas.  James  Foxy  but  it  revealed  as  plainly  that  the 
author's  intentions  were  changing  and  the  scope  of  his  work  enlarging. 
We  pointed  out  in  a  review  of  the  later  volumes  that  this  meant  at  least 
the  temporary  abandonment  of  such  a  history  of  social  England  as  Sir 
George  Trevelyan's  interests  and  knowledge  fitted  him  to  undertake. 
From  these  volumes,  it  is  plain  that  Fox  and  his  society  must  go,  for  the 
author  desires  his  work  to  be  regarded  as  the  introductory  portion  of  a 
History  of  the  American  Revolution.  By  the  removal  of  passages  from  the 
text  to  the  notes  or  the  appendix,  by  considerable  alterations  in  order,  and 
by  a  complete  change  of  emphasis,  most  of  the  matter  relevant  to  Fox,  but 
not  so  relevant  to  America,  has  been  brought  into  due  subjection  to  the 
more  firmly  defined  literary  scheme. 

But  whatever  regrets  we  may  cherish  for  the  vanished  plan  of  a  social 
history,  there  can  be  little  but  the  highest  praise  for  what  is  certainly  the 
most  charming  and  the  fairest  history  of  the  American  Revolutionary  war, 
a  book  which  differentiates  itself  from  most  modern  historical  writing  by  its 
skilled  use  of  picturesque  detail  and  by  the  fact  that  its  author  is  the  true 
amateur  in  letters,  one  who  '  commenced  the  book  mainly  for  the  personal 
pleasure  of  writing  about  events  which  had  always  attracted  and  moved 
him.' 

The  first  volume  contains  as  frontispiece  a  portrait  of  the  author. 

J.  L.  MORISON. 

THE  SECOND  PRAYER  BOOK  OF  EDWARD  VI.,  AND  THE  LITURGY  OF 
COMPROMISE.  Pp.  260.  William  Blackwood  &  Sons,  Edinburgh 
and  London.  1905.  45.  nett. 

THE  useful  series  of  reprints  of  the  Liturgies  and  Orders  of  Divine 
Service  used  or  prepared  for  use  in  the  Church  of  Scotland  since  the 
Reformation  issued  by  the  Church  Service  Society  has  received  a  notable 


98     The  Second  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI. 

addition  in  this  volume.  It  contains  two  separate  works — The  Second 
Prayer  Book  of  King  Edward  VL  (1552),  prepared  for  the  Church  of 
England  at  a  time  when  John  Knox  was  a  Royal  Chaplain  at  London,  but 
used  more  widely  and  for  a  longer  period  in  the  Church  of  Scotland  ;  and 
a  Service  (from  a  hitherto  unpublished  MS.)  to  which  its  present  editor  has 
given  the  name  The  Liturgy  of  Compromise,  a  form  of  public  worship 
prepared  for  use  in  the  English  congregation  at  Frankfort,  when  Knox  and 
many  Anglicans  were  exiles  there  in  the  reign  of  Mary  Tudor.  The  former 
of  these  is  now  edited  by  the  Rev.  H.  J.  Wotherspoon,  with  great  fulness 
of  learning,  and  in  a  manner  which  throws  much  light  on  the  hitherto 
obscure  conditions  under  which  the  Reformed  in  Scotland  carried  on  their 
worship  prior  to  John  Knox's  return  from  the  Continent.  The  second  i& 
edited  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Sprott,  who  has  long  had  his  eye  upon  this  MS., 
and  now  gives  for  the  first  time  its  full  contents  to  the  public.  It  is 
not  too  much  to  say  that  in  so  doing  he  has  contributed  a  new  chapter  to 
the  history  of  the  English  Prayer-Book,  exhibiting,  as  he  does,  what 
Puritan  and  Anglican  were  at  one  time  willing  to  agree  to.  Apart 
from  the  liturgical  and  doctrinal  interest  of  the  volume  is  the  character 
in  which  both  parts  of  it  show  John  Knox — as  responsible,  more  than  any 
other  man,  for  the  long-continued  separation  of  the  Church  of  Scotland 
from  the  Church  of  England  ;  yet  as  accepting  much  more  in  the  way 
of  service  than  many  of  his  modern  admirers  would  allow,  and  deprecating, 
in  both  cases,  internal  schism,  and  frowning  on  the  English  Puritans 
because  they  would  not  remain  in  communion  with  the  latter.  '  God 
forbid,'  he  wrote  to  them,  'that  we  should  damn  all  for  false  prophets 
and  heretics,  that  agree  not  with  us  in  apparell  and  other  opinions,  who 
yet  preach  the  substance  of  doctrine  and  salvation  in  Christ  Jesus.' 

JAMES  COOPER. 

A  GUIDE  TO  THE  PUBLIC  RECORDS  OF  SCOTLAND  DEPOSITED  IN  H.M. 
GENERAL  REGISTER  HOUSE,  EDINBURGH.  By  M.  Livingstone,  I.S.O., 
late  Deputy  Keeper  of  the  Records.  Pp.  xxvii,  233.  8vo.  Edin- 
burgh :  H.M.  General  Register  House.  1905. 

IN  1885  Mr.  Moir  Bryce  compiled,  after  much  labour,  a  very  instructive 
Handbook  of  the  records  in  the  Register  House.  There  was  no  official 
publication  of  the  sort,  and  Mr.  Bryce's  work  was  privately  issued.  It 
had  demonstrated  the  advantage  of  such  a  guide,  and  Mr.  Livingstone's 
volume  will  be  of  welcome  assistance  in  historical  study.  A  preface 
sketches  the  story  of  the  national  archives,  including  those  which  went 
to  England  in  the  time  of  Edward  I.  and  are  still  there,  although  it 
is  pleasantly  suggested  that  their  return  now  might  be  a  tardy  fulfil- 
ment of  the  treaty  of  Northampton.  The  contents  of  the  Register 
House  are  described  by  classes — the  documents  relative  to  the  Crown, 
Parliament,  public  revenue  and  national  administration,  judicial  records, 
titles  to  land,  and  miscellaneous  records.  Interspersed  are  brief 
accounts  of  various  institutions  concerned,  including  Parliament,  Privy 
Council,  Court  of  Session,  Exchequer,  Admiralty,  Commissariots,  Regality 
and  Baronial  Courts,  Great  Seal  Register,  Register  of  Sasines  and  Notarial 


Guide  to  the  Public  Records  of  Scotland    99 

Protocols.  A  list  of  Clerks  of  the  Rolls  and  Lords  Clerk-Register  from 
1286  to  date  forms  an  appropriate  concluding  section.  There  is  little 
detail :  the  Guide  is  in  no  sense  a  calendar ;  and  even  for  guide  purposes 
the  index — a  vital  part  of  the  equipment — is  perfunctory  in  the  extreme. 
But  as  a  general  statement  of  what  categories  of  muniments  are  to  be 
found  in  the  Register  House  the  book  renders  distinct  service  and  will 
facilitate  research. 

THE  NUN'S  RULE,  being  The  Ancren  Riwle  modernised.  By  James 
Morton,  with  Introduction  by  Abbot  Gasquet.  Pp.  xxvii,  339. 
London  :  Alexander  Moring,  Limited.  1905.  35.  6d.  nett. 
IN  1853  the  Rev.  James  Morton  edited  this  thirteenth  century  Rule 
for  Recluses  by  an  unknown  author.  There  is  now  reprinted  in  the 
pretty  form  of  the  King's  Classics  the  translation  which  accompanied 
Mr.  Morton's  Camden  Society  edition,  with  some  minor  revisals  and 
a  historical  preface  by  Abbot  Gasquet,  whose  excellence  of  equipment 
for  such  a  task  is  well  known.  Not  in  the  technical  sense  a  Rule  at 
all,  for  it  rather  deprecates  Rules,  this  book  of  counsels  to  three  recluse 
nuns  is  an  engaging  and  gentle  expression  of  earnest  medieval  piety,  a  great 
pleasure  to  read,  and  an  ornament  to  the  series  of  classics  of  the  middle 
ages  being  produced  by  the  De  la  More  press  under  the  general  editorship 
of  Prof.  Gollancz.  The  Rule  affords  a  tempting  profusion  of  themes 
of  gravity  and  humour  especially  concerning  social  usages.  It  is  always 
curious  to  find  modern  characteristics  forestalled,  as,  for  example,  when 
a  man  ties  a  knot  in  his  belt  as  a  reminder  or  when  the  author  of  the 
Rule  indicates  that  soap  advertising  in  his  day  was  somewhat  of  a 
public  nuisance. 

METAPHYSICA  FRATRIS  ROGERI  ORDINIS  FRATRUM  MINORUM  DE  Vicisi 

CONTRACTIS    IN    STUDIO   THEOLOGIE.        OMNIA    QUAE   SUPERSUNT   NUNC 

PRIMUM    EDIDIT   ROBERT   STEELE.      Pp.   viii,    56.      London :    Alex. 

Moring,  Ltd.     45.  6d.  nett. 

THE  enterprise  of  publishing  inedited  treatises  of  Roger  Bacon  needs 
only  to  be  named  to  be  commended.  Mr.  Steele's  preface  is  followed 
by  a  useful  summary  of  the  Latin  text,  which,  apart  from  its  interest 
as  the  philosophy  of  the  famous  friar,  bristles  with  illustrations  of  the 
degree  to  which  classical  learning  permeated  the  middle  ages.  Other 
tractates,  the  Communia  Naturallum  and  the  Communia  Mathematica,  are 
promised  c  if  the  present  publication  pays  for  paper  and  printing,'  as  we 
hope  it  will. 

Thomas  JWLauMan,  M.A.,  LL.D.,  by  W.  Keith  Leask,  M.A.  (pp.  312, 
crown  8vo  ;  Edinburgh  :  Oliphant,  1905,  55.  nett),  is  the  record  of  a 
busy  life  spent  in  the  service  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and,  since  the 
Disruption,  in  the  Free  Church.  By  students  of  literature,  Dr. 
M'Lauchlan  will  be  remembered  rather  by  his  interest  in  the  study  of 
Celtic  literature.  He  published  in  1862  a  translation,  with  notes,  of 
The  Dean  of  Lhmore's  Book,  a  selection  of  ancient  Gaelic  poetry  ;  and 


ioo  Current   Literature 

eleven  years  later  he  edited  The  Book  of  Common  Order:  commonly 
called  John  Knox's  Liturgy,  translated  into  Gaelic,  1567,  by  Mr.  John 
Carswell,  Bishop  of  the  Isles.  He  also  found  time  to  hold  a  class  for 
the  study  of  Gaelic,  which  for  thirty  years  he  carried  on  in  Edinburgh 

*  without  fee  or  reward.' 

Snowden's  Brief  Survey  of  British  History  (pp.  xii,  160,  demy  8vo  ; 
London:  Methuen,  1905,  45.  6d.)  is  a  useful  book  of  reference.  The 
historical  charts  deal  with  the  history  of  England  from  the  earliest 
time,  and  sketch  in  parallel  columns  the  development  of  the  Constitu- 
tion and  the  growth  of  domestic  legislation.  In  the  column  entitled 

*  foreign,'    Continental  and   Colonial  events  which  affected   England  are 
referred  to.     There  are  many  genealogical  trees  and  appendices,  in  one 
of  which  the  chief  events  in  the  history  of  Wales,  Scotland,  and  Ireland 
are  very  shortly  enumerated.     The  notes,  which  are  numerous,  include 
more  expressions  of  opinion  than  is  perhaps  usual  in  books  of  this  kind, 
e.g.  Charles  I.   is  spoken   of  as    'a   foolish   headstrong  youth,  a  narrow- 
minded  and  obstinate  tyrant.'      We  hear  also  of  the    *  infatuated   folly 
of  James  II.' 

Messrs.  George  Bell  &  Sons  send  us  the  new  volume  of  their  edition  of 
Swiff 's  Prose  Works,  which  is  edited  by  Temple  Scott.  This  new  volume 
includes  the  Irish  Historical  and  Political  Tracts.  When  complete  this 
work  will  be  in  twelve  handy  volumes,  illustrated  with  many  portraits  and 
facsimiles. 

A  Church  Law  Society  publication  of  antiquarian  interest  is  Professor 
Cooper's  pamphlet  on  Ecclesiastical  Titles  and  Designations  (Edinburgh  : 
J.  Gardner  Hitt)  dealing  chiefly  with  the  names,  titles,  and  'adjectives 
of  honour  '  given  to  Scottish  churchmen.  Sacerdos  and  Presbyter,  priest, 
parson,  and  moderator,  supply  matter  of  historical  note. 

Messrs.  Oliphant  &  Ferrier  issue  John  Knox  and  His  House,  by  Charles 
J.  Guthrie,  K.C.  (sixth  thousand,  pp.  xiv,  140,  price  is.),  being  primarily  a 
handbook  to  the  so-called  Knox's  house.  It  is  attractive  not  only  for 
its  notes  of  Reformation  biography,  but  also  because  it  is  profusely  rich 
in  portraits  and  historical  pictures.  The  same  publishers  issue  The 
Interpreter's  House,  by  John  Kelman,  M.A.  (pp.  35,  price  6d.),  a  plea 
for  subscriptions  to  the  Edinburgh  Outlook  Tower  on  the  Castlehill. 
Among  other  pamphlets  we  have  received  The  Geography  of  Religion  in  the 
Highlands  (Edinburgh  :  R.  Grant  &  Son),  tracing,  with  historical  and 
other  side  glances  explanatory  of  statistics  of  creed,  the  Highland  Line 
of  religion. 

A  pamphlet  by  Mr.  E.  A.  Home,  M.A.,  Labour  in  Scotland  in  the 
Seventeenth  Century  (pp.  23  ;  St.  Andrews :  W.  C.  Henderson  &  Son), 
reflects  the  influence  of  Mr.  W.  R.  Scott's  studies  in  Scottish  economics. 
Factors  dealt  with  are  the  excess  of  beggars,  the  servile  condition  of 
colliers  and  salters,  the  survivals  of  feudal  "bondage,  and  the  struggle  of 


Current   Literature  i  o  i 

the  artisan  against  the  shackles  on  free  labour  in  various  handicrafts. 
Industrialism  could  advance  little  until  legislation  gave  up  medieval 
precedents. 

In  the  English  Historical  Review  (July)  subjects  comprise  Gaius 
Gracchus,  Sir  John  Oldcastle  the  Lollard,  the  sieges  of  Hull,  and 
serfdom  in  Essex.  The  text  is  given  of  Nicholas  Faunt's  discourse 
on  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State  written  in  1592.  Faunt  was 
secretary  to  Sir  Francis  Walsingham,  and  thus  at  the  heart  of  affairs, 
so  that  his  discourse  is  worth  reading  apart  from  its  occasional  Elizabethan 
turns  of  sententious  diction.  Among  the  books  he  recommends  to  be  kept 
is  one  to  contain  the  current  negotiations  and  reports  transmitted  by 
the  ambassador  in  Scotland,  another  to  register  particulars  of  '  the  Borders 
against  Scotland  with  their  length  and  breadth,'  as  well  as  «  the  strength  of 
the  said  borders,  as  hills  woods  heathes  straightes  marshes  townes  and 
castells  of  defence,'  and  ledgers  for  financial  purposes,  including  'the 
charges  of  the  borders  against  Scotland.' 

The  Reliquary  for  July  maintains  that  magazine's  traditions  as  a 
repository  of  instructive  illustrations,  including  neolithic  burialplaces, 
medieval  churches,  church  doors,  crosses  and  grave  slabs,  and  sculptured 
knightly  sepulchral  effigies.  Baptismal  fonts,  with  dragons  and  monsters 
beneath  them,  are  grouped  tentatively  with  a  design  to  search  out  their 
symbolism. 

The  Juridical  Review  for  June,  in  addition  to  its  more  strictly  legal 
features,  contains  several  articles  of  distinct  value  to  historians.  Prof. 
Goudy  takes  the  place  of  honour  with  a  lucid  exposition  of  the  results 
of  the  criticism  directed  by  German  scholars  against  the  authenticity 
of  the  XII.  Tables — a  vital  topic  for  students  of  Roman  institutions  in 
the  making.  Under  the  title  of  Magna  Carta  Re-read,  the  conclusions 
of  recent  critics  and  commentators,  especially  of  Mr.  M'Kechnie,  are 
examined,  and  emphasis  is  laid  on  such  topics  as  specially  affect  Scotland. 
Scottish  readers  will  be  interested  in  an  article  on  James  Boswell  and  his 
Practice  at  the  Bar,  to  which  is  appended  an  editorial  note  describing 
Boswell's  '  Consultation  Book,'  presented  only  the  other  day  to  the 
Advocates'  Library  by  an  Australian  donor. 

Scottish  Notes  and  Queries  (monthly  ;  Rosemount  Press,  Aberdeen)  in 
recent  issues  has  dealt  with  Argyllshire  biography,  Edinburgh  periodical 
bibliography,  old  verses  on  Kirk  of  Turriff,  and  MS.  maps  and  plans 
of  Aberdeen  and  the  neighbourhood.  The  Scottish  Patriot  for  August 
is  a  '  Sir  William  Wallace  number.' 

We  have  received  Notes  and  Queries  for  Somerset  and  Dorset  (Sherborne : 
J.  C.  &  A.  T.  Sawtell),  also  Berks,  Bucks,  and  Oxon  Archaeological  Journal 
(Reading  :  Slaughter  &  Son),  and  Rutland  Magazine  (Oakham  :  G.  Phillips), 
all  with  numerous  transcripts,  descriptions  of  brasses  and  relics,  and  much 
local  story. 


102  Current   Literature 

In  the  American  Historical  Review  for  July  there  is  philosophically- 
discussed  by  Mr.  A.  H.  Lloyd  the  question  whether  history  is  losing 
its  human  character  and  interest.  Consideration  is  given  to  the  obvious 
subordination  of  the  personal  aspects  to  geographical,  natural,  and 
materialistic  data,  but  the  conclusion  is  a  hope  that  history  will  gain 
anew  its  humanity  and  dramatic  attraction.  Among  documents  printed 
in  this  number  are  two  important  Darien  letters  edited  by  Mr.  Hiram 
Bingham.  They  are  both  from  the  Secretary  of  State,  James  Vernon, 
at  Whitehall,  to  the  Governor  of  Virginia.  The  first,  dated  2nd  January, 
1698-9,  is  a  warning  against  allowing  any  assistance  to  the  intending  Scots 
colonists.  The  second,  dated  i8th  June,  1699,  more  explicitly  mentions 
that  the  king  regards  the  Darien  settlement  as  a  violation  of  treaties 
with  Spain,  and  therefore  urges  strict  obedience  to  the  first  injunction. 

The  Iowa  Journal  of  History  and  Politics  for  July  has  notes  on 
Iowa  mounds,  and  photographs  of  skulls  recovered  from  them. 

The  Revue  d'Histoire  Ecclesiastique  of  Louvain  in  its  July  issue  has 
an  article  by  the  Jesuit  L.  Willaert  on  the  relations  and  negotiations 
as  to  politics  and  religion  between  James  VI.  and  I.  and  the  Catholic 
Netherlands,  specially  tracing  the  effects  of  the  Gunpowder  Plot. 
Among  the  reviews,  an  extended  notice  of  recent  Joan  of  Arc  litera- 
ture will  interest  British  readers. 

In  the  June  issue  of  the  Archiv  fur  das  Studium  der  neueren  Sprachen 
appears  an  interesting  and  variously  important  Elizabethan  text,  edited 
on  Prof.  Brandl's  suggestion  by  Herr  W.  Bolle  (see  S.H.R.  i.  329), 
from  the  Rawlinson  miscellany  songbook  MS.  No.  14677  in  the 
Bodleian.  It  comprises  seventeen  pieces,  mostly  anonymous,  but  includ- 
ing several  by  R[ichard]  H[ill],  Thomas  Preston,  and  Richard  Tarlton. 
Compositions  pious  and  improving  alternate  with  ditties  amorous,  and 
merry.  One  *  proper  new  ballad'  sings  the  praises  of  the  Queen  after 
the  Armada  time.  Part  of  one  verse  runs  : 

The  Spannish  spite,  which  made  the  papiste  boast, 

hath  done  them  little  good  : 
God  dealt  with  them,  as  with  king  Pharoes  host, 

who  were  drowned  in  the  flood, 
Elizabeth  to  save, 

A   long    paper    by   Signor   A.    Farinelli    begins    an    elaborate    study    on 
the  vogue  of  Boccaccio  in  Spain  during  the  middle  ages. 


Queries. 

TURNBULL— BULLOK.  Among  the  Chapter  House  documents 
in  the  Public  Record  office,  Chancery  Lane,  London,  is  a  detached 
seal,  lettered  l  s.  JOHIS.  TVRNBVL  ABBATIS  DE  PEBB.  .  .  . '  The  seal, 
which  is  in  the  usual  ecclesiastical  form,  and  has  a  shield  bearing  a 
single  bull's  head,  is  preserved  in  a  box  marked  on  the  lid  '  Peebles 
Trinitarian  Friars :  John  Turnbull.'  So  far  as  I  am  aware,  heads  of 
Trinitarian  houses  were  uniformly  styled  Ministers  not  Abbots,  though 
on  one  occasion,  in  1509-10,  'the  abb  at  of  the  Trinite  callit  the 
Crois  Kirk  in  Peblis '  is  mentioned  in  a  local  record.  The  list  of 
known  Ministers  of  the  Peebles  Friars  is  nearly,  if  not  wholly,  com- 
plete from  about  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century,  and  TurnbulPs 
name  is  not  among  them,  nor  has  he  as  yet  been  traced  elsewhere. 
Any  information  tending  to  identify  the  '  abbot '  will  be  welcomed. 
Following  out  a  friend's  suggestion,  inquiry  was  made  regarding  a 
bishop  of  Ross  said  to  be  named  John  Turnbull,  but  this  has  only 
resulted  in  the  discovery  of  a  mistake  which  it  may  be  as  well  to 
note.  In  Keith's  Catalogue  John,  bishop  of  Ross,  is  referred  to  (1420- 
39),  while  in  Wakotfs  Ancient  Church  of  Scotland,  p.  158,  and  in 
Laing's  Supplemental  Catalogue  of  Scottish  Seals^  No.  1067,  the  name 
is  given  as  John  Turnbull.  This  surname  has  apparently  been  guessed 
from  Bishop  John's  seal,  which  does  not  bear  his  name,  but  has 
a  bull's  head  on  a  shield  (Laing,  plate  ix.,  fig.  4).  The  bishop's  actual 
name,  as  shown  by  an  entry  in  Exchequer  Rolls  (1440-1),  v.  p.  101, 
was  John  Bullok. 

R.  R. 

BARONS  OF  WESTPHALIA,  created  by  Napoleon  I.  Where 
is  an  account  given  of  this  title,  and  of  its  precedence  under  the 
French  Empire  ?  M.  J. 


Communications  and  Replies. 

THE  RUTHVEN  PEERAGE  CONTROVERSY.  The  family  of 
Ruthven  of  Freeland,  ennobled  in  1651,  became  extinct  in  the  direct 
male  line  fifty  years  later.  Since  then  the  title  has  been  continuously 
borne  by  the  first  lord's  descendants  in  the  female  line ;  it  has  been 
included  in  all  official  lists,  and  its  bearer  has  always  enjoyed  without 
challenge  all  the  privileges  of  a  Peer.  On  the  other  hand,  our  earliest 
Peerage  writer  in  1716  pronounced  the  title  to  be  extinct;  other 
eighteenth-century  genealogists  expressed  or  implied  the  same  view ; 
Douglas,  our  still  unsuperseded  standard  authority,  writing  at  a  time 
when  the  holder's  rights  were  fully  admitted  and  freely  exercised, 
expresses  himself  with  a  reserve  perhaps  not  less  significant  than  the 
denunciations  of  the  free  lances.  Riddell  for  once  is  in  agreement 
with  Crawford  and  not  out  of  harmony  with  Douglas,  though  he 
finds  an  excuse  for  falling  foul  of  the  latter  for  not  publishing  certain 
curious  circumstances  first  discovered  by  Riddell  himself.  In  our  own 
day  the  adverse  view  has  been  enforced  by  Mr.  J.  H.  Round  in  one 
of  his  most  vigorous  and  rigorous  essays,  and  seems  to  have  become 
so  to  speak  the  orthodox  faith  among  English  students  of  Scots 
Peerage  questions.  If  the  lords  Ruthven l  are  indeed  "  a  line  of  com- 
moners," as  Mr.  Round  says,  they  are  surely  the  most  fortunate,  if 
not  then  they  are  the  most  unfortunate,  of  their  class.  Against  such 
antagonists  it  needed  courage  to  enter  the  lists  ;  but  our  best  all-round 
historical  antiquary 2  has  taken  up  the  challenge,  and  from  the  readers 
of  this  Review  at  least  Mr.  J.  H.  Stevenson  is  sure  of  a  free  field,  and 
some  favour  to  boot. 

His  pamphlet3  contains  a  summary  of  the  known  facts,  now  first 
fully  and  clearly  set  forth ;  and  an  examination  not  of  the  rights  of 
the  case,  but  of  the  arguments  and  assertions  of  his  predecessors. 
It  is  a  discussion  of  side  issues,  but  of  side  issues  raised  by  them, 
viz.,  first,  the  relative  value  of  the  evidence  adduced  on  either  side ; 
and  second,  the  alleged  mala  fides  of  the  two  ladies  and  one  gentleman 
who  assumed  and  bore  the  title  between  1701  and  1783.  Thus  it 
would  be  possible  to  assent  to  every  proposition  here  maintained,  and 
yet  to  accept  the  assailants'  opinion  on  the  merits. 

1 1  use  the  title  throughout  for  convenience,  and  without  prejudice. 

2  Speaking  as  a  Scotsman. 

3  The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Peerage,  by  J.  H.  Stevenson.     Glasgow  :  MacLehose, 
1905. 

104 


The  Ruthven  Peerage  105 

The  following  pedigree  of  the  descendants  of  the  first  Lord  Ruthven 
is  taken  from  Mr.  Stevenson's  pamphlet.  His  figures  show  the  order  of 
their  succession  to  the  estates. 

(i)  SIR  THOMAS,  FIRST  LORD  RUTHVEN. 

Anna,  1st  daughter  Elizabeth,  znd         (3)  Jean,  yd         (2)  David,  only 

(died  1689,  daughter  (died  daughter  son,  second 

before  David).  before  David).  (died  unm.  Lord  Ruthven 

April,  1722).  (died  unm. 

(4)  Sir  William  1901). 

Cunyngham,  Bart.,  (5)  Isobel  (died,  1732). 
(died  without  issue, 

Oct.,  1722).  (6)  James. 

It  will  be  seen  that  on  the  second  lord's  death,  his  youngest  sister 
inherited  the  estates — under  an  entail  executed  by  him.  She  assumed 
the  title,  is  styled  Lady  Ruthven  as  early  as  1702,  and  continuously 
till  her  death,  and  must  have  been  the  baroness  summoned  to  the 
coronation  of  George  L,  if  summons  there  was,  which  though  not 
proved  is  admitted  on  both  sides.  After  her  death  Sir  William 
Cunyngham,  the  next  heir  of  entail,  was  confirmed  executor  dative  to 
his  aunt,  who  in  this  record  is  not  styled  Lady  Ruthven  but  Mrs. 
Jean  Ruthven  of  Freeland.  He  survived  her  six  months  only,  and 
died  without  taking  any  steps  to  complete  his  title  to  either  peerage  or 
estate.  His  cousin,  Isobel,  then  the  sole  heir  of  line  of  the  family, 
took  up  the  title,  and  was  known  as  Lady  Ruthven  for  the  remainder 
of  her  life.  She  is  said,  and  admitted,  to  have  been  summoned  as  a 
Peeress  to  the  coronation  of  George  II.  On  her  death  her  son  James 
succeeded  to  the  estates  and  assumed  the  title,  but  not  until  he  had 
been  served  heir  both  in  general  and  in  special  to  his  great-uncle,  the 
second  lord.  Of  this,  as  of  Sir  William's  attitude,  something  must  be 
said  further  on.  Meanwhile,  it  is  clear  that  the  assumers  of  the  title 
were  all  heirs  of  entail  in  possession  of  the  estates,  and  all,  except 
Baroness  Jean,  heirs  general  of  the  body  of  the  first  lord. 

It  would  be  unjust  to  attempt  to  summarise  Mr.  Stevenson's  most 
able  and  convincing  dissertation  on  the  evidential  value  of  certain 
published  and  MS.  lists  compiled  by  private  persons  on  one  hand,  and 
of  the  Union  Roll  and  the  1740  Report  of  the  Lords  of  Session  on 
the  other.  The  latter  are  documents  affecting  not  the  Ruthvens  only, 
but  the  whole  Scots  peerage  ;  this  part  of  the  pamphlet,  therefore,  has 
an  independent  and  a  permanent  value.  The  subject  seems  to  be 
one  of  those  which  the  human  mind  cannot  tackle  unless  it  has  a  case 
to  prove.  But  Mr.  Stevenson  not  only  supplies  a  necessary  corrective 
to  his  predecessors  ;  his  work  is  distinctly  more  judicial  in  spirit  than 
theirs.  It  is,  or  ought  to  be,  henceforth  impossible  to  decry  the  official 
roll  and  report  as  valueless,  and  to  set  such  lists  as  Chamberlayne's  and 
Macfarlane's  on  a  pinnacle.  The  former  listmaker  indeed  can  hardly 
be  considered  evidence  at  all  ;  the  latter  is  only  evidence  of  what  was 


106  Communications  and  Replies 

believed  in  his  own  time,  and  must  be  classed  with,  and  in  the  chronology 
placed  between,  Crawford  and  Lord  Hailes.  But  I,  for  one,  cannot 
hold  the  testimony  of  these  scholars  so  cheap  as  Mr.  Stevenson  seems 
to  hold  them.  Crawford  was  a  contemporary  of  the  second  Lord 
Ruthven,  and  the  other  two  must  be  taken  as  representing  an  important 
section  of  well-informed  opinion  each  in  his  own  generation. 

The  accusation  of  mala  fides,  founded  on  the  recorded  actions  of  the 
early  holders  of  the  title,  is  here  thoroughly  investigated  and  triumphantly 
refuted.  Rightly  or  wrongly,  Baroness  Jean  and  Baroness  Isobel  assumed 
the  title  without  hesitancy,  and  used  it  without  vacillation.  Against 
the  former  there  is  nothing  but  the  phraseology  of  her  Testament  Dative, 
for  which  she  clearly  could  not  be  responsible ;  against  the  former, 
only  a  series  of  unverified  quotations,  which  prove  to  be  misquotations, 
of  the  Commissariot  Records.  If  Mr.  Round  returns  to  the  charge, 
he  is  bound  to  withdraw  this  part  of  his  case.  Against  James,  third 
Lord  Ruthven,  the  ground  of  the  accusation  is  the  fewness  of  the 
votes  which  he  recorded  at  Peers'  elections.  To  which  the  reply 
given  is  enough ;  unless,  and  until  it  can  be  shown  that  the  votes  he 
gave  were  given  on  occasions  so  selected  as  to  avoid  the  risk  of 
challenge,  his  abstentions  must  be  ascribed  to  other  than  prudential 
motives. 

So  far  the  disputants — what  hypothesis  best  explains,  from  the  bye- 
stander's  point  of  view,  the  known  acts  of  the  successive  heirs  of  line 
of  the  Freeland  family  ?  Mr.  Stevenson  considers  that  <  the  private 
views  of  Jean,  Isobel,  Sir  William,  and  James  the  third  lord,  are  not 
nearly  so  important  as  the  conclusions  of  the  authorities  of  their  times  ' ; 
but  the  family  tradition,  if  we  can  ascertain  what  it  was,  is  surely  not 
irrelevant.  In  the  first  place,  the  Patent  must  have  perished,  not  in 
the  fire  of  1750,  but  before  1716  ;  to  record  it  would  have  been 
the  only  satisfactory  answer  to  Crawford.1  Here  is  the  place  where 
Hailes'  anecdote,  if  founded  on  fact,2  fits  in  exactly.  The  suggestion 
that  the  Patent  ought  to  be  recorded,  has  been  ventured  by  a  friend  in  the 
hearing  of  Baroness  Jean.  Her  reply  is  to  point  to  her  Coronation  Summons 
received  two  years  before,  and  exclaim,  '  Here  is  my  Patent  ! '  A 
fair  repartee  ;  and  considering  that  the  lady  had  borne  the  title  since 
1702  (as  Mr.  Stevenson  has  proved),  Mr.  Round's  comment  that  the 
claim  l  originated  in  a  joke  '  is  hardly  justified. 

It  has  already  been  observed  that  the  assumers  of  the  title  were  each  of 
them,  at  the  time  they  took  it  up,  heirs  of  entail  in  possession.  The  con- 
clusion to  be  drawn  is,  tolerably  certain, — the  family  belief  was  that 
the  title  was  to  go  with  the  lands;  in  other  words,  that  it  was  destined 

1  Assuming,  of  course,  that  the  claim  was  not  absolutely  fraudulent. 

2  Mr.  Stevenson  well  shows   that    Hailes   can   only  have   had    the   story  as  a 
piece  of    old    time   gossip.     The   reference   to    the    Pension    granted   to    '  Lady 
Ann  Ruthven '  may  date   his    memorandum.     The   grant   could,  no  doubt,  be 
traced  in  London  ;  it  seems  not  to  be  recorded  in  Edinburgh  ;    but  it  is  not 
likely    to    have    been    earlier    than    1783,    the    date    of   the    lady's   husband's 
death. 


The  Ruthven  Peerage  107 

to  the  heirs  of  entail.  But,  granting  this  to  have  been  the  intention,  could 
it  receive  effect  ?  Mr.  Round  has  a  dictum  of  Riddell's  to  produce, — a 
limitation  to  heirs  of  entail  could  only  refer  to  entails  executed  before  the 
death  of  the  patentee.  The  Freeland  entail  was  executed  not  by  the  first 
but  by  the  second  lord.  Obviously,  inattention  to  Riddell's  distinction 
could  not  imply  mala  fides  in  Baroness  Jean,  who  died  before  Riddell  was 
born;  but  take  the  hypothesis  that  Sir  William  Cunyngham,  or  his 
lawyers,  were  of  Riddell's  mind,  what  would  he  (or  they)  have  done  ?  Not 
claimed  the  title  for  Sir  William,  who  (if  it  was  descendible  to  heirs  female 
and  was  unaffected  by  the  entail)  was  de  jure  the  peer  from  1701  onwards. 
Poor  men  seldom  care  to  offend  a  well-to-do  maiden  aunt !  But,  if  after 
her  death  he  meant  to  assert  his  right,  the  first  step  would  be  to  dissociate 
his  claim  from  hers.  And  we  actually  find  that,  in  the  record  of  his 
appointment  as  her  executor  dative,  the  lady  is  docked  of  her  title  ;  while 
the  executor  himself,  as  Mr.  Stevenson  tells  us,  drops  his  baronetcy, — 
possibly  as  about  to  assume  the  higher  title.  If  his  intention  was  what  I 
suggest,  the  next  steps  would  be  (i)  to  come  to  some  arrangement  with  his 
creditors  which  might  save  his  interest  in  Freeland  from  being  swallowed 
up  in  the  vortex;  (2)  to  be  served  heir  to  his  uncle,  the  second  lord. 
Before  he  could  do  either,  he  died.  This  is  one  explanation  of  his 
conduct.  The  other  is  that  favoured  by  Mr.  Round,  Mr.  Foster,  and 
G.  E.  C.,  that  he  did  not  believe  in  the  continued  existence  of  the 
title.  Different  minds  may  judge  differently;  to  me  my  suggestion 
seems,  considering  Sir  William's  surroundings,  decidedly  the  more  pro- 
bable. At  all  events,  his  mere  failure  to  assume  the  title  cannot  possibly 
have  the  importance  attributed  to  it  by  the  critics ;  six  months  was  all 
the  time  he  had,  and  just  six  months  elapsed  before  James,  the  third 
lord,  whose  path  was  smooth  compared  to  Sir  William's,  could  carry 
through  what  his  lawyers  considered  the  necessary  preliminaries,  and 
take  up  the  peerage.  Now,  supposing  that  Baroness  Jean's  claim  was 
bad  under  Riddell's  rule,  is  the  claim  of  her  successors,  whose  title  was 
not  derived  from  her,  and  who  were  heirs  of  line  as  well  as  of  entail, 
necessarily  vitiated  thereby  ?  Surely  not. 

But,  if  the  family  tradition  was  what  I  have  inferred  it  to  be,  we 
cannot  shut  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  there  was  another  tradition,  to  a 
quite  different  effect,  in  its  origin  coeval,  handed  down  by  Crawford, 
received  by  Macfarlane  and  Hailes.  It  is  outside  testimony,  but  for  that 
reason  unbiassed;  and  the  'rex  rotulorum '  and  Report  of  1740,  however 
highly  we  esteem  them,  are  not  decisive  against  them.  Mr.  Stevenson  may 
have  (in  all  probability  he  has)  more  to  produce  on  a  future  occasion. 
For  the  present,  he  leaves  us  still  unable  to  resist  the  contention  that 
Lord  Mansfield's  doctrine,  the  presumption  for  limitation  to  heirs  male 
of  the  patentee's  body,  is  properly  applicable  to  the  Ruthven  case. 
And  here  its  application  would  not,  as  in  the  Lindores  and  Mar  cases, 
bring  about  any  sharp  conflict  between  the  legal  and  the  historical  pre- 
sumption. The  favourable  evidence  is  of  the  kind  which,  taken  by 
itself,  might  avail  (Mr.  Stevenson  suggests  that  it  does  avail)  to  rebut 
the  legal  presumption  ;  while  of  the  adverse  proof  it  may  be  said  that 
its  historical  is  pefhaps"  more  obvious  than  its  legal  relevancy. 


io8  Communications  and  Replies 

Let  me  conclude  with  Riddell's  conclusion:1  'Yet  there  was  vested  in 
the  family  the  undoubted  representation  as  heirs-general,  which  cannot  be 
impugned,  of  the  only  remaining  branch  of  a  noble  house,  who  were  not 
only  ancient,  but  of  the  highest  note,  and  distinction,  in  Perthshire.'  Mr. 
Round,  if  1  rightly  understand  him,  is  interested  in  the  case  chiefly  as 
providing  a  text  for  his  denunciation  of  the  '  unaccountable  perversity '  of 
those  Scotsmen  who  will  not  help  him  to  set  up  a  sort  of  Public  Prosecutor 
of  untested  peerages.  Perhaps  it  is  another  instance  (in  humble  life)  of  the 
said  unaccountable  perversity ;  but  will  my  fellow-Scots  be  shocked  by  the 
suggestion  that  there  are  cases  and  cases  ?  For  claimants  of  the  Colville  of 
Ochiltree  type  there  is  justice  in  Scotland  as  swift  and  sudden  as  south  of 
the  Tweed.  But  of  a  peerage  like  the  barony  of  Ruthven  of  Freeland,  one 
may  be  excused  for  feeling  that  its  case  can  wait  till  it  is  called. 

J.  MAITLAND  THOMSON. 


THE  ALTAR  OF  ST.  FERGUS,  ST.  ANDREWS  (S.H.R.,  ii. 
260,  478).  What  appears  to  be  the  original  manuscript  of  this  Rental 
is  in  the  University  Library  at  St.  Andrews.  It  previously  belonged  to 
Principal  Lee,  of  Edinburgh  University,  and  was  bought  at  the  sale  of  his 
manuscripts,  on  6th  April,  1861,  at  the  price  of  one  guinea.  Principal 
Lee's  '  interesting  collection  of  rare  and  curious  pamphlets  '  was  sold  on 
29th  May,  1863,  and  included  the  following  item  : 

6.  Condemnatio  doctrinalis  Librorum  M.  Lutheri  and  Responsio 
Lutheriana,  1525.  Rentale  Altaris  Sancti  Fergucii  infra  Eccl. 
Paroch.  St.  And.  1525,  MS.  Cochlei  Responsio  500  Articuli 
M.  Lutheri,  1526.  Aristophanis  facetissimi  Comoedia  Vespae, 
Gr.  1540,  and  another. 

This  lot  also  realised  a  guinea,  but  I  have  no  information  as  to  who 
was  the  purchaser.  I  thought  it  might  possibly  have  been  the  volume 
which  afterwards  belonged  to  Bishop  Forbes,  but  the  Rev.  E.  Beresford 
Cooke,  diocesan  librarian,  informs  me  that  the  Brechin  manuscript  'was 
originally  bound  up  with  a  multitude  of  tracts  on  all  sorts  of  ecclesiastical 
and  other  subjects,'  mostly  of  modern  date.  The  Lee  volume  may  of 
course  have  been  broken  up  by  a  bookseller  and  the  manuscript  Rental 
acquired  separately  by  Bishop  Forbes.  Otherwise  it  seems  evident  that 
another  copy  of  the  Rental  must  be  preserved  in  some  public  or  private 
library. 

The  St.  Andrews  manuscript  had  at  first  consisted  of  22  leaves  of 
vellum,  done  up  in  two  quires — one  of  12  leaves  and  the  other  of  10 
leaves,  measuring  about  8  inches  in  height  and  about  6  inches  in  breadth. 
As  the  little  volume  now  stands,  five  leaves  have  been  cut  out — two 
from  the  first  quire  and  three  from  the  second.  Some  of  these  leaves 
may  have  been  spoiled  and  cancelled  when  the  Rental  was  being 
engrossed,  but  others  appear  to  have  been  deleted  when  the  quires  were 


1  Remarks  upon  Scotch  Peerage  Law,  p.  145, 


The  Altar  of  St.   Fergus  109 

put  together.  The  only  leaf  on  which  a  catchword  is  used  is  followed 
by  the  remains  of  three  cut  out  leaves.  The  catchword  was  no  doubt 
written  to  assure  the  reader  that  nothing  was  missing  from  the  text. 
On  what  remains  of  one  of  these  leaves  there  are  faint  traces  of  writing, 
while  on  another  of  them  the  following  words  of  an  unfinished  charter 
are  still  quite  legible:  'sigillum  meum  proprium  vnacum  sigillis  dictorum 
Katrine  et  Thome  sunt  appensa  apud  Newth  .  .  .  .'  Vellum  being  a 
precious  and  somewhat  expensive  commodity,  use  had  been  made  of  the 
clean  portions  of  sheets  which  had  already  been  put  to  other  purposes, 
cut  to  the  proper  size  and  just  folded  sufficiently  to  catch  the  needle 
and  thread  of  the  binder.  Of  the  34  remaining  pages  10  are  blank. 
The  two  quires  have  been  strongly  bound  between  oak  boards,  with 
bevelled  edges,  but  without  any  trace  of  leather  covering.  The  writing 
is  in  a  clear,  bold  hand,  nearly  every  letter  standing  by  itself  as 
in  a  printed  book.  A  commencement  had  been  made  on  the  second 
leaf,  but  the  writer  having  gone  wrong  stopped  and  passed  on  to 
the  fourth  leaf,  where  the  Rental  begins  exactly  as  in  Mr.  Eeles's 
transcript. 

About  ten  years  ago  Professor  A.  F.  Mitchell  made  a  copy  of  the 
St.  Andrews  manuscript  for  the  then  Marquess  of  Bute,  who  was  much 
interested  in  the  Rental,  but  I  am  not  aware  that  his  Lordship  made 
any  public  use  of  it.  Some  time  afterwards  I  made  a  careful  transcript 
of  the  same  manuscript,  and  drafted  a  translation  of  it,  with  the  intention 
of  including  it  in  a  volume  of  local  documents  of  ecclesiological  interest. 
This  projected  publication  has  had  to  stand  aside  in  order  that  pro- 
gress might  be  made  with  more  pressing  work,  and  may  not  be  taken 
up  again  for  some  time.  Now  that  Mr.  Eeles  has  anticipated  me 
in  the  publication  of  the  Rental,  it  is  satisfactory  to  find  that  he 
has  not  bestowed  so  much  pains  upon  a  wholly  untrustworthy  copy. 
The  Brechin  manuscript  is  in  the  main  a  fairly  close  copy  of  the 
St.  Andrews  one.  The  rubrication  has  been  followed  exactly ;  there 
are  very  few  verbal  differences ;  but  the  spelling,  as  might  be  expected, 
varies  considerably.  The  name  which  Mr.  Eeles  in  his  introduction 
writes  'Tylless,'  and  in  his  text  'Tyllefer,'  is  quite  plainly  Eyllesj. 
The  s  is,  no  doubt,  provided  with  a  loop  which  is  used  elsewhere  to 
indicate  er;  but  the  same  loop  is  also  used  in  words  like  Glammysx 
and  hersj,  where  it  can  have  no  meaning  at  all  unless  it  be  to  double 
the  final  letter. 

The  most  serious  defect  of  the  Brechin  transcript  is  in  the  matter 
of  omissions.  On  page  265  of  S.H.R.,  line  8  from  bottom,  after 
the  word  '  corporale '  the  clause  '  Item  vnam  fiolam  stanneam '  has  been 
left  out.  On  page  267,  line  2  from  top,  the  St.  Andrews  reading 
is  'Item  tres  fiolas  stanneas.'  On  same  page,  line  21  from  top,  before 
the  words  'cum  cornu'  the  words  'ex  tribus  arundinibus'  should  be 
inserted ;  and  in  the  third  last  line  of  the  text  the  word  '  altaris '  should 
be  followed  by  'tenetur.' 

But  a  more  unfortunate  discrepancy  than  any  of  these  occurs  at 
the  very  outset  of  the  document,  where  the  omission  of  over  a  dozen 


no  Communications  and  Replies 

words  entirely  misleads  the  reader  as  to  the  tenure  of  office  of  the 
first  chaplain.  The  second  paragraph  of  the  Rental  should  read  as 
follows  : 

'Notandum   est  quod   magister  Wilelmus  Cubbe  fuit  primus  capel- 

lanus  [prefati  altaris  et  habuit  ad  spacium  quadraginta  annorum. 
Dominus  Wilelmus    Malwyn   fuit  secundus  capellanus]   dicti  altaris 

ad  spacium  septem   annorum  et  reliquit   seruicium   dicti  altaris 

quia  inde  non  potuit  commode  sustentari.' 

The  words  here  printed  between  square  brackets  have  been  passed 
over  (in  a  quite  intelligible  way)  by  the  transcriber  of  the  Brechin 
manuscript.  It  is  odd  that  the  word  *  dicti '  in  the  third  line  from 
the  bottom  of  page  265  did  not  suggest  to  Mr.  Eeles  or  to  Mr. 
Law  that  -some  previous  reference  to  Malwyn  had  been  omitted. 

The  date  '  Millesimo  quadringentesimo  nono '  is  quite  plainly  written 
in  the  St.  Andrews  manuscript,  but  it  is  an  impossible  one  for  the 
simple  reason  that  the  church  in  which  the  altar  was  situated  had 
not  then  been  built.  If  Mr.  Cubbe  held  the  altarage  for  forty  years 
and  Mr.  Malwyn  for  seven,  the  missing  word  should  be  '  septuagesimo.' 
As  a  matter  of  fact  the  altar  of  St.  Fergus  was  founded  on  2/th 
January,  1430-31,  by  William  Cairns  (Wilelmus  de  Kernis),  vicar 
of  Glamis.  It  stood  beside  the  pillar  nearest  to  the  west  gable  of 
the  church,  on  the  south  side.  The  Thomas  de  Kernis  whose  name 
was  associated  with  the  foundation  had  been  rector  of  Seton.  The 
chaplain  in  1555  was  Andrew  Baxter,  who  feued  one  of  the  Kirk 
Wynd  properties  on  condition  that  the  roof  was  to  be  renewed  and 
the  building  maintained  in  good  and  habitable  condition  for  ever.  It 
is  now  the  site  of  the  St.  Andrews  Citizen  office. 

This  is  scarcely  the  place  in  which  to  discuss  purely  local  details, 
and  I  am  afraid  I  am  not  the  'local  antiquary'  desiderated  by  Mr. 
Eeles.  I  would  only  venture  to  add  that  I  agree  with  Bishop 
Dowden  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  term  so/ium,  which  I  had  translated 
4  attic.'  J.  MAITLAND  ANDERSON. 

THE  BROOCH  OF  LORN.  The  brooch  worn  by  King  Robert 
Bruce  still  exists  in  the  possession  of  Captain  A.  J.  MacDougall  of 
MacDougall,  Dunollie  Castle,  Argyllshire  ;  and  this,  a  short  history  of 
it,  is  derived  in  part  from  original  sources,  and  from  information  supplied 
by  members  of  the  two  families  concerned. 

The  brooch  is  an  article  essential  to  the  dress  once  worn  by  both 
sexes  in  the  Highlands,  and  in  many  Highland  families  of  various  ranks 
favourite  brooches  have  been  preserved  through  many  generations  as 
heirlooms  which  no  pecuniary  inducement  would  tempt  their  humblest 
owner  to  part  with.  A  Highland  bridegroom  gave  his  bride,  not  a 
ring,  but  a  brooch,  usually  with  some  affectionate  inscription  upon  it ; 
and  as  the  same  article  sometimes  served  several  generations  of  one 
family,  it  was  apt  to  become  invested  with  many  endearing  associations. 

The  Brooch  of  Lorn,  *  The  brooch  of  burning  gold,'  and  *  Gem 
ne'er  wrought  on  Highland  mountain,'  is  not  of  gold,  as  Sir  Walter 


The  Brooch  of  Lorn  1 1 1 

Scott,1  from  misinformation  erroneously  represented  it,  but  of  silver  'of 
very  curious  form  and  ancient  workmanship.'2  It  consists  of  a  circular 
plate,  about  four  inches  in  diameter,  enriched  with  filigree  work,  and 
on  the  under  side  is  an  ordinary  tongue  for  the  purpose  of  fastening  it 
to  the  plaid.  The  margin  of  the  upper  side  is  magnificently  orna- 
mented, and  has  a  rim  rising  from  it,  with  hollows  cut  in  the  edge  at 
certain  distances,  like  the  embrasures  in  an  embattled  wall.  From  a 
circle  within  this  rim  rise  eight  very  delicately-wrought  tapering  obelisks, 
about  an  inch  and  a  quarter  high,  each  one  finishing  in  a  large  pearl. 
Within  this  circle  of  obelisks  there  is  a  second  rim,  also  ornamented 
with  carved  work,  and  within  which  rises  a  neat  circular  case,  occupying 
the  whole  centre  of  the  brooch,  and  slightly  overtopping  the  obelisks. 
The  exterior  of  this  case,  instead  of  forming  a  plain  circle,  projects 
into  eight  semi-cylinders,  which  relieve  it  from  all  appearance  of  heavi- 
ness. The  upper  part  is  also  very  elegantly  carved,  and  in  the  centre 
is  a  round  crystalline  ball,  or  magical  gem.  This  case  may  be  taken 
off,  and  within  there  is  a  hollow  for  holding  amulets  or  relics,  which, 
with  the  assistance  of  the  powerful  stone,  must  needs  prove  an  infallible 
preservative  against  all  harm.  In  this  cavity  are  the  remains  of  human 
bones.  What  the  gem  is  which  crowns  the  whole  no  one  can  say 
with  certainty.3 

At  the  time  that  Robert  the  Bruce  asserted  his  claim  to  the  throne 
of  Scotland  among  those  who  opposed  his  claim  was  Alexander  de 
Ergadia,  or  of  Argyle,  the  ancestor  of  the  MacDougalls  of  Lome,  the 
chiefs  of  that  surname,  being  for  some  considerable  time  dignified  with 
the  title  of  Lords  of  Lome.  This  Alexander,  or  Alastair,  was  in 
alliance  with  the  English  monarch,  and  had  further  and  more  special 
causes  of  hostility  to  Bruce,  from  his  being  married  to  a  daughter  of 
John  Comyn,  Lord  of  Badenoch,  chief  of  that  potent  and  numerous 
surname,  whom  Bruce  had  slain  in  the  Monastery  of  the  Grey  Friars 
in  Dumfries.  In  consequence  of  this  event  the  MacDougalls  became 
mortal  enemies  of  the  King,  and  were  among  the  most  persevering  and 
dangerous  of  them  all. 

1  *  Lord  of  the  Isles',  canto  ii. 

2  Memorial  of  the  Royal  Progress  in  Scotland,  by  Sir  Thomas  Dick  Lauder,  Bart., 
of  Fountainhall. 

3  The  brooch  is  one  of  a  class  of  Reliquary   Brooches  distinguished   by   the 
presence   of  a    central    capsule   to    hold    the  relic.      This    capsule   is   made    the 
principal  feature  of  the  decoration  of  the  brooch,  both  by  its  position,  its  size, 
and  its  being  surmounted  by  a  large  hemispherical  setting  of  rock  crystal  or  other 
stone.     These  brooches  have  also  the  common  feature  of  having  a  circle  of  minor 
settings  on  elevated  bases  placed  in  a  circle  round  the  central  one.     They  are  all 
from  the  West  of  Scotland,  indeed  all  from  Argyleshire,  and  probably  locally 
made.     There  are  only  other  two  specimens  known,  viz. :  The  Lochbuie  brooch, 
a  family  heirloom  of  the  Maclaines  of  Lochbuie,  and  'The  Ugadale  brooch,' 
preserved   by   Captain    Hector    Macneal   of  Ugadale  and   Lossit,  Campbeltown. 
This  latter  brooch,  according  to  a  tradition  in  the  family,  also  belonged  to  King 
Robert  Bruce. — Communicated  to  the  writer  by  Captain  Macneal. 


ii2  Communications  and  Replies 

After  his  defeat  at  Methven,  in  1306,  Bruce  retreated  to  Athole  and 
the  wilds  of  Rannoch  with  the  dispirited  remnant  of  his  followers.  But 
as  Rannoch  could  in  those  days  afford  but  scanty  supplies  for  an  army, 
however  small,  Bruce,  towards  the  beginning  of  autumn,  was  compelled  to 
move  south  and  join  his  friends  in  the  Lennox  and  in  Dumfriesshire.  His 
route  lay  along  the  defiles,  or  passes,  between  Rannoch  and  the  head  of 
Loch  Tay,  but  he  was  encountered  by  the  Lord  of  Lorn,  and  his  allies, 
the  Macnabs  of  Glendochard,  the  Macnaughtons,  the  MacFarlanes,  the 
Maclagans,  and  many  of  the  minor  clans,  at  Strathfillan,  upon  a  plain  still 
called  Dailrigh,  or  Dairy,  and  he  was  completely  defeated,  and  in  his 
flight  narrowly  escaping  capture  or  death.  The  traditional  story  is  well 
known  that  in  the  struggle  Bruce  lost  his  brooch,  which  was  long  kept 
as  a  monument  of  victory  by  the  chiefs  of  the  house  of  Dunollie. l 

The  royal  relic  continued  in  the  family  till  the  year  1647. 2  In  the 
Civil  War,  the  MacDougalls  adhered  to  the  cause  of  Charles  L,  and 
suffered  much  for  their  loyalty.  Dunollie  Castle  was  besieged  by  a 
detachment  of  General  Leslie's  army,  under  Colonel  Montgomery,  but 
from  its  strong  position  it  resisted  the  efforts  of  the  enemy.  But  Gylen 
Castle  ('  Caisteal  nan  Goibhlean,'  '  Castle  of  the  Forks,'  referring  to 
the  forked  configuration  of  the  rocks  around  the  Castle),  in  the  island 
of  Kerrera,  the  '  Doon  House,'  being  less  strongly  situated,  was  captured, 
sacked,  and  burned.  It  was  on  this  occasion  that  the  brooch  of  Bruce 
was  carried  away.  It  became  the  spoil  of  Campbell  of  Braighghlinne,3 

1  Barbour's  Bruce,  John  of  Fordun's  Chronicle  of  the  Scottish  Nation.     Barbour 
calls  the  men   Makyne-drosser  (interpreted  Durward  or  Porterson),  while  in  the 
family  tradition  they  are  named  MacKeoch  or  MacKichian.     It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  the  guardian  spirit  of  the  house  of  Dunollie  is  called  '  Nic  Kichian,' 
and  is  said  to  have  her  abode  on  the  Maiden  Island,  close  to  the  ruins  of  the 
castle.     Loch  Dochart  is  always  stated  as  the  locality  where  the  royal  struggle 
with  the  henchmen  of  Lome  took  place,  but  this  is  erroneous.     Angus  Fletcher, 
Esq.,  Abbotsford  Lodge,  Callander,  has  sent  the  writer  for  perusal  copy  of  a 
correspondence  which  passed  between  Mr.  Duncan  Whyte  of  Glasgow  and  Cap- 
tain   Stewart   of  Tigh-an-Duin,    Killin,   on    the    above   subject.     Mr.   Whyte's 
remarks  seem  incontrovertible.     'Examination  of  the  locality  has  strongly  con- 
vinced me  that  the  conflict  could   not  have  taken   place  at  the  side  of  Loch 
Dochart,  because  this  loch  is  seven  miles  east  of  "  Dail-nan-Geoichein,"  and  the 
retreat  of  Bruce  from  Dail-Righ  can  be  traced  up  the  glen  of  Achariach  and  down 
Glenfalloch  to  Loch  Lomond.     The  conflict  rather  took  place  by  the  side  of 
Lochan-nan-arm,   the  lake   of  the  arms.'     The   battle-axe    used    by    Bruce   on 
this  occasion  is  still  preserved  at  Dunstaffnage,  Oban.     There  is  a  tradition  in 
the  family  of  Dunstaffnage  that  the  battle-axe,  along  with  some  other  things, 
was  left  by  Bruce  after  handing  over  the  castle  to  the  Campbells. — Communicated 
to  the  writer  by  Mrs.  Campbell  of  Dunstaffnage. 

2  Tradition  in  Dunollie  family,  New  Statistical  Account  of  Scotland. 

3  Braglin  is  situated  at  the  head  of  Loch  Scamadale,  and  is  about  8  miles  in  a 
direction  to  the  south-east  of  Oban.       *  Little  John '  was  celebrated  in  his  day 
for  his  dauntless  bravery  and  fertility  in  resource,  and  many  stories  are  still  current 
concerning  him  in  the  district  of  Nether-Lorn.     The  laird  of  Braglin  was  buried 
in  the  Churchyard  of  Kilbride,  where  his  curiously-carved  gravestone  is  still  to  be 
seen.     Vide  Lord  Archibald  Campbell's  Records  of  Argyll. 


The  Brooch  of  Lorn  113 

or  Braglin,  better  known  in  song  and  story  as  'Iain  beag  Mac- 
lain'ic  Dhomhnuill,'  i.e.  little  John,  son  of  John,  son  of  Donald,  who 
took  part  in  the  latter  affair,  secured  the  brooch  of  King  Robert,  or 
as  it  was  now  commonly  called,  the  brooch  of  Lorn,  which  he  took 
into  his  possession  as  fair  spoil,  though  he  did  not  think  proper  to  make 
his  good  fortune  too  well  known,  lest  the  MacDougalls  might  have 
thought  it  necessary  afterwards  to  attempt  the  recovery  of  the  highly- 
valued  relic  by  force.  Time  rolled  on.  In  1715,  'Iain  Ciar,'  the 
chief  of  the  MacDougalls,  joined  the  Earl  of  Mar,  and  his  estate  was 
forfeited,  but  it  was  restored  just  before  the  '  rising '  for  Prince  Charles, 


and  he,  consequently,  did  not  'go  out'  on  the  occasion.  Meanwhile, 
the  brooch  continued  safe  in  the  strong  chest  at  Braglin.  To  the 
MacDougalls  themselves  it  was  not  even  known  to  exist. 

During  the  long  period  that  the  brooch  was  lost  to  the  MacDougalls, 
and  in  the  absence  of  any  direct  knowledge  of  its  fate,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  imagination  should  have  supplied  the  place  of  truth,  and  that  many 
of  the  stories  hitherto  accepted  as  truthful  accounts  may  be  dismissed 
as  untrue.  In  the  most  recent  publications,1  it  is  asserted  that  the 
brooch  was  kept  in  Dunollie  Castle,  that  it  disappeared  in  the  seven- 
teenth century  when  the  castle  was  burned  by  the  Macneills,  assisted 
by  the  Campbells  of  Braglin  ;  that  it  was  carried  into  England,  finding 
its  way  ultimately  to  a  London  broker's  shop,  from  which  it  was 
rescued  at  a  good  price  by  one  of  the  Lochnell  Campbells  ;  and  that 
it  was  destroyed  by  an  accidental  fire,  and  was  replaced  by  another 
brooch  of  much  less  ancient  date.  It  is  also  frequently  stated  that  the 
brooch  was  presented  to  the  late  Queen  Victoria  by  the  MacDougalls. 

1  Vide  The  Bcok  of  the  Bishop's  Castle,  Scottish  National  Memorials. 

H 


ii4  Communications  and  Replies 

The  authentic  account,  derived  from  the  two  families1  concerned,  goes 
to  show  that  the  brooch  remained  in  the  possession  of  the  Campbells 
for  the  long  period  of  172  years,  until  1819.  Major  Campbell,  the  last 
holder  of  the  brooch  of  Lorn,  served  with  distinction  in  the  Peninsular 
War.  After  his  return  to  Braglin,  he  had  a  list  made  of  his  title-deeds 
to  his  lands,  and  in  turning  out  these  old  parchments  from  the  bottom 
of  the  strong  chest  came  on  the  brooch,  and  knowing  the  tradition  in 
the  family,  recognised  it  as  the  brooch  taken  by  his  ancestor,  the  cele- 
brated '  Iain  beag,'  at  the  capture  of  Gylen  Castle  ;  and  there  being 
no  longer  any  reason  for  concealment,  spoke  openly  about  it.  As  already 
stated,  the  MacDougalls  believed  the  brooch  to  have  been  lost  or 
destroyed,  so  that  the  late  Admiral  Sir  John  MacDougall  of  Mac- 
Dougall,  K.C.B.  (the  present  chiefs  grandfather),  did  not  know  that 
it  existed  until,  to  his  intense  astonishment,  he  was  informed  by  a 
mutual  friend  that  it  was  safe,  and  in  the  possession  of  the  Campbells 
of  Braglin?  Subsequently,  by  the  courtesy  of  Mrs.  Campbell,  Sir  John 
was  enabled  to  see  the  long-lost  treasure.2 

Major  Campbell  died  in  1819,  leaving  a  widow  and  three  infant 
daughters.  General  Campbell  of  Lochnell,  Major  Campbell's  first  cousin, 
and  one  of  his  trustees,  in  whose  custody  the  brooch  now  was,  with  the 
consent  of  the  other  trustee,  Campbell  of  Craigmore,  made  arrangements 
for  its  restoration  to  the  MacDougalls  in  order  to  neutralize  their  opposi- 
tion to  some  election  that  he  was  interested  in.  No  price  was  paid  for 
it,  and  it  is  questionable  if  the  trustees  had  any  right  to  dispose  of  it  in 
any  way,  it  being  a  family  heirloom  of  the  Campbells.  Thus  the  brooch 
again  changed  owners,  and  passed  out  of  the  possession  of  the  youthful 
heiress  of  Braglin,  to  whose  ancestor  it  had  fallen  as  a  spoil  of  war.  Had 
Major  Campbell  left  a  son  the  idea  of  alienating  the  brooch  would  never 
have  been  entertained.  However,  the  further  fortune  of  the  brooch  was 
singularly  appropriate.  In  October,  i824,3  at  tne  county  meeting  held 
at  Inveraray,  General  Campbell  presented  the  brooch  to  his  old  friend  and 
neighbour,  Sir  John  MacDougall.  Thus  the  brooch  of  Lorn,  and  relic 
of  the  Bruce  found  its  way  back  to  Dunollie  after  being  out  of  the 
family  for  the  long  period  of  177  years,  by  whose  ancestors  it  was 
captured  in  fierce  combat  with  the  Bruce  at  Dailrigh  in  1306. 

On  the  occasion  of  the  pageant  at  Taymouth,  when  Queen  Victoria 
visited  it  in  course  of  her  progress  through  the  Highlands  in  1842,  the 
royal  barge  on  Loch  Tay  was  commanded  by  Sir  John  (then  Captain), 
in  full  Highland  costume.  Lord  Breadalbane  presented  the  wearer  to 
the  Queen,  mentioning  his  profession,  and  that  he  bore  the  historic 
brooch  of  Lorn,  which  belonged  to  Robert  the  Bruce.  The  Queen 

1  From    information  supplied  by  the  late   Miss  Louise  MacDougall,  of  Mac- 
Dougall and  Dunollie,  daughter  of  the  late  Vice-Admiral  Sir  John  MacDougall, 
K.C.B.,  of  MacDougall  ;  also  from  Miss  Giles  M.  Campbell,  of  Braglin,  Ashbank, 
Gorebridge  ;  and  Campbell  A.  Robertson,  Esq.,  London,  members  of  the  Braglin 
family. 

2  Miss  M.  O.  Campbell,  in  her  Memorial  History  of  the  Campbells  ofMelfort. 
"  Vide  The  Gentlema'is  Magazine  and  Historical  Chronicle  for  1824. 


The  Brooch  of  Lorn  1 1 5 

took  the  brooch  in  her  hand  and  examined  it  minutely,  asking  about 
the  centre  stone,  etc.1  One  more  royal  reminiscence  attaches  to  the 
brooch.  When  the  Princess  Royal,  at  that  time  Crown  Princess  of 
Prussia,  was  visiting  the  Duke  and  Duchess  of  Argyll  at  Inveraray,  she 
expressed  a  curiosity  to  see  the  brooch.  Hearing  this,  Sir  John,  then 
well  advanced  in  years,  started  off  on  horseback  to  Dunollie,  and  was 
back  at  Inveraray  before  dinner,  a  distance  of  over  80  miles,  proudly 
bearing  the  brooch.2 

IAIN  MAC.DOUGALL. 

FRENCH  TRANSLATIONS  OF  THE  WEALTH  OF 
NATIONS.  The  first  edition  of  An  Inquiry  into  the  Nature  and 
Causes  of  the  Wealth  of  Nations  was  printed  in  the  end  of  the  year 
1775,  and  was  published  at  London  in  the  beginning  of  1776,  in  2  vols. 
4to.  It  was  very  favourably  reviewed  in  the  Journal  des  Sfavans  of 
February,  1777  (p.  81  of  the  4to,  p.  239  of  the  I2mo  edition),  but 
the  reviewer  remarked  that  no  author  or  publisher  was  prepared  to  take 
the  risk  of  publishing  a  French  translation. 

The  Abbe  Morellet,  writing  to  Lord  Shelburne  from  Paris  on  I2th 
March,  1776,  says:  'I  have  got  the  loan  of  the  first  volume  of  the 
new  book  of  M.  Smith,  in  which  I  have  found  some  excellent  things. 
The  developments  are  somewhat  drawn  out  and  the  "Scottish  subtilty"  is 
present  in  all  its  luxuriance.  This  possibly  may  not  be  pleasing  to  you,  but 
the  work  has  given  me  great  pleasure,  as  I  delight  in  such  speculations ' 
(Lettres  de  V Abbe  Morellet  a  Lord  Shelburne,  p.  105  :  Paris,  1898, 
8vo).  In  his  Memoires  the  Abbe  states  that  he  spent  the  autumn  of 
the  year  1776  at  Brienne,  in  Champagne,  and  occupied  himself  very 
assiduously  in  translating  The  Wealth  of  Nations  ;  but  an  ex-Benedictine, 
the  Abbe  Blavet,  the  author  of  a  bad  translation  of  the  Theory  of  Moral 
Sentiments,  took  up  Adam  Smith's  new  treatise  and  sent  it  in  weekly 
instalments  to  the  Journal  of  Commerce.  <  This,'  says  Morellet,  *  was 
an  excellent  thing  for  the  journal,  as  it  filled  its  columns,  but  poor 
Smith  was  traduced  rather  than  translated,  according  to  the  Italian 
proverb  tradottore  traditore.  Blavet's  version,  which  was  dispersed  through 
the  columns  of  the  journal,  was  soon  issued  in  a  collected  form  by  a  book- 
seller, and  proved  an  obstacle  to  the  publication  of  mine.  I  offered  it  first 
for  a  hundred  louis,  and  then  for  nothing,  but  the  competition  caused  its 
rejection.  Long  after  I  asked  the  Archbishop  of  Sens,  during  his  ministry, 
for  a  hundred  louis,  and  said  that  I  would  take  the  risk  of  publication, 
but  he  declined,  as  the  booksellers  had  formerly  done.  It  would  have 
been  a  hundred  louis  well  employed.  My  translation  was  carefully 
made.  Everything  of  an  abstract  character  in  Smith's  theory  becomes 
unintelligible  in  Blavet's  translation,  but  in  mine  may  be  read  with 
profit'  (Memoires  de  r Abbe  Morellet^  p.  243:  Paris,  1823,  8vo). 

The  reprint  of  Blavet's  version  to  which  Morellet  refers  appeared  at 
Yverdon  in  1781  in  6  volumes  I2mo,  and  at  Paris  in  the  same  year 

1  Leaves  from  the  Journal  of  our  Life  in  the  Highlands. 

2  Records  of  Argyll. 


n6  Communications  and  Replies 

in  3  volumes  I2tno,  and  again  at  London  and  Paris  in  1788  in  2  volumes 
8vo,  and  revised  and  corrected,  with  Blavet's  name  as  translator,  at  Paris 
An.  ix.  ( 1 800-01)  in  4  volumes  8vo. 

In  the  meantime  another  translation,  of  no  great  merit,  was  made 
by  Jeane  Antoine  Roucher,  the  poet,  author  of  Les  Saisons,  and  was 
published  at  Paris  in  1790  in  4  volumes  8vo  ;  again  at  Neufchatel  in  1792 
in  5  volumes  8vo,  and  lastly  at  Paris  An.  iii.  (1795)  in  5  volumes  8vo. 
According  to  Blavet,  Roucher  was  more  concerned  with  the  language  than 
the  sense.  He  says  that  he  did  not  understand  English,  and  relied  upon  his 
version,  although  he  pretended  that  he  was  not  aware  of  any  French  trans- 
lation of  the  work. 

A  third  and  better  translation  by  Count  Germain  Gamier  appeared 
at  Paris  An.  x.  (1802)  in  5  volumes  8vo,  with  a  portrait  of  Adam  Smith. 
Other  editions  were  issued  in  1809  and  1822,  the  former  in  3  the  latter  in 
6  volumes  8vo,  one  being  a  volume  of  notes.  This  edition  was  revised  by 
Jerome  Adolphe  Blanqui,  and  was  republished  at  Paris  in  1843  'n  ^ 
volumes  8vo  as  volumes  5  and  6  of  Guillaume's  Collection  des 
Economistes. 

As  the  Abbe  Morellet  lived  until  1819,  and  depended  for  his  livelihood, 
in  his  later  years,  on  translations  for  the  booksellers,  it  seems  strange  that  he 
was  unable  to  dispose  of  his  MS.  of  The  Wealth  of  Nations  when  other  two 
translations  found  a  market,  notwithstanding  that  of  Blavet. 

In  his  edition  of  Paris,  1800-01,  the  Abbe  Blavet,  or  Citizen  Blavet  as 
he  then  styles  himself,  gives  some  information  regarding  his  translation. 
He  made  it,  he  says,  entirely  for  his  own  use,  and  with  no  great  exactness. 
He  had  no  intention  of  publishing  it  until  his  friend  M.  Ameilhon  hap- 
pened to  complain  of  a  scarcity  of  interesting  articles  for  his  Journal  de 
r  Agriculture,  du  Commerce^  des  Arts  et  des  Finances^-  which  had  just  come 
under  the  control  of  the  mercantilists.  It  struck  him  that  he  might 
offer  it  to  him,  which  he  did,  with  the  explanation  that  it  was  far  from 

1  This  is  a  third  series  of  the  Journal  de  Commerce  of  Camus  and  the  Abbe 
Roubaud.  Bruxelles,  1759-62,  24  vol.  I2mo.  It  was  discontinued  for  a  short 
time  and  reappeared  again  at  Paris  in  July,  1765,  under  the  title  Journal 
d' Agriculture,  du  Commerce  et  des  Finances,  and  Dupont  de  Nemours  was 
associated  with  the  other  two  as  principal  editor.  This  series  ran  until 
December,  1774,  in  114  monthly  parts,  making  48  vols.  I2mo.  The  Journal 
had  been  the  battle-ground  of  the  mercantilists  and  the  physiocrats.  In  1767, 
the  former  having  got  the  upper  hand,  dismissed  Dupont  de  Nemours,  who 
with  his  party  found  an  organ  in  the  Ephemerides  du  Citoyen,  which  was  then 
edited  by  the  Abbe  Baudeau,  who  retired  in  favour  of  Dupont  de  Nemours 
in  May,  1768.  It  stopped  in  March,  1772,  but  reappeared  again  in  December, 
1774,  and  ran  until  June,  1776.  A  copy  for  the  years  1765-67  was  in  Adam 
Smith's  library. 

The  Journal  d' Agriculture  was  discontinued  until  January,  1778,  when  it 
appeared  under  the  title  in  the  text,  with  Ameilhon  as  editor.  It  ran  until 
December,  1783,  in  72  monthly  parts,  forming  24  vols.  I2mo.  It  was  then 
absorbed  by  the  Ajfiches,  Annonccs  et  Avis  divers,  which  in  1784  adopted  the 
sub-title,  ou  Journal  general  de  France,  and  became  in  1785  Journal  general  de 
France.  From  1787  to  1790  a  Supplement  devoted  to  agriculture  was  issued. 


*  The  Wealth  of  Nations '  in  French     117 

perfect.  It  was  accepted,  and  appeared  in  the  issues  of  the  Journal 
between  January,  1779,  and  December,  1780.  He  did  not  anticipate 
that  it  would  go  further,  but  scarcely  had  the  last  part  appeared  when 
it  was  reprinted  and  published  at  Yverdon  in  1781,  with  more  faults  than 
in  the  serial  publication.  The  edition  of  1788  likewise  appeared  without 
his  knowledge  or  consent,  and  was  still  more  marred  by  errors  than  that  of 
Yverdon.  Blavet  had  stipulated  with  Ameilhon  that  his  name  was  not 
to  appear,  but  seeing  the  popularity  the  work  had  secured  he  sent  a  letter  to 
the  Journal  de  Paris  of  5th  December,  1788,  claiming  the  authorship. 
This  letter  brought  him  into  communication  with  M.  Guyot,  of  Neuf- 
chatel,  with  whom  he  had  hitherto  been  unacquainted.  Guyot,  who  was  a 
friend  of  Smith  and  of  Dugald  Stewart,  said  that  although  complaints  had 
been  made  regarding  the  translation,  the  faults  were  of  a  kind  that  could 
easily  be  corrected,  and  he  offered  his  assistance  in  doing  this.  He  said  that 
when  the  edition  of  1788  appeared  both  he  and  Stewart  believed  that  it  was 
by  the  Abbe  Morellet. 

Blavet  followed  Guyot's  advice,  revised  his  translation,  and  published 
it  with  his  name  at  Paris  in  1800.  In  the  British  Museum  there  is  a  copy 
of  the  edition  of  1788,  with  numerous  MS.  corrections,  said  to  be  by 
Blavet,  most  of  which  have  been  given  effect  to  in  the  edition  of  1800. 

Adam  Smith  had  a  copy  of  Blavet's  edition  of  1788,  and  another  of  that 
1800.  The  latter  bears  the  inscription,  'A  M.  Smith  de  la  part  de 
son  tres  humble  serviteur,  1'Abbe  Blavet.'  Although  Blavet  did  not 
acknowledge  the  translation  until  1788,  it  seems  to  have  been  known 
that  it  was  by  him,  for  he  prints  a  letter  from  Smith  to  himself,  dated 
Edinburgh,  23rd  July,  1782,  in  which  Smith  says  he  had  had  a  letter  from 
the  Comte  de  Nort,  a  colonel  of  infantry  in  the  French  Army,  proposing-  a 
new  translation,  but  he  had  written  to  him  that  it  was  not  required.  He 
adds  that  he  did  not  propose  to  encourage  or  favour  any  other  than  that  of 
Blavet. 

While  all  of  these  translations  are  well  known,  and  have  been  the  subject 
of  considerable  discussion,  there  was  a  fourth  and  earlier  one  which  seems 
to  have  been  entirely  overlooked.  The  title  page  of  the  first  volume  reads 
thus  :  Recherches  |  Sur  \  La  Nature  |  Et  Les  Causes  |  De  La  \  Richesse 
|  Des  |  Nations.  |  Tome  Premier.  |  Traduit  de  1'Anglois  de  M.  Adam 
Smith,  par  M.  ...  |  A  La  Haye  |  MDCCLXXVIII. 

The  book  is  in  four  volumes  I2mo.  Volumes  I.  and  II.  bear  date  1778,, 
volumes  III.  and  IV.  1779. 

Blavet's  translation,  as  we  have  seen,  appeared  in  the  columns  of  the 
Journal  de  F  Agriculture  between  January,  1779,  and  December,  1780, 
so  that  the  Hague  translation  was  thus  a  year  earlier  in  date,  and  was 
evidently  by  a  different  hand,  as  may  be  seen  by  comparing  one  or  two 
passages. 

I.  INTRODUCTION. 

The  Hague.  Blavet. 

Le  travail  annuel  de  la  Socidte  est  Le  travail  annuel  d'une  nation  est 

le  fonds   qui    lui    procure    originaire-         la    source    d'ou    elle    tire    toutes    les 
ment  toutes  les  necessites  &  les  com-         choses  necessaires  &  commodes  qu'elle 


1 1 8  Communications  and  Replies 


modites  de  la  vie  qu'elle  consomme 
annuellement,  &  qui  consiste  toujours 
ou  dans  le  produit  immediat  de  ce 
travail,  ou  dans  ce  qu'elle  achete  des 
autres  nations  avec  ce  produit. 

Ainsi,  selon  que  ce  produit  ou  ce 
qui  est  achet6  avec  ce  produit,  a  plus 
ou  moins  de  proportion  avec  le 
nombre  des  consommateurs,  la  Nation 
sera  plus  ou  moins  abondamment 
pourvue  des  necessites  ou  commo- 
dites  dont  elle  a  besoin. 


BOOK  I. 

Le  travail  paroit  tirer  sa  principale 
force  ;  le  talent,  1'adresse,  1'art  qui 
1'applique  ou  dirige,  paroissent  tenir 
leurs  plus  grand  succls  de  sa  distri- 
bution. 


consomme  annuellement,  &  qui  con- 
sistent toujours  ou  dans  le  produit 
immediat  de  ce  travail,  ou  dans  ce 
qu'elle  achette  des  autres  nations  avec 
ce  produit. 

Ainsi,  selon  qu'il  y  aura  plus  ou 
moins  de  proportion  entre  le  nombre 
de  ses  consommateurs  &  ce  produit 
ou  ce  qu'elle  achette  avec  ce  produit, 
elle  sera  mieux  ou  plus  mal  pourvu 
par  rapport  aux  besoins  &  aux  com- 
modites  de  la  vie. 

[In  the  revised  edition  of  1800  the 
concluding  words  run  thus :  *  pourvu 
des  choses  necessaires  et  commodes 
dont  elle  a  besoin.'  This  alteration  is 
not  in  the  British  Museum  copy  of 
1788.] 


La  division  du  travail  est  ce  qui 
semble  avoir  contribu6  d'avantage  a 
perfectionner  les  facultes  qui  le  pro- 
duisent,  &  a  donner  1'addresse,  la 
dexterit6  &  le  discernement  avec 
lesquels  on  1'applique  &  on  le  dirige. 

[The  revised  edition  of  1800,  after 
'  produisent,'  reads  '  et  de  la  dex- 
terite,  de  1'habilete  et  du  jugement.' 
This  alteration  partly  appears  in  the 
British  Museum  copy  of  1788.] 


BOOK  I.  c.  xi. 


La  rente,  consideree  comme  le  prix 
du  loyer  de  la  terre,  est  naturellement 
la  plus  forte  que  le  Colon  puisse  payer 
au  proprietaire  relativement  a  1'etat 
actuel  de  la  terre. 


La  rente  consideree  comme  le  prix 
paye  pour  1'usage  de  la  terre,  est 
naturellement  le  taux  le  plus  haut  que 
le  tenancier  puisse  en  donner  dans  les 
circonstances  actuelles  de  la  terre. 

[The  revised  edition  of  1800  for 
the  last  four  words  reads,  '  ou  se 
trouve  la  terre.'  The  passage  is  un- 
altered in  the  British  Museum  copy 
of  the  1788  edition.] 

There  is  no  copy  of  this  early  translation  in  the  British  Museum,  or,  so 
far  as  I  can  ascertain  from  catalogues,  in  any  of  the  large  libraries  in 
the  country.  The  collection  of  works  by  and  relating  to  Adam  Smith 
in  the  British  Museum  is  very  inadequate,  and  that  in  the  library  of 
the  University  of  Glasgow — Smith's  own  university — is  still  more  so. 

Perhaps  I  may  add,  as  supplementary  to  Mr.   Bonar's   Catalogue  of  the 


'The  Wealth  of  Nations'  in   French     119 

Library    of  Adam    Smith,   that  I   have  the   following   books   bearing  his 
book-plate  : 

(1)  Cumberland  (Richard). 

De  legibus  naturae.  Lubecae,   1694,   8vo. 

(2)  A  volume  of  Tracts  by  Josiah  Tucker. 

There  is  a  list  prefixed  in  Smith's  handwriting.     They  are  as  follows : 

(a)  Reflections  on  the  expediency  of  a  law  for  the  Naturalization 

of  Foreign  Protestants.     Part  i.  London,   1751,  8vo. 

(b)  The  same.     Part  ii.  Ib.,   1752,   8vo. 

(c)  A   Letter    to   a    Friend    concerning    Naturalizations.      Second 

edition.  Ib.,   1753,  8vo. 

(d)  A    second    Letter    to    a    Friend    concerning    Naturalizations. 

Ib.,   1753,  8vo. 

(e)  An  impartial   Inquiry   into  the  benefits  and  damages   arising 

to   the  Nation   from   the   present  very  great   use   of  Low- 
priced  Spirituous  Liquors.  Ib.,   1751,  8vo. 
(/)  Reflections    on    the    expediency    of  opening    the   Trade   to 
Turkey.  If.,  i755>  8vo. 
(g)   Instructions   for  Travellers.                            Dublin,    1758,  8vo. 
(h)  Two    Dissertations    on    certain    Passages    of  Holy    Scripture. 

London,    1749,  8vo. 

In  1756  Tucker's  Essay  on  the  Advantages  and  Disadvantages 
which  respectively  attend  France  and  Great  Britain  with  regard 
to  Trade  was  reprinted  at  Glasgow.  There  can  be  little  doubt 
that  this  was  upon  the  suggestion  of  Smith. 

(3)  Virgilii  Opera.  Glasgow,   1778,  folio,   2  vols. 

A  large  paper  copy  in  full  polished  calf;  original  binding.  His 
name  appears  amongst  those  'of  the  Persons  by  whose  encouragement 
this  Edition  has  been  printed.'  DAVID  MURRAY. 

SIGNATURES  TO  ROYAL  CHARTERS.  In  his  able  review 
of  Sir  Archibald  C.  Lawrie's  work  on  Early  Scottish  Charters  (S.H.R., 
vol.  ii.  page  428)  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson,  inter  alia,  states  that  in 
the  fifteenth  century,  when  the  Register  of  Scone  was  written,  '  private 
deeds  were  signed  by  the  granters  rarely,  Royal  charters  never.'  It 
may  be  noted,  however,  that  this  statement,  though  correct  in  the  main, 
is  subject  to  an  interesting  exception,  as  at  least  one  monarch  in  that 
century,  King  James  II.,  did  occasionally  sign  his  Great  Seal  charters 
with  his  own  hand.  There  are  five  instances  known  to  the  writer  :  (i) 
a  charter  dated  5  November,  1449  (original  in  the  Register  House), 
abridged,  with  engraving  of  signature,  in  Sir  William  Eraser's  Douglas 
Book,  vol.  iii.  pp.  429,  430  ;  (2)  a  charter  22  May,  1452,  printed, 
with  signature,  in  Eraser's  Memorials  of  the  Montgomeries^  vol.  ii.  p.  33  ; 
(3)  a  charter  dated  13  May,  1453,  and  (4)  one  of  date  9  November, 
1454,  both  originals  in  the  Register  House  ;  (5)  a  confirmation  of 
uncertain  date,  said  to  be  signed  by  the  king,  and  noted  in  the 
Regis trum  Magni  Sigilli,  1424-1513,  page  62.  These  are  all  Crown 
Charters,  and  are  subscribed  by  King  James  Second  ;  while  doubtless 
there  are  others  to  be  found  in  private  repositories. 

General  Register  House.  JOHN  ANDERSON. 


120  Communications  and  Replies 

BATTLE  OF  GLENSHIEL  (S.H.R.,  ii.  415).  In  Professor  Sanford 
Terry's  valuable  article  on  this  affair,  mention  is  made  of  Major 
Mackintosh,  brother  to  Brigadier  Mackintosh  of  Borlum,  and  in  foot- 
notes 13  and  15  his  Christian  name  is  given  as  James  in  a  quotation 
from  the  Portland  MSS.  His  name  was  John.  He  was  third  son  of 
the  elder  Borlum,  the  Brigadier's  father,  and  in  1715  he  had  been  major 
in  the  chief  of  Mackintosh's  regiment,  forming  part  of  the  Jacobite 
force  which  marched  into  England  under  the  command  of  his  brother 
William,  the  Brigadier.  After  the  surrender  at  Preston,  in  Lancashire, 
he  had  been  taken  to  London  and  confined  in  Newgate,  whence  he  had 
escaped  with  his  brother  and  others  on  the  4th  of  April.  Another 
brother,  Duncan  Mackintosh,  was  a  captain  in  the  same  regiment,  and 
was  found  guilty  of  high  treason  on  I4th  July,  1716. 

A.  M.  M. 

'SHELTA:  THE  CAIRO'S  LANGUAGE.'  With  reference  to 
the  notice  of  this  pamphlet  which  appeared  in  S.H.R.,  ii.  467-468,  Mr. 
David  MacRitchie  writes  to  point  out  that  the  chief  exponent  of  the 
doctrine  that  Shelta  is  mainly  a  perversion  of  the  pre-aspirated  Gaelic 
spoken  anterior  to  the  eleventh  century  is  Professor  Kuno  Meyer,  and  not 
himself.  Mr.  MacRitchie  fears  that  the  allusion  to  Professor  Meyer's 
deduction  as  a  flight  of  Romany  philosophy  might  perhaps  convey  the 
impression  that  the  jargon  in  question  (not  being  perverted  Old  Gaelic) 
is  a  variety  of  Romany  speech,  which  it  is  not,  as  may  be  seen  from 
Professor  Meyer's  treatise  c  On  the  Irish  Origin  and  the  Age  of  Shelta,' 
in  the  Journal  of  the  Gypsy  Lore  Society,  vol.  ii.  pp.  257-266. 

ABERCROMBY  (S.H.R.y  ii.  472).  Elizabeth,  daughter  of  Aber- 
cromby  of  Glassaugh,  married,  7th  February,  1712  (as  his  second  wife), 
William  Baird  of  Auchmedden,  who  died  22nd  August,  1720.  She  died 
at  Banff  I2th  April,  1756.  (Genealogical  Collections  concerning  the  Sir 
name  of  Baird.  London,  1870,  p.  36.) 

J.  R.  A. 


Record   Room 

INFORMATION  AGAINST  JACOBITES  AND  PAPISTS. 

THE  following  papers  are  inserted  by  the  kind  permission  of  their  owner, 
Mr.  Alexander  Erskine-Murray,  to  whom  they  have  descended  from  his 
ancestor,  Charles  Erskine  of  Tinwald  and  Alva,  Lord  Justice  Clerk,  1748- 
1763,  for  whose  information  they  were  originally  written.  The  earliest 
(undated)  here  placed  second,  is  interesting  as  it  bears  upon  the  fate  of  Dr. 
Archibald  Cameron  and  the  little  known  Jacobite  intrigues  of  Mr.  Charles 
Smith  of  Boulogne  and  the  Patersons  of  Bannockburn.  The  letter  in 
which  this  was  found  is  concerned  with  the  'Treason,'  in  1755,  of  an 
'unqualified'  Popish  priest,  Hugh  MacDonald,  half-brother  of  Allan 
MacDonald  of  Morar.  He  was  in  August  of  that  year  bound  under  £300 
security  to  repair  until  November  to  the  vicinity  of  Doune.  On  further 
trial  he  was  banished  for  life  from  Scotland  after  May  ist,  1756. 

A.  FRANCIS  STEUART. 

LETTER.      C.  AMYAND,  Secretary  to  the  Regency,  to  the  LORD  JUSTICE 

CLERK.      Whitehall,  July  31,  1755. 
MY  LORD, 

Your  Lordship's  letter  of  the  iQth  inst.  to  Sir  Thomas  Robinson 
inclosing  a  copy  of  the  Declaration  of  Hugh  MacDonald  a  Romish  Priest, 
who  has  been  lately  apprehended,  having  been  laid  before  the  Lords 
Justices,  I  am  to  acquaint  your  Lordship  that  they  entirely  approve 
what  you  have  done  in  this  case,  and  likewise  your  intention  of  keep- 
ing the  said  MacDonald  in  Prison,  untill  such  time  as  he  can  be  dealt 
with  according  to  Law  ;  and  in  case  anything  material  shall  be  discovered 
upon  the  examinaton  of  John  MacDonald  who  is  in  custody  here  and 
is  supposed  to  have  been  concerned  with  him  in  treasonable  Practices, 
so  much  thereof  shall  be  transmitted  to  your  Lordship  as  shall  appear 
to  be  usefull  upon  the  Tryal  of  the  said  Hugh  MacDonald. 
I  am  with  great  truth  and  regard,  my  Lord, 
Your  Lordship's  most  obedient 

Humble  Servant, 

C.  AMYAND. 

Enclosed  in  this  letter,  backed  'INTELLIGENCE,'  and  belonging  to  an 
earlier  date,  is  the  following  : 

'That  there  were  lodged  in  Clanranalds'  country,  9000  stands  of 
arms,  under  the  care  of  Ronald  MacDonald,  Brother  to  the  late  Kinloch 


22 


Record  Room 


Moydart ;  Macdonald  of  Glenaladle  ;  and  the  Bailie  of  Egg  ;  and  are 
kept,  still  by  them,  in  as  good  Order  as  possible :  That  one  John 
Macdonald  who  is  cousin  german  to  Glenaladle,  said,  in  March  last, 
that,  if  there  was  any  Invasion,  there  was  Plenty  of  Arms  ;  and  men- 
tioned the  Way  and  Manner,  in  which  they  were  concealed ; — But 
that,  immediately  before  they  were  lodged  in  the  Hands  of  the  above 
mentioned  Persons,  Dr.  Cameron  had  taken  away,  without  orders  250 
stands  ; — That  the  Arms  might  be  got  in  Order,  in  Six  Days  Time, 
by  very  few  Hands,  for  they  had  sustain'd  very  little  Damage.  That 
Mr.  Gordon  the  Principal,  sent  for  James  Ogilvie,  Ship  Master  from 
Boulogne,  where  He  had  been  some  time  before,  that  He  staid,  for 
Ten  Days,  at  the  Scotch  College,  when  the  Pretender's  son  was  at 
Paris. — That  is  Sir  John  Graham  was  sent,  by  the  young  Pretender's 
order,  to  deliver  to  Capt.  Ogilvie  8000  Swords  which  had  lain  at 
Berlin,  since  the  last  Rebellion  ;  that  he  was  to  deliver  them  to  Capt. 
Ogilvie,  at  or  near  Dunkirk,  conceal'd  in  Wine-Hogsheads,  and  that 
Capt.  Ogilvie  was  to  land  them  at  Airth,  in  the  Firth  of  Forth ; 
and  to  get  them  convey'd  to  the  House  of  Tough  (which  is  two  miles 
above  Stirling ;)  where  they  were  to  remain,  under  the  charge  of  Mr. 
Charles  Smith  ;  whose  son  is  married  to  the  Heiress  of  Touch. 

'That  Sir  Archibald  Steward  of  Castle-Milk  near  Greenock,  had 
seen  Dr.  Cameron  in  Stirlingshire  ;  who  told  him,  that  he  hoped  the 
Restoration  would  happen  soon  ;  For  that  Preparations  were  making 
for  it ;  And  that  He  had  been  sent  to  Scotland,  to  transact  some  affairs 
for  that  purpose. 

'That  proper  Persons  should  be  ordered  to  notice  Captain  Ogilvie's 
motions ;  and  to  watch  Sir  Hugh  Paterson's  House ;  as  also  the 
House  of  Tough  for  the  Swords,  lately  sent  over  by  Capt.  Ogilvie ; 
that  all  possible  means  should  be  fall'n  upon  to  discover  the  Arms, 
which  are  lodged  in  the  Macdonald's  Hands ;  and  that  the  motions 
of  such  French  officers,  as  arrive  in  Scotland,  should  be  strictly 
observed.' 


ANCIENT    WHEEL    UNEARTHED    AT    BAR    HILL,    JUNE,     1905 


Facing  page  122 


Notes  and  Comments 

THROUGH     the     kindness    of    Mr.    Whitelaw     of    Gartshore    we    are 
able    to   give    here   a    reproduction  of  not  the    least  remark-  . 

able  of  the  many  interesting  relics  that  his  excavations  on  goman 
the  Roman  station  at  Bar  Hill  have  yielded.  This  is  an  w^i 
ancient  wheel  which  was  (literally)  unearthed  in  June  last, 
along  with  some  other  finds,  from  a  hole  eight  feet  deep.  The 
illustration  renders  detailed  description  unnecessary.  But  it  may  be 
noted  that  the  full  diameter  is  2  ft.  10^  in.,  while  the  nave  measures 
\\\  in.  from  end  to  end.  Both  nave  and  felloe  are  shod  with  iron, 
the  nave  being  also  bushed  inside  with  iron,  and  the  whole  workman- 
ship is  excellent.  The  general  style  and  finish  suggest  that  it  is  the 
wheel  of  a  chariot  or  a  carpentum.  The  nave,  probably  of  elm  wood, 
and  spokes,  which  appear  to  be  of  willow,  are  beautifully  turned, 
and  the  inlaid  ornamental  iron  on  the  end  of  the  former  is  worth 
observing.  A  striking  feature  of  the  wheel  is  that  the  felloe,  which 
is  probably  of  ash,  is  formed  from  a  single  piece  of  wood  bent :  only 
one  joint  is  visible,  and  the  same  grain  of  wood  can  be  seen  all 
round.  The  whole  owes  its  excellent  preservation  to  the  fact  that  it 
was  embedded  in  decayed  animal  and  vegetable  matter.  A  hub  with 
fragments  of  spokes  was  found  recently  at  Glastonbury,  and  there 
are  one  or  two  others  in  the  museum  at  Homburg.  But  no  specimen 
anything  like  so  fine  as  the  Bar  Hill  one  would  appear  to  have  come 
to  light  anywhere  else  in  Western  Europe. 

IN    his   translations   of  MacFirbis's   Tract    on    the    Fomorians   and    the 
Northmen,  and  of  the  Saga  of  Cellachan  of  Cashel,1  Professor 
Alexander    Bugge,    of    Christiania     University,    continues    his    JL 
investigation     of     the     Norse     elements     in     Gaelic    tradition.     .  orsemen 
Professor    Bugge    is   well    known   as  a  diligent  student  of  the    Jy^j^ 
problems    connected     with     the     Scandinavian     settlements    in 
Ireland    in    the    ninth    and   tenth   centuries.     In    his   Contributions   to   the 
History    of   the    Norsemen    in    Ireland,    published    some    years    back,    he 

1  i.  On  the  Fomorians  and  the  Norsemen,  by  Duald  MacFirbis :  the  Original 
Irish  Text,  with  Translation  and  Notes.  By  Alexander  Bugge,  Professor  in  the 
University  of  Christiania.  1905.  2.  Caithreim  Cellachain  Caisil ;  The  Victorious 
Career  of  Cellachan  of  Cashel,  or  the  Wars  between  the  Irishmen  and  the  Norsemen 
in  the  Middle  of  the  Tenth  Century.  The  Original  Irish  Text,  with  Translation 
and  Notes.  By  the  same  Editor.  Christiania,  1905. 

123 


I24 


Notes  and  Comments 


may  be  said  to  have  acted  as  pioneer  in  a  new  field  of  historical 
research.  We  can  recall  no  other  scholar  who  has  united  such  con- 
siderable knowledge  of  the  Gaelic  literature  of  the  subject  with  so 
intimate  an  acquaintance  with  the  Viking  Sagas  of  Norwegian  litera- 
ture. It  is  perhaps  to  be  regretted  that  Professor  Bugge,  whose  mastery 
of  his  subject  from  both  the  Scandinavian  and  the  Gaelic  standpoints 
is  so  complete,  should  confine  himself,  as  he  does  in  these  publications, 
to  the  provision  of  materials  and  to  what  may  be  termed  the  technical 
side  of  his  subject.  For  in  some  of  the  earlier  publications  we  have 
referred  to  he  has  indicated  a  capacity  for  historical  analysis  which  is 
perhaps  rarer  than  the  turn  for  accurate  editorial  scholarship  which  he  also 
possesses.  The  latter  quality  is  abundantly  illustrated  in  his  annotations  to 
these  translations,  and  no  doubt  the  provision  of  accurate  texts  of  the 
scanty  literature  available  demands  hearty  gratitude.  It  is  time,  however, 
that  some  attempts  were  made  to  popularise  the  additions  which  have  been 
made  to  knowledge  in  this  department  in  the  last  quarter  of  a  century. 
Some  such  space  has  elapsed  since  the  publication  of  Charles  Haliday's 
work  on  The  Scandinavian  Kingdom  of  Dublin,  a  work  which,  though 
it  embraces  of  course  only  a  fraction  of  Professor  Bugge 's  subject,  is  still  the 
best  available  source  of  information  open  to  any  but  professional  students 
regarding  the  Scandinavian  Settlements  in  Ireland. 


IN  the  Numismatic  Chronicle,  4th  series,  vol.  v.,  Mr.  George  Macdonald, 
.  LL.D.,  describes  in  some  detail  the  hoard  of  Edward  pennies 
CbvaM!  found  at  Lochmaben>  as  noticed  in  S.H.R.,  ii.,  p.  182.  An 
important  result  of  this  find,  and  Mr.  Macdonald's  studies  upon 
it,  is  by  a  comparison  of  the  lettering  of  the  pennies  to  obtain  new  classifica- 
tion of  Edwardian  coinage  and  new  principles  of  distinction  for  future 
opportunities.  Mr.  Macdonald  also  describes  the  coins  found  at  Bar  Hill 
(noticed  S.H.R.,  vol.  i.,  p.  347),  thirteen  denarii  of  M.  Antony,  Vespasian, 
Domitian,  Trajan,  Hadrian,  and  M.  Aurelius  found  in  the  sludge  at  the 
bottom  of  the  well,  all  of  pure  tin.  These  tin  coins,  which  can  never 
have  been  made  for  circulation,  are,  it  is  concluded,  not  in  the  ordinary 
sense  forgeries,  but  belong  to  a  class  by  themselves  expressly  intended  for 
votive  offerings.  'So  far  as  the  Roman  Empire  is  concerned  these  frag- 
ments of  evidence  would  seem  to  stand  alone  ;  there  is  no  record,  for 
instance,  of  any  tin  coins  having  occurred  in  the  huge  accumulation 
of  money  discovered  in  Coventina's  Well  at  Procolitia.  But  parallels 
could  easily  be  found  in  other  times  and  other  countries.  Archaeologists 
know  that  the  objects  unearthed  from  Greek  tombs  are  often  mere  dummies, 
cunning  imitations  of  the  articles  they  are  supposed  to  represent.  And 
even  under  the  sharp  eyes  of  the  priests  false  coins  occasionally  found 
their  way  into  the  treasuries  of  Greek  temples.  But  for  a  really  close 
analogy  we  must  go  to  China,  where  coins  of  paper  are  regularly  manu- 
factured to  be  used  as  offerings  by  devout  worshippers.'  Such  facts  suggest 
interesting  reflections  on  the  unity  of  the  human  mind  as  exhibited  in  the 
offertory,  whether  in  the  well  at  Bar  Hill,  under  Marcus  Aurelius,  or 
in  the  '  Charitie  of  the  Boxe'  (S.H.R.,  ii.,  p.  37),  which  the  Kirk 


w 

05      f- 


z 
P 


Notes  and  Comments  125 

Session  of  Gask   in    1732  found  to  contain  so  large  a  percentage  of  'ill 
hapenyes.' 

A  GAELIC  monthly  is  projected  under  the  editorship   of  Mr.    Malcolm 
MacFarlane,     Elderslie,     to     be     published     by    Mr.    Eneas  . 

Mackay    of  Stirling.     Jn    Deo-Ghreine   (The  Sunbeam]    is   its      /"I 
title;   it   is  to   be  bilingual,   devoted  to    'subjects   of   interest 
to    the    Gaelic    People,'    and    generally    designed    to    forward    what    is 
called  the  Gaelic  movement. 

Another  new  prospective  periodical  is  Northern  Notes  and  Queries, 
a  quarterly  magazine  devoted  to  the  antiquities  of  Northumberland, 
Cumberland,  Westmorland,  and  Durham,  to  be  edited  by  Mr.  H.  R. 
Leighton  of  East  Boldon,  and  published  by  Mr.  Dodds  of  Newcastle. 

A  still  more  important  undertaking  announced  is  The  Modern  Language 
Review,  a  quarterly  journal  devoted  to  the  study  of  medieval  and  modern 
literature  and  philology,  which  is  to  be  brought  out  by  the  Cambridge 
University  Press,  beginning  in  October.  It  is  to  continue  on  a  wide 
basis  the  Modern  Language  Quarterly,  and  is  designed  to  encourage 
research  in  the  study  of  modern  languages.  Edited  by  Prof.  John  G. 
Robertson,  with  the  aid  of  an  advisory  board,  which  includes  such  names 
as  Henry  Bradley,  Edward  Dowden,  W.  P.  Ker,  Kuno  Meyer,  A.  S. 
Napier,  W.  W.  Skeat,  and  Paget  Toynbee,  it  promises  papers  of  a 
scholarly  and  specialist  character,  in  which  the  English  language  and 
literature  will  receive  a  large  share  of  attention.  The  collaboration  of 
all  interested  in  linguistic  and  literary  research  is  invited  in  the  pro- 
spectus. 

GRETNA  is  a  place  of  romantic  matrimonial  memories,  and  the  little 
book  Gretna  Green  and  its  Traditions,  by  '  Claverhouse,'  with 
22  illustrations  (pp.  78.  Paisley:  Gardner.  1905),  although  retna 
not  a  very  critical  or  strictly  historical  production,  gossips 
pleasantly  over  the  comparatively  recent  annals  of  the  border  parish,  its 
succession  of  self-ordained  'priests'  of  Hymen  from  the  late  eighteenth 
to  the  opening  twentieth  century,  and  the  more  notable  examples  of 
weddings  there,  averaging  at  one  time,  it  is  computed,  from  300  up  to  700 
per  annum.  '  Claverhouse '  (self-styled  '  a  young  author,'  who  is  perhaps 
a  Graham  of  the  gentler  sex)  might  perhaps  have  added  to  her 
chronicle  the  fact  that  in  the  eighteenth  century  the  parish  •  minister 
was  harassed  by  irregular  marriages,  not  of  fugitive  lovers  from  England 
and  other  parts  coming  to  Gretna,  but  of  his  Gretna  parishioners 
going  across  the  border  to  hedge-priests  in  Cumberland  and  North- 
umberland. The  waifs  and  strays  of  biography  and  anecdote  presented 
however  form — what  the  writer  hoped — a  readable  account  of  the 
marriage  traffic.  Some  of  the  illustrations  are  excellent.  Two  of  them 
we  are  permitted  by  the  courtesy  of  the  publisher  to  reproduce.  The 
first  is  the  Lochmaben  stane,  a  border  landmark  so  well  known  in  the 
records  and  traditions  of  March  Law.  The  other  shows  the  arms  of 
the  Johnstones  of  Gretna  over  the  entrance  to  Gretna  Hall. 


i26  Notes  and  Comments 

THE    excavations   undertaken   by  the  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  Scotland 

at   Newstead,  near  Melrose,  promise  very  satisfactory  results, 

***?*        and  we  are   obliged   to   Mr.  James    Curie,  Priorwood,  for   a 

tation  at  snort  preliminary  account  of  the  work  accomplished.  The 
'  site  which  is  generally  accepted  as  that  of  the  Roman 
Station  of  Trimontium  gives  no  surface  indications  of  its  ancient 
fortifications  or  buildings.  Everything  has  been  levelled  by  the  plough, 
but,  none  the  less,  it  has  been  found  possible  to  trace  its  limits, 
and  the  south  and  east  ramparts  are  at  present  being  investigated. 
The  defences  have  been  of  great  strength ;  a  large  mound  of  im- 
pacted clay  some  41  feet  in  width,  faced  with  an  8  foot  wall,  has 
formed  the  principal  defence;  in  front  of  this  ran  a  ditch  21  feet 
wide  by  13  feet  in  depth,  and  beyond  it  two  subsidiary  ditches.  In 
all  of  these,  accumulations  of  black  sludge,  full  of  decayed  vegetable 
matter,  indicate  that  they  must  have  been  open  for  no  inconsiderable 
period.  An  interesting  feature  of  the  investigation  of  these  defences 
has  been  the  discovery  under  the  great  inner  mound  of  an  older  ditch, 
and  behind  it  the  existence  of  posts  has  been  noted,  forming  in  all 
probability  a  stockade  around  a  smaller  earlier  fort.  This  earlier  fort  has 
not  yet  been  traced  out,  but  the  relation  of  the  old  ditch  to  the  rest 
of  the  defences  on  the  east  side  of  the  station  gives  every  prospect  that 
this  will  shortly  be  accomplished. 

The  examination  of  the  buildings  of  the  station  began  at  its  south- 
western angle,  where  several  long  barrack-like  structures  were  traced,  and 
a  larger  building,  of  storehouse  type,  all  running  north  and  south.  These 
have  now  been  rilled  in,  and  at  present  the  Society  is  tracing  the  outlines 
of  what  are  no  doubt  the  chief  buildings  of  the  camp.  In  the  angle 
between  the  south  rampart  and  the  Via  principals  the  foundations  of  a 
large  house  measuring  about  125  feet  square  have  been  uncovered.  Enter- 
ing from  the  street  a  passage  opened  upon  a  wide  corridor  giving  access 
to  the  rooms  on  the  one  side  and  on  the  other  to  an  inner  courtyard. 
An  interesting  feature  of  the  plan  is  the  existence  of  an  apsed  apartment 
projecting  into  the  courtyard  on  the  west  side  and  opening  upon  the 
corridor.  To  the  north  of  this  house  lies  the  buttressed  building  so 
commonly  found  in  military  stations,  probably  a  granary.  Farther  north 
is  situated  the  praetorium  of  the  camp.  The  plan  so  far  as  it  has  been 
recovered  closely  resembles  that  of  the  praetorium  at  Housesteads.  In 
the  outer  court  the  heavy  stones  which  formed  the  bases  of  the  columns 
of  the  ambulatory  are  many  of  them  in  situ.  In  the  inner  court 
their  position  may  still  be  traced  from  their  cobble  bases.  The  chambers 
at  the  back  of  the  inner  court  have  not  yet  been  excavated.  Two  features 
of  the  building  are  peculiar — first,  the  existence  in  the  outer  court  of  a 
small  chamber  about  16  feet  square  immediately  facing  the  entrance;  and 
second,  the  discovery  on  the  north  side  of  the  same  courtyard  of  a  great 
pit  which  has  just  been  cleared  out.  Into  this  pit,  which  at  the  surface 
is  some  twenty  feet  in  diameter,  there  has  been  cast  a  confused  mass  of 
building  material,  for  the  most  part  rough  hammer-dressed  stones,  with 
here  and  there  a  block  showing  the  well-known  diamond  broaching.  The 
first  relic  of  importance  was  met  with  in  cutting  a  trench  through  the 


Notes  and  Comments  127 

deposit  near  the  surface.  It  consisted  of  a  small  fragment  of  an  in- 
scription bearing  the  letters  : 

IVS   III 

LEG   X^ 

A 

which,  it  has  been  suggested,  may  form  a  portion  of  a  tombstone  to 
some  soldier  of  the  Twentieth  Legion.  At  a  depth  of  about  eight  feet  a 
number  of  large  blocks  of  roughly  dressed  stone  were  discovered,  some  of 
which  have  no  doubt  served  as  the  bases  of  the  columns  which  supported 
the  ambulatory  on  the  north  side  of  the  courtyard,  none  of  which  are 
now  in  situ.  '  On  the  same  level  human  bones  were  met  with,  near 
them  were  picked  up  a  beautifully  patinated  ring  fibula  of  bronze  orna- 
mented with  inlaid  silver  and  enamel,  and  some  small  beads.  Here  the 
pit  began  to  narrow,  and  at  twelve  feet  below  the  surface  an  altar  lying 
on  its  face  among  the  black  mud  began  to  make  its  appearance.  It  was 
an  interesting  moment  for  the  excavators  when  it  was  slowly  uncovered 
and  rolled  out  of  the  bed  in  which  it  had  lain  for  so  many  centuries, 
and  the  earth  washed  from  the  inscribed  surface.  The  letters  are  clearly 
and  boldly  cut  and  in  perfect  preservation  : 

IOM 

G-ARRIVS 

DOMITINVS 

)LEG-XX-V-V 

V-S-LvL/M 

Doubtless  we  have  here  a  dedication  by  the  same  centurion  of  the 
Twentieth  Legion,  whose  altar  to  the  god  Silvanus  was  discovered  in 
1830  in  an  adjoining  field.  Beneath  the  altar  a  much  corroded  first 
brass  coin,  of  Hadrian,  was  found.  A  still  more  important  discovery 
was  made  towards  the  bottom  of  the  pit  which  was  reached  at  twenty- 
five  feet.  Among  a  confused  mass  of  bones,  skulls  of  oxen,  horses, 
and  other  animals,  leather,  and  broken  pieces  of  great  amphorae,  human 
remains  were  found.  Near  them  portions  of  an  iron  cuirass,  ornamented 
with  mountings  of  what  appears  to  be  gilded  bronze,  and  upwards  of 
three  hundred  and  fifty  scales  of  brass,  which  had  formed  part  of  the 
armour — a  find  as  unique  as  it  is  interesting. 

The  importance  of  the  site  is  evident,  not  only  from  its  extent,  which 
is  considerably  greater  than  that  of  any  station  hitherto  investigated  in 
Scotland,  but  also  from  the  size  of  the  buildings,  and  the  character  of  the 
finds  which  have  been  recovered,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  necessary 
support  will  be  forthcoming  to  enable  the  Society  to  complete  the  work 
they  have  taken  in  hand. 

AN   islet  close  to  the  south  shore  of  Bishop's  Loch,  near  Glasgow,  has 


The 


recently  been   dug  into,  when   its  artificial  character  became 

apparent.     The  structure  consists  of  layers  of  brushwood,  many    ~.  , 

large  horizontally  laid  oak  beams  and  upright  wooden  stakes.      ls^ovei"S  °J 

TV/r  r     i_  rn  1JU  r  i  a  C.fWWW' 

Many  of  these  are  carefully  worked  by  means  of  a  metal  axe. 
There  have  been  found  large  quantities  of  bones  and  nuts, 
evidently  food  refuse,  several  perforated  objects  of  shale,  material 
containing  apparently  amorphous  vivianite,  a  worked  piece  of  a  white 


128 


Notes  and  Comments 


friable  stone,  probably  barytes,  nodules  of  a  fine,  red-coloured  clay,  a 
metal  implement  in  a  horn  handle,  a  metal  axe-head  and  hammer  stones 
and  anvil  stones.  The  most  valuable  finds  are  more  than  100  fragments 
of  hand-made,  thin-lipped,  flat-based  pottery.  Several  vessels  appear  to 
be  represented.  While  other  crannogs  in  Scotland  have  nearly  all  yielded 
wheel-turned  pottery — mediaeval,  Romano-British  and  Roman — the  site 
at  Bishop's  Loch  has  so  far  yielded  pottery  fragments  assignable,  not 
improbably,  to  a  pre-Roman  period.  It  is,  however,  too  early  yet  to 
venture  a  guess  as  to  the  chronological  horizon  of  this  newly  discovered 
crannog,  the  exploration  of  which  will  be  carried  out  in  a  scientific 
manner. 

IN  the  excavation  of  the  Stone  Circle  at  Garrol  Wood  in  the  Parish  of 

Stone  Circle  Durris  (S'H'R'  [[-  344)  Mr-  F-  R-  Coles>  of  the  National 
Museum  of  Antiquities,  discovered  a  small  funnel-shaped  pit 
in  the  centre  of  the  circle.  It  was  made  of  slabs  and  filled  with 
incinerated  bones  ;  and  around  this  were  four  other  deposits  of  charcoal 
and  bones,  each  constituting  a  separate  human  interment. 

JUSTICIARY  Records,  always  a  mine  of  historical  lore,  have  from  time  to 
.  .  time  attracted  the  attention  of  capable  antiquaries.     Pitcairn's 

Records^  collection  is,  of  course,  the  monumental  example.  The  Scottish 
History  Society  has  just  issued  a  volume  covering  the  years 
from  1 66 1  to  1669,  under  the  editorship  of  Sheriff  Scott-Moncrieff.  The 
work  will  be  reviewed  in  a  later  number  ;  but,  meantime,  legal  antiquaries 
may  be  glad  to  have  notice  directed  to  the  usefulness  of  the  historical 
introduction  dealing  with  the  methods  of  the  judicial  proceedings  then 
current ;  nor  are  the  Records  of  the  Civil  Tribunals  of  less  importance. 
The  researches  of  the  Sheriff-Clerk  of  Aberdeen,  Dr.  David  Littlejohn, 
in  his  introduction  to  the  New  Spalding  Club's  recent  volume  of  Sheriff 
Court  Records  (commented  upon  elsewhere  by  Mr.  Irvine)  constitute  a 
learned  chapter  on  the  institutional  history  of  Scots  Law. 


The 

Scottish   Historical   Review 


JANUARY  1906 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

'  Was  this  the  face  that  launched  a  thousand  ships 
And  burned  the  topless  towers  of  Ilium  ? ' 

asks  Marlowe's  Dr.  Faustus,  when  the  golden  Helen  rises 
before  his  gaze.  '  Was  this  the  face,'  we  ask,  when  we  glance 
at  the  more  or  less  authentic  portraits  of  the  Mary  Stuart  that 
women  loved  to  look  on  almost  as  well  as  men  ;  was  this,  as 
Chastelard  is  fabled  to  have  said  on  the  scaffold,  '  the  fairest 
and  most  cruel  Queen  on  earth  ? '  Setting  aside  the  eighteenth 
or  nineteenth  century's  imaginary  likenesses,  in  oils,  engravings, 
and  miniatures  ;  and  looking  only  at  the  winnowed  residue  left  by 
critical  processes,  we  find  scarcely  any  portrait  of  Mary,  we  only 
find  three  or  four,  that  justifies  her  fame  for  beauty  and  witchery. 
Remarking  the  others,  the  solemn  school  girls,  and  wasted 
devotees,  we  fear  that  antiquity,  with  one  voice,  has  flattered  the 
Queen.  A  sense  of  gradual  enlightenment,  however,  attends 
the  reader  of  what  has  been  written  by  recent  students  of  Mary's 
portraits,  from  Mr.  Albert  Way  l  and  Sir  George  Scharf,  to  Mr. 
Lionel  Cust,  Mr.  J.  J.  Foster,  and  Dr.  Williamson.  It  is  our 
hope  to  add  something  to  the  results  attained  by  these  authors. 
The  tendency  of  criticism  is  to  be  sceptical,  wisely,  when  we 
consider  the  vast  numbers  of  false  portraits  of  Mary,  backed 
by  mythical  legends  about  their  history  and  origin,  which  decorate 
the  walls  of  country  houses,  and  are  displayed  at  Loan  Exhibitions. 
At  these  pseudo  Maries  recent  writers  have  dealt  many  swashing 
blows,  hitherto  without  destroying  myth  and  false  tradition. 

1  Sir  George  Scharf,  The  Times,  Feb.  7,  May  7,  Oct.  30,  Dec.  26,  1888. 
Albert  Way,  Catalogue  of  Exhibition  of  Archaeological  Institute,  1859.  Cust, 
Authentic  Portraits  of  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  1903.  Foster,  True  Portraiture  of  Mary, 
Queen  of  Scots,  1905.  Williamson,  History  of  Portrait  Miniatures,  1904. 

S.H.R.  VOL.  III.  I 


130      Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

There  lie  before  me  photographs  of  eighteen  Maries,  displayed 
at  the  Glasgow  International  Exhibition  of  1901.  I  do  not 
cite  their  numbers  in  the  Catalogue,  or  the  names  of  the  owners, 
except  in  two  cases.  The  Duke  of  Devonshire  kindly  lent  the 
*  Sheffield '  portrait  of  Mary,  now  at  Hardwick.  It  is  dated 
1578,  and  is  signed  'P.  Oudry.'  This,  at  least,  is  a  contemporary 
effort  to  pourtray  the  captive  Queen  in  her  thirty-sixth  year. 
We  shall  try  later  to  throw  light  upon  its  history,  and  on  that  of 
the  numerous  extant  portraits  of  the  same  type.  We  have  next, 
in  the  Glasgow  Catalogue,  five  or  six  Maries  who  never  were 
Mary  Stuart ;  of  these  most  descend,  in  various  degrees  from 
a  single  false  type,  the  'Carleton  '  portrait  of  the  Duke  of  Devon- 
shire, a  good  painting  of  an  unknown  lady  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  to  be  described  later.  Another  lady  in  a  jewelled  caul 
is  also  unknown,  but  emphatically  is  not  Mary  Stuart.  Another 
portrait  is  a  pretty  fanciful  work  of  the  late  eighteenth  century, — 
in  Stoddart's  manner.  Another  is  a  round-faced  nunlike  person. 
Two  others  with  crowns  and  crucifixes  are  apparently  daubs  of 
the  early  nineteenth  century.  There  are  also  two  posthumous 
'  memorial '  pictures  of  interest,  but  not,  of  course,  painted  from 
the  life.  There  are  some  miniatures,  of  eighteenth  century  origin, 
mostly  done  on  ivory,  which  was  not  used  by  miniature  painters 
in  Mary's  lifetime,  nor  for  a  century  later.1  But  one  of  these 
bears  the  faintest  resemblance  to  Mary  in  features,  contour  of  face, 
colour,  or  expression  ;  they  are  of  three  false  types.  Another 
miniature  of  about  1820,  showing  us  a  lovely  lady  of  the  Book 
of  Beauty  type,  descends  remotely  from  the  Morton  portrait  to 
be  discussed  later.  One  really  curious  miniature,  in  a  conical 
hat,  we  shall  comment  on  presently. 

This  crowd  of  some  fifteen  hopeless  effigies  propagated  in 
Scotland  superstitious  ideas  of  what  the  famous  unhappy  Queen 
was  like,  in  the  days  of  her  life.  Now  we  know,  on  the  best 
possible  evidence  of  contemporary  description  and  of  undeniably 
authentic  contemporary  portraits,  what  Mary  Stuart  was  like. 
She  in  no  way  resembled  fifteen  out  of  the  eighteen  portraits 
exhibited  for  public  edification  at  Glasgow. 

Even  with  due  allowance  for  three  intervening  centuries  of 
revolution,  it  is  amazing  that  so  few  genuine  portraits  of  Queen 
Mary  exist.  They  might  be  expected  to  be  numerous  in  France, 
but  we  have,  in  France,  only  the  precious  drawings  of  1552-1561. 
The  Popes  must  have  wished  to  see  likenesses  of  a  daughter 
1  Propert,  History  of  Miniature  Art,  90,  109. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      131 

of  the  Church,  about  whose  steadfastness  to  the  faith,  and  moral 
character,  they  entertained  very  different  opinions  in  1561-66, 
1567-68,  and  1570-1586.  Yet  we  hear  of  no  portrait  or 
miniature  in  the  Vatican  ;  of  none  in  Spain,  where  the  Queen's 
friend  and  sister-in-law,  Elizabeth  of  France,  daughter  of  Henry 
II.,  was  Queen.1  Miniatures  of  contemporary  date,  we  shall  see, 
were  numerous,  and  were  given  to  adherents  :  where  are  they 


now? 

Woodcut  portraits  circulated  in  England,  in  1583.2  A  printed 
leaflet  was  then  issued,  in  Mary's  interest,  with  her  arms,  and 
those  of  her  son,  James  VI.,  at  the  moment  when  a  treaty 
for  an  '  Association '  of  the  pair  in  the  sovereignty  of  Scotland 
was  being  negotiated.  Two  doggerel  verses  of  four  lines  each 
celebrated  the  virtues  of  Mary,  and  the  promise  of  excellence  in 
her  son.  Becoming  aware  of  the  existence  of  this  pair  of  wood- 
cuts, I  guessed  that  they  would  be  reproductions  of  the  medallion 
portraits  given  by  Lesley,  Bishop  of  Ross  (in  his  De  Origine, 
Moribus^  et  Rebus  Gestis  Scotorum.  Rome.  1578.  1675).  Mr. 
Cust  supposes  the  medallion  of  Mary,  in  Lesley's  book,  to  *  have 
been  done  by  an  Italian  artist  from  a  miniature  portrait.'  3  This 
is  very  probable,  but  the  miniature  itself  is  unknown.  Mary 
wears  a  crown  over  her  cap  and  veil ;  her  features  are  correctly 
given  in  all  respects,  the  nose  is  long,  low,  and  straight,  and  the 
face  is  thin,  as  in  miniatures  and  portraits  of  1572-1578.  The 
English  printed  sheet  of  1583  reproduces  this  portrait,  but  the  por- 
trait of  James  VI.  is  crowned,  and  he  is  older  than  in  the  medallion 
of  1578.  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  the  Catholics  of  England 
owned  many  miniatures  of  Mary,  during  her  English  captivity 
(1568-1587)  and  I  shall  try  to  show  that  all  traces  of  these  are 
not  lost,  and  that  they  were  good  though  neglected  likenesses. 
To  possess  them,  we  shall  see,  was  dangerous,  in  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth. 

After  James  VI.  came  to  the  English  throne  (1604),  there 
would  be  no  reason  for  concealing  such  portraits.  Eagerly 
sought  for,  after  the  Restoration  of  1660,  and  all  through  the 
Jacobite  times,  they  were,  strangely,  not  to  be  found.  Charles  I. 
had  few  of  his  grandmother's  portraits,  including  the  Brocas 
picture,  now  in  the  National  Portrait  Gallery,  and  the  Windsor 

1  Mr.  Way  mentions  a  portrait  in  the  Royal  collection  of  Spain.    I  have  inquired 
about  it  to  no  result. 

2  MSS.  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  vol.  xii.,  No.  39,  Record  Office. 

3  Cust,  p.  69.     Way,  p.  xii.     It  is  unknown  to  other  inquirers. 


132     Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

miniature.  He  had  also  versions  of  the  Deuil  Blanc  of  1561,  in 
oils,  and  ca  round  piece  of  the  Queen  of  Scotland,'  not  the  Leven 
and  Melville,  to  be  later  discussed,  probably;  though  that  may 
have  been  called  '  round '  by  the  man  who  appraised  the  lots  in 
I649.1  When  a  king,  a  collector,  a  grandson  could  get  so  little 
in  the  way  of  portraits  of  Mary,  in  the  half-century  following  her 
death,  they  must  have  been  rare  indeed,  or  secretly  treasured  by 
Catholic  families. 

It  is  unlikely  that  Mary  was  ever  painted  in  Scotland,  after 
1561,  by  any  capable  artist,  unless  Jehan  de  Court  (of  whom 
hereafter),  was  with  her  for  a  year:  and  after  1568,  in  England, 
foreign  painters  would  find  access  to  her  very  difficult ;  her 
youth,  too,  was  past,  and  '  her  beauty  other  than  it  was,'  as 
Randolph  wrote  of  Mary,  during  her  troubles  in  connection  with 
her  marriage  to  Darnley,  in  1565.  None  the  less,  however  it  was 
managed,  I  incline  to  believe  that  miniatures  of  the  Queen,  and 
good  likenesses,  were  executed  even  in  1571,  1572,  and  between 
1582  and  1586.  On  this  point,  as  the  miniatures  in  question 
have  scarcely  received  any  notice  from  critics,  I  shall  try  to 
defend  the  faith  that  is  in  me. 

There  exist,  even  now,  I  think,  portraits  and  miniatures  enough 
to  provide  a  pictorial  history  of  Mary,  from  1552,  when  she  was 
in  her  tenth  year,  to  1584-86,  the  years  before  her  death.  As  for 
her  stay  in  Scotland,  I  may  offer  what,  with  good  will,  may  be 
taken  for  an  uncouth  portrait  of  her  at  that  period.  I  have  seen, 
also,  one  barbaric  effort  of  a  Scots  primitif, — Mary  with  her  baby 
in  her  arms  :  it  was  found  in  a  secret  or  walled-up  chamber  of 
Errol  Castle,  and  must  have  been  of  1566-67,  the  child  being 
a  mere  bambino.  The  piece  was  a  sample  of  popular  imagery, 
and  is  or  lately  was  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Vaughan  Allen. 

Horace  Walpole  has  remarked  '  The  false  portraits  of  Mary 
Queen  of  Scots  are  infinite — but  there  are  many  genuine,  as  may 
be  expected  of  a  woman  who  was  Queen  of  France,  Dowager  of 
France,  and  Queen  of  Scotland  ! ' 2 

Walpole  might  have  added  c  who  was  Queen  of  England,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  great  Catholic  party,  that  regarded  Elizabeth 
as  disqualified  by  birth  and  religion.'  To  men  of  this  party, 
Mary,  a  Catholic  and  a  prisoner,  was  *  The  Queen,'  and  their 
faith,  like  that  of  friends  of  the  kings  over  the  water  (1688-1788), 
was  apt  to  feed  itself  on  portraits  and  miniatures,  some  of  them 
bearing  treasonable  and  dangerous  devices. 

1  Gust,  1 08- 1 09.  2  Walpoliana,  p.  8  7,  1 8 1 9. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      133 

I  cannot  say  with  Walpole  that  there  are  'many  genuine 
portraits,'  portraits  painted  from  the  life.  But  I  conceive  that 
not  a  few  miniatures  and  portraits  are  pretty  closely  affiliated  to 
designs  from  the  life,  perhaps  to  drawings  in  crayons,  now  no 
longer  to  be  traced.  I  also  hold  that  some  portraits  do  more 
than  is  commonly  supposed  to  vindicate  Mary's  character  for 
beauty,  and,  above  all,  for  charm.  I  shall  be  taxed  with  credulity, 
but  that  is  a  charge  which  does  not  afflict  me.  In  judging  works 
of  art,  we  ought,  I  think,  to  bring  a  gleam  of  the  artistic  imagina- 
tion to  the  task  ;  £  give  a  little  red '  to  the  cheek  from  which  the 
carmines  have  faded  ;  and  restore  something  of  the  charm  which 
the  painters  of  the  sixteenth  century,  in  France,  were  incapable 
of  rendering,  as  a  rule.  I  see  no  reason  why,  when  we  have 
portraits  of  the  same  woman's  face  in  youth  and  in  middle  age, 
we  should  always  declare  that  the  young  face  is  derived,  by  a  later 
artist,  from  the  withered  or  bloated  features  of  the  old  face  :  is  a 
fanciful  reconstruction,  the  painter  dipping  the  old  effigy  in  the 
Fountain  of  Youth.  The  two  portraits  may  be  quite  independent 
of  each  other  :  we  must  examine  the  evidence  and  the  balance  of 
probabilities  in  each  case. 

The  public  demand  of  the  day  would  be  for  portraits  of  the 
Queen,  (so  interesting  to  all  Europe,)  as  she  was  at  the  moment. 
Copies  of  the  latest  sketch  or  miniature  of  her  would  be  in 
request.  Artists  would  not  often,  if  ever,  be  asked  by  adherents 
of  Mary  to  compose,  from  designs  of  1572-1586,  effigies  of  the 
Queen  as  she  was  in  her  girlhood.  This  kind  of  demand  would 
not  arise  till  later  ages  of  mere  sentimental  regard  for  Mary,  and 
portraits  done  in  these  ages,  the  eighteenth  and  early  nineteenth 
centuries,  would  readily  betray  their  date  by  their  style  and  their 
ignorance,  as  they  do. 

II. 

One  thing  is  historically  certain  :  Mary  was  either  beautiful, 
or  she  bewitched  people  into  thinking  her  beautiful.  This  is 
proved,  not  by  the  eulogies  of  Ronsard  and  Brantome,  a  courtly 
poet,  and  a  courtly  chronicler,  but  by  the  unanimous  verdict 
of  friend  and  enemy.  Even  Knox  calls  her  face  'pleasing,' — 
which  the  authentic  portraits  of  her  face  hardly  ever  are  : 
even  Elizabeth  recognised  something  '  divine '  in  her  hated 
rival ;  Sir  James  Melville  styles  her  *  very  loesome ' ;  the  populace 
of  Edinburgh  cried  :  c  Heaven  bless  that  sweet  face,'  says  Knox, 


134     Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

as  she  rode  by,  while  English  and  French  ambassadors  are  in 
the  same  tale.  *  There  is  some  enchantment  by  which  men  are 
bewitched,'  and  'bewitched'  more  than  a  married  man  ought 
to  be,  was  Ruthven  by  Mary,  when  she  lay  captive  in  Loch 
Leven  Castle.  Now  of  her  witchery,  which  is  incontestable, 
few  of  her  accepted  portraits  suggest  the  ghost  of  a  sus- 
picion. Four  portraits  do  so,  and  two  of  these,  the  Leven 
and  Melville  and  the  Morton,  with  the  Welbeck  miniature, 
lie  in  the  icy  shade  of  critical  scepticism,  the  fourth  is  un- 
criticised.  To  these  pictures  we  shall  return. 

What  stood  between  the  artists  and  her  beauty  ?  Their  own 
limitations  supply  the  answer  :  and  these  limitations  hedged  them 
in  when  they  attempted  the  portraits  of  other  beautiful  women,  as 
of  Marguerite  de  Valois,  the  wife  of  Henri  of  Navarre.  Their 
practice,  the  practice  of  Fra^ois  Clouet,  called  Janet,  and  the 
rest,  was  to  make  an  accurate  map  of  the  features  of  the  sitter,  in 
a  crayon  sketch  ;  often  of  high  technical  excellence,  and  then 
(apparently,  as  a  rule,  without  more  sittings),  to  paint  portraits  in 

oil,  or  miniatures,  from  the maps.  These  paintings  were 

as  a  rule,  conscientiously  hard  ;  conscientiously  minute  were  the 
details  of  dress,  lace  and  jewels,  but  vivacity  and  charm  of 
expression  were  usually  lost.  There  are  exceptions,  as  in  Janet's 
Elizabeth  of  Austria,  wife  of  Charles  IX.  of  France.  But  M. 
Dimier  writes  that  Janet  '  has  very  little  fascination,  and  a  beauty 
that  only  reveals  itself  upon  analysis.' x  These  painters  were, — 
Clouet  or  Janet  at  least,  was, — of  Flemish  origin,  and  had  '  the 
German  paste  in  their  composition.' 

Monsieur  Henri  Bouchot  writes  :  <  In  fact,  the  crayon  sketch 
was  the  interesting  part  of  the  work  of  Francois  Clouet '  (Janet 
II.  died  1572).  'He  made  his  first  sketches  of  his  subjects 
in  coloured  crayons,  because  by  this  method  a  short  sitting 
alone  was  necessary.  .  .  .  The  painter  did  not  receive  sitters 
in  his  studio,  he  went  to  their  houses,  and  sketched  on  some 
table  corner  the  subject,  who  was  in  haste  to  know  that  he 
was  finished  off.' 2  '  A  crayon  sketch  will  be  enough,'  wrote 
Catherine  de  Medicis,  <  to  be  quicker  done  with  it.'3  These 
sketches,  though  so  rapid,  were  elaborate  (this  point  I  must 
insist  upon  as  important)  in  regard  to  the  details  of  the 
jewels  worn,  as  in  the  drawing  of  Charlotte  de  Beaune, 

1  French  Painting  of  the  Sixteenth  Century,  p.  206. 

2  Henri  Bouchot,  Les  Clouet,  p.  24. 

3  Bouchot,  Quelques  Dames  du  xvi.  Siecle,  p.  4.. 


PLATE 


BRIDAL   MEDAL,    1558.       MARY    AND   THE   DAUPHIN. 

See  page  137. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      135 

Madame  de  Sauve.  We  see  that  she  wears  across  her  breast 
a  belt  of  large  jewels  of  gold,  containing,  alternately,  two 
great  round  pearls,  one  above  the  other,  and  a  large  oblong 
dark  table  stone,  ruby,  diamond,  emerald,  or  sapphire.  Round 
her  cap  is  a  precisely  similar  belt  of  jewels.  We  shall  find 
Queen  Mary,  in  the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait,  wearing  a 
similar  set  of  jewels,  which  we  know  that  she  possessed  in 
1556.  The  settings,  in  enamel,  are,  however,  different,  the 
stones  are  rubies,  with  a  diamond  in  the  centre.  Elizabeth  of 
France  (1545-1568),  the  young  bride  of  Philip  II.  of  Spain, 
wears  a  similar  set  of  jewels  (with  a  different  setting)  in  the 
beautiful  portrait,  on  panel,  at  Greystoke  Castle,  Cumberland, 
and  again,  in  a  miniature  in  which  she  appears  several  years 
older  than  fourteen,  as  she  was  in  1559.  In  another  crayon 
drawing  of  Elizabeth,  she  wears  a  table  stone  in  the  centre  of 
her  necklet,  the  rest  is  composed  of  alternate  double  pearls, 
as  before,  and  of  roses  in  enamel.1  Again,  in  a  miniature  in 
the  Book  of  House  of  Catherine  de  Medicis,  Elizabeth  wears 
a  necklet  of  table  stones,  alternating  with  jewels  of  four  great 
pearls,  two  above  two.2 

The  jewels  of  subjects  are  thus  minutely  studied  in  the 
crayon  sketches  of  1550-1580. 

Another  example  is  the  sketch  of  the  Duchesse  de  Retz, 
probably  by  Francois  Clouet ;  her  double  chain  of  gold  links, 
table  stones  and  jewels  of  two  pearls  set  side  by  side,  not  one 
above  the  other,  is  very  elaborately  drawn.3  This  is,  indeed,  the 
.  universal  rule  for  the  crayon  drawings,  which  were  merely 
elaborated  with  some  loss  of  grace  and  life,  as  a  rule,  in  the 
paintings  in  oil,  copied  from  them.  When  the  Inventories  of 
Queen  Elizabeth,  now  being  edited  for  the  Roxburghe  Club,  are 
compared  with  her  portraits,  I  doubt  not  that  the  jewels  described 
will  be  found  accurately  represented. 

These  remarks  are  here  introduced  because  our  identification  of 
one  portrait  of  Mary  rests  much  on  the  identification  of  the 
jewels  recorded  in  her  Inventories  ;  and  criticism,  as  a  rule,  has 
neglected  this  method  of  comparison. 

We  have  described  the  methods  of  artists  who  designed  Mary 
in  France,  mainly  between  1558,  when,  before  she  was  sixteen,  she 
married  the  Dauphin,  and  1561,  when,  as  his  widow,  she  returned 

1  Bouchot,  Quelques  Dames,  p.  20.  2  Bouchot,  Catherine  de  Medicis. 

3  Bouchot,  Les  Clouet,  p.  28. 


136     Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

to  Scotland.  In  Scotland,  at  least  in  1566-67,  she  had  in  her  list 
of  valets  de  chambre,  a  French  painter  in  her  pay,  Jehan  de  Court,1 
who  later  was  a  court  painter  to  Charles  IX.  of  France,  and  his 
brother  and  successor,  Henri  III.  (1572-158-?).  The  history  of 
Jehan  Court,  de  Court,  or  Decourt  is  obscure.  *  It  is  not 
absolutely  certain,'  writes  M.  Dimier,  'that  this  painter  is  the 
same  as  one  who  signed  that  name  to  an  enamel  representing 
Madame  Marguerite,  Duchess  of  Savoy,  as  Minerva,  in  the 
Wallace  Collection.  The  enamel  dates  from  1555.  The 
name  of  Jean  Decourt  is  familiar  to  all  amateurs  of  enamel. 
The  pieces  of  this  date,  marked  I.  D.  C.  or  I.  C.,  are  all  ascribed 
to  him.'  At  the  Glasgow  Exhibition  of  1901,  Lord  Malcolm  of 
Poltalloch  exhibited  an  object  which  had  been  in  the  Pourtales 
collection,  an  enamel  tazza,  by  Jehan  Court,  dit  Vigier,  £  bearing 
the  arms  of  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  surmounted  by  the  crown  of 
the  Dauphin.'2  Mary  was  Dauphine  from  April,  1558,  to  July, 
1559.  She  seems  to  have  patronised  Jehan  de  Court  in  France  ; 
and  in  her  household  list  (Etat)  of  1566-67,  she  pays  to  c  Jehan 
de  Court,  paintre,'  two  hundred  and  forty  pounds  (livres  tournois). 
Her  favourite  and  loyal  secretary,  Raulet,  receives  only  200 
livreSy  as  does  her  secretary  Joseph  Riccio,  brother  of  the 
murdered  David  Riccio.  In  France  at  this  date  the  famous 
Court  portrait  painter,  Frangois  Clouet,  or  Janet,  had  a  salary  of 
240  livres? 

When  Mary  went  to  France,  at  about  the  age  of  six,  she  was 
met  by  her  maternal  grandmother,  the  Duchesse  de  Guise,  who 
describes  her  thus  :  '  She  is  brune,  with  a  clear  complexion,  and  I 
think  that  she  will  be  a  beautiful  girl,  for  her  complexion  is  fine 
and  clear,  the  skin  white,  the  lower  part  of  the  face  very  pretty, 
the  eyes  are  small  and  rather  deep  set,  the  face  rather  long,  she 
is  graceful  and  not  shy,  on  the  whole  we  may  well  be  contented 
with  her.'*  The  description  remained  true  in  the  Queen's 
womanhood,  to  the  confusion  of  all  her  round-faced,  large-eyed 
'portraits,'  things  fabricated  in  the  eighteenth  century. 

Setting  aside  the  coins  of  Mary's  childhood,  the  earliest  portrait 
of  her  is  a  sketch  in  red  and  black  chalk,  at  Chantilly.  The 
inscription,  in  contemporary  spelling  and  handwriting,  runs, 

1  See  Teulet,  Relations  Politiques,  vol.  ii.,  p.  273,  1862. 

2  Catalogue,  Scottish  History  and  Archaeology,  p.  48,  No.  352. 

8  Teulet,  Relations  Politiques,  ii.,  p.  273,  Paris,  1862.     Dimier,  French  Painting 
in  the  Sixteenth  Century,  pp.  238,  240. 
4Cust,  p.  20. 


PLATE  II. 


MARY    AS   DAUPHINE,    1559. 
Crayon  Sketch  by  Clouet  or  Jehan  de  Court. 


See  page  137. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart     137 

being  translated,  '  Mary,  Queen  of  Scotland,  at  the  age  of  nine 
years  and  six  months,  in  the  month  of  July  1552.'  Nobody  of 
importance  appears  to  deny  the  authenticity  of  this  portrait.1  M. 
Bouchot  quotes,  in  this  reference,  a  letter  of  Catherine  de  Medicis 
of  June  i,  1552,  asking  for  portraits  of  her  children,  and  of 
Mary.2  The  face  is  seen  in  three  quarters  ;  on  the  head  is  a 
laced  and  jewelled  cap  ;  a  ruff  surrounds  the  throat  ;  the  bodice 
is  long  and  tightly  laced,  the  sleeves  are  puffed  at  the  shoulders  : 
the  jewels,  mainly  pearls,  are  not  so  designed  as  to  be  identifiable 
with  descriptions  in  the  Queen's  Inventories.  The  forehead  is 
high  ;  of  the  hair,  flat  and  divided  down  the  middle,  not  much 
is  visible.  There  is  a  wide  space  between  the  very  slender  eye- 
brows. The  nose  is  straight  and  low,  it  shows  no  tendency 
to  rise  in  the  centre,  though  it  cannot  be  called  retromsL  The 
chin  is  dainty,  and,  for  so  young  a  girl,  the  face  is  unusually  long. 
The  eyes  look  larger,  or  at  least  more  fully  open  than  in  later 
portraits  :  the  expression  is  honest  and  candid. 

From  a  profile  on  a  medal,  struck  for  her  first  wedding  in 
April,  1558,  when  she  was  not  sixteen,  we  know  that  the  Queen's 
brow  was  lofty,  as  then  was  fashionable.  Her  nose  was  long,  and 
nearly  straight,  slightly  drooping  from  the  tip.  Her  upper  lip 
was  short,  her  mouth  was  small,  her  chin  prettily  rounded,  the 
face  ending  in  a  pleasant  oval.  The  tiny  profile  of  Mary,  watch- 
ing by  the  death-bed  of  Henri  II.  (1559),  in  a  woodcut,  entirely 
corroborates  the  medal.3  The  expression  is  very  serious,  as 
usual  :  she  had  enough  to  make  her  serious,  even  in  1558. 

The  coloured  crayon  drawing,  of  1558-1559,  in  the  Biblio- 
theque  Nationale  (printed  in  colours  by  Mr.  Foster),  elaborately 
confirms  all  these  facts.  The  piece  is  attributed  to  Janet,  but 
M.  Dimier  now  classes  it  with  the  work  of  f  the  presumed  de 
Court,'  the  painter  of  a  portrait  of  Henri  III.,  in  1573.*  The 
Queen's  hair,  in  girlhood,  is  of  a  reddish  brown,  crimped.  Her 
eyebrows,  thin,  but  arched  and  delicately  pencilled,  do  not  closely 
approach  each  other.  Her  eyes,  long  and  narrow,  are  of  a 
reddish  brown  ;  her  nose,  long  and  low  ;  her  mouth  and  chin  are 
as  in  the  medal.  I  lay  stress  on  the  long,  low,  straight  nose, 
which  occurs  in  every  truly  authentic  portrait,  to  the  last  days  of 
Mary's  life.  The  face  has  not  the  sly  or  foxy  expression  :  Mary 

1  Ascribed  to  Mahier  by  M.  E.  Moreau-Nelaton.     Les  Mahier,  Paris,  1901. 

2  Laferriere,  Collection  des  Documents  Inedits,  1552. 

8Cust,  Plate  vii.  4  Letter  of  M.  Dimier,  March  26,  1905. 


138      Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

was  not  yet  a  tracked  and  hunted  creature,  but  a  candid  girl. 
It  is  a  pretty  face,  but  the  bald  expanse  of  brow  adds  to 
the  lifeless  effect.  Nobody  could  guess  that  this  girl,  so  prim 
and  staid,  was  a  creature  of  infinitely  changeful  moods, 
flashing  readily  from  laughter  to  tears.  Yet  that  is  what 
she  undeniably  was  or  became.  There  is  just  a  hint  that  she 
might  be  merry,  in  a  rather  coarsely  executed  miniature  of  a 
rather  plump  Mary  with  her  boy-husband,  the  Dauphin,  which 
once  decorated  a  Book  of  Hours  used  by  the  devout  Catherine  de 
Medicis.1  Finally,  we  know  that  Mary's  complexion  was  of  a 
dazzling  pallor :  Brantome  attests  this,  and  it  was  especially 
notable  when  she  wore  white  mourning,  */<?  deuil  blanc'  in  her 
first  widowhood,  in  the  winter  of  1560-61.  In  the  South 
Kensington  Museum  is  an  excellent  small  head  of  Mary  on 
panel,  of  about  1559,  in  1804  the  property  of  the  great  anti- 
quary, Francis  Douce.  I  believe  it  to  be  a  contemporary  work. 

The  most  elaborate  miniature  of  Mary,  at  this  period,  is  that 
in  the  Royal  Library  at  Windsor,  published  in  colours  by  Sir  John 
Skelton,  in  his  Mary  Stuart.  In  the  miniature,  the  Queen  wears, 
as  in  the  chalk  drawing,  the  natte^  or  braid  of  hair,  crowning  the 
head,  and  bordered  by  coils  of  pearls.  The  ruff  is  not  the  small 
ruff  of  the  drawing  by  Jehan  de  Court,  (?)  but  an  open  white-lined 
collar,  turning  outwards,  akin  to  the  same  article  in  the  *  false 
portrait '  later  to  be  described  as  the  '  Carleton.'  The  dress  in 
the  miniature  is  much  of  the  same  rich  fashion,  with  sleeves 
puffed  up  at  the  shoulders,  as  in  the  Carleton,  but  less  elaborately 
decorated.  While  the  features  are  those  of  the  drawing  by  Jehan 
de  Court,  (?)  the  grave  girlish  expression  is  lost :  the  eyes  are  much 
more  narrow,  the  air  of  youth  and  candour  is  gone  :  this  Mary 
may  be  an  astute  diplomatist,  but  is  not  an  attractive  bride  as  she 
fingers  her  wedding  ring.  One  cannot  certainly  assign  the  minia- 
ture to  the  artist  of  the  drawing.  As  Mr.  Cust  observes,  the 
miniature  attributed  to  Janet  in  the  catalogue  of  Charles  I.  may 
be  the  picture  brought  from  France  to  Elizabeth,  in  1560-61, 
and  also  that  seen  by  Sir  James  Melville  (1564)  in  the  possession 
of  the  English  Queen.  '  Lovesome '  it  is  not,  and,  indeed,  was 
calculated  to  remove  any  jealousy  of  Mary's  attractions  which 
Elizabeth  might  have  conceived.  Mr.  Graves,  in  his  account  of 
Nicholas  Hilliard,  the  famous  miniaturist  (Dictionary  of  National 
Biography],  says  that  he  executed  a  miniature  of  Mary  in  1560. 
No  authority  is  given  for  the  statement,  and  all  miniatures  on  a 
1  Given  in  M.  Bouchot's  Catherine  de  Medicis. 


PLATE  III. 


MARY    IN    1559-1560. 

Contemporary  Panel  in  Jones  Collection. 
A  nother  example  not  retouched  is  in  the  possession  o/  Cafta 


t'robert. 

See  page  138. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      139 

blue  ground,  like  this  one,  are  not  by  Hilliard.  Without  going 
to  France,  however,  he  might  copy  a  drawing  sent  from  France. 
Whoever  was  the  artist,  the  work  is  contemporary,  though 
probably  not  done  from  the  life,  and  utterly  deficient  in  charm. 
For  charm,  and  a  beautiful  carriage  of  the  head  and  poise  of 
body,  we  must  go  to  a  charming  wax  medallion  of  Mary,  in  the 
Breslau  Museum.  Our  authors  have  overlooked  this  treasure, 
which  is  published  by  M.  Bapst,  in  his  valuable  Joyaux  de  la 
Couronne  de  France  (p.  92). 

Another  portrait  of  Mary  before  1561,  a  miniature  of  her 
at  about  the  age  of  seventeen  or  eighteen  (1559-1560),  is  full 
of  interest.  One  example  is  in  the  UfEzi  at  Florence  ;  it  is 
surrounded  by  likenesses  of  Henri  II.,  Catherine  de  Medicis 
and  their  family.  Mary  wears  '  a  rich  black  dress,  slashed  with 
white,  and  a  black  hat  or  bonnet  a  ritalienne,  with  diamond 
(pearl  ?)  ornaments  and  white  feather.' x 

The  features  and  colouring,  the  dark  narrow  eyes,  the  long, 
rather  low  nose,  long  face,  high  brow,  and  pretty  oval  lower 
part  of  the  face,  are  all  here.  But  the  eyes  do  not  appear  to 
be  well  drawn,  and  the  expression,  rather  espiegle^  is  unpleasing. 
Dr.  Williamson,  however,  has  noted  a  variant  of  this  miniature 
in  the  Rijks  Museum  at  Amsterdam,  which  is  a  delightful 
likeness.2  The  Queen  wears  white,  which  always  became  her  : 
her  hat  is  white,  with  a  white  plume,  and  three  rows  of  pearls  ; 
her  dress,  also  white,  is  set  with  large  pearls,  and  this  is  the 
earliest  portrait  of  her  which  justifies  Sir  James  Melville's  phrase 
'our  Queen  is  very  loesome.'  The  expression,  though  rather 
grave,  is  singularly  winning ;  with  this  and  the  Leven  and 
Melville  portrait,  a  man  can  understand  the  charm  of  the  most 
charming  of  royal  ladies.  This  miniature  gives  just  what  the 
coloured  sketch  attributed  by  M.  Dimier  to  £  the  presumed 
Jehan  de  Court '  misses.  The  face  in  that  drawing  might  be, 
nay,  it  is  pretty,  it  has  all  the  elements  of  beauty  ;  the  Rijks 
Museum  miniature  has  '  the  little  more,  and  how  much  it  is.' 

To  this  miniature  I  would  venture  to  add  the  lady  in  a 
symphony  in  cream  and  milk, — delicate  garments,  ivory  white, 
lawn  white,  and  ermine, — which  is  in  the  collection  of  the  Duke 
of  Portland.  Even  the  strange  coal-scuttle  shaped  white  hood 
becomes  this  beauty,  who  holds  in  her  hand  a  Book  of  Hours, 
and  whose  portrait  is  inscribed  Virtutis  Amore^  while  she  looks 

1  Cust,  39,  40. 

2  Williamson,  History  of  Portrait  Miniatures,  Plate  xlvii.,  No.  9. 


140      Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

thoroughly  mundane,  and  very  fond  of  dress.  Dr.  Williamson 
thinks  it  is  probably  some  French  princess  unknown,  but  it 
resembles  none  of  them  so  much  as  *  the  flower  of  fair  Scotland ' 
— the  eyes,  in  the  photograph  given  by  Dr.  Williamson  are  dark 
enough  to  be  hers.  The  eyes  are  grey,  while  Mary's  eyes 
were  of  a  reddish  brown.  '  The  eyes  in  certain  aspects  assumed 
probably  the  appearance  of  being  grey  rather  than  brown,'  says 
Mr.  Way.1  On  the  back  of  the  frame  is  c  Mary,  Q.  of  Scots,' 
in  the  handwriting  of  Edward  Harley,  Earl  of  Oxford,  a 
distinguished  collector.  In  what  seems  to  be  the  hand  of 
Bernard  Lens  (the  artist  of  the  eighteenth  century)  is  '  Nichs- 
Hilliard  fecit?  Lens's  security  is  no  better  than  Bardolph's  ; 
but  Oxford's  is  a  better  opinion. 

Dr.  Williamson,  who  alone  remarks  on  this  miniature,  has 
not  observed  that  the  inscription  Virtutis  Amore  is  certainly 
an  anagram.  Anagrams  were  much  in  fashion,  one  anagram 
of  Mary's  name  was  Sa  Vertu  m  attire.  The  letter  U  was 
equivalent  to  V,  and,  in  Sa  Vertu  m  attire^  there  is  one  V  or 
U  too  many,  and  there  are  three  letters  more  than  in  Marie 
Stuart.  But  they  are  all  letters  which  occur  in  c  Marie  Stuart,' 
and  that  was  reckoned  fair  play  in  the  game  of  anagram 
making.  In  Virtutis  Amore  there  is  a  superfluous  u.  There 
are  two  letters  too  many,  in  Virtutis  Amore^  for  *  Marie  Stuart,' 
and  one  letter  is  an  o.  But  it  was  usual  in  France  to  spell  our  Scots 
names  phonetically,  and  the  o  makes  the  surname  Stouart^  as 
it  was  pronounced,  the  ou  sounding  as  in  French  couard^  like  our 
oo.  This  is  no  mere  conjecture.  At  the  sale  of  Mr.  Scott  of 
Halkhill,  in  March  1905,  £101  was  paid  for  Haden's  '  Discours 
de  la  Mort  de  Marie  Stouard.'  The  French  anagram  is  better 
evidence  than  a  plain  inscription,  for  sceptics  would  say  that  the 
inscription  was  added  late,  by  Harley. 

Mary  had  another  anagram,  Veritas  Armata.  On  the 
broideries  of  a  bed,  worked  for  her  or  by  her,  in  captivity, 
Veritas  Armata  was  inscribed  above  a  picture  of  herself,  kneeling 
before  a  crucifix.  Sa  Vertu  m  attire  referred  to  the  attraction  of 
the  Pole  for  the  magnet.  Drummond  of  Hawthornden  described 
this  bed  with  the  emblems  and  anagrams  to  Ben  Jonson  in 
a  letter  of  July  I,  1617.  The  bed  was  then  at  Pinkie  House, 
near  Musselburgh,  the  property  of  the  House  of  Douglas. 
It  cannot  be  by  mere  accident  that  the  inscription  of  the 
Welbeck  portrait  yields  an  anagram  of  Mary's  name,  and 
1Way,  xxiv. 


PLATE  IV. 


MARY    WITH    MOTTO,    "VIRTUTIS   AMORE  :  "    "MARIE   STOUART.'1 
Enlarged  from  the  Duke  of  Portland's  Miniature. 


See  page  140. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart     141 

I  think  this  quite  good  evidence  that  the  Duke  of  Portland's 
miniature  actually  does  represent  the  Queen  of  Scots,  when 
Queen  or  Dauphine  of  France  (1558-1560).  At  Ham  House 
is  a  very  curious  late  sixteenth  century  miniature  of  a  dark  young 
Frenchman.  The  background  is  painted  in  flames^  and  the  motto 
is  Alget  qui  non  ardet,  '  he  freezes  who  does  not  burn.'  This 
yields  the  anagram,  *  Algernon  de  Tiquet,'  and  there  was  a 
French  family  named  Tiquet.  Of  Algernon  I  know  nothing. 

The  celebrated  drawing,  ascribed  to  Janet,  of  Mary  when 
widowed,  in  white  weed  (1561),  shows  her  face  as  fuller  than 
it  had  been  :  indeed  she  looks  much  older  than  her  age,  which 
was  about  eighteen  :  the  expression  is  both  sly  and  heavy. 
Comparing  it  with  a  portrait  said  to  have  been  done  for 
Charles  I.,  by  Daniel  Mytens,  before  1639,  we  might  conjecture 
that  the  later  artist  has  taken  the  dress  and  attitude  from  the 
Sheffield  portrait,  to  be  criticised  presently  (dated  1578,  and 
signed  *  P.  Oudry,'),  but  has  *  compiled '  the  face  by  slightly 
ageing  that  of  Mary  as  seen  in  le  deuil  blanc  of  1561.  In  the 
work  attributed  to  Mytens,  indeed,  the  face  is  hardly  older 
than  it  looks  in  the  deuil  blanc,  and  wears  a  more  amiable 
expression  :  yet  there  must  be  seventeen  years  between  the  Mary 
of  le  deuil  blanc  and  the  Mary  of  1578.  In  all  probability  this 
*  compilation '  attributed  to  Mytens,  fifty  years  or  so  after  the 
Queen's  death,  is  really  a  better  likeness  than  the  Sheffield 
portrait  of  1578,  to  which  we  return. 

Having  now  a  clear  conception  of  Mary's  features  and 
complexion,  and,  thanks  to  the  Rijks  Museum  miniature, 
some  idea  of  her  vivacity  and  charm,  we  omit  for  the  present, 
as  subject  to  dispute,  all  portraits  alleged  to  represent  her 
between  the  date  of  her  return  to  Scotland  (1561)  and  the  date 
1572,  and  we  postpone  discussion  of  the  Leven  and  Melville 
portrait ;  in  my  opinion  probably  of  1558-1560. 

III. 

The  year  1572  saw  Mary  in  the  deeps  of  misfortune.  In 
August,  1571,  the  Ridolfi  conspiracy  for  her  release,  and  marriage 
to  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  with  whatever  consequences  might 
follow  for  Elizabeth  and  the  Protestant  religion,  was  discovered. 
Norfolk  was  arrested,  and  after  long  delays  was  executed  in 
1572.  Every  argument  was  used  to  induce  Elizabeth  to  put 
her  captive,  Mary,  to  death.  Puritan  and  prelate  alike  clamoured 


142     Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

for  the  laying  of  the  axe  to  the  root,  while  the  Bartholomew 
massacre  of  August,  1572,  increased  the  terrors  and  the  fury 
of  the  Protestants.  An  intrigue  for  handing  Mary  over  to 
the  Regent  Mar,  for  execution  in  Scotland,  was  begun,  but  was 
foiled  by  the  death  of  Mar,  and  the  caution  of  his  successor, 
the  Regent  Morton.  These  sufferings  had,  not  improbably, 
their  effect  in  portraits  of  Mary,  perhaps  to  be  called  '  popular 
imagery,'  for  distribution  among  Catholics,  but  still  portraits 
of  a  sort.  A  miniature,  copied,  I  think,  from  one  of  this  period 
was  among  the  effigies  exhibited  at  Glasgow  in  1901.  It  is 
the  property  of  Mrs.  Anstruther-Duncan.  Being  c  on  ivory,'  it 
cannot  be  contemporary  with  the  Queen,  and  is  at  least  a 
century  later.  This  miniature,  whatever  its  source,  is  an 
undeniably  good  likeness  of  the  Queen,  with  dark  eyes,  the 
long  low  straight  nose,  the  eyebrows  wide  apart,  and  the  delicate 
oval  of  the  lower  part  of  the  face.  All  the  features  are  thus 
correctly  given,  the  expression  is  very  far  from  the  saintly,  and 
the  face  is  younger  than  in  any  of  the  pictures  of  the  Sheffield 
type  (1578).  The  Queen  wears  a  conical  cap,  coming  to  a 
sharp  point  from  a  broad  base,  it  is  edged  and  striped  with 
black.  There  is  a  white  lining,  marking  off  the  hair,  which 
is  puffed  out  at  the  sides.  She  wears  a  small  white  open  collar, 
lawn  across  the  upper  part  of  the  breast,  and  a  black  dress, 
gathered  in  closely  at  the  slender  waist.  One  hand  holds  a 
crucifix  ;  the  other  a  small  book,  perhaps  a  book  of  devotion. 
Little  linen  cuffs  are  at  the  wrists,  as  in  the  Morton  portrait. 
She  wears  a  necklet  of  pearls  falling  as  low  as  the  breast,  a 
cross  is  pendant  thence.  A  table  with  a  rich  cover,  and  a  crown 
and  sceptre,  is  at  her  right  side  :  on  the  left  is  a  crown  above  a 
scutcheon,  surrounded  by  the  Garter,  in  the  scutcheon  two  of  the 
quarters  appear  to  be  erased.  In  this  miniature  I  think  we  see 
Mary  represented  as  the  suffering  Catholic  captive,  and  rightful 
Queen. 

Mary,  in  1572,  was  but  thirty  years  of  age,  and  (in  this 
miniature)  was  still  a  very  handsome  woman.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  the  face  is  much  younger  than  in  portraits  of  1578. 

I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  date  1572  is  probable  (for 
the  original  of  this  work)  for  the  following  reason.  Lord 
Leven  and  Melville  possesses  a  very  interesting  variant  of 
the  miniature.  The  face  has  suffered  somewhat  from  time, 
but  the  black  dress,  in  this  case  richly  embroidered  in  a 
pattern  of  gold,  shows  well  against  the  blue  ultramarine  of 


PLATE  V. 


LE    DEUIL    BLANC.        1560-1561. 
After  Crayon  Sketch  by  Cloitet. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart     143 

the  ground.  The  cap  is  the  same  as  in  the  miniature.  The 
hand  holds  a  crucifix.  The  inscription,  in  letters  of  gold, 
is  *  Maria  Stuart.  Anno  30,'  which  marks  the  year  as  1572. 
The  shield,  under  a  crown,  and  surrounded  by  the  Garter, 
contains  the  Lyon  of  Scotland,  twice,  the  Harp  of  Ireland, 
and  in  the  fourth  quarter,  the  Lilies  of  France  and  the 
Leopards  of  England.  Thus  reminiscent  of  Mary's  fatal  claim 
to  the  English  arms  and  crown,  the  miniature  has  clearly 
been  so  marked,  or  the  original  from  which  it  was  derived 
was  so  marked  (of  whatever  period  the  inscription  may  be), 
to  please  a  Catholic  adherent  or  admirer. 

Mr.  Foster  has  shown  me  a  photograph  of  a  third  minia- 
ture of  this  type,  picked  up  at  Heidelberg  by  a  member  of 
the  Powis  family.  All  three  miniatures  are  of  a  distinctly 
political  and  religious  purpose.  They  represent  the  claims  of  the 
rightful  Catholic  Queen.  They  imitate  closely  the  miniature 
style  of  Hilliard,  and  I  can  form  no  more  probable  hypothesis 
than  that  they  were  copied  from  a  seventeenth  century  original 
for  English  Catholic  Jacobites  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

English  Catholics  of  1572-87  may  have  had  plenty  of 
these  miniatures.  In  1575  Thomas  Corker  writes  to  Walsing- 
ham,  respecting  Richard  Bacon,  a  prisoner  in  the  Fleet,  who 
had  stated  that  one  Weston  {  had  a  picture  of  the  Scottish 
Queen  in  his  chamber.'  l  Corker  was  a  spy,  apparently  ;  in 
1569  he  brought  false  charges  against  another  gentleman.2 
I  quote  the  spy's  letter  in  full  : 

THOMAS  CORKER  TO  WALSINGHAM. 

Ryght  honorable  1117  humble  dutye  Remembred,  the  proffesy  I  have 
agaynst  Weston  ys  y'  one  Richarde  Bacon  prysoner  in  the  Flete  desyrynge 
the  sayd  Weston  to  borowe  money  of  a  lease  whiche  money  fyrst  beynge 
graunted  by  hym  and  after  that  denyed,  the  sayd  Bacon  thervppon  conceyvinge 
vnkyndnesse  tolde  hym  that  he  wolde  vtter  matter  agaynst  hym  and  hys 
felowes  to  theyre  shame  which  Weston  bad  hym  doe  yf  hys  conscyence  wold 
serve  hym  therto;  those  wordes  I  overhearynge  and  after  talkynge  with  him 
for  the  same  he  fully  confessed,  wyllynge  me  to  vtter  the  same,  promysynge 
to  affyrme  and  prove  the  same  at  anye  tyme  when  he  shoulde  be  called. 
He  tolde  me  also  f  the  sayd  Weston  had  the  Scottysshe  queries  pycture  in  his  chamber 
which  he  kepte  vf  greate  Reverence  and  shewed  hym  the  same  w*  greate  Reioycenge, 
and  thys  ys  also  most  certayne  y*  none  was  greater  w4  Weston  than  thys 
Bacon,  and  further  the  sayd  Bacon  tolde  me  how  unkyndlye  he  had  dealte 
w'  hym  consyderynge  what  he  had  done  for  soche  in  tyme  of  hys  prosperytye 


.  Record  Office,  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  vol.  x.,  No.  47. 
2  MSS.  Mary   Queen  of  Scots,  vol.  iii.,  No.  96. 


144     Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

to  hys  greate  cost.  And  thus  havynge  satysfyed  yor  honours  Request  in 
what  I  do  so  sodenlye  Remember  and  cravinge  pardon  for  my  Rude  wrytynge 
I  humblye  take  my  leave  this  vjth  of  Maye  Anno  1575. 

Yor  honours  most 

humble  and  daylye  oratour 

THOMAS  CORKER. 

Addressed  : — To  the  ryght  honorable  Mr.   Secretarye  Walsingham   one  of  her 
Ma*168  most  honorable  pryvye  councell. 

The  source  of  this  type  of  1572  we  cannot  discover,  but 
there  is  no  doubt  that  Mrs.  Anstruther-Duncan's  miniature 
contains  an  excellent  likeness  of  Mary,  as  a  captive,  at 
about  the  age  of  thirty.  This  work  appears  to  have  escaped 
the  authors  who  have  investigated  the  portraits  of  the  Queen. 

It  must  be  observed  that  I  am  not  claiming  contemporaneous- 
ness for  any  of  these  three  curious  miniatures  which  profess 
to  represent  Mary  at  the  age  of  thirty,  namely  in  1572. 
Their  existence  is  a  puzzle.  We  know  that  early  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  a  miniature,  perhaps  a  genuine  miniature 
of  Mary,  was  destroyed  by  the  Duke  of  Hamilton,  who  was 
slain  by  Lord  Mohun.  The  Duke  handed  over  this  relic 
to  a  painter  named  Crosse,  to  be  '  made  as  beautiful  as  he 
could,'  and  the  result  was  merely  farcical.  The  early  eighteenth 
century  was  helpless  in  the  archaeology  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
I  cannot  believe  that  painters  of  1680-1800  could  possibly 
invent  or  furbish  up  out  of  genuine  sources  such  a  Mary 
as  we  see  in  the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait  and  the 
miniatures  of  1572.  Artists  would  do  something  which  they 
thought  beautiful,  like  L.  Crosse.  Much  later,  in  1819-20, 
Hilton  and  others,  with  the  splendid  Morton  portrait  of  Mary 
before  their  eyes,  merely  made  pretty  sentimental  parodies  of 
it,  in  place  of  accurate  copies.  Again,  eighteenth  century 
artists,  being  nothing  less  than  historians,  would  not  remember 
that,  in  1572,  Mary  was  the  Queen  of  England,  in  the  eyes 
of  her  party,  and  would  not  dream  of  decorating  her  likeness 
with  the  English  Royal  arms,  those  of  Scotland,  and  the 
Garter.  They  had  not  the  necessary  knowledge.  Granting 
then  that  these  three  miniatures,  claiming  to  be  of  1572,  are 
late  productions,  emulating  the  style  of  Hilliard  and  his  con- 
temporaries, I  am  led,  I  repeat,  to  regard  them,  not  as 
archaeological  counterfeits,  but  as  copies  of  sixteenth  century 
miniatures  of  Mary,  in  the  early  years  of  her  English  captivity. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      145 

We  must  not  attribute  to  eighteenth  century  artists  a  taste 
and  genius  for  such  relatively  accurate  archaeological  forgeries 
as  these  three  miniatures  would  be.  They  are  more  like  close 
copies  of  once  extant  popular  imagery  of  Mary's  own  period. 

IV. 

We  now  come  to  a  life-size  portrait  of  Mary,  dated  1578. 
This  is  the  Sheffield  portrait,  in  the  possession  of  the  Duke 
of  Devonshire,  at  Hardwick. 

The  Duke's  family,  descending  from  '  Bess  of  Hardwick,' 
Countess  of  Shrewsbury,  the  jealous  wife  of  Mary's  gaoler, 
the  Earl  of  Shrewsbury,  may  have  inherited  the  Sheffield 
portrait  from  the  Countess.  A  picture  of  Mary,  as  Mr.  Cust 
kindly  informs  me,  is  named  among  those  which  the  Countess 
bequeathed  in  her  will  (MS.)  of  April,  1601.  However,  I 
think  that  the  picture,  or  at  least  the  Latin  inscription  on  it, 
was  not  made,  or  copied,  for  the  heretic  Countess,  but  for 
Catholic  sympathisers  with  Mary.  The  inscription,  in  bad 
Latin,  has  clearly  been  copied  erroneously,  as  Mr.  Cust  has 
remarked,  from  the  correct  Latin  of  the  inscription  as  given 
on  another  portrait  of  this  period,  now  in  the  National  Gallery 
of  Portraits.  The  painter  of  the  Sheffield  piece,  Oudry,  may 
have  been  given  an  inscription  to  copy,  but,  like  an  ignorant 
lapidary  cutting  a  tombstone,  he  has  copied  it  wrongly.  The 
words  on  his  picture  are  MARIA,  D.  G.  SCOTIAE  PIISSIMA 
REGINA.  FRANCIAE  DOWERIA  (for  DOTARIA),  ANNO  REGNI  (que 
omitted),  36  ANGLICAE  CAPTIVAE  (error  for  CAPTIVIT.)  10  S.H. 
1578.  Some  other  copies  follow  the  latinity  of  the  uninstructed 
P.  Oudry.  The  correct  inscription  is  on  the  painfully  *  restored ' 
Brocas  portrait  in  the  National  Portrait  Gallery. 

The  inscription,  being  interpreted,  is  by  no  means  one  that  the 
Countess  of  Shrewsbury  could  have  ordered  to  be  inserted.  It 
runs  '  Mary,  by  the  Grace  of  God  Most  Pious  Queen  of  Scotland, 
Dowager  of  France,  In  the  Year  of  her  Age  and  Reign,  36,  of  her 
English  Captivity,  10.  S.H.  I578.'1 

To  the  Countess,  Mary  was  probably  neither  '  most  pious,'  nor 
(when  they  were  on  bad  terms)  'Queen  of  Scotland.'  The  rosary 
which  she  wears,  the  enamelled  crucifix,  and  the  cross  with  the 
device  Angus  tiae  Undique  ('Straits  of  peril  on  every  hand'),  would 

1  S.H. — Salutis  Humanae,  year  of  grace,  1578.  I  owe  the  interpretation  to  Mr. 
Cust. 


146     Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

all  be  distasteful  to  the  Protestant  Countess  of  Shrewsbury.  The 
Sheffield  picture,  then,  must  have  been  executed  for,  or  at  least 
by  a  Catholic  sympathiser,  and,  as  far  as  the  inscription  goes, 
must  have  been  badly  copied  from  some  other  work.  The 
Countess  possessed  portraits  of  Mary's  father  and  mother,  James 
V.  and  Mary  of  Guise.  These  must  have  been  relics  of  her 
husband's  prisoner,  how  acquired  by  Lady  Shrewsbury  we  do 
not  know.  The  portrait  of  Queen  Mary  may  have  been  a  gift, 
or  may  have  been  left  behind  when  the  Queen  was  moved  from 
Sheffield  in  1584. 

Turning  to  Mary's  personal  history,  and  taking  the  dates 
1577-78,  we  know  that,  in  August,  1577,  a  painter  was  at  work 
on  her  portrait.  He  would  finish  it  before  1578,  the  date  when 
P.  Oudry  signed  the  Sheffield  portrait.  On  August  31,  1577, 
Mary  wrote  from  Sheffield  to  Archbishop  Beaton,  her  ambassador 
at  the  Court  of  France.  She  discussed  proposals  made  to  her 
ambassador,  through  Lord  Ogilvy,  by  the  Earl  of  Morton.  The 
position  of  the  Earl,  one  of  Mary's  bitterest  enemies,  was  then 
perilous.  When  James  VI.  came  to  years  of  discretion  (in  1577 
he  was  eleven),  the  Regent  would  be  attacked  by  his  countless 
enemies,  and  he  had  a  vulnerable  point,  he  was  known  to  have 
been  more  or  less  connected  with,  or  guiltily  aware  beforehand  of 
the  murder  of  Darnley  :  this  finally  brought  him  to  the  block,  in 
1581.  In  1576,  1577,  he  was  trying  to  make  friends  with  Mary; 
he  spoke  'reverently'  of  her  ;  desired  her  restoration  if  James  VI. 
died  ;  and  actually  offered  to  give  back  such  of  her  valuable  jewels 
as  were  in  his  hands.  If  granted  an  amnesty  by  Mary,  he  would 
labour  for  her  restoration.  Beaton  had  news  of  this  in  April, 
1577,  from  Ogilvy,  and  secretly  sent  the  tidings  to  Mary.1  On 
August  31,  1577,  she  writes  to  Beaton  that  she  fears  a  trap  in 
Morton's  offers,  but  bids  Beaton  keep  him  in  hand,  as  his 
apprehensions  for  his  own  safety  may  possibly  make  him  genuine 
in  his  declarations.  Beaton  is  to  give  him  hopes  and  assistance, 
and  ask  for  the  jewels,  or  an  inventory  of  them,  and  for  written 
assurances. 

Unluckily  we  have  not  Beaton's  letters  to  Mary.  Did  he  ask 
for  her  portrait,  as  a  token  of  her  favour  to  be  given  to  Morton  ? 
We  do  not  know  :  but  her  secretary,  Nau,  adds  to  her  letter  of 
August  31,  a  postscript;  'I  thought  to  have  accompanied  this 
letter  with  a  portrait  of  her  Majesty,  but  the  painter  has  not  been 
able  to  finish  it  in  time  ;  it  will  go  by  the  next.' 

1Hosack,  Queen  Mary,  vol.  ii.,  Appendix  of  letters. 


PLATE  VI. 


CONTEMPORARY   CARICATURE.       MARY    AS    A    MERMAID. 
1567. 


See  page  152. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      147 

The  portrait,  then,  was  nearly  finished  in  August,  1577,  but 
who  was  the  painter  ? 

Had  Mary  then  a  painter  in  her  household  ?  In  her  MS.  Etat, 
or  list  of  pensioners  and  servants,  drawn  up  on  July  31,  1573 
(now  in  the  library  of  the  Society  of  the  Inner  Temple),  we  find, 
among  her  Valets  de  Chambre,  '  Jehan  de  Court,'  who  was  entered 
in  her  list  as  her  painter  and  valet  de  chambre  in  Scotland,  in  1566. 
Like  Gilbert  Curie  (a  gentleman)  and  Bastien  Pages,  he  now 
receives,  VIII.  XX.  livres  tournois  as  wages  :  in  1566  he  received 
CC.  XL.  It  is  surprising  to  find  him  so  late  as  1572-1573  in 
Mary's  service,  and  his  wages  must  be  arrears  of  pension  due  for 
1572.  M.  Feuillet  de  Conches,  in  Causeries  a"un  Curieux 
(vol.  iv.,  p.  434),  says  that  Jehan  was  with  Mary  in  captivity  till 
September,  1571,  when  Cecil  dismissed  him.  If  this  be  so,  the 
miniatures  of  1572  may  be  after  a  portrait  by  Jehan  de  Court. 
But  the  letters  of  September  1571  only  give  the  names  of  the 
servants  who  remained  with  Mary,  not  of  those  who  departed. 
I  feel  no  certainty  that  Jehan  de  Court  was  ever  actually  in 
Scotland  with  Mary.  True,  his  name  is  on  her  Household 
list  of  Feb.  3,  1566-67,  and  he  receives  the  same  salary  as 
Clouet,  called  Janet,  then  received  from  the  French  King. 
But  a  study  of  Mary's  Household  list  of  1573  proves  that, 
even  when  a  captive  and  in  sore  straits  for  money  to  support 
her  cause  in  Scotland,  she  was  paying  gages  (wages)  to  many  old 
retainers  who  were  in  France.  It  is  quite  in  accordance  with  her 
generous  nature  to  have  gone  on  paying  to  Jehan  de  Court,  in 
France,  in  1566,  the  full  rate  of  salary  of  a  Court  painter,  merely 
as  a  tribute  to  his  art.  In  1573  she  could  do  so  no  longer,  but 
she  paid  him,  even  then,  as  pension,  the  wages  of  a  valet  de 
chambre. 

Again,  we  know  that  in  France  Clouet  was  employed  to  paint 
not  only  portraits,  but  banners  and  coats-of-arms.1  Now,  on  con- 
sulting the  MS.  Treasurer's  Accounts  of  1566,  for  Scotland,  I  find 
Darnley  employing  not  Jehan,  but  Walter  Binning,  to  paint  his  and 
the  French  King's  arms,  when  he  received  the  Order  of  St.  Michel. 
(In  January,  1565-66.  Payment  made  on  June  14. )2  Binning 
in  1558-1561,  was  engaged  to  do  the  paintings  for  the  feasts  on 
Mary's  wedding,  and  on  her  State  entry  into  Edinburgh.  I 
naturally  examined  the  Treasurer's  Accounts  for  the  painting  and 
decoration  done  at  Stirling,  at  the  Baptism  of  James  VI.,  in 

1  Dimier,  French  Painting  in  the  Sixteenth  Century,  pp.  202,  203. 

2  Treasurers'  Accounts,  MS.,  June,  1566. 


148      Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

December,  1566.  Money  was  paid  for  colours  and  gold,  but 
there  is  no  record  of  payment  to  the  artist  who  used  them.  He 
may  have  been  Jehan  de  Court,  paid  out  of  Mary's  own  dowry. 
In  December,  1567,  Binning  was  paid  eight  pounds  for  painting 
sixteen  coats-of-arms.  Mary  was  then  a  prisoner  in  Loch  Leven 
Castle.  The  Binnings  were  an  old  family,  retainers  of  the 
Douglases  since  the  thirteenth  century,  one  of  them  was  with 
Archibald  Douglas  at  Darnley's  murder. 

Jehan  de  Court  may  have  been  with  the  Queen  in  1566,  may 
even  have  come  over  in  January  with  Clerneau  who  brought  the 
Order  for  Darnley,  but  he  did  not  paint  Darnley's  arms  as  Clouet 
painted  arms  in  Paris.  It  is,  therefore,  still  an  open  question 
whether  Jehan  de  Court  was  actually  in  Scotland  or  not  in  1566. 
Certainly  de  Court  was  not  with  Mary  at  Sheffield,  in  1572-73, 
though  he  appears  then  in  her  list  of  valets  de  chambre.  In  the 
autumn  of  1572  he  succeeded  Clouet,  recently  dead,  as  a  French 
Court  painter,  and  in  1573  M.  Dimier  inclines  to  regard  him  as 
the  painter  of  a  portrait  of  the  future  Henri  III.,  which  has 
usually  been  taken  for  the  King's  younger  brother,  the  Due 
d'Alen9on. 

Again,  as  in  January,  1575,  Mary  wrote  to  Paris  asking 
Beaton  to  send  her  thence  four  miniatures  of  herself,  set  in  gold, 
for  English  friends,1  Jehan  de  Court  can  no  longer  have  been  in 
her  service  in  1575,  but  had  returned  to  France  by  that  date. 
We  do  not  know,  then,  what  artist,  English  or  French,  good  or 
bad,  painted  Mary  at  Sheffield  in  1577.  Mr.  Cust  suggests  that 
only  a  miniature,  not  a  full  length,  which  it  would  be  difficult  to 
send  to  Paris,  was  done  in  that  year.  But  Mary  sends  to  Paris 
for  a  bed  (a  present  for  Shrewsbury)  and  for  large  chandeliers  : 
her  French  Chancellor  of  her  Dowry  estates  was  allowed  to  come 
and  stay  with  her  for  months,  and  there  would  be  no  difficulty,  I 
think,  either  about  the  presence  of  a  French  painter,  in  August, 
1577  (he  may  have  accompanied  the  French  Chancellor  of  Mary's 
dower  estates,  who  then  was  with  her  at  Sheffield),  or  as  to  send- 
ing even  a  large  picture  from  Sheffield  to  France.  A  bed  for 
Mary  was  sent  from  France  in  1579,  with  ten  thousand  crowns 
hidden  in  a  mattress  ! 2 

The  Sheffield  portrait,  we  saw,   is  signed  '  P.  Oudry.'     The 

only  person  of  that  name  known  to  us  in  connection  with  Mary 

(a  fact  not  observed  by  our  authors)  is  the  man  who  was  her 

brodeur,    or   Embroiderer,    in    1560-67.     His  name  appears   in 

1  Labanoff,  iv.  p.  256.  2  Labanoff,  v.  pp.  67,  87. 


PLATE  VII. 


MRS.    ANSTRUTHER    DUNCAN'S    MINIATURE. 

;  Captive  Queen  of  England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland.     Dated  1572. 
Probably  an  Eighteenth  Century  Copy. 


See  page  142. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      149 

Teulet's  register1  of  her  Household,  in  1566-67  ;  and  in 
various  earlier  lists  drawn  up  by  her  steward,  Servais  de 
Conde.2 

In  the  list  of  1566-67  Oudry  occurs  under  the  heading  Gens 
de  Mestier,  with  a  passementier,  a  gold  worker,  and  a  shoemaker. 
In  1573  the  heading  Gens  de  Mestier  Pensonniaires  occurs,  but  it  is 
followed  by  a  blank  space  for  the  names.  Perhaps  all  four  gens 
de  mestier  had  been  removed  in  one  of  the  periodical  attempts  to 
cut  Mary's  household  down  to  thirty  persons.  Such  attempts 
were  made  in  1572,  after  the  Bartholomew  massacre,  and  the  rage 
and  fear  which  it  caused  in  England.  Mary,  however,  as  we 
know  from  a  letter  of  Walsingham  to  Shrewsbury,  had  an 
embroiderer  unnamed,  in  1578,  the  year  of  Oudry's  portrait 
painting,  and  the  man's  wife  was  refused  permission  to  see  Mary, 
in  May,  I578.3  Even  the  intercession  of  the  French  ambassador 
could  not  win  Elizabeth's  grace,  and  the  embroiderer's  wife  was 
to  be  sent  back  to  London.  Where  her  husband  then  was, 
whether  at  Sheffield  or  not,  does  not  appear.  For  all  that  is  said 
in  Shrewsbury's  and  Walsingham 's  correspondence  of  May,  1578, 
the  embroiderer  may  have  been  then  at  Sheffield  :  it  was  his  wife 
whom  they  distrusted  as  apt  to  carry  messages  to  France  or  else- 
where for  the  captive  Queen. 

Mary  seems  to  have  been  unwilling  to  exist  without  a  brodeur. 
Even  as  a  prisoner  at  Loch  Leven  (1567-1568)  she  begged  that 
an  embroiderer  might  be  sent  to  her,  and  he  may  have  worked 
the  famous  emblematical  hangings  of  the  bed  described  by 
Drummond  of  Hawthornden.  As  late  as  November,  1585, 
when  at  Tutbury,  she  was  on  ill  terms  with  her  embroiderer 
(Oudry  ?)  she  wished  to  dismiss  him  and  his  wife.4  In  August, 
1586,  when  Mary  was  seized  at  Chertley,  and  taken  to  Fothering- 
hay  to  die,  her  embroiderer  was  one  Charles  Plouvart.6  He  had 
no  wife,  or  none  at  Chertley.  Whether  Oudry  the  embroiderer 
painted  the  Sheffield  portrait  at  Sheffield,  or  elsewhere,  in  1578, 
the  hard  unpractised  style  and  helpless  perspective  of  the  work 
are  explained.  He  was  no  painter  by  profession,  and  was 

1  Teulet,  ii.  p.  277. 

2  Robertson's  Inventaires  de  la  Roy ne  tTEscosse,  Bannatyne  Club,  1863. 

3  State  Papers  Domestic,  Elizabeth,  vol.  xlv.  p.  22.     Walsingham  to  Shrewsbury, 
Ma7  30,  1578. 

4  State  Papers  Domestic,  Elizabeth,  vol.  xlvi.  No.  69.      Paulett  to  Walsingham, 
Nov.  30,  1585. 

5  Labanoff,  vii.  p.  251. 


150     Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

probably  copying  a  work  by  a  better  artist,  perhaps  the  artist 
employed  in  August,  1577.  His  identity  and  nationality  remain 
as  obscure  as  ever. 

Of  the  painter  of  the  '  Brocas,'  a  variant  of  the  (Oudry) 
Sheffield  portrait,  now  in  the  National  Portrait  Gallery,  Sir  George 
Scharf  says  '  he  was  neither  an  artist  nor  an  inventor.  He  must 
have  had  a  reality  before  him.'  But  was  that  reality, — Mary  ? 
or  a  portrait  of  her,  or  a  copy  of  a  portrait  ? 

There  are  apt  to  be  as  many  critical  opinions  as  there  are 
art  critics  ;  but  Monsieur  Dimier,  Mr.  Cust,  and  Sir  Edward 
Poynter  all  think  much  more  highly  of  the  painter  of  the  Brocas 
portrait  than  Sir  George  Scharf  did.1  I  do  not  know  whether  he 
regarded  the  Brocas  portrait  as  a  copy  of  the  Sheffield  by  Oudry, 
or  whether  he  meant  that  the  *  reality '  before  the  painter  of  the 
Brocas  portrait  was  the  Queen  herself.  Sir  George  was  '  disposed 
to  lay  the  greatest  stress  upon  Oudry's  (Sheffield)  portrait,  as 
the  original  source  from  which  so  many  modified  types  are 
derived.'  Yet  it  is  not  an  original,  manifestly  it  is  a  mechanical 
copy. 

Meanwhile  Mr.  Cust,  and  Monsieur  Dimier  think,  as  we 
have  said,  that  a  portrait  in  the  National  Portrait  Gallery,  '  the 
Brocas  portrait '  marked  on  the  back  with  the  C.  R.  and  Crown 
of  Charles  I.,  showing  the  Queen,  not  as  far  as  the  carpet 
below  the  feet,  but  to  a  little  below  the  hips,  is  a  much  better 
and  more  original  work  than  that  of  Oudry,  'a  mechanical 
copyist.'  The  National  Gallery  portrait  has  suffered  from  time 
and  the  restorer,  and,  though  Mary  is  not  such  a  squinting 
and  aquiline  hag  as  in  Oudry's  work,  '  it  can  hardly  be  said 
to  please  the  spectator  or  flatter  its  subject/  writes  Mr.  Cust. 

We  might  speak  more  favourably  of  an  interesting  variant 
of  this  portrait,  which  belongs  to  the  Duke  of  Portland.  Mr. 
Cust  supposes  it  to  be  a  copy  of  the  portrait  at  Hardwtck, 
'  probably  made,  with  others  relating  to  the  family  history, 
for  William  Cavendish,  Duke  of  Newcastle  .  .  .  the  inscription 
repeats  the  errors  of  the  Hardwick  portrait.'2  But  as  photo- 
graphed in  the  Welbeck  Catalogue,  No.  537.  (1894)  the 
inscription  is  in  English^  beginning  *  An  Original  of  Mary,  Queen 
of  Scots.'  The  face  is  infinitely  more  pleasing,  and  more  like 
my  own  notion  of  Mary,  than  the  ill  drawn  face  of  the 
Hardwick  (Oudry)  portrait,  and  the  hands  are  well  designed  ; 
in  the  Hardwick  the  drawing  of  the  hands  is  absurdly  bad.  The 
1  See  Scharf,  in  Foster,  pp.  115,  1 16.  Cust,  pp.  76,  77.  2Cust,  p.  82. 


PLATE  VIII. 


SHEFFIELD   PORTRAIT,    1578. 

By  P.  Oudry  See  page  145. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      151 

English  inscription  appears  to  me  to  be  of  the  seventeeenth 
century.  Looking  at  this  Welbeck  portrait  we  ask,  is  it  a 
much  better  copy  of  the  original  likeness  of  1577  which  Oudry 
copied  so  detestably ;  or  is  it  a  late,  modified,  and  improved  study 
after  Oudry's  own  performance  ?  Has  an  unknown  painter 
of  the  end  of  the  sixteenth,  or  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
merely  bettered  the  amateur  daub  of  Oudry  ?  This  question 
we  leave  to  the  learned :  M.  Dimier  thinks  that  it  is  not  a 
copy  of  Oudry's  work. 

In  all  the  portraits  of  the  Sheffield  type  of  1 578,  the  face  is  very 
long,  and  rather  thin,  and  the  nose  has  an  aquiline  tendency, 
exaggerated  in  the  picture  signed  by  P.  Oudry.  We  shall  try 
to  show  that  this  aquiline  tendency  is  untrue  to  nature  ;  at  least 
it  is  absent  from  Mary's  portraits  in  childhood,  in  girlhood,  and 
after  the  age  of  forty,  in  the  latest  years  of  her  life.  In  the 
Florence  and  Amsterdam  miniatures,  in  Lesley's  medallion, 
in  the  miniatures  dated  1572,  and  in  the  Morton  and  Leven 
and  Melville  portraits,  too,  the  nose  is  long,  low  and  straight. 

Mr.  Cust  looks  for  the  original  from  which  come  all  the 
portraits  of  the  Sheffield  type,  and  finds  it  in  the  hypothetical 
miniature  of  August,  1577.  Their  f  hard  unpleasing  effect'  is 
due  (  to  the  fact  of  their  having  been  painted  away  from  their 
subject.'1  He  adds,  {  the  fault  lay  in  the  original  painter,  who 
was  probably  one  of  the  mediocre  journeyman  painters  who  were 
scattered  over  England.2  .  .  .'  c  There  can  be  little  doubt 
but  that  the  original  version  of  this  portrait  was  taken  from 
the  life.'3  Shall  we  interpret  Mr.  Cust  as  meaning  that,  in  1577, 
a  hard  and  arid  portrait  of  Mary  was  done,  for  Beaton,  from 
the  life,  by  a  strolling  English  journeyman  painter,  and  was  copied, 
in  various  degrees  of  dryness  and  hardness,  by  Oudry  and  other 
copyists.  In  that  case  a  hard  and  arid  original  was  sent  to 
Beaton  in  1577  ;  we  have  however  no  documentary  evidence 
that  it  really  was  despatched. 

We  get  on  but  slowly  !  Mary  was  painted,  by  somebody, 
in  August-September,  1577,  and  the  portrait,  large  or  small, 
was  to  be  sent  to  her  ambassador  in  Paris.  A  bad  copy,  signed 
*P.  Oudry,'  and  dated  1578,  exists,  and  there  are  variants  of 
that)  or  of  the  original  whence  that  was  copied.  All  show 
the  Queen  at  various  lengths,  in  various  attitudes  (in  the  Brocas 
her  hand  is  on  her  side,  in  which  she  had  a  constant  pain)  and 
"with  slight  modifications  of  costume,  but  she  is  always  in  deep 
1Cust,  p.  78.  2Cust,  p.  79.  3Cust,  p.  79. 


152      Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

mourning,  and  wears  jet  ornaments,  and  Catholic  emblems. 
All  of  these  Sheffield  types  were  originally  intended,  as  I  have 
argued,  for  Catholic  adherents. 

V. 

We  now  come  to  a  portrait  representing  Mary  at  about  the 
age  of  thirty-six,  and  actually  looking  no  older !  It  has  no 
inscription  ;  nothing  about  Piissima  Regina  Scotiae  ;  no  Catholic 
emblems  ;  no  jet  ornaments  ;  no  painter's  signature,  and  was 
clearly  not  meant  for  a  Catholic  adherent.  It  is  infinitely  better 
executed  than  any  of  the  Sheffield  type.  This  is  the  Earl  of 
Morton's  portrait,  which  Horace  Walpole  deemed  the  most 
to  be  relied  upon — why^  he  did  not  say. 

Sir  George  Scharf  wrote  that  the  Morton  portrait  is  celebrated, 
*  owing  to  the  very  effective  engraving  of  it '  published  by  Lodge. 
That  engraving,  however,  as  Labanoff  saw,  in  no  way  resembles 
the  original  Morton  portrait  ;  and  is  taken  from  a  water-colour 
sketch  in  which  W.  Hilton,  R.A.,  in  1819,  modernised  the 
Morton  portrait,1  altering  face,  hands,  dress,  and  what  else  he 
pleased.  Hilton  made  the  Queen  a  pretty  modern  coquette  ; 
Martin,  in  1818, — still  travestying  the  Morton  portrait, — made 
her  a  sentimental  Saint.  Mr.  Cust  thinks  the  Morton  (which 
he  has  seen),  superior  to  the  Sheffield  as  a  work  of  art,  but 
much  less  '  convincing  as  a  likeness.' 2 

Here,  with  all  deference,  I  scarcely  agree  with  Mr.  Cust. 
In  the  first  place,  so  long  as  a  portrait  is  true  in  all  respects 
to  the  known  facts  of  Mary's  face, — the  more  pleasing  it  is,  the 
more  probable  is  the  likeness  !  For  the  face  of  this  *  gentle- 
woman '  was  *  pleasing '  as  Knox  writes  in  his  History.  Had 
it  not  been  '  pleasing '  her  own  history  might  have  been  happier. 
Even  the  caricaturist  who,  in  1567,  after  Darnley's  murder, 
drew  Mary  as  a  Siren,  made  her  face  eminently  pleasing.  The 
lofty  brow,  the  rather  long  low  nose,  the  oval  of  the  face,, 
the  small  mouth,  and  the  sidelong  glance,  in  this  caricature, 
are  all  Mary's,  and  all  are  pleasing,  rude  as  is  the  sketch.3  I 
am  convinced  that  the  Morton  portrait  (though,  like  those 
of  the  Sheffield  type,  it  darkens  and  strengthens  the  eyebrows), 
shows  to  us,  saddened  and  altered  by  some  thirteen  years  and 
innumerable  sorrows,  the  face  of  the  medal  of  1558  ;  of  the 

1  Cust,  p.  86,  note.  2  Cust,  p.  86. 

8  The  caricature  is  published  in  my  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart. 


PLATE  IX. 


THE    MORTON    PORTRAIT.       1 5 77-1  580  (?) 


See  page  152. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      153 

early  French  drawings;  and  of  the  deuil  blanc.  (1561.)  The 
nose  is  not  an  aquiline  beak  :  it  is  long  and  low,  the  expression 
is  melancholy  and  stately,  not  coquettish,  a  la  Hilton  :  or  angelic, 
a  la  Martin,  or  tormented,  as  in  Oudry's  work.  It  is  a  human 
face,  and  the  face  of  a  Queen  who  looked  her  part.  (The 
original  Morton  portrait  is  photographed  by  Mr.  Caw,  in 
Scottish  Portraits,  and  is  also  in  my  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart.}  The 
Queen's  right  hand  fingers  the  pearl  pendant  of  a  table  of  ruby 
(she  had  such  a  jewel,  but  they  were  common  enough)  :  the  left 
hand  holds  a  handkerchief,  *  having  two  white  tassels  projecting 
stiffly  from  the  corners,'  says  Sir  George  Scharf.  James  V. 
fingers  a  pearl  as  Mary  does  here  in  a  well-known  portrait ; 
Darnley  holds  a  handkerchief  as  she  does,  in  a  portrait  done 
before  his  marriage,  say  in  1560-64.  (Photographed  in  The 
Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart.}  The  handkerchief,  says  Sir  George 
Scharf,  is  common  in  Honthorst's  pictures,  namely  about  1620- 
50.  Honthorst,  we  know,  painted  Montrose,  after  the  death 
of  Charles  I.  (1648)  for  Elizabeth,  'Queen  of  Hearts,'  or  that 
portrait  of  Montrose  is  attributed  to  Honthorst.  But  Sir  George 
Scharf  elsewhere  assigns  the  Morton  portrait  to  '  the  close  of 
the  sixteenth  century,' x  as  a  probable  date.  This  is  inconsistent 
with  his  theories  of  a  late  date,  long  after  the  close  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  as  when  he  thought  that  the  Morton  piece 
was  perhaps  by  Van  Somer,  for  James  VI.;  or  by  Honthorst 
for  the  Queen  of  Hearts.  *  Direct  copies  or  adaptations  ot 
this  Morton  portrait  are  scarcely  ever  to  be  met  with,'  while 
copies  of  the  Sheffield  type,  and  of  the  false  *  Carleton  '  type  are 
very  common. 

I  confess  to  being  rather  sceptical  as  to  verdicts  that  vary 
thus,  and  are  based  on  fleeting  opinions  about  the  internal 
evidence  of  style  and  treatment.  If  fingering  a  jewel  is  an 
artistic  attitude  of  about  1 540  (as  it  is)  why  should  a  painter 
of  1620-40  follow  it  in  the  Morton  portrait;  and  if  to  hold 
a  handkerchief  is  an  attitude  of  1560,  as  in  the  picture  of 
Darnley,  how  does  it  bring  the  date  of  a  portrait  down  to 
the  late  day  of  Honthorst,  say  1 620-50  ?2 

Mr.  Cust  thinks  that  the  painter  of  the  Morton  portrait 
*  had  instructions  to  modify  the  unsatisfactory  and  distasteful 
appearance  given  by  Oudry  in  the  Sheffield  portrait.'  But, 
if  the  painter  of  the  Morton  portrait  was  French,  he  probably 

1  Scharf,  apud  Foster,  p.   117.     Date  of  writing   1876. 

2  Scharf,  apud  Cust,  pp.  84,  85. 


154     Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

never  saw  the  Oudry  copy  of  something  unknown,  done  in 
1577.  He  may  have  seen  the  original  then  painted  for  Beaton. 
Mr.  Cust  argues  that  the  absence  of  religious  emblems  '  denotes 
a  later  period.'  But,  if  the  portrait  was  to  go  to  Scotland, 
in  1577-87,  or  was  done  for  a  Scot  then  or  later  living  in 
Scotland,  the  Catholic  emblems  would  necessarily  be  omitted. 
The  preachers  would  have  thundered  against  them  :  Morton 
could  not  have  endured  them.  On  the  other  hand  nobody 
in  France  would  persecute  a  painter  for  painting  a  Mary,  for 
Morton  or  George  Douglas,  without  religious  emblems.  She 
was  often  painted  with  none. 

Now,  if  a  portrait  of  Mary  was  taken  to  France  from 
Sheffield  in  1577-78,  why  should  not  Jehan  de  Court  in  Paris, 
Jehan  so  familiar  with  Mary's  face,  have  painted  the  Morton 
portrait,  or  corrected  the  performance  of  a  painter  working 
on  the  basis  of  what  was  done  at  Sheffield  in  August,  1577  ? 
If  so  (granting  that  the  style  and  costume  present  no  insuperable 
difficulty),  the  excellence  of  the  likeness  in  the  Morton  portrait 
is  explained,  and  the  picture  might  either  be  sent  to  Morton, 
or  given  then  or  later  to  George  Douglas,  who  helped  to 
rescue  Mary  from  Loch  Leven,  and  was  constantly  in  France 
on  her  business,  and  always  in  close  touch  with  Archbishop 
Beaton  as  late  as  1585.  A  foolish  legend  says  that  it  was 
painted  during  Mary's  captivity  at  Loch  Leven  (1567-68), 
but  Meyrick  in  the  Gentleman s  Magazine  (1836,  vol.  v.  p.  251) 
simply  remarks  that  it  has  been  very  long  in  the  family,  and  was 
done  for  George  Douglas.  From  the  '  broader  and  freer  style  ' 
of  the  Morton  portrait  Mr.  Cust  would  assign  it  to  a  date 
about  1608,  'some  thirty  years  later  than  the  Sheffield 
portrait.'  I  have  confessed  to  *  giving  but  a  doubtsome 
credit'  to  judgments  based  on  internal  evidence  of  style, 
though  a  child  could  see  that  the  Hilton  copy  of  the  Morton 
portrait  is  about  the  date  of  Books  of  Beauty,  about  1820-30. 
M.  Georges  Lafenestre,  in  his  book  L?  Exposition  des  Primitifs 
Franfais,  remarks  on  '  the  extremely  divergent  opinions,  as 
to  chronology  and  iconography '  (especially  as  regards  por- 
traits attributed  to  Jean  Clouet),  entertained  by  the  learned 
MM.  Bouchot  and  Dimier.1  '  The  more  one  goes  into  these 
things,  the  more  sceptical  one  becomes,'  writes  M.  Bouchot. 
He  speaks  here,  to  be  sure,  of  a  somewhat  earlier  period. 

As  to  the  possession  of  the  portrait  by  the  present  Earl  of 
1  Lafenestre,  pp.   100,    101. 


55    i? 

§     * 

J    C 
H 
g: 
H 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      155 

Morton,  to  come  to  history,  he  descends  from  the  Douglases 
of  Loch  Leven,  heirs  of  the  Regent  Morton.  My  suggested 
pedigree  of  the  Morton  portrait,  through  the  Regent  or  George 
Douglas,  is  conjectural,  but  far  from  improbable  :  Lord 
Morton  does  possess  an  admirable  contemporary  portrait  of 
his  collateral  kinsman,  the  Regent  Morton.  (Photographed 
in  The  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart.'] 

Thus  *  the  most  pleasing  presentation  of  Mary  Stuart  extant,' 
as  Mr.  Cust  calls  the  Morton  portrait,  may  also  be  one  of 
the  most  authentic,  though  not  necessarily  of  date  1577-78. 
Granting  an  original  of  1577,  it  might  be  studied  from  that, 
at  a  later  period,  for  George  Douglas,  though  the  later  the 
date,  the  more  would  the  painter  follow  the  very  last  portraits 
of  Mary,  flat  faced,  with  a  double  chin.  The  historical 
facts,  as  to  the  relations  of  the  Regent  Morton,  Mary,  and 
Archbishop  Beaton,  in  August,  1577,  point  to  the  probability 
that  Beaton  (who  could  get  as  many  miniatures  of  Mary, 
of  early  date,  as  he  pleased,  in  Paris),  wanted  to  send  to 
Morton  a  contemporary  likeness  of  the  Queen,  whom  he  was 
trying  to  conciliate. 

VI. 

The  source  of  the  Morton  was  probably  the  portrait  done 
at  Sheffield  for  Beaton  in  1577,  and  in  France  Jehan  de 
Court,  or  another  excellent  painter  working  under  his  direc- 
tion, could  produce  it.1  It  is  true  that  the  tiny  miniature 
in  the  gold  jewel  at  Penicuik,  which  came  direct  to  the  family 
of  Sir  George  Clark  of  Penicuik  through  Barbara  Mowbray, 
one  of  the  Queen's  ladies,  represents  no  known  type.  But 
while  the  artist  has  produced,  in  his  dot  of  space,  a  recognisable 
likeness  of  James  VI.  as  *  a  somewhat  watery  little  boy,'  he 
has  not  been  successful  with  Mary.  No  known  type  is 
followed,  the  gown  is  of  claret  colour  and  gold,  and  there 
is  gold  (gilt)  on  the  cap.  We  do  not  know  where  these 
miniatures  and  the  jewel  that  contains  them  were  fashioned. 

Again,  in  the  account  of  Nicholas  Hilliard,  by  Mr. 
R.  E.  Graves,  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  it  is 
said  that  Hilliard,  a  miniaturist,  painted  a  portrait  of  Mary 
in  1579.  The  miniature  of  1579  was  once  in  the  Bale 

1  Jehan  was  a  painter,  not  the  only  one,  of  Charles  IX.,  after  1572.  Dimier, 
Le  Portrait  du  XVI.  Stick,  p.  33. 


156     Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

collection,  and  later  in  that  of  Mr.  Whitehead.  I  do  not 
know  any  documentary  evidence  for  the  painting  of  Mary 
in  1579,  but,  in  the  early  summer  of  1579,  she  was  allowed 
to  send  her  secretary,  Claude  Nau,  on  a  mission  to  her  son 
James  VI.  He  carried  papers  and  presents,  and  nothing  is 
more  natural  than  that  Mary  should  have  sent  a  miniature 
of  herself,  if  she  could  get  one,  while  Hilliard  was  high  in 
the  favour  of  Elizabeth,  and  could  be  trusted  to  visit  the 
captive  Queen.  Mary  sent  to  James  VI.  at  this  date,  small 
models  of  guns,  in  gold,  as  we  learn  from  the  French 
ambassador  of  the  day. 

Nau  was  not  permitted  to  have  an  interview  with  James, 
then  a  boy  of  thirteen,  nor  was  James  allowed  to  receive 
his  mother's  gifts.  One  of  the  gold  guns  was  among  her 
possessions  at  Chertley,  in  1586,  brought  back,  no  doubt, 
by  Nau,  from  Scotland.1  Nothing  was  more  natural  than 
that,  in  1579,  Mary  should  send  to  her  son  her  miniature, 
if  she  could  get  it  painted.  Mr.  Whitehead  kindly  informs 
me  that  he  no  longer  possesses  this  interesting  object.  It  is 
photographed  in  the  catalogue  of  the  Burlington  Fine  Arts 
Club  exhibition  of  1885  (Plate  xxxi).  It  is  an  oval,  with 
the  usual  blue  background,  inscribed  'Anno  Domini  1579, 
M.R.'  The  subject,  who  does  not  look  more  than  Mary's 
actual  age,  thirty-seven,  wears  a  black  cap,  square  in  front, 
baggy  behind  ;  a  small  ruff,  hair  puffed  up  at  the  sides  and 
above  the  forehead,  a  double  chain  of  pearls,  and  a  pendant 
jewel,  with  no  Catholic  emblems.  The  face  is  still  thin,  long, 
and  queenly,  it  is  a  face  to  which  James's  boyish  heart  might 
well  have  gone  out,  as  to  a  handsome  young  mother  :  there 
is  nothing  in  it  of  the  melancholy  devote^  as  in  the  Sheffield 
type.  But  whether  the  M.R.  of  this  miniature  was  really 
{  Maria  Regina,'  or  not,  I  cannot  say.  The  historical  environ- 
ment is  certainly  plausible  and  appropriate;  in  1579  Mary 
would,  if  she  could,  get  a  miniature  of  herself  to  send,  with 
other  gifts,  to  her  boy.  Judging  by  the  photograph  of  this 
miniature,  the  eyes,  though  like  the  Queen's  in  shape  and 
setting,  are  too  light  in  hue  to  represent  her  ;  Mr.  Way  says 
that  they  are  grey.  In  other  respects  the  features  are  like  her 
own. 

1  Labanoff,  v.  pp.   89-98. 

ANDREW  LANG. 
(To  be  continued?) 


The  Scottish  Nobility  and  their  part  in  the 
National  History  l 

THE  Scottish  nobles  undoubtedly  bear  a  bad  name  in  our 
national  history.  The  general  opinion  of  them,  indeed, 
might  be  summed  up  in  a  single  sentence :  they  bullied  weak 
kings  and  abetted  bad  ones,  and  in  each  case  it  was  their  own 
selfish  interests  that  inspired  them.  In  passing  such  a  judgment, 
however,  it  is  well  to  remember  the  saying  of  Burke.  It  is  futile 
to  indict  a  nation,  Burke  said,  for  in  so  doing  we  are,  in  fact, 
indicting  human  nature.  Though  the  saying  of  Burke  does  not 
apply  with  the  same  force  to  a  class  as  to  a  nation,  yet  if  we  find 
a  numerous  body  of  men,  conditioned  by  common  interests, 
playing  the  same  part  throughout  successive  centuries,  the 
inference  must  surety  be  that  they  were  but  following  the  natural 
instincts  implanted  in  universal  man.  Put  the  worst  construction 
we  choose  on  our  historic  nobility,  our  judgment  of  them  must 
be  mitigated  by  the  consideration  that  had  we  been  in  their  place 
we  should  have  been  influenced  by  the  same  motives,  and  done 
our  best  or  worst  for  the  class  to  which  we  belonged. 

But  do  the  facts  of  our  national  history  justify  such  a  sweeping 
condemnation  of  the  general  conduct  of  the  Scottish  nobility  ? 
Was  their  action  so  maleficent  that  it  was  productive  of  no  single 
benefit  to  the  country  to  which  they  owed  their  birth  and  their 
privileges?  In  the  lives  of  nations,  as  of  individuals,  there  are 
few,  if  any,  unmixed  evils,  and  the  presumption  is  that  even 
taking  the  Scottish  nobles  at  the  worst,  they  did  some  good  to 
their  nation,  even  though  we  may  deny  them  the  credit  of  doing 
it  from  disinterested  motives.  As  far  as  the  scope  of  a  single 
paper  will  permit,  let  us  follow  the  action  of  the  Scottish  nobles 
throughout  the  period  when  it  most  directly  influenced  the 
national  development — not  holding  a  brief  for  them,  but  simply 

1  Delivered  as  an  Introductory  Lecture  to  the  Class  of  Ancient  (Scottish) 
History  in  the  University  of  Edinburgh,  Session  1905-1906. 

'57 


158  The  Scottish  Nobility  and 

trying  to  see  the  scope  of  their  action  in  the  light  of  the  general 
movements  of  the  time.  In  making  such  a  survey,  it  is  necessary 
that  we  should  go  beyond  the  limits  of  Scotland,  since  in  every 
period  of  her  history  Scotland  was  directly  or  indirectly  influenced 
by  what  took  place  in  other  countries  of  Christendom.  At  one 
time  or  other  every  class  in  the  Scottish  nation  was  affected  by 
the  examples  of  the  corresponding  classes  among  other  peoples ; 
our  kings  learned  lessons  from  the  kings  of  France  and  England, 
our  nobles  from  their  own  class  in  the  same  countries,  and  our 
burghs  from  similar  corporations  in  England  or  on  the  Continent. 

It  is  from  the  reign  of  David  II.  that  the  action  of  the  Scottish 
nobles  begins  consistently  to  affect  the  course  of  the  national 
development.  They  had  been  sufficiently  in  evidence  both  during 
the  War  of  Independence  and  before  it,  but  it  was  in  the  reign 
of  David  II.  that  they  first  began  as  a  class  to  realise  their 
relation  to  the  Crown  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Church  and  the 
burghs  on  the  other.  From  the  necessities  of  their  position  their 
relation  to  all  three  was  equally  that  of  antagonism.  They 
dreaded  encroachments  on  their  privileges  by  the  Crown ;  they 
regarded  the  higher  clergy  as  their  formidable  rivals  in  wealth 
and  popular  influence ;  and  with  a  sure  instinct  they  saw  in  the 
developing  commerce  of  the  burghs  the  growth  of  a  power  that 
would  undermine  the  very  foundations  on  which  their  order  was 
based.  From  the  reign  of  David  to  the  Reformation  we  can 
trace  in  the  persistent  policy  of  the  nobles  the  prompting  of  all 
these  antagonisms,  though  it  is  their  opposition  to  the  Crown 
that  is  written  largest  in  history.  At  the  Reformation,  the 
nobility,  like  every  other  class  in  the  nation,  came  under  influences 
which  profoundly  affected  their  position,  their  aims,  and  methods 
of  action.  Still  as  an  order  they  continued  to  maintain  the 
traditions  of  their  origin,  and  at  every  crisis  we  find  them 
animated  by  the  same  motives  which  had  actuated  them  in  the 
period  prior  to  the  Reformation.  Let  us  then  look  at  the  part 
which  they  played  during  these  two  periods  respectively — that 
preceding  the  Reformation,  and  the  century  and  a  half  that 
followed  it. 

On  the  death  of  Bruce  in  1329  the  Scottish  nobles  were  in  a 
position  which  for  good  and  ill  was  fraught  with  momentous 
issues  for  the  future  of  the  kingdom.  From  a  policy  as  necessary 
as  it  was  prudent  at  the  time,  Bruce  had  made  lavish  grants  of 
lands  to  such  as  had  stood  by  him  in  his  great  work  of 
freeing  the  country  from  the  English  domination.  In  the 


their  part  in  the  National  History       159 

case  of  such  families  as  that  of  the  Douglasses,  the  grants 
had  been  on  a  scale  which  made  their  feudal  heads  all 
but  the  co-equals  of  the  sovereign  himself.  In  every  part 
of  the  kingdom  such  feudatories  were  to  be  found,  and  if 
they  had  not  been  divided  by  rival  interests  among  themselves, 
it  would  have  been  an  easy  task  for  them  to  wipe  out 
the  monarchy  and  set  up  as  petty  kings  on  their  own  account. 
Powerful  in  their  own  resources,  the  condition  of  the  kingdom 
rendered  them  still  more  formidable.  In  the  first  place,  the 
Crown  was  lacking  in  the  main  elements  that  gave  stability  and 
force  to  a  feudal  monarchy.  It  had  been  the  greatness  of  Bruce's 
achievement  and  not  the  family  claims  that  he  could  advance  to 
the  throne  that  had  made  him  the  honoured  sovereign  of  his 
people.  His  son  David  came  to  the  throne  with  all  the  prestige 
of  his  father's  name,  but  his  own  character  and  conduct  were  such 
as  to  make  his  subjects  forget  the  father's  glory  in  the  irrespon- 
sibility of  the  son.  On  his  death  came  the  dynasty  of  the 
Stewarts,  which  for  essential  and  accidental  reasons  was  unhappy 
in  all  the  circumstances  that  were  requisite  to  establish  it  in  the 
affection  and  respect  of  the  country.  Through  the  accident  of 
his  father's  marriage  with  Marjory  Bruce,  Robert  II.,  the  first  of 
the  Stewart  line,  inherited  the  throne,  and,  though  his  right  may 
have  been  indefeasible,  it  was  not  forgotten  by  the  proud  barons 
that  he  had  been  but  one  of  themselves,  and  neither  the  most 
distinguished  nor  of  the  most  ancient  descent.  As  it  happened, 
also,  the  first  kings  of  the  House  of  Stewart  possessed  none  of  the 
qualities  that  might  have  compensated  for  the  suddenness  of  their 
elevation.  Robert  II.  and  Robert  III.  were  both  such  feeble  per- 
sonages that  they  remained  in  tutelage  throughout  the  whole  of 
their  reigns.  While  families  like  the  Douglasses  were  performing 
brilliant  feats  of  valour  in  defence  of  their  country,  the  kings  of 
Scots,  its  natural  champions,  were  spending  their  lives  in  amiable 
indolence  in  such  courts  as  they  possessed.  From  the  death  of 
Robert  III.,  moreover,  a  singular  fatality  attended  the  House  of 
Stewart — a  fatality  which  deeply  affected  the  entire  development 
of  the  country.  From  the  accession  of  James  I.  to  the  accession 
of  Charles  I. — a  period  of  two  hundred  and  nineteen  years — 
there  was  a  minority,  longer  or  shorter,  in  every  reign.  The 
effect  of  minorities  in  weakening  the  Crown  and  strengthening 
the  barons  is  illustrated  not  only  in  the  history  of  Scotland  but 
in  that  of  every  feudal  country.  A  French  noble  at  the  close  of 
the  sixteenth  century  pithily  summed  up  the  traditions  of  his 


160  The  Scottish  Nobility  and 

order  with  reference  to  royal  minorities.  '  If  the  King  is  a 
minor,'  he  said,  '  we  will  be  majors.'  Through  this  combination 
of  circumstances  it  was  that  the  Scottish  baronage  were  placed  in 
a  position  that  enabled  them  to  make  so  light  of  the  authority 
of  successive  kings.  In  other  countries,  as  in  France  during  the 
Hundred  Years'  War,  the  nobles  occasionally  found  themselves 
in  the  same  relations  to  their  kings,  but  nowhere  did  so  many 
circumstances  for  so  prolonged  a  period  make  it  possible  for  them 
to  maintain  their  advantage. 

In  their  relations  to  the  Crown,  the  nobles  of  Scotland  met 
with  no  such  serious  counter-checks  as  their  class  found  in 
England  or  France.  In  these  two  countries  during  the  period 
of  which  we  are  speaking,  the  kings  found  strong  support  both 
from  the  clergy  and  the  commons.  In  Scotland  the  clergy  and 
the  commons  were  generally  on  the  side  of  the  Crown,  but 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other  was  sufficiently  powerful  to  sway 
the  balance  steadily  in  its  favour.  The  time  had  passed  when 
spiritual  terrors  daunted  kings  and  nobles  alike,  and  it  was  only 
when  upheld  by  temporal  authority  that  the  Church  could  make 
its  influence  felt  on  any  class  in  the  country.  But,  as  the  kings 
did  not  possess  this  authority,  the  clergy  were  unequal  to  maintain- 
ing the  balance  between  the  rival  powers  in  the  State.  And  the 
communities  in  the  towns  were  equally  powerless  to  turn  the  scale 
in  the  direction  they  would  have  wished.  It  was  to  the  kings 
that  the  royal  burghs,  the  most  important  of  the  towns,  looked 
for  their  privileges  and  the  encouragement  of  their  enterprise, 
but  the  towns  themselves  had  conflicting  interests,  and  they  were 
incapable  of  the  steady  collective  action  which  might  have  made 
them  an  effectual  force  in  the  country. 

From  this  survey  of  the  position  of  the  Scottish  nobility  in 
the  two  centuries  preceding  the  Reformation,  it  will  be  seen  that 
they  had  ample  opportunity  of  displaying  all  the  instincts  of  their 
class,  and  it  is  precisely  the  manner  in  which  they  did  display 
them  that  has  given  them  their  bad  name.  The  iniquities  laid 
to  their  charge  may  be  ranged  under  three  heads — their  addiction 
to  private  feuds,  their  lack  of  patriotism,  and  their  contempt  of 
the  royal  authority. 

In  connection  with  all  three  counts,  there  is  a  well-known 
saying  which  should  not  be  forgotten :  c  One  century  may  judge 
another  century,  but  only  his  own  century  may  judge  the 
individual,'  and  the  saying  holds  equally  true  in  our  judgment 
of  a  class.  In  applying  this  maxim,  be  it  noted,  we  are  not 


their  part  in  the  National  History       161 

inventing  excuses ;  we  are  merely  seeking  an  explanation.  That 
private  feuds  abounded  in  Scotland  at  the  period  under  notice, 
that  they  were  the  perennial  cause  of  bloodshed  and  anarchy,  are 
facts  of  which  there  can  be  no  question.  But,  as  the  feudal 
society  was  constituted,  this  state  of  things  was  in  truth  as  natural 
as  trade  competition  at  the  present  day.  The  innumerable  bonds 
of  manrent,  by  which  one  group  of  feudatories  entered  into  a 
paction  against  their  common  enemies,  are  the  eloquent  com- 
mentary on  this  fact.  The  root  of  all  the  mischief  was  that  each 
feudal  lord  was  responsible  for  the  life  and  goods  of  every  dweller 
on  his  domain.  An  unavenged  injury  to  any  person  or  thing, 
however  indirectly  connected  with  him,  was  at  once  a  personal 
insult  and  a  derogation  from  his  authority.  If  he  could  not 
defend  those  who  looked  to  him  for  protection,  the  very  reason  for 
his  existence  was  at  an  end.  Placed  in  this  position,  he  was  like 
a  spider  at  the  centre  of  its  web,  every  vibration  of  which 
touched  the  nerve  of  its  occupant.  A  neighbouring  town,  a 
refractory  vassal,  the  lord  of  a  contiguous  domain,  would  injure 
or  insult  one  of  his  dependants,  and  there  was  a  quarrel  ready- 
made  which  he  was  bound  to  see  through  with  all  the  resources 
at  his  command.  And  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  feudal 
baron  claimed  as  his  prescriptive  right  the  privilege  of  making 
war  on  his  neighbours  when  all  other  means  of  obtaining  redress 
had  failed.  The  kings  had,  indeed,  in  large  degree  succeeded  in 
depriving  them  of  this  privilege,  but  the  barons  never  admitted 
that  it  was  not  their  inalienable  right. 

When  such  were  the  responsibilities  and  such  the  powers  of 
the  Scottish  baron  of  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries,  it  can 
hardly  excite  our  wonder  that  he  was  naturally  a  hot-blooded  and 
turbulent  person,  ready  at  any  moment  to  make  good  his  case  at 
the  sword's  point.  As  was  said,  the  turbulence  of  the  Scots 
nobility  cannot  be  gainsaid,  but  what  of  the  members  of  their 
class  in  other  countries?  If  we  take  our  specimens  from 
Germany,  we  know  that  the  exploits  of  a  Wolf  of  Badenoch  were 
of  every-day  occurrence  in  that  country.  The  famous  Goetz  von 
Berlichingen,  of  whom  Goethe  made  a  hero,  was  not  the  greatest 
sinner  of  his  kind,  but  the  record  of  his  deeds  leaves  far  behind 
that  of  any  Douglas  of  them  all.  In  Germany  the  central 
authority  was  even  weaker  than  it  was  in  Scotland ;  but  what 
was  the  character  of  the  feudal  noble  in  France,  which  in 
the  arts  of  life  was  in  advance  of  most  other  countries? 
Here  is  a  passage  from  a  living  French  historian,  in  which 


1 62  The  Scottish  Nobility  and 

he  describes  the  French  noble  of  the  period  of  the  Hundred 
Years'  War. 

4  The  commanders  of  the  royal  armies,  those  who  ought  to 
have  been  honoured  as  the  defenders  of  their  country,  were 
not  less  merciless  to  the  common  people  than  the  English  or  the 
brigands.  They  violated  every  law  prescribed  by  the  code  of 
chivalry.  Charles  of  Blois,  whom  the  inhabitants  of  Brittany 
honoured  as  a  saint,  did  not  even  keep  his  word  to  towns  which 
had  capitulated.  Princes  of  the  blood  royal  committed  the  most 
shameful  crimes;  the  Due  de  Berri  poignarded  the  Count  of 
Flanders ;  John  the  Fearless  had  his  cousin,  the  Duke  of  Orleans, 
assassinated,  and  he  was  himself  done  to  death  by  his  kinsman, 
the  Dauphin  of  France.  One  of  the  Dukes  of  Brittany  had  his 
own  brother  murdered ;  a  certain  Count  de  Foix  allowed  his  son 
to  die  of  hunger  in  a  dungeon.  A  certain  Sieur  de  Giac  did 
away  with  his  wife ;  a  certain  Sieur  de  Retz  kidnapped  little 
children,  and  made  experiments  in  sorcery  by  subjecting  them  to 
a  slow  death.'  Such  was  the  French  baron  of  the  fourteenth  and 
fifteenth  centuries.  Paint  his  Scottish  brother  as  black  as  we  may, 
it  would  certainly  appear  that  neither  Scottish  King  nor  Scottish 
people  would  have  made  a  good  bargain  by  exchanging  him. 

A  second  charge  against  the  Scottish  feudal  nobility  is  that  they 
were  lacking  in  patriotism.  The  facts  of  their  history  do  not 
justify  such  a  sweeping  statement,  but  it  is  true  that  certain  of 
the  most  eminent  of  them  did  not  scruple  to  fight  under  the 
English  banner  against  their  own  countrymen.  In  the  reign  of 
Robert  III.  the  great  Earl  of  March  became  a  renegade  because 
Robert's  heir,  the  Duke  of  Rothesay,  threw  over  March's 
daughter,  to  whom  he  had  been  betrothed,  and  took  a  wife 
from  the  House  of  Douglas.  In  the  reign  of  James  II.,  the 
Earl  of  Douglas  rebelled  against  his  rightful  prince,  and  when 
beaten,  did  not  hesitate  to  offer  his  services  to  England  against 
his  native  country.  Their  action,  we  say,  was  detestable, 
but  we  have  to  recall  the  fact  that  the  relations  of  the 
Scottish  nobles  to  their  kings  had  been  dubious  from  the 
beginning.  As  many  of  them  owned  domains  in  both 
countries,  their  allegiance  was  a  variable  disposition,  largely  deter- 
mined by  the  circumstances  of  the  moment.  Moreover,  the 
successive  _hazards  of  the  Scottish  succession  had  unsettled  public 
opinion  with  regard  to  dynastic  claims.  Robert  Bruce  had  made 
good  his  claim  by  his  pre-eminence  as  a  soldier  and  a  statesman, 
but  the  fact  could  not  be  ignored  that  John  Balliol  had  as  good 


their  part  in  the  National  History       163 

a  right  to  the  throne  as  he,  and  on  the  accession  of  David  Bruce, 
the  son  of  John  Balliol  was  preferred  by  many  to  the  son  of  the 
hero-King.  And  the  House  of  Stewart,  we  have  seen,  alike 
from  its  origin  and  from  the  character  of  its  first  representatives, 
did  not  command  such  respect  and  devotion  from  the  Scottish 
people  as  to  surround  it  in  special  degree  with  the  sacrosanct 
halo  of  sovereignty. 

But  the  truth  is,  that  in  accusing  the  Scottish  nobles  of  lack  of 
patriotism  we  are  testing  them  by  a  standard  which  we  cannot 
in  historic  justice  apply  to  them.  It  may  be  broadly  said  that 
in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries  the  idea  of  patriotism, 
as  we  understand  it,  was  hardly  realised  by  any  class  in  any 
country  of  Christendom.  If  any  national  experience  was  fitted 
to  awake  patriotic  sentiment,  it  was  the  experience  of  France 
during  the  Hundred  Years'  War,  yet  here  is  how  the  French 
historian  already  quoted  describes  the  conduct  of  the  French 
nobility  during  that  disastrous  period :  '  During  the  so-called 
English  wars,'  he  says,  *  it  was  Frenchmen  themselves  who  did 
most  mischief  to  their  country.  It  was  Robert  of  Artois  and 
Geoffrey  of  Harcourt  who  incited  the  first  debarcation  of  Edward 
III.  on  the  shores  of  France ;  it  was  with  an  army  partly  composed 
of  Gascons  that  the  Black  Prince  gained  the  battle  of  Poictiers ; 
it  was  a  French  prince,  Charles  the  Bad,  who  ravaged  the  tie  de 
France ;  it  was  the  Duke  of  Burgundy  who  opened  the  gates  of 
Paris  to  the  English ;  it  was  a  Norman  bishop  and  Norman 
judges  who  burned  Joan  of  Arc.'  In  England  patriotic 
sentiment  was  more  developed  than  in  France,  but  in  the  conduct 
of  the  English  nobles  as  a  class  during  the  Wars  of  the  Roses 
there  is  little  appearance  of  a  disinterested  attachment  to  their 
country. 

But  if  we  wish  a  striking  illustration  of  the  fact  that  patriotism 
was  still  a  rudimentary  Feeling  throughout  the  period  under 
notice,  we  may  find  it  in  the  indirect  testimony  of  two  great 
historians — in  Froissart  who  wrote  at  the  close  of  the  fourteenth 
century,  and  De  Comines  who  wrote  at  the  beginning  of  the 
sixteenth.  Froissart  was  the  brilliant  interpreter  of  the  spirit  and 
ideals  of  the  aristocracy  of  his  time,  but,  set  panegyrist  of  them 
though  he  is,  it  never  occurs  to  him  to  commend  any  of  his 
heroes  for  self-sacrificing  devotion  to  the  interests  of  their 
country.  The  idea  of  patriotism,  in  fact,  is  not  in  his  book. 
There  is  but  one  kingdom  he  knows,  the  Kingdom  of  Chivalry — 
in  which  every  doughty  knight,  whatever  his  race  or  country, 


1 64  The  Scottish  Nobility  and 

was  the  free-born  subject.  As  for  De  Comines,  who  is  such  a 
striking  contrast  to  Froissart  in  all  his  modes  of  thought  and 
feeling,  he  gave  in  his  own  conduct  a  practical  illustration  of  the 
little  regard  in  which  he  held  the  claims  of  country.  Solely  in 
the  interest  of  his  own  personal  fortunes,  he  deserted  his  natural 
sovereign,  the  Duke  of  Burgundy,  at  a  critical  juncture  in  his 
affairs,  and  gave  his  services  to  that  sovereign's  most  deadly 
enemy,  Louis  XL  of  France.  From  these  considerations,  then, 
it  would  appear  that  in  indicting  Scottish  nobles  for  lack  of 
patriotism,  we  are  in  fact  arraigning  them  for  a  crime  which  was 
at  least  common  to  their  class,  and  which  it  is,  in  truth,  pointless 
to  lay  specially  at  their  door. 

The  other  count  against  them — that  of  insubordination  against 
their  rightful  kings — may  be  regarded  as  commensurate  with 
that  which  we  have  just  been  considering — their  alleged  lack  of 
patriotism ;  and  what  has  been  said  of  the  one  charge  equally 
applies  to  the  other.  The  nobles  of  every  country  deemed  it 
their  right  to  rise  against  their  kings  when  their  privileges  were 
infringed,  and  no  other  means  of  redress  was  open  to  them. 
The  traditional  attitude  of  the  feudal  nobility  to  the  Crown  was, 
in  point  of  fact,  entirely  distinct  from  the  attitude  of  the  clergy 
and  the  people.  For  the  clergy  an  anointed  king  was  a  sacred 
being,  designated  by  heaven  for  his  function.  He  continued  the 
office  of  Saul  and  David ;  it  was  sacrilege  to  touch  his  person, 
and  impiety  to  question  his  authority — so  long  as  it  was 
sanctioned  by  the  Church.  In  the  eyes  of  the  people,  the  sceptre 
was  the  divine  symbol  of  the  royal  authority ;  the  throne,  the 
fountain  of  justice.  The  feudal  noble  had  no  such  exalted  notions 
of  the  person  of  the  prince.  For  him  he  was  not  the  sovereign, 
but  simply  the  suzerain,  the  head  of  the  system  of  which  he  was 
himself  a  member,  and,  therefore,  only  primus  inter  pares.  It 
is  true  that  kings  had  come  to  impose  themselves  as  sovereigns 
as  well  as  suzerains  over  all  classes  of  their  subjects,  but  the 
original  relation  was  never  forgotten  by  the  class  of  the  nobles, 
and  they  never  failed  to  re-assert  it  when  it  lay  in  their  power. 
Even  into  the  seventeenth  century  both  French  and  Scottish 
nobles,  Protestant  as  well  as  Catholic,  found  the  opportunity  of 
reminding  their  kings  of  the  original  bond  between  them.  The 
French  nobility  in  the  reign  of  Louis  XIII.  and  the  Scottish 
nobility  in  the  reign  of  Charles  I.  convincingly  proved  to  these 
kings  that  they  had  not  forgotten  the  traditions  of  their  order. 

Thus    far    we    have    only    been    seeking    to    understand    the 


their  part  in  the  National  History        165 

conditions  which  underlay  the  action  of  the  Scottish  nobility. 
But  the  more  important  question  remains,  What  was  the  general 
tendency  of  their  action  in  the  development  of  the  country? 
Had  it  no  beneficent  result  on  the  well-being  of  the  Scottish 
people,  no  saving  influence  on  constitutional  liberty?  An 
adequate  discussion  of  these  questions  would  require  much  larger 
scope  than  a  single  lecture,  but  a  few  points  may  be  suggested  for 
consideration,  and  be  it  remembered  that  we  are  still  concerned 
with  the  atrocious  two  centuries  preceding  the  Reformation. 

It  would  certainly  be  a  large  assumption  to  maintain  that  in 
the  strife  between  king  and  noble,  the  king  was  always  right  and 
that  the  noble  was  always  wrong.  In  the  reign  of  Robert  III., 
one  of  his  Parliaments  passed  an  Act  which  is  thus  suggestively 
described :  '  The  misgovernment  of  the  realm  to  be  imputed  to 
the  king  and  his  officers.'  After  all  due  allowance  for  the 
exaggerated  language  of  statutes,  the  '  misgovernment '  must 
have  been  sufficiently  serious,  as  an  Act  of  a  previous  Parliament 
of  the  same  king  speaks  of  '  horrible  destructions,  herships, 
burnings,  and  slaughters  commonly  done  through  all  the 
kingdom.'  But  this  was,  in  greater  or  less  degree,  the  condition 
of  the  country  throughout  the  feeble  reigns  of  Robert  II.,  Robert 
III.,  and  James  III.  That  the  miseries  were  mainly  due  to  the 
weakness  of  these  kings  is  proved  by  the  simple  fact  that  under 
the  vigorous  rule  of  James  II.  and  James  IV.  order  and  peace 
were  firmly  maintained  throughout  the  country — the  Highlands 
always  excepted.  As  a  remedy  for  misgovernment,  the  Parlia- 
ment already  mentioned,  following  the  example  of  the  French 
States-General,  enacted  that  the  king  *  to  excuse  his  defaults ' 
should  summon  his  officials  before  his  Council  and  charge  them 
with  their  misconduct.  Whatever  may  have  been  their  motives, 
the  barons  who  passed  this  Act  must  be  credited  with  going  to 
the  root  of  the  evils  from  which  the  country  was  suffering. 

In  another  action  of  the  nobility  they  were  undoubtedly  in  the 
right,  and  the  kings  in  the  wrong.  In  the  interests  of  France 
rather  than  in  the  interests  of  their  own  kingdom,  one  Scottish 
king  after  another  insisted  on  leading  an  invading  host  into 
England,  and  in  almost  every  case  with  disaster.  On  such  an 
expedition  David  II.  was  taken  at  Neville's  Cross,  and  the  pay- 
ment of  his  ransom  was  an  incubus  on  the  country  for  half  a 
century.  Had  James  IV.  listened  to  the  advice  of  his  barons, 
Scotland  would  have  been  saved  the  calamity  of  Flodden.  Once 
and  again  the  Duke  of  Albany,  who  acted  as  Regent  during  the 


1 66  The  Scottish  Nobility  and 

minority  of  James  V.,  would  have  crossed  the  Border  in  the 
interests  of  Francis  I.,  and  was  only  prevented  because  the  barons 
refused  to  follow  him.  James  V.,  who  married  two  French  wives 
in  succession,  would  have  repeated  the  enterprise  of  his  father, 
and  the  discreditable  Rout  of  Solway  Moss  was  the  result  of  the 
hereditary  policy  of  the  Scottish  kings,  consistently  opposed  by 
their  refractory  nobility. 

But  the  attitude  of  the  Scottish  baronage  to  their  kings  may 
be  regarded  under  a  wider  aspect,  and  one  that  reveals  a  principle 
in  their  action  which  was  to  be  of  potent  effect  to  the  close  of 
the  constitutional  history  of  the  country.  Throughout  the 
fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries  it  was  the  universal  endeavour 
of  kings  to  make  themselves  the  absolute  masters  of  their 
subjects.  In  England  the  endeavour  resulted  in  the  Tudor 
despotism,  in  France  and  Spain  in  a  government  of  the  same 
pattern.  The  nobles  of  Scotland,  we'  may  be  sure,  saw  what 
kings  were  driving  at  in  other  countries,  and  they  had  the  will 
and  the  power, to  check  the  process  in  their  own.  The  English 
lawyer,  Sir  John  Fortescue,  writing  in  the  fifteenth  century,  says 
of  the  King  of  Scots  <  that  he  may  not  rule  his  people  by  other 
laws  than  such  as  they  assent  unto.'  That  the  Scottish  con- 
stitution could  be  thus  described  must  undoubtedly  be  put  to 
the  credit  of  the  nobles,  for  the  Commons  did  not  count  as  a 
force  in  the  legislative  action  of  the  country.  To  the  Scottish 
nobles  it  was  due  that  this  idea  of  a  monarchy  limited  by  the 
will  of  the  subject  maintained  itself  in  Scotland  long  after  it  was 
ignored  or  forgotten  in  other  countries.  Not  till  the  reign  of 
James  VI.  did  any  Scottish  sovereign  succeed  in  making  himself 
a  ruler  after  the  type  of  Henry  VIII.  or  Francis  II.,  who  issued 
his  mandates  with  the  formula — *  Such  is  our  royal  pleasure.' 
James  VI.,  even  before  his  migration  to  England,  substi- 
tuted government  by  his  Privy  Council  for  government 
through  the  Estates,  and  the  precedent  was  exactly 
followed  by  his  successors,  Charles  I.  and  Charles  II. 
But  the  conception  of  a  limited  monarchy  for  which  the  nobility 
had  contended  was  never  forgotten  in  Scotland.  It  was  in 
accordance  with  this  conception  that  the  Parliament  which  met 
in  1641  during  the  struggle  of  the  Covenant  enacted  that  all 
the  Officers  of  State  should  be  chosen  by  the  king  with  the  advice 
and  approbation  of  the  Estates,  and  it  was  on  the  same  foundation 
that  Fletcher  of  Saltoun  based  his  patriotic  appeals  in  the  Parlia- 
ment of  the  Revolution.  Deplore  as  we  may,  therefore,  the 


their  part  in  the  National  History        167 

turbulence  of  the  Scottish  nobility  during  the  fourteenth  and 
fifteenth  centuries,  it  is  yet  to  them  that  Scotland  owes  that 
tradition  of  constitutional  liberty  which  was  finally  assured  by 
the  Revolution  of  1689. 

A  few  words  remain  to  be  said  regarding  the  action  of  the 
Scottish  nobles  during  the  period  of  the  Reformation  and  the 
century  and  a  half  that  followed  it.  We  have  been  long  familiar 
with  the  picture  of  the  typical  Scottish  noble  of  the  Reformation. 
As  he  has  been  commonly  represented,  he  was  actuated  by  but 
one  motive  in  all  his  conduct — the  desire  to  lay  his  hands  on  the 
spoils  of  the  ancient  church.  If  such  were,  indeed,  his  only 
incentive,  he  was  at  least  not  alone  in  his  sins,  for  precisely  the 
same  charge  is  brought  against  his  class  in  England,  Germany, 
and  France.  But  the  truth  is  that  this  is  too  simple  a  method 
of  treating  such  a  complicated  thing  as  human  nature.  We 
remember  the  saying  of  Hazlitt  that  no  man  ever  acted  from  a 
single  motive,  and  the  saying  is  as  applicable  to  a  class  as  to  the 
individual.  It  is  an  "assumption  we  are  not  justified  in  making, 
to  say  that  nobles  like  the  Lord  James  Stewart,  and  the  Earls  of 
Argyle  and  Glencairn,  who  were  chiefly  responsible  for  effecting 
the  change  of  religion,  had  no  sincere  conviction  that  they  did 
what  was  right  in  the  interests  of  truth  and  the  interests  of  their 
country.  But  waiving  the  question  of  motives,  regarding  which 
the  historian  does  well  to  be  reticent,  we  cannot  overlook  one 
incontrovertible  fact ;  for  good  or  ill  it  is  to  the  Scottish  nobles 
that  we  largely  owe  the  Reformation.  In  Scotland,  still 
essentially  feudal,  there  was  no  other  power  that  could  have 
effected  a  revolution  which  so  completely  wrenched  the  nation 
from  its  past.  Without  the  support  of  the  nobles  the  zeal  of 
Knox  and  his  brother  reformers  could  not  have  accomplished  it. 
The  inhabitants  of  the  chief  towns  all  but  unanimously  favoured 
the  Reformation,  but  they  were  powerless  to  take  the  initiative 
without  their  natural  leaders,  and  as  society  was  then  constituted, 
these  leaders  could  only  be  the  nobles.  In  Scotland,  it  is  to  be 
remembered,  it  was  in  defiance  of  the  sovereign  that  the  Refor- 
mation was  accomplished,  and  had  the  nobles  as  a  body  taken 
sides  with  the  Crown,  the  reforming  movement  in  Scotland  would 
have  been  as  abortive  as  it  proved  in  Spain. 

The  decisive  influence  of  the  nobles  in  affairs  of  religion  is 
equally  conspicuous  in  the  ecclesiastical  struggles  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.  By  the  beginning  of  that  century  they  had  from 
a  variety  of  causes  become  changed  creatures ;  they  had,  in  fact, 


1 68  The  Scottish  Nobility  and 

undergone  the  process  which  had  already  taken  place  in  the  other 
kingdoms  of  Europe.  In  these  countries  the  intractable  feudal 
baron  had  been  transformed  into  the  obsequious  courtier  whose 
chief  ambition  was  to  bask  in  the  sunshine  of  the  royal  presence. 
The  Scottish  noble  in  his  travels  saw  the  splendour  of  foreign 
courts,  and  the  grace  and  accomplishments  of  the  representatives 
of  his  own  order,  and  he  realised  that  there  was  a  life  more 
attractive  than  his  grim  isolation  in  his  hereditary  keep.  Thus 
the  Court  laid  its  spell  upon  him,  and  henceforward  it  was  to 
royal  favour  and  not  to  his  sword  that  he  looked  for  the  advance- 
ment of  his  interests.  And  James  VI.  had  effectual  means  in  his 
power  to  foster  this  new  disposition  in  his  nobility :  he  gorged 
them  with  the  Church  lands  which  an  Act  of  Parliament,  passed 
in  1584,  had  definitely  annexed  to  the  Crown.  Then  it  was  seen 
how  little  the  Presbyterian  ministers  could  help  themselves  when 
the  nobles  were  detached  from  their  interests.  Had  the  nobles 
been  on  their  side,  James  would  never  have  succeeded  in  his 
policy  of  imposing  Episcopacy  on  his  Scottish  subjects. 

But,  as  was  to  be  convincingly  proved  in  the  reign  of  James's 
successor,  the  claws  of  the  nobles  had  not  been  thoroughly  pared. 
Their  hereditary  instincts,  the  memory  of  their  former  privileges 
were  too  deeply  engrained  for  them  to  submit  tamely  to  the 
sweeping  measure  with  which  Charles  I.  began  his  reign  in 
Scotland.  By  his  famous  Act  of  Revocation  Charles  recalled  all 
the  grants  of  the  Church  property  which  his  father  had  so 
profusely  squandered  among  his  courtiers.  It  is  true  that  Charles 
offered  what  he  considered  an  adequate  compensation,  but  this 
was  not  the  opinion  of  the  class  who  were  mainly  interested  in 
his  measure.  For  a  time,  indeed,  they  were  constrained  to 
accept  the  terms  which  their  royal  master  imposed  on  them,  since 
the  days  were  gone  by  when  they  could  levy  their  retainers  in 
mass,  and  beard  him  in  his  own  palace.  But  the  opportunity 
speedily  came  when  they  could  show  him  that  they  were  still 
the  same  race  who  had  dictated  terms  to  his  ancestors  and  brought 
them  to  their  knees.  By  the  imposition  of  Laud's  Service-book, 
Charles  roused  the  national  feeling  which  produced  the  National 
Covenant,  and  for  the  time  reduced  the  Crown  to  impotence. 
But  in  the  case  of  this  revolution,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Refor- 
mation, it  was  again  through  the  joint  action  of  nobles  and 
commons  that  these  results  were  accomplished.  Mighty  as  the 
tide  of  national  feeling  was,  it  would  have  expended  itself  in 
vain,  had  it  not  been  directed  and  concentrated  by  the  action 


their  part  in  the  National  History        169 

of  the  chief  nobility.  Here,  again,  the  question  of  motive  recurs. 
Were  the  nobles  as  a  body  mainly  influenced  by  the  desire  to 
recover  their  arrested  domains,  or  were  they  sincerely  convinced 
that  the  Covenant  was  a  righteous  protest  against  a  king  who  had 
overstrained  his  prerogative?  However  this  may  be,  it  is  at 
least  an  indisputable  fact  of  our  history,  that  without  the  collabora- 
tion of  the  nobles  neither  the  National  Covenant  nor  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant  would  have  been  brought  to  birth  by  the 
Scottish  people. 

The  power  of  the  nobles  for  good  or  evil  is  continuously 
illustrated  to  the  close  of  the  constitutional  history  of  the  country. 
As  the  conflict  between  Charles  and  his  people  developed,  the 
instincts  of  their  class  again  prevailed.  By  the  domination  of 
the  Church  and  the  domination  of  the  people  they  saw  the 
privileges  of  their  order  threatened  as  they  had  been  previously 
threatened  by  the  king.  Now,  therefore,  they  threw  themselves 
on  the  side  of  the  Crown,  and  with  the  result  that  their  defection 
proved  the  temporary  ruin  of  that  Presbyterian  policy  of  which 
the  Covenants  had  been  the  triumphant  expression.  Under  the 
reigns  of  Charles  II.  and  James  II.  they  are  hardly  recognisable 
as  the  ancient  nobility  of  Scotland.  Now,  indeed,  their  teeth 
were  drawn  and  their  claws  effectually  pared.  Such  of  them  as 
chose  to  make  themselves  the  agents  of  the  policy  of  their  Icings 
were  salaried  and  nominated  officials  who  had  no  option  but  to 
give  effect  to  the  royal  pleasure. 

But  before  their  story  closed,  they  were  yet  to  give  signal  proof 
of  their  predominant  influence  in  the  country.  In  the  Convention 
that  met  in  Edinburgh  after  the  flight  of  James  VII.  the  great 
majority  of  them  declared  for  William  of  Orange,  and  their 
action  decided  that,  so  far  as  Scotland  was  concerned,  the  Revolu- 
tion was  to  prevail.  Had  that  majority  cast  its  sword  on  the  side 
of  Dundee,  in  all  probability  Scottish  history  would  have  followed 
a  different  course.  But  the  last  action  of  the  Scottish  nobility 
was  perhaps  the  most  memorable  and  momentous  in  their  devious 
and  checkered  history :  to  them  we  mainly  owe  the  constitutional 
union  of  the  Parliaments  of  England  and  Scotland.  In  the  last 
Scottish  Parliament  which  expressly  met  to  deliberate  on  the 
articles  of  the  Treaty,  the  votes  of  the  representatives  of  the 
burghs  and  the  shires  were  equally  divided,  while  the  vote  of  the 
majority  of  the  nobles  was  cast  for  Union.  Had  that  vote  not 
been  given,  the  Union  must  at  least  have  been  postponed,  and 
the  result  of  delay  on  the  conflicting  interests  and  the  seething- 


1 7o  The  Scottish  Nobility 

passions  of  the  hour  both  countries  would  alike  have  had  occasion 
to  regard  with  well-founded  apprehension. 

From  this  survey  of  the  successive  action  of  the  Scottish  nobles, 
one  conclusion  at  least  is  forced  upon  us :  no  similar  class  has 
played  a  more  conspicuous  and  more  decisive  part  in  the  nation 
to  which  it  has  belonged.  Once  and  again  they  had  the  destinies 
of  the  country  in  their  hands ;  it  was  they  who  gave  Scotland 
its  limited  monarchy ;  the  Reformation  and  the  Covenants  were 
largely  their  work,  and  but  for  them  the  Revolution  and  the 
Union  might  have  had  no  place  in  our  history.  With  this  record 
of  their  action  before  us,  can  we  doubt  that  in  considerable  measure 
Scotland  owes  to  her  nobility  what  she  is  to-day? 

P.  HUME  BROWN. 


'  Charlie  He's   My  Darling '  and  other 
Burns'  Originals 

THAN  the  classic  version  of  '  Charlie  He's  My  Darling ' 
there  is  perhaps  no  more  popular  or  graceful  Jacobite 
lyric — none  that  expresses  more  happily  the  romantic  per- 
sonal devotion  with  which  the  young  Chevalier  inspired  his 
followers.  Yet  its  origin  has  hitherto  been  partly  involved  in 
mystery.  The  classic  version  first  appeared  in  vol.  v.  of 
Johnson's  Scots  Musical  Museum  (1796).  No  signature  was 
attached  to  it ;  but  the  connection  with  it  of  Burns  is  proved 
by  a  copy  of  it  in  his  handwriting  in  the  Hastie  MSS.  in  the 
British  Museum.  In  his  notes  to  Johnson's  Musical  Museum, 
Stenhouse  hazarded  the  remark  :  { This  Jacobite  song  was 
communicated  by  Burns  to  the  editor  of  the  Museum'  Thus 
from  no  data  whatever  he  inferred  (i)  that  the  lyric  was  a 
contemporary  Jacobite  song,  and  (2)  that  it  was  merely  com- 
municated by  Burns  ;  and  that  admirable  antiquary,  David 
Laing,  who  edited  Stenhouse,  did  nothing  either  to  amend  or 
supplement  this  very  bare  and,  at  the  same  time,  very  bold 
comment.  Even  the  Ettrick  Shepherd,  who  had  private  access 
to  many  Jacobite  originals,  has  very  much  the  same  story,  and 
printed  the  Museum  version  in  his  Jacobite  Relics  as  the 
1  original '  one,  inserting  at  the  same  time  a  '  modern '  version, 
doubtless  his  own  : 

'  As  Charlie  he  came  up  the  gate, 

His  face  shone  as  the  day ; 
I  grat  to  see  the  lad  come  back 
That  had  been  long  away,'  etc., 

as  if  to  show  how  inferior  a  bard  Hogg  himself  was  to  the 
unknown  Jacobite  lyrist  !  And  not  only  Hogg,  but  Lady 
Nairne — whose  ancestors  had  fought  and  bled  for  Charlie  and 
his  sire,  whose  own  poetic  spark  was  perhaps  first  kindled  at 
the  flame  of  Jacobitism,  and  whose  Jacobite  lyrics  breathe  the 

171 


1 72  'Charlie  He's  My  Darling' 

true  romantic  fragrance  of  Jacobite  devotion — even  Lady  Nairne 
knew  nothing  of  another  Jacobite  '  Charlie  He's  My  Darling ' 
than  that  sent  by  Burns  to  Johnson's  Museum ;  but  apparently 
failing  to  relish  the  love  motif  of  the  song,  she  vainly  attempted 
to  supersede  it  by  a  production  which,  though  irreproachably 
respectful,  is,  for  Lady  Nairne,  exceptionally  tame.  Unlike 
Hogg,  she  thought  fit  to  parody  the  Museum  song,  for  it  was 
the  Museum  song  and  no  other  that  she  had  before  her.  The 
first  stanza  she  appropriated  bodily,  and  it  may  suffice  to  quote 
her  second : 

'  As  he  came  marching  up  the  street, 
The  pipes  played  loud  and  clear  ; 
And  a'  the  folk  came  running  out 
To  meet  the  Chevalier ! ' 

Nor  have  editors  of  Burns'  poems  been  able  to  come  to  a 
satisfactory  decision  in  regard  to  the  lyric.  Some,  boldly  treading 
in  the  footsteps  of  Stenhouse,  Hogg,  and  Lady  Nairne,  omit  it 
altogether;  others,  with  perhaps  even  greater  temerity,  include 
it,  without  comment,  as  the  production  of  Burns  alone.  In 
the  Centenary  Bums  Mr.  Henley  and  I  deemed  it  advisable  to 
adopt  a  more  cautious  attitude,  the  opinion  being  expressed  that 
it  '  was  probably  suggested  by  some  Jacobite  lyric ' ;  and  the 
facts  show  that  this  prognostication,  if  not  quite  correct,  was  not 
altogether  wrong.  That  Burns  would  pass  a  Jacobite  song,  or 
a  song  having  connection  with  Jacobitism,  through  his  hands 
without  leaving  on  it  traces  of  his  impress  is  hardly  credible, 
even  without  direct  evidence  of  the  amending  process ;  but  in 
this  song,  as  sent  to  the  Museum,  there  are  internal  characteristics 
to  suggest  his  part  authorship.  Not  merely  is  it,  artistically,  a 
masterpiece  among  Jacobite  lyrics,  but  it  is  in  a  different  plane 
of  excellence  from  that  of  the  contemporary  Jacobite  productions. 
Moreover,  it  bears  marks  of  interpolation,  as  well  as  of  conden- 
sation or  excision ;  and,  above  all,  it  seems  instinct  with  the 
unmistakeable  personality  of  Burns.  Still,  since  he  did  not  sign 
it,  those  with  whom  internal  evidence  counts  for  nothing  have 
naturally  taken  for  granted  that  the  Museum  song  is  a  bona  fide 
Jacobite  production. 

A  faint  suggestion  that  the  Museum  version  is  not  the  un- 
diluted and  complete  original  is  to  be  found  in  a  somewhat  rare 
Falkirk  chapbook,  printed  by  T.  Johnstone,  1814.  This  chap- 
book  contains  a  {  Charlie  He's  My  Darling,'  which  includes  most 
of  the  Museum  stanzas  with  a  few  additional  ones ;  but  even  if 


and  other   Burns'  Originals  173 

this  fact  were  known  to  editors  and  Jacobites,  it  might  be 
argued,  with  some  plausibility,  that  the  song  was  merely  a 
very  base  parody  or  corruption  of  the  Museum  lyric.  Those 
stall  copies,  be  it  remembered,  were  prepared  for  the  frequenters 
of  the  Falkirk  cattle  trysts,  with  whom  quantity  was  of  more 
importance  than  quality,  and  who  also  preferred  their  literature, 
like  their  whisky,  raw  and  rough.  To  cater  for  their  rude 
patrons  the  Falkirk  editors  were  not  unaccustomed  to  *  improve,' 
both  by  additions  and  emendations,  even  the  avowed  productions 
of  Scotia's  favourite  bard,  and  that  they  should  adopt  liberties 
with  the  Museum  text  of  an  anonymous  production  is  quite  what 
we  might  expect. 

It  so  happens,  however,  that  I  have  lighted  on  another 
*  Charlie  He's  My  Darling '  in  a  volume  containing  a  large 
number  of  rare  white-letter  broadsides,  the  majority  of  which 
are  dated  either  1775  or  1776.  The  'Charlie  He's  My  Darling' 
broadside — which  also  includes  '  The  Wandering  Shepherdess ' 
and  a  version  of  f  O'er  Bogie ' — is  undated,  but  print  and  paper 
are  identical  with  those  of  the  1775  anc^  J77^  sheets,  and  one 
of  the  engraved  emblems,  the  face  of  the  sun,  is  identical  in 
every  detail  with  that  on  several  of  the  dated  sheets.  Further, 
among  other  emblems  are  the  arms  of  Marischal  College, 
Aberdeen,  and  a  crowned  head  of  George  II.  the  latter  being 
indication  of  a  date  anterior  to  the  period  of  Burns's  poetical 
activity. 

But  there  are  also  indications,  in  other  sheets,  that  Burns 
probably  had  access  to  this  very  volume  of  broadsides.  The 
third  stanza  of  the  Museum  song  is : 

'  Sae  light's  he  jimped  up  the  stair, 

And  tirl'd  at  the  pin  ; 
And  wha  sae  ready  as  hersel' 
To  let  the  laddie  in  ! ' 

Now  there  is  nothing  corresponding  to  this  in  the  white  broad- 
side song,  '  Charlie  He's  My  Darling.'  There  are,  of  course, 
frequent  references  in  the  old  ballads  to  '  tiding  at  the  pin,'  or 
1  knocking  at  the  ring ' ;  and  the  expression  '  tirl'd  at  the  pin ' 
is  employed  with  weird  effect  in  the  ballad  of  '  Sweet  William's 
Ghost,'  as  well  as  in  the  f  Lass  of  Lochroyan ' : 

'  When  she  had  sail'd  it  round  about 

She  tirl'd  at  the  pin, 
O  open,  open  love  Gregory, 
Open  and  let  me  in.' 


i74  '  Charlie  He's  My  Darling' 

But  no  Scottish  stanza  more  closely  analogous  to  the  '  Charlie ' 
stanza  was  seemingly  in  print  until  after  the  death  of  Burns, 
although  two  afterwards  appeared  in  versions  of  at  least  two 
distinct  ballads  '  taken  down  from  recitation.'  They  may  derive 
from  stanzas  in  two  black-letter  ballads,  £  Fair  Margaret'  and 
'Lord  Thomas  and  Fair  Ellinor,'  at  least  no  earlier  source  is 
known.  Here  is  the  *  Lord  Thomas  '  stanza  : 

'  But  when  he  came  to  Fair  Ellinor's  bower 

He  knocked  at  the  ring  ; 
But  who  was  so  ready  as  Fair  Ellinor 
for  to  let  Lord  Thomas  in ! ' 

Burns  probably  knew  this  ballad,  but  in  the  white  broadside 
volume  of  1775-76  there  is  an  otherwise  unknown  version  of 
the  same  ballad  which  contains  a  Scottish  rendering  of  the 
stanza.  It  is  of  interest  for  other  reasons,  is  entitled  '  An 
Excellent  Song — Lord  Thomas'  Tragedy,'  and  is  dated  April 
27th,  1776.  This  is  the  stanza  which  concerns  our  present 
purpose : 

'  And  when  she  came  to  Lord  Thomas'  gate 

She  tirl'd  at  the  pin, 
And  ready  was  Lord  Thomas  himself 
to  let  Fair  Eleanor  in.' 

Burns  seems  to  have  had  both  versions  in  remembrance  when 
revising  *  Charlie.' 

But  there  are  more  distinct  signs  than  this  of  Burns's  probable 
familiarity  with  the  volume.  Of  that  very  touching  lament, 
*  The  Lowlands  of  Holland,'  there  are  two  well-known  versions : 
that  in  Herd's  Scottish  Songs  and  that  in  Johnson's  Museum. 
That  Burns  had  any  connection  with  the  latter  version  Stenhouse 
had  no  suspicion ;  indeed  he  denounced  one  stanza  as  '  spurious 
nonsense,'  and  hitherto  no  one  has  challenged  the  verdict  of 
Stenhouse.  Yet  this  same  version  is  found  in  the  handwriting 
of  Burns  in  the  Hastie  Collection,  and  without  doubt  Burns 
made  use  not  only  of  the  Herd  version,  but  of  another  and 
longer  version  of  1776  found  in  the  broadside  volume.  He 
amended  the  latter  mainly  by  condensation,  the  chief  contribution 
of  his  own  being  a  vivid  couplet : 

'  The  stormy  winds  did  roar  again, 
The  raging  waves  did  rout,' 

for 

'  The  weary  seas  did  rise, 
The  sea  began  to  rout.' 


and  other  Burns'  Originals  175 

But  other  broadside  copies  of  later  date  exist,  and  thus  the 
evidence  this  broadside  supplies  of  Burns's  acquaintance  with 
the  1775-76  volume  is  only  slightly  corroborative.  A  much 
more  important  link  in  the  cumulative  proof  is  the  fact  that  the 
volume  contains  the  original  of  the  song,  '  The  Taylor,'  sent  by 
Burns  to  the  Museum^  and  generally  assigned  unconditionally  to 
Burns  himself.  That  song  derives  undoubtedly  from  a  unique 
and  curious  production  of  some  twenty  stanzas,  'The  Taylor 
of  Hoggerglen's  Wedding,'  which  is  included  in  a  broadside 
dated  3rd  February,  1776.  The  two  stanzas  of  {The  Taylor' 
sent  by  Burns  to  the  Museum  were  merely  selected  from  the 
broadside  song,  all  that  is  really  his  own  being  the  final 
chorus : 

*  For  now  it  was  the  gloamin, 
The  gloamin,   the  gloamin  ! 
For  now  it  was  the  gloamin, 
When  a'  the  rest  are  gaun,  O.' 

Although  a  rude,  and  even  coarse,  production,  the  broadside 
song  is  of  interest  as  a  rare  specimen,  in  its  probable  entirety, 
of  the  lyric  effusions  of  the  older  Scottish  rustic  muse.  It  gives 
a  graphic  and  uncompromisingly  literal  account  of  the  adventures 
of  a  travelling  tailor  of  the  olden  time,  and  relates  with  humorous 
fidelity  his  courtship  of  the  heiress  of  a  farmer's  widow.  The 
idyll  is  not  one  of  rustic  innocence,  but  all  ends  morally  and 
happily  enough  in  the  tailor's  apotheosis  as  laird  of  the 
farm  : 

*  And  now  the  taylor's  married, 

is  married,  is  married! 
And  now  the  taylor's  married — 
made  laird  o'  Hoggerglen  O  ! ' 

But  it  is,  perhaps,  time  to  introduce  the  original  *  Charlie 
He's  My  Darling,'  or  at  least  a  portion  of  it,  for  there  are 
several  stanzas,  which,  after  the  <Japse  of  a  century  and  more, 
no  longer  quite  accord  with  current  notions  of  propriety : 

*  It  was  on  Monday  morning, 

right  early  in  the  year, 
That  Charlie  he  came  to  this  town, 
recruiting  grenadiers. 

And  Charly  is  my  darling, 
my  darling,  my  darling, 
And  Charlie  he's  my  darling, 
the  young  Chevalier. 


176  'Charlie  He's  My  Darling' 

'  As  he  came  walking  up  the  street, 

the  city  for  to  view  ; 

He  spy'd  a  maid,  both  young  and  sweet, 
at  a  window  looking  through. 
And,  etc. 


;  Then  he  pull'd  out  a  purse  of  gold, 

it  was  as  lang  as  her  arm, 
Here  take  you  that,  dear  Jenny, 
it  will  do  you  no  harm. 
And,  etc. 

Its  up  the  rosy  mountain, 
and  down  the  scroggy  glen, 

We  dare  not  go  a  milking 
For  Charly  and  his  men. 
And,  etc. 


And  on  her  best,  herself  she  drest, 

most  comely  to  be  seen, 
And  for  to  meet  her  true  love 

she's  gone  to  Aberdeen. 
And,  etc. 

But  when  she  came  to  Aberdeen, 

this  bony  lowland  lass, 
There  she  found  her  true  love 

was  going  to  Inverness. 
And,  etc. 

But  when  she  came  to  Inverness 
she  curs'd  the  day  and  hour 

That  her  true  love  was  forc'd  to  fly 
and  leave  Culloden  Moor. 
And,  etc. 

Now  he's  gone  and  left  me, 

I'm  forced  to  lie  alone, 
I'll  never  choose  another  mate 

till  my  true  love  come's  home. 
And,  etc. 

If  I  were  free,  at  liberty 
and  all  things  at  my  will, 

Over  the  see  I  soon  would  be, 
for  I  vow  I  love  him  still. 
And,  etc. 

And  now  my  song  is  ended ; 
I  hope  I  have  said  no  harm.' 


and  other  Burns'  Originals  177 

The  ballad,  it  will  be  seen,  is  very  dubiously  Jacobite  in 
sentiment.  Most  probably  it  has  reference  to  the  affair  of 
Clementina  Walkinshaw.  She  rejoined  Prince  Charlie  in  France 
on  his  escape  from  Scotland  and  became  the  mother  of 
Charlotte  Stewart,  whose  hard  fate  in  being  debarred  from  her 
supposed  heritage,  the  throne  of  her  ancestors,  is  lamented 
by  Burns  in  '  The  Bonie  Lass  of  Albanie.' 

The  fine  stanza  in  the  {  Charlie '  ballad  beginning 

'  Its  up  yon  rosy  mountain ' 

seems  related  to  some  song  on  Charlie's  wanderings  while  in 
hiding,  the  *  men,'  it  may  be,  being  originally  those  not  of 
Charlie  but  of  Cumberland,  who  were  nearly  always  swarming 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Charlie's  hiding  places.  The  words 
'  sae  comely  to  be  seen,'  of  another  stanza,  are  also  worthy  of 
remark.  They  occur  in  the  ballad  of  'John  of  Hazelgreen,' 
whence  Scott  introduced  them  into  '  Jock  o'  Hazeldean,'  and 
they  may  occur  in  other  old  ballads,  so  that  the  author  of  this 
curiously  unequal  production  was  probably  well  versed  in  old 
ballad  literature. 

In  any  case  this  broadside  version — wherever  Burns  may  have 
seen  it — is  clearly  the  original  of  the  song  sent  by  Burns  to 
Johnson's  Museum.  It  was  from  this  piece  of  tawdry  patchwork 
that  he  fashioned  his  consummately  graceful  lyric.  His  main 
emendations  were  those  of  omission :  his  own  direct  additions 
are  slight  in  quantity,  however  remarkable  in  quality.  He 
reduced  his  original  from  eighteen  stanzas  to  five.  In  Stanza  I. 
he  superseded  *  recruiting  grenadiers  '  by  the  { young  Chevalier  ' ; 
in  Stanza  II.  he  substituted  a  '  bonie  lass,'  used  elsewhere  in  the 
ballad,  for  *  a  maid  both  young  and  sweet ' ;  for  the  desired 
romantic  touch,  wholly  absent  from  the  original,  he  had  for 
Stanza  III.  recourse,  as  we  have  seen,  to  the  stanza  from  '  Lord 
Thomas,'  or  rather  three  amended  lines  of  it,  introduced  by 
his  own  inimitable 

*  Sae  light's  he  jimped  up  the  stair ' ; 

for  Stanza  IV.  he  condensed  Stanzas  IV.  and  V.  of  his  original, 
substituting 

'  For  brawlie  weel  he  kend  the  way ' 
for 

'  For  he  had  on  his  trousers,' 
M 


178  '  Charlie  He's  My  Darling 

the  stanza  reading: 

*  He  set  his  Jenny  on  his  knee 
All  in  his  Highland  dress  ; 
For  brawlie  weel  he  kend  the  way 
To  please  a  Bonnie  lass.' 

a  thoroughly  rustic  conception  of  the  ceremonies  of  courtship ; 
and  for  his  fifth  and  last  stanza  he  selected  the  only  supremely 
excellent  one  of  the  original  almost  unchanged,  but  for  the 
substitution  of  *  heathery '  for  *  rosy '  in  the  first  line : 

'  Its  up  yon  rosy  mountain,'  etc. 

But  the  seeming  slightness  of  the  amendments,  the  result 
obtained  being  considered,  only  the  more  strikingly  attests  the 
delicate  artistic  gifts  of  the  amender;  and  perhaps  the  Bard, 
in  his  r61e  of  vamper,  never  did  more  brilliantly.  Moreover, 
he  had  the  satisfaction  of  transforming,  by  a  few  touches  of  his 
magic  wand,  a  dubiously  Jacobite  ballad  into  a  lyric,  which  up 
till  now  has  been  accepted  by  many  as  one  of  the  chief  achieve- 
ments of  the  Jacobite  muse. 

T.  F.  HENDERSON. 


Greyfriars    in    Glasgow 

IN  the  year  1391  Glasgow  came  in  a  rather  peculiar  way  into 
contact  with  the  Friars-minors.  In  March  of  that  year  Pope 
Boniface  IX.  issued  letters  to  the  Chapter  of  the  Cathedral,  to 
the  clergy  and  to  the  people  of  the  City  and  Diocese,  on  the 
death  of  Cardinal  Walter  Wardlaw,  Bishop  of  Glasgow,  appoint- 
ing John  Framysden,  a  Friar  minor  in  priest's  orders  to  the  See. 
This  provision  by  the  Pope  did  not  hold,  however,  as  we  find 
that  Matthew  de  Glendenwin,  Canon  of  Glasgow  and  Rector  of 
Cavers  in  the  Diocese  of  Glasgow,  Master  of  Arts,1  was  conse- 
crated in  I387-2  Cardinal  Wardlaw  died  in  that  year,  so  that 
Pope  Boniface  was  several  years  too  late  in  making  his  provision 
in  favour  of  the  Friar. 

If  John  Framysden  had  become  Bishop,  it  is  safe  to  say  that 
his  order  would  have  obtained  an  earlier  settlement  in  our  city 
than  it  did.  In  the  actual  course  of  events,  more  than  eighty 
years  elapsed  before  the  first  recorded  establishment  of  the  Fran- 
ciscans in  Glasgow  took  place. 

When  jEneas  Sylvius  Piccolomini,  after  his  well-known  and 
remarkable  early  career,  ascended  the  Papal  throne  as  Pius  II. 
in  the  year  1458,  he  left  behind  him  the  intrigues  and  question- 
able devices  of  his  earlier  years,  and  proved  an  able  administrator 
and  a  decorous  and  zealous  Head  of  the  Church.  He  had  been 
employed  in  diplomatic  missions  (1432-35)  before  he  took 
orders,  and  had  visited  Scotland  and  England,  and  thus  knew  our 
country  from  personal  observation. 

A  recent  historian  has  pictured  him  as  coming  '  into  the  frozen 
North  like  a  shivering  Italian  Greyhound  on  a  curling  rink.'  3 
He  has  shivered,  however,  it  must  be  admitted,  to  some  purpose, 
as  he  has  left  two  inaccurate  and  somewhat  contradictory,  but 

1  Bliss,  Calendar  of  Papal  Registers  (Papal  Letters'),  iv.  222. 

zReg.  Epis.  G/as.,  i.  293.  A  charter  regarding  the  Hospital  at  Polmadie  is  dated 
1391,  this  year  being  called  the  fourth  since  Bishop  Glendinning's  consecration. 

3  Lang,  History  of  Scotland,  i.  p.  315. 

179 


180  Greyfriars   in    Glasgow 


yet  interesting  accounts  of  his  visit.4  His  interview  with  James 
I.  forms  the  subject — treated  in  a  very  fanciful  way — of  one  of 
the  celebrated  fresco-paintings  by  Pinturicchio  on  the  walls  of 
the  Library  of  Siena  Cathedral.5  The  background  of  the  fresco 
is  a  conventional  Italian  landscape  in  all  the  bloom  of  summer — 
the  real  month  was  December  or  January — the  Court  of  King 
James  is  seated  out-of-doors  under  an  Italian  portico,  and  the 
king  on  the  throne  is  a  venerable  old  man  with  a  long  grey  beard. 
So  much  for  the  truth  of  contemporary  art. 

The  future  Pope  arrived  at  Leith  after  a  very  stormy  voyage 
from  Sluys,  and  in  performance  of  a  vow  made  on  board  ship, 
when  shipwreck  seemed  imminent,  his  first  care  on  landing  was 
to  set  out  barefoot  on  a  pilgrimage  to  the  most  celebrated  shrine 
of  Our  Lady  in  the  East  of  Scotland.  This  was  Whitekirk 
(Ecclesia  quae  vocatur  Alba)  in  Haddingtonshire,  a  charming 
old  Church  still  used  for  divine  service,  ^neas,  by  this  walk  of 
ten  miles,  in  wintry  weather  over  roads  not  too  well  made,  so 
injured  his  feet  that  he  had  to  be  carried  back  to  Edinburgh  in  a 
litter,  and  it  seems  that  he  was  lame  during  the  rest  of  his  life.6 

One  result  of  his  visit  was,  that  as  an  early  Traveller  in  Scot- 
land he  had  personal  knowledge  of  the  country,  and  thus,  when 
he  became  Head  of  the  Church,  he  was  impelled  to  make  pro- 
vision for  what  he  considered  its  religious  wants.  Accordingly 
on  9th  June,  1463,  in  the  fifth  year  of  his  Pontificate,  he  issued 
a  Bull  to  the  Vicar-general  of  the  Ultramontane  Province  of  the 
Observant  Franciscans. 

The  Observants  originated  towards  the  end  of  the  fourteenth 
century  in  a  desire  to  return  to  the  primitive  observance  of  the 
rule  of  St.  Francis.  In  1415  they  obtained  formal  recognition 
from  the  Council  of  Constance,  and  were  assigned  a  separate 
head  or  Vicar-general.7  They  ultimately  obtained  from  the  Pope 
precedence  over  the  Conventuals,  as  the  older  section  was  termed. 
At  the  dissolution  they  numbered  about  twelve  houses  in 
England,  and  eight  or  nine  in  Scotland.  It  was  to  this  section 
of  the  Greyfriars  that  the  Pope  in  1463  issued  his  Bull.  In  it 

4  Hume  Brown,  Early  Travellers  in  Scotland,  p.  24. 

5  Kitchin,  The  North  in  the  Fifteenth  Century  in  Ruskin  in  Oxford  and  other  Studies, 
P.  236. 

6  Ibid,  p.  235.     It  was  put  forward  as  an  objection  to  his  election  as  Pope  in 
*458  that  he  was  a  cripple,  and   thus  could  not  take  part  with  the  necessary 
dignity  in  the  ceremonies  falling  on  him  as  the  Head  of  the  Church. 

7  Little,  Greyfriars  in  Oxford,  p.  88. 


Greyfriars   in   Glasgow  181 

he  states  that  he  has  lately  learned  through  devotion  of  his  most 
dear  daughter  in  Christ,  Mary,  illustrious  Queen  of  Scotland,8 
and  her  people,  that  at  the  request  of  certain  Merchants,  the 
Vicar-general  has  sent  certain  brethren  of  his  Order,  for  the 
purpose  of  preaching,  into  that  country  in  which  as  yet  no  house 
of  Observant  Friars  has  been  erected,  although  this  would  seem 
to  be  in  the  highest  degree  both  useful  and  consonant  to  the 
desires  of  the  people.  c  We,  therefore,'  the  Bull  proceeds,  c  who 
desire  the  salvation  of  all,  by  these  presents  grant  to  you,  and  to 
your  successor  for  the  time  being,  liberty  within  the  said  King- 
dom of  Scotland  to  erect,  found  and  build  or  to  accept  equally 
freely  three  or  four  Friaries  (ires  aut  quattior  domos)  in  the 
event  of  any  persons  being  found  who  are  led  by  pious  motives 
to  their  foundation  and  erection :  As  also  to  receive  under  the 
rule  of  your  Order  two  or  three  houses  of  Conventual  Francis- 
cans (duas  aut  tres  domos  Conventualium)  where  the  wiser  part 
or  majority  consents  thereto :  Always  provided  that  the  Ordi- 
nary (i.e.  the  Bishop)  agrees  to  this.5  9 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  Pope  states  that  he  is  aware  that 
before  the  date  of  this  Bull  (1463)  brethren  of  the  Order  of 
Observantines  had  been  sent  into  Scotland  for  the  purpose  of 
preaching,  but  he  adds  that  c  no  house  of  Observant  Friars  has 
been  erected.'  It  is  evident  that  these  words  must  be  under- 
stood in  a  special  sense — that  by  '  erected '  is  meant  legally  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Church — for  one  or  more  Observant  Convents  had 
found  a  location  in  this  country  before  this  date. 

No  time  was  lost  in  formally  establishing  several  houses  of 
the  Observant  Order.  Friaries  were  founded  in  Glasgow,  Ayr, 
Elgin,  Stirling,  and  Jedburgh.  They  had  already  been  located 
in  St.  Andrews,  Edinburgh,  Aberdeen,  and  Perth,  and  were  now 
taken  over  as  regular  Observant  houses. 

The  Observants  were  a  protest  from  within  against  the  laxity 
of  discipline  which  was  sapping  the  devotion  and  piety  which 
characterised  the  early  Franciscans.  They  thus  had,  to  some 
extent,  the  elements  of  vitality  attaching  to  all  real  reforming 
movements. 

In  Scotland  they  found  a  welcome  not  only  from  the  King 
and  nobles,  but  also  from  the  Clergy  and  people. 

In  Glasgow  they  were  settled  between  1473  and  1479 — tne 
exact  year  is  uncertain — on  a  site  gifted  partly  by  John  Laing, 

8  The  Queen  Dowager,  Mary  of  Gueldres  mother  of  the  young  King  James  III. 

9  Monumenta  Franciscana,  ii.  p.  264. 


1 82  Greyfriars   in   Glasgow 

Bishop  of  Glasgow,  and  partly  by  Thomas  Forsyth,  Rector.  This 
ground,  the  northern  portion  of  which  was  part  of  the  lands  of 
Ramshorn,  belonging  to  the  Bishop,  and  the  remainder  part  of  a 
croft  belonging  to  the  parsonage,  was  situated  immediately  to  the 
west  of  Greyfriars'  Wynd,  now  known  as  Shuttle  Street.10  It 
did  not  front  the  High  Street.  True  to  their  principles  of 
humility  and  poverty,  the  Minorites  were  content  with  a  site 
behind  the  yards  and  gardens  of  the  burgesses,  which  stretched 
back  from  their  dwellings,  facing  the  High  Street,  to  a  narrow 
lane.11  This  lane  formed  the  access  to  the  House  of  the  Fran- 
ciscans, and  thus  came  to  be  called  Greyfriars'  Wynd.  From  the 
fact  that  the  site  obtained  by  the  Friars  was  given  to  them  by 
the  Bishop  and  Rector,  we  infer  that  the  coming  of  the  Friars 
met  with  the  express  approval  of  the  Bishop  and  his  Clergy. 
This  ground,  slightly  extended  as  afterwards  noticed,  was,  as  far 
as  is  known,  the  only  landed  possession  in  the  City  belonging  to 
the  Minorites.  Hence  they  had  no  Chartulary  to  record  trans- 
missions. King  James  III.  confirmed  them  in  this  site,  by 
Charter  under  the  Great  Seal,  dated  2ist  December,  i^j^.12 

In  1511  Archbishop  Betoun,  and  Robert  Blacader,  then 
parson  of  Glasgow,  for  their  respective  interests,  conveyed  to 
the  Friars  a  small  additional  strip  of  ground  on  the  west,  for  the 
enlargement  of  their  Friary  and  gardens.13  This  ground,  so  far 
as  it  formed  part  of  Ramshorn,  was  twenty-two  feet  in  breadth, 
and  the  portion  given  by  the  parson  who  acted  with  consent  of 
the  Chapter,  was  twenty  feet  in  breadth.  The  pieces,  taken 
together,  extended  from  north  to  south  along  the  whole  length  of 
the  wall  enclosing  the  Friars'  property  on  the  west.  We  learn 
one  or  two  particulars  regarding  the  Friary  from  the  Protocols 
in  which  these  infeftments  are  recorded.  Thus  we  know  that 

10  The  writer  is  indebted  to  Mr.    Robert   Renwick,  Depute  Town-Clerk  of 
Glasgow,  editor  of  Glasgow   Protocols,   for  valuable  suggestions  and  corrections. 
Mr.  A.  B.  M'Donald,  City  Engineer,  and  Mr.  Renwick  have  collaborated  in  the 
preparation  of  the  Sketch  Plan  of  the  site  and  surroundings  of  the  place  of  the 
Greyfriars,  which  is  in  itself  an  illuminating  contribution  to  sixteenth-century 
Glasgow  topography. 

11  This  is  shown  by  a  Protocol  printed  in  the  Diocesan  Registers,  vol.  ii.  p.  7 1 . 
See  Sketch  Plan. 

lzRfg.  Mag.  Sig.,  20  Jac.  iii.  No.  1434.  By  this  Charter  their  convents  in 
Edinburgh,  St.  Andrews,  and  Aberdeen,  as  well  as  that  in  Glasgow,  were  con- 
firmed to  the  Friars.  The  consideration  moving  the  King  to  this  is  stated  to  be 
the  singular  favour  and  devotion  which  he  bore  towards  them  as  well  as  his  soul's 
safety. 

13  Diocesan  Registers  of  Glasgow,  ii.  pp.  431,  435. 


SKETCH  PLAN  showing  approximately  the  PLACE  OF  THE  GREYFRIARS 

OF  GLASGOW  and  surrounding  properties.     (For  descriptions 

see  *  Glasgow  Protocols,'  to  which  the  figures  refer.) 


184  Greyfriars  in   Glasgow 

the  Friary  gardens  stretched  to  the  west,  and  that  they  were  sur- 
rounded by  walls,  and  that  it  was  for  extension  not  only  of 
buildings,  but  also  of  the  gardens,  that  these  additional  pieces  of 
ground  were  required.  At  this  time  Friar  John  Johnson  was 
Warden  (Gardianus)  14  of  the  Glasgow  house,  and  he  took  instru- 
ments from  a  Notary  as  evidence  that  possession  had  been  given 
to  Brother  James  Pettigrew,  Provincial  of  the  Order  in  Scotland, 
on  behalf  of  the  Friars  and  their  successors.15  It  was  a  compara- 
tively small  addition  which  was  obtained  at  this  time,  but,  even 
this,  it  is  carefully  recorded,  they  held  in  virtue  of  a  special  con- 
cession from  the  Pope  enabling  them  to  acquire  such  property 
adjoining  their  houses  as  might  be  necessary  to  improve  the 
accommodation  or  amenity.  The  Dominicans  and  Minorites 
were  thus  both  within  almost  a  stone's-throw  of  each  other 
in  Glasgow,  and  there  would  doubtless  be  occasional  bickerings 
between  them.  Yet  each  would  stimulate  the  other  to  more  zeal, 
a  quality  in  which  neither  Dominicans  nor  Franciscans  were 
wanting.  More  than  two  hundred  years  before  this  date,  the 
unfortunate  Jacques  de  Molay,  last  Grand  Master  of  the  Tem- 
plars, in  a  letter  written  to  Pope  Clement  V.,  quotes  the  friendly 
rivalry  of  the  two  Orders  of  Friars,  as  an  argument  against  the 
fusion  of  the  Templars  and  Hospitallers,  which  was  proposed  by 
the  Pope.  His  words  are  so  interesting,  that  I  venture  to  quote 
them :  f  There  is,'  he  writes,  *  an  outstanding  example  of  the 
advantage  of  friendly  rivalry  in  religion  in  the  case  of  the  Friars* 
Preachers  and  Minorites,  who  have  many  better  and  more  famous 
members  than  would  be  the  case  if  both  religious  orders  were 
fused  into  one,  since  each  bends  its  energies  to  have  more  excel- 
lent men  than  the  other,  and  trains  its  members  as  much  to  their 

14  The  word  '  Gardianus J  according    to    the   General    Statutes  of  the   Order 
enacted  at  Barcelona   in  1451,  is  the  official   title  of  the  head  of  a   Convent 
(conventus).     This  latter  name  is  to  be  applied  only  to  places  founded  by  Papal 
authority  in  which  at  least  twelve  brethren  can  be  comfortably  accommodated. 
If  the  term  Gardianus  is  used  in  its  strict  sense  it  follows  that  from  its  employ- 
ment in  the  Protocol  at  least  twelve  brethren  could  find  suitable  accommodation 
in  the  Convent  at  Glasgow.     (Cf.  Man.  Franc,  ii.  p.  106.) 

15  Diocesan  Registers  of  Glasgow,   ii.,   pp.  432,  435-6.     James  Pettigrew  (Peti- 
greu,  Pedigrew)  is  commemorated  in  the  Obituary  of  Aberdeen  as  follows :  «  jth 
January,  Death  of  the  reverend  father  Friar  James  Petigrew  provincial  minister 
of  this  province,  a  father  in  every  way  famous.     For  he  was  most  enlightened  in 
the  highest    points  of  sacred   lore  and  a  shining   example  of  entire  religious 
devotion.     Before  receiving  the  office  of  minister  he  thrice  ruled  the  province 
well  and  worthily  in  the  office  of  provincial.     Anno  Domini  1518.'     (Monumenta 
Frandscana,  vol.  ii.  p.  123.) 


Greyfriars   in   Glasgow  185 

holy  Office  as  to  exhortation  and  preaching  the  Word  of  God, 
and  all  this  contributes  to  the  benefit  of  Christian  people.' 16 

No  doubt  there  is  truth  in  this  view,  but  it  shuts  the  eyes  to 
the  jealousies  caused  by  religious  rivalries.  In  a  limited  sphere 
such  as  Glasgow  then  was,  these  jealousies  tended  at  times  to 
break  out  into  open  opposition. 

Unfortunately,  we  have  no  materials  which  would  enable  us  to 
construct  a  connected  history  of  the  Order  in  Glasgow,  or  else- 
where in  Scotland.  All  that  can  be  done  is  to  glean  a  very  few 
scattered  notices. 

Two  years  after  the  date  when  the  additional  ground  was 
acquired,  viz.  in  1513,  the  curtain  is  again  lifted,  and  we  see,  en 
Saturday,  9th  April,  at  two  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  a  small 
gathering  of  clerics  before  the  door  of  the  manse  of  the  Trea- 
surer of  the  Glasgow  Diocese,  Alexander  Inglis,  who  lies  within 
his  house,  sick  in  all  likelihood  of  a  mortal  malady.  This  little 
group  of  five  consists  of  four  Observant  Franciscans  belonging  to 
the  Glasgow  Convent,  who  along  with  Master  Andrew  Sibbauld, 
Prebendary  of  Renfrew,  have  been  drawing  up  and  witnessing 
the  Testament  of  the  sick  man.17  The  Franciscans  are  Brother 
John  Johnston,  Warden,  and  Brother  John  Tennand,  Cleric,  and 
Alexander  Cottis  and  Thomas  Bawfour,  lay-brothers.  We 
know  from  the  Diocesan  Registers  that  the  Treasurer  died  soon 
afterwards,  as  we  find  a  claimant  to  his  vacant  stall  in  the  Cathe- 
dral, sending  his  Procurator  on  Saturday,  2nd  July,  to  take  formal 
possession  on  his  behalf.  This  he  did  by  keeping  the  seat  warm 
by  sitting  in  it  at  all  the  services  for  three  consecutive  days.18 
At  the  same  time  the  Executors,  nominated  by  the  late  Treasurer, 
appeared  in  the  Cathedral,  and  declined  to  accept  the  office  to 
which  they  had  been  appointed.  There  were  four  witnesses  to 
this  formal  step,  one  of  whom  is  Brother  John  Akinhede, 
Observant  Friar  Minor. 

We  have  no  further  records  of  the  Friars  in  Glasgow  till  the 
year  1539,  when  there  occurred  the  trial  for  heresy  and  burning 
at  the  stake  in  our  City  of  two  persons,  one  of  whom  was  Jerome, 
or  Jeremy  Russell,  a  Franciscan  Friar.  Details  of  his  trial  and 
death  are  given  by  Knox,  but  we  are  not  informed  if  he  belonged 
to  the  Glasgow  Convent,  and  no  particulars  of  his  previous 
career  are  set  forth.19 

16Delaville  le  Roulx,  Cartulaire  des  Hospitallers,  T.  iv.  No.  4680. 
17 'Diocesan  Registers  of  Glasgow,  ii.  p.  486.  ^  Ibid,  p.  495. 

19  Knox,  Works  (Laing's  Edition),  vol.  i.  p.  63.  Tytler,  History  of  Scotland, 
vol.  v.  p.  225. 


1 86  Grey  friars   in    Glasgow 

Coming  down  to  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  the  Protocols 
of  the  Town  Clerks  disclose  to  us  the  fact  that  Brother  James 
Baxter  was  one  of  the  Franciscans  ejected  from  their  House 
here.20  In  the  autumn  of  1559,  as  stated  in  Leslie's  History, 
there  had  been  attacks  on  the  Churches  and  Religious  Houses 
in  the  City.  We  are  told  that  Chatelherault,  Argyll  and  Arran, 
along  with  some  others,  came  to  Glasgow,  and,  to  use  the  words 
of  Leslie,  *  profaned  the  sacred  things  hitherto  unviolated.'  21 
The  Greyfriars  suffered  among  the  other  religious  orders.  Their 
house  here  was  attacked,  and  they  themselves  driven  forth. 

It  is  often  supposed  that  the  Mendicant  Orders  must  have  been 
worse  than  their  neighbours,  seeing  that  they  were  the  first  to 
suffer  in  these  popular  tumults.  This  view  is  not  tenable.  All 
that  happened  to  them  resulted  from  the  fact  that  they  bulked 
more  largely  in  the  public  eye,  and  were  living  surrounded  by 
the  lawless  element  at  all  times  to  be  found  in  towns.  They  were 
known  to  the  people,  for  they  were  continually  mixing  among 
them.  Their  houses  were  known  also,  and  being  easily  acces- 
sible and  undefended,  were  convenient  objects  of  attack.  It  was 
the  handiness  of  situation  in  the  towns  that  made  the  Friaries 
the  first  religious  houses  to  be  devastated,  not  the  character  of 
the  inmates.  Whatever  the  faults  of  the  Friars  were,  it  cannot 
be  said  that  they  lacked  zeal  and  energy.  In  many  cases  they 
were  distinguished  for  cheerful  devotion  to  duty.  If  they  were 
found  grasping  after  money,  it  must  be  remembered  that  it  was 
not  for  themselves  individually  but  for  their  Order. 

The  truth  is  that  the  emancipation  of  intellect  brought  about 
by  the  Renaissance  was  reaching  our  land,  and  was  bearing  fruit 
of  a  very  unripe  quality.  The  old  faith  and  the  old  forms  were 
being  submerged,  and  in  the  upheaval  thus  caused,  the  froth 
was  coming  to  the  surface,  and  lawlessness  and  tumult,  never  far 
absent  in  our  early  history,  were  taking  the  opportunity  to  do  their 
worst.  The  Friars  were  being  pushed  aside  as  one  of  the  institu- 
tions of  a  worn-out  age. 

Some  of  the  more  cultured  members  of  the  Mendicant  Orders 
became  pioneers  of  the  new  learning.  Some  suffered  martyrdom 
as  pioneers  have  often  to  suffer.  Others  had  to  retire  into 
obscurity,  after  waging  a  losing  battle  with  obscurantism.22  At 

20  Glasgow  Protocols,  vol.  v.  No.  1370. 

21  Leslie,  History  of  Scotland  (S.T.  Society),  vol.  ii.  p.  428. 

22  Friar  Matthias  Doring  is  an  interesting  case  in  point.     In    1461   he  had  to 
retire  from  his  position  of  prominence  in  the  Conventual  branch  of  the  Order. 
(Vide  Little,  Greyfriars  in  Oxford,  p.  256.) 


Grey  friars   in   Glasgow  187 

the  same  time  one  has  to  keep  in  mind  that  there  is  some  evidence 
of  popular  sympathy  with  the  Friars  in  various  quarters.  The 
Satirists  of  the  time,  who  do  not  spare  them  any  more  than  they 
spare  the  Monks  and  Secular  Clergy,  show  us  by  many  indirect 
touches  that  they  look  upon  the  Mendicant  Orders  as  in  many 
ways  carrying  on  religious  work  with  vigour  and  earnestness,  and 
combining  with  it  a  knowledge  of  physical  science,  which  gives 
them  a  place  among  the  leaders  of  thought  in  that  age.  Sir 
David  Lindsay  makes  the  pretended  Friar,  '  Flattrie,'  say  to  the 
King :  — 

I  sweir  to  you,  Sir,  be  Sanct  An, 
Ye  met  ne'er  with  ane  wyser  man, 
For  monie  a  craft,  Sir,  do  I  can, 
War  thay  weill  knawin  : 
Sir,  I  have  na  feill  of  flattrie, 
But  fosterit  with  philosophic, 
Ane  strange  man  in  astronomic, 
Quhilk  sal  be  schawin.23 

We  see,  also,  from  side  allusions,  that  those  Friars  who  had 
recently  arrived  in  Scotland,  were  more  decorous  in  demeanour 
as  a  class  than  the  Conventuals  who  had  been  here  for  a 
lengthened  period :  — 

*  And  let  us  keip  grave  countenance 
As  we  were  new  cum  out  of  France.' 24 

It  would  be  out  of  place  here  to  discuss  the  evidence  which 
exists,  that  the  Church  generally,  and  not  the  Friars  alone,  had 
fallen  away  from  early  ideals  of  purity  and  devotion. 

To  return  to  the  Greyfriars  in  Glasgow.  In  the  year  1522  a 
certain  James  Baxter  was  rentalled  '  be  consent  of  Jhone 
Smyth's  bayrnis '  in  the  xliiis.  xd.  land  of  Haghill.25  In 
1560  c  James  Baxter,  Friar  Minor,  now  ejected'  assigns  to  his 
kinsman,  Mr.  Robert  Herbertsoun,26  'the  four  merk  land  of  Hag- 
hill,  then  occupied  by  Robert  Graye  and  George  Graye,  lying  in 
the  Barony  of  Glasgow,  in  which  lands  the  said  James  was  ren- 
talled by  the  Archbishop  of  Glasgow,  superior  thereof.'  27  Mr. 
Renwick  is  of  opinion  that  this  latter  James  Baxter  and  the 
Rentaller  of  1522  are  the  same  person.  This  cannot  be  proved, 
but  seems  very  likely.  At  all  events  the  Friar  was  a  Glasgow 

23  Satyre  of  the  Three  Estates  (Laing's  Edition),  ii.  p.  5 1 . 
™  Satyre  of  the  Three  Estates,  vol.  ii.  p.  41. 
25  Diocesan  Registers  of  Glasgow,  i.  p.  84. 

26Herbertson  was  chaplain  of  the  Chaplainry  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul   in  the 
Cathedral  (Glasgow  Protocols,  vol.  v.  No.  1380). 
^Glasgow  Protocols,  vol.  v.  No.  1370. 


1 88  Greyfriars   in   Glasgow 

man.  He  had  an  older  brother  called  Robert  who  predeceased 
him.  The  latter  is  described  as  a  Citizen  of  Glasgow,  and  was 
owner  of  a  tenement  in  the  City  lying  immediately  to  the  east 
of  the  lands  of  Deanside,  and  thus  quite  close  to  the  Greyfriars' 
Convent.  James  Baxter  was  his  brother's  heir,  and  in  1560  he 
conveyed  all  his  right  and  title  in  the  estate  to  Mr.  Robert  Her- 
bertsoun.28  Herbertsoun  is  called  his  kinsman,  and  we  learn 
that  he  was  chaplain  of  the  Chaplainry  of  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul  in  the  Cathedral.  This  Chapel  was  one  of  the  four  altars 
or  Chapels  at  the  east  end  of  the  Lower  Church,  and  was  situated 
between  that  of  St.  Nicholas  on  the  North,  and  that  of  St. 
Andrew  on  the  south.29  It  was  founded  by  Mr.  Thomas  For- 
syth,  Canon  of  the  Cathedral  Church  of  Ross  and  Prebendary  of 
Logy,30  on  i6th  June,  1498. 31  This  is  probably  the  same 
Thomas  Forsyth,  who,  about  twenty  years  before,  had  been 
Rector  of  Glasgow,  and  had  joined  Bishop  John  Laing  in  grant- 
ing a  site  for  the  Greyfriars  in  the  City.  If  this  be  so,  then  the 
friendly  relations  between  the  Observant  Franciscans  and  the 
Chaplain  of  the  Altar  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  which  evidently 
existed  at  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  had  their  origin  in  the 
Founder  of  the  Chapel  in  the  Cathedral,  and  the  donor  of  the 
site  of  the  Greyfriars'  Convent  in  Glasgow  being  one  and  the 
same  person.  These  friendly  relations,  thus  begun,  had  sub- 
sisted for  a  period  of  upwards  of  eighty  years. 

The  conveyance  by  Friar  James  Baxter  in  favour  of  his  rela- 
tive was  not  successful  in  preventing  the  Friary  from  passing 
entirely  out  of  the  control  of  the  Order.  In  1562  the  Privy 
Council  passed  an  Act  directing  the  revenues  belonging  to  the 
Friars,  among  other  Clergy,  to  be  administered  by  persons 
appointed  by  the  Crown  for  the  benefit  of  c  hospitalities,  schools, 
and  other  godly  uses,'  and  the  Magistrates  of  Aberdeen,  Elgin, 
Inverness,  and  Glasgow,  and  other  burghs  where  the  Friars' 
places  had  not  been  destroyed,  were  instructed  to  make  the  main- 
tenance of  them  a  charge  upon  the  common  good,  and  to  make 
use  of  them  for  the  benefit  of  their  respective  towns  until  they 
were  further  directed.32 

It  is  not  known  whether  at  the  date  of  this  Act  the  House  of 
the  Greyfriars  in  Glasgow  was  still  standing  and  available  for 
*  schools  and  other  godly  uses.'  In  1567  Queen  Mary,  by 

28  Glasgow  Protocols,  vol.  v.  No.  1371.  29  Book  of  Glasgow  Cathedral,  p.  317. 

30  Now  Logie-Easter,  near  Tain.  »i  Regis.  Episc.  Glas.  ii.  p.  500. 

32  Charters  and  Documents  of  the  City  of  Glasgow,  part  I.  p.  Ixxxiv. 


Grey  friars   in   Glasgow  189 

Charter  under  the  Great  Seal,  granted  to  the  Magistrates,  Coun- 
cillors, and  community  of  the  City,  the  whole  possessions  of  the 
Greyfriars  in  Glasgow,  but  this  Charter  expressly  reserved  to  the 
Friars  who  were  in  possession  before  the  change  of  religion  the 
use  of  the  revenues  during  their  lives.33  In  all  probability 
James  Baxter,  being  an  old  man,  did  not  enjoy  long  his  share 
of  the  liferent  thus  provided,  if,  indeed,  he  was  still  alive  at 
this  date. 

By  the  year  1575  the  site  of  the  House  of  the  Greyfriars  had 
become  private  property.  On  23rd  December  in  that  year,  Sir 
John  Stewart  of  Mynto  resigned  *  the  place  formerly  of  the 
Franciscan  Friars  of  the  City  of  Glasgow,  with  the  yards  and 
surrounding  wall,  and  sundry  pertinents  lying  between  the 
lands  of  the  Rector  of  Glasgow  and  Medoflatt  on  the  west,  the 
lands  of  William  Hegait  on  the  south,  and  the  common  streets 
on  the  east  and  north.34  Here  we  have  the  boundaries  of 
the  Friary  stated,  and  one  notices  that  it  is  said  to  be  bounded 
by  streets  on  the  east  and  north.  The  street  on  the  east  was  not 
the  High  Street,  as  we  have  already  seen,  but  a  lane  or  vennel 
now  occupied  by  Shuttle  Street ;  that  on  the  north  being  a  street 
referred  to  in  contemporary  records  as  l  the  common  way  of  the 
Deneside '  and  again  as  the  '  common  road  of  the  Denside.'  35 
The  east  end  of  this  road  lay  a  little  to  the  south  of  the  present 
line  of  George  Street,  which  it  crossed  toward  the  west.  The 
road  extended  from  the  High  Street  to  the  Deanside  Well,  where 
it  turned  due  north,  and  continued  up  the  steep  hill  till  it  joined 
the  Rottenrow. 

The  question  presents  itself — what  extent  of  ground  did  the 
Friary  occupy  ?  In  the  absence  of  data,  we  can  only  arrive  at  an 
approximate  conclusion.  It  is  evident  that  the  Brethren  were 
finding  themselves  cramped  by  want  of  space  in  1511,  when  the 
additional  strip  was  acquired,  from  which  one  can  be  pretty  safe 
in  assuming  that  their  original  site  was  not  very  extensive.  They 
had  a  walled  garden  towards  the  west,  as  we  have  seen, — and  we 
may  take  it  that  the  whole  area  possessed  by  them  was  only  about 
an  acre.36 

It  seems  clear  from  the  contemporary  notices  which  have  come 
down  to  us,  that  one  of  the  proximate  effects  of  the  Reformation 
was  to  lessen  the  importance  and  outward  prosperity  of  Glasgow. 

33  Glasgow  Charters,  ii.  p.  132.  84  Glasgow  Protocols,  vol.  vii.  No.  2242. 

85  Diocesan  Registers,  vol.  i.  p.  365.     Cf.  note  on  p.  364. 
36 See  Sketch  Plan. 


1 9o  Greyfriars   in   Glasgow 

Before  that  time  the  city  had  several  sources  of  wealth  which 
were  then  cut  off.  These  were  connected  with  the  Church,  and 
its  ceremonial  observances,  and  after  the  Reformation  there 
remained  at  first  nothing  to  take  their  place.  The  Churchmen 
had  their  manses  and  the  Dominicans  and  Franciscans  their 
Convents,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Cathedral.  With  the 
change  of  religion  the  Secular  Clergy  and  the  Friars  took  their 
departure  or  were  expelled,  leaving  their  habitations  deserted, 
and  thus  one  of  the  most  flourishing  and  pleasant  quarters  of  the 
town  soon  became  ruinous.  In  fact,  the  city  as  a  Bishop's  burgh 
had  depended  very  much  on  the  coming  and  going  of  the 
Ecclesiastics  of  high  and  low  degree,  who  brought  custom  to 
the  shopkeepers,  traders  and  fishermen,  and  gave  importance  to 
the  town  as  the  seat  of  a  great  Cathedral.  All  this  was  altered, 
and  thus  one  is  not  surprised  to  find  that  in  1587  the  state  of 
affairs  was  so  bad,  especially  in  the  north  part  of  the  city,  where 
the  Churchmen  had  dwelt,  that  the  freemen  and  other  citizens 
cast  about  to  try  to  find  a  remedy.  In  that  year  they  presented 
a  petition  to  the  Scottish  Parliament  c  makand  mentioun  that 
quhair  that  pairt  of  the  said  citie  that  afoir  the  Reformation  of 
the  Religioun  wes  intertenyt  and  uphaldin  be  the  resort  of  the 
Bischop,  Parsonis,  Vicaris  and  utheris  of  clergie  for  the  tyme  is 
now  becum  ruinous,  and  for  the  maist  pairt  altogidder  decayit,  and 
the  heritouris  and  possessouris  thairof  greitly  depauperit,  wanting 
the  moyane  not  onlie  to  uphald  the  samin  bot  of  the  intertene- 
ment  of  thame  selfis,  thair  wyfns,  bairnis  and  famelie.' 

This  description  is  very  different  from  that  given  by  Bishop 
Leslie  of  the  state  of  matters  before  the  Reformation.  Even 
allowing  for  his  prepossessions  in  favour  of  the  old  form  of 
religion,  it  seems  evident  that  the  town  had  gone  back  in  wealth 
since  the  change  of  faith.  He  says  in  a  well-known  passage  in 
his  history — *  Surlie  Glasgow  is  the  maist  renoumed  market  in 
all  the  west,  honorable  and  celebrate :  Afore  the  haeresie  began 
thair  was  ane  Academic  nocht  obscure  nathir  infrequent  or  of 
ane  smal  numbir,  in  respecte  baith  of  Philosophic  and  Grammer 
and  politick  studie.  It  [the  market]  is  sa  frequent,  and  of  sik 
renoume,  that  it  sendes  to  the  Easte  cuntreyes  verie  fatt  Kye, 
Herring  lykwyse,  and  salmonte,  oxne-hydes,  wole  and  skinis, 
buttir  lykwyse  that  nane  bettir  and  cheise.'  37 

37  Leslie,  History  of  Scotland,  Dalrymple's  Translation  (S.T.S.),  vol.  i.  pp. 
1 6,  17.  The  translation  is  faulty,  the  order  of  the  sentences  being  different 
in  the  original.  It  is  questionable  if  Leslie's  words  support  the  view  taken 
above.  See  Leslie,  De  Origine  (i  578),  p.  1 1. 


Greyfriars   in   Glasgow  191 

Evidently  the  historian  speaks  from  pleasant,  personal  experi- 
ence of  the  roast-beef,  butter  and  cheese  of  the  Western  City. 
It  is  a  rosy  picture  of  the  Pre-reformation  state  of  the  town,  and 
although  possibly  a  little  over-coloured,  still  the  evidence  other- 
wise available  points  to  its  substantial  truth. 

Our  citizens,  however,  did  not  sit  still  under  this  temporary 
depression.  Action,  as  we  saw  above,  was  taken,  and  the  result 
was  an  Act  of  Parliament  (1587,  c.  113)  appointing  an  influential 
Commission,  at  the  head  of  which  were  Robert,  Lord  Boyd,  and 
Walter,  Commendator  of  Blantyre,  along  with  the  Provost  and 
Bailies,  and  one  half  of  the  Council  of  the  city,  in  order  to  go 
into  the  matter,  and  '  tak  ordour  as  thai  sail  think  maist  expedi- 
ent for  relief  of  the  decay  and  necessitie  of  that  pairt  of  Glasgow 
abone  the  Greyfriar  Wynd  thairof  ather  be  appointting  of  the 
mercate  of  salt,  quhilk  cumis  in  at  the  Over  Port  or  the  Beir  and 
Malt  mercat  upon  the  Wynd  Heid  of  the  said  Cietie,  or  sic 
uthair  pairt  thairabout  quhair  the  saids  Commissioneris,  or  the 
Maist  pairt  of  them,  sail  think  maist  meit  and  expedient.'  38 

The  action  taken  by  this  Commission  resulted,  no  doubt,  in 
additional  importance  being  given  to  the  trade  of  that  part  of 
the  town.  We  know  that  the  fair  was  for  many  years  pro- 
claimed annually  at  Craigmak  or  Craignaught,  part  of  which  had 
been  given  as  a  site  for  the  Friary.39  The  remainder  of  Craig- 
mak lay  immediately  adjoining  the  walls  of  the  Friary 
buildings,40  and  the  fact  that  a  Court  was  held  here  once  a  year 
1  upon  the  fayr  ewin '  for  the  express  purpose  of  formally  pro- 
claiming '  the  peace  of  the  fair '  gave  rise  to  the  curious  and 
erroneous  notion  stated  by  M'Ure  in  his  History  of  Glasgow*1 
that  the  annual  fair  owed  its  origin  to  the  Franciscans.  Craig- 
mak was  perhaps  chosen  as  the  place  of  proclamation  from  its 

^  Acts  of  Parliament  of  Scotland,  vol.  iii.  p.  505. 

39  Glasgow  Protocols,  No.  1745.      In  the  Rental  of  Temporalities  preserved  in 
the  General  Register  House,  the  following  is  included  in   Glasgow  Parsonage  : 
'  The  feu-ferme  of  ane  pece  land  callet  Craignaucht,  extending  to  ane  aiker  of 
land  or  therby,  Hand  in  the  Baronie  of  Glasgow  and  Sherefdome  foirsaid,  set  in 
few  to  William  Hegait  and  Jonet  Grahame,  his  spouse,  extending  yeirlie  to  xij.s, 
with  xvj.d.  of  augmentatiown  inde  the  yeir  complet  I  3/4-d."     I  am  indebted  to 
Mr.  Renwick  for  this  transcript.     He  adds :  '  The  Parson  of  Glasgow  seems  to 
have  been  owner  at  one  time  not  only  of  the  Greyfriars  site,  but  also  of  a  con- 
siderable portion  of  adjoining  land.' 

40  In  one  of  Michael  Fleming's  Protocols  of  date  2nd  March,  1531   there  is 
reference   to  'ane  pece  of  land   lyand  on    the   baksyd  of  the   Greyfreris  callit 
Craegmak.'     Glasgow  Protocols,  vol.  iv.  No.  1061. 

41  M'Ure,  History  of  Glasgow  (Edition  1830),  p.  57. 


192  Greyfriars   in   Glasgow 

being  a  ridge  of  high  ground  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  place 
which  had,  for  many  years,  been  rendered  sacred  by  the  residence 
and  ministrations  of  the  Greyfriars.  The  ground  on  which 
markets  were  held  was  privileged.  Sir  James  Marwick,  after 
pointing  out  that  the  markets  in  Greece  were  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  gods,  proceeds  to  observe  that  '  the  same  feeling  may 
have  had  something  to  do  in  times  more  modern,  with  the  selec- 
tion of  consecrated  ground  around  Churches,  or  of  ground 
associated  with  the  lives  and  labours  of  famous  saints.'  42 

There  are  some  interesting  points  connected  with  this  fencing 
of  the  fair  each  year  on  6th  July,  and  the  ceremonies  which 
accompanied  it.  For  example,  David  Coittis,  *  mair  of  fee '  or 
hereditary  officer  in  the  barony,  in  i58i,43  and  again  in  1590," 
proclaimed  *  the  peace  of  the  fair  upon  the  Greyne,'  while  the 
Town  Officer,  Richard  Tod,  proclaimed  it  at  the  Cross  upon  the 
Tolbooth  stair.  The  Court  that  fenced  the  fair  was  called  the 
*  Heid  Court  of  Craignache,'  but  it  confined  itself  to  the  one  act 
of  administration  and  continued  the  other  causes  that  came  before 
it  to  a  more  convenient  season  and  place,  *  conforme,'  as  the 
Record  in  1 607  bears,  *  to  aid  use  and  wount.'  45 

The  University  acquired  right  to  the  Franciscan  Convent  and 
pertinents  in  1572-3,  under  the  well-known  'Charter  by  the 
Provost,  Bailies  .and  Councillors  of  the  City  granting  to  the 
Pedagogy,  or  College,  for  the  maintenance  of  a  principal,  being 
also  a  professor  of  theology,  two  regents  and  teachers  of  philo- 
sophy and  twelve  poor  students,  all  the  Kirk  livings  which  had 
been  bestowed  on  the  Burgh '  by  Queen  Mary's  Charter  of 
1566-7.  The  buildings  may  have  been  kept  up,  and  in  occasional 
use  for  University  purposes  for  many  years  after  the  Reforma- 
tion. We  have  seen  that  Sir  John  Stewart  of  Mynto  was  in 
possession  of  the  '  place  formerly  of  the  Franciscan  friars '  in 
1575,  and  in  an  informing  note  to  the  Glasgow  Protocols,  Mr. 
Robert  Renwick  points  out  that  '  he  probably  acquired  it,  in 
return  for  payment  of  rent  or  feu-duty,'  and  that  the  College 
became  the  landlords,  or  superiors,  and  entitled  to  the  annual 
rent  or  feu  duty  under  the  Charter  of  I573-46  Sir  John  Stewart 

42  Some  Obsei-vations  on  Primitive  and  Early  Markets  and  Fairs,  by  Sir  James  D. 
Marwick,  LL.D.,  p.  32. 

43  Extracts  from  the  Records  of  the  Burgh  of  Glasgow,  1573-1642  (Burgh  Records 
Society),  p.  88. 

"Ibid.  p.  154.  *ib\d.  p.  267. 

46 Glasgow  Protocols,  vol.  vii.  p.  130. 


Grey  friars   in   Glasgow  193 

was  Provost,  and  in  that  capacity  granted  the  Charter  to  the 
College.  Evidently  he  was  much  interested  in  the  prosperity  of 
the  University. 

The  Order  played  an  important  part  in  the  religious  life  of 
Scotland  before  the  Reformation,  as,  indeed,  it  did  over  all  the 
Christian  world.  As  Miss  Mary  Bateson  observes :  *  By  tact, 
knowledge  of  the  world,  and  cheerful  humour,  the  Franciscans 
soon  obtained  great  secular  influence.  As  confessors  to  the  King 
and  Queen,  to  bishops  and  noblemen,  they  were  in  control  of 
important  consciences :  the  papacy  supported  them  and  found 
them  useful  agents.' 47 

In  England  they  furnished  an  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury in  the  person  of  John  Peckham  (1279  to  1292),  and 
although  the  Pope  did  not  succeed  in  his  attempt  in  1391  to  give 
Glasgow  a  Bishop  from  the  ranks  of  the  Order,  yet  we  know  that 
here,  as  elsewhere,  it  wielded  a  certain  influence  as  soon  as  it  was 
established.  This  influence  would  doubtless  have  been  greater 
had  the  Order  arrived  in  Glasgow  earlier. 

Many  proofs  of  the  power  exercised  by  the  Grey  friars  are  to 
be  found  in  the  notices,  satirical  and  otherwise,  scattered  through 
early  Scottish  Literature.  It  is  clear  that  they  had  to  be  reckoned 
with  in  the  religious  and  secular  life  of  the  Country.  Even 
Dunbar,  in  his  more  solemn  moments,  turns  to  the  Friars  to  find 
the  necessary  environment : 

'  Amang  thir  freiris,  within  ane  cloister, 
I  enterit  in  ane  oritorie, 
And  kneling  doun  with  ane  pater  noster, 
Befoir  the  michti  King  of  Glorye, 
Having  His  passioun  in  memorye, 
Syne  to  His  Mother  I  did  inclyne, 
Hir  halsing  with  ane  gaude-flore ; 
And  sudantlie  I  slepit  syne.' 48 

JOHN  EDWARDS. 

47  Mediaeval  England,  by  Miss  Mary  Bateson,  p.  226. 

48  Dunbar,  Poems  (S.T.S.),  vol.  ii.  p.  239. 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony 

THE  validity  of  the  assumption  of  the  Ruthven  of  Freeland 
tide  in  the  eighteenth  century,  after  the  extinction  of 
the  male  issue  of  the  first  lord  in  1701,  has  been  so  long^ 
and  so  vigorously  impugned  that  one  is  glad  to  have  at  last 
an  elaborate  defence  of  it  from  one  who  is  described  by  no 
less  an  authority  than  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson  as  the  '  best 
all-round  historical  antiquary '  in  Scotland.  We  may  fairly 
assume  that  all  that  can  be  said  in  favour  of  that  assumption 
has  been  said  and  ably  urged  in  Mr.  J.  H.  Stevenson's  mono- 
graph on  The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Peerage.1  Welcome  also  is 
the  article  by  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson  himself,2  in  which  he 
endeavours  to  weigh  the  arguments  on  both  sides,  and  which 
shows  at  least  that  the  critics'  case  cannot  be  so  lightly  dis- 
posed of  as  Mr.  Stevenson  would  persuade  his  readers. 

The  fact  is  that  Mr.  Stevenson's  treatise  is  essentially  that 
of  an  advocate,  urging  his  points  with  all  the  vigour  that  one 
expects  in  an  address  to  a  jury.  The  effect  may  seem  at 
first  sight  convincing,  but  when  his  arguments  are  analysed 
in  cold  blood,  they  will  be  found  to  add  very  little  to  our 
existing  knowledge  of  the  question.  As  I  had  occasion,  long 
ago,  to  insist  in  an  article  on  *  The  Determination  of  the 
Mowbray  Abeyance,'  published  in  the  Law  Quarterly  Review, 
such  arguments  as  the  official  recognition  of  a  title  are  effective 
enough  in  absence  of  rebutting  evidence  proving  that  such 
recognition  has  often  been  accorded  in  error.  My  arguments, 
I  am  glad  to  say,  have  borne  practical  fruit,  for  such  evidence 
will,  in  future  peerage  cases,  be  subjected  to  expert  criticism. 

The  great  difficulty  I  experience  in  replying  to  Mr.  Stevenson, 
is  that — like  those  who  have  preceded  him — he  persistently 
ignores  my  own  points  which  tell  against  his  case,  thus  com- 
pelling me  to  repeat  and  even  to  reprint  them  once  more. 

1  Glasgow:  MacLehose,  1905. 

2  Scottish  Historical  Review,  vol.  ii.  p.    104, 

194 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony        195 

A  controversy  conducted  on  these  lines  might  last  to  '  the 
crack  of  doom.' 

It  is  well  recognised  that  a  wider  issue  is  raised  by  this 
question  than  the  validity  of  one  title.  No  less  a  writer  on 
the  British  Constitution  than  Sir  William  Anson  has  deemed 
the  absence  of  any  certain  bar  to  the  wrongful  assumption  of 
Scottish  peerage  dignities  a  flaw  in  our  existing  system.  This 
is,  I  know,  a  tender  subject,  and — possibly  because  I  am  an 
Englishman — I  have  been  sharply  criticised,  north  of  the 
Tweed,  for  venturing  to  take  it  up.  Even  Mr.  Maitland 
Thomson,  I  am  truly  sorry  to  see,  speaks  of  my  *  denuncia- 
tion of  the  "  unaccountable  perversity  "  of  those  Scotsmen  who 
will  not  help  him  to  set  up  a  sort  of  Public  Prosecutor  of 
untested  peerages.'  It  is  strange  that  he  should  not  perceive 
that  it  is  precisely  because,  in  the  absence  of  a  counter  claimant, 
it  is  '  nobody's  business '  to  test  assumptions  that  they  may 
obtain  that  general  recognition  which  seems  to  Mr.  Stevenson 
so  convincing,  but  which,  as  we  shall  see,  proves  nothing. 

Even  as  I  write  we  are  all  reading  of  the  *  Irish  Peerage 
Romance '  concerning  a  gentleman  who,  in  the  late  reign, 
assumed  a  peerage  which  never  existed  but  for  six  or  seven 
years  under  Charles  I.,  and  is  recognised  to  have  been  extinct 
since  1634.  Yet,  according  to  the  newspaper  report  of  the 
case,  both  the  Judge  who  tried  the  case  and  the  Irish  Solicitor- 
General  spoke  of  him  as  *  Lord  Carlingford,'  while  his  daughter 
deposed  in  the  witness-box  that  she  had  been  presented  as  a 
peer's  daughter  at  a  Dublin  drawing-room.  Why  not  ?  It 
is  no  secret  that  the  right  to  a  certain  title,  the  assumption  of 
which  is  universally  recognised  at  Court  and  elsewhere,  has  never 
been,  and,  it  is  alleged,  never  could  be  proved.  I  may  add 
that  to  my  own  knowledge  this  case  causes  anxiety  in  an 
official  quarter.  Again,  there  is  at  least  one  English  peerage 
title  which  is  at  present  persistently  assumed,  to  the  occasional 
bewilderment  of  the  judges  in  our  courts.  All  students  of  the 
subject  are,  or  should  be,  aware  that  it  is  as  possible  now  as 
it  ever  was  for  a  Scottish  peer  to  sit  in  the  House  of  Lords, 
whether  by  election  or  by  the  bestowal  of  a  United  Kingdom 
peerage  synonymous  with  his  own,  without  having  ever  proved 
before  the  Committee  for  Privileges  that  he  is  a  peer  at  all. 
Verb.  sap. 

Again,  as  an  instance  of  the  existing  confusion,  it  is  possible 
for  the  same  individual  to  be  presented  at  Court  as  a  Scottish 


196       The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony 

peer  on  the  authority  of  one  Minister  and  informed  by  another 
that  he  has  no  official  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  he  is  a  peer. 
When  one  is  behind  the  scenes,  one  learns  some  strange  things. 
Well  might  the  then  Lyon  find  himself  driven  to  admit,  before 
the  Lords'  Committee  in  1882,  that 

'  in  Scotland  there  are  individuals  as  to  whom  it  may  be  a  matter  of  dispute 
as  to  whether  they  are  peers.' 

The  admission  was  a  very  reluctant  one ;  for,  as  I  have  said, 
the  point  is  a  tender  one,  and  Scotsmen  appear  to  be  passionately 
attached  to  this  curious  system — or  lack  of  any.1 

Space  obliges  me  to  hurry  on,  but  I  have  been  compelled  to 
say  thus  much,  because  Mr.  Stevenson  endeavours  to  make  a 
great  point  of  *  an  acquiescence  so  long  and  so  uniform '  in 
the  Ruthven  assumption,  which  compels  its  assailants  to 
*  meet  the  presumption  in  its  favour.'  He  cannot  be  ignorant 
of  the  then  Lord  Clerk  Register's  reluctant  admission,  before 
the  same  Lords'  Committee,  that 

'As  the  law  now  stands,  the  title  may  be  held  for  generations  by  persons 
who  have  never  taken  any  steps  whatever  to  establish  their  claim  ' 

— for  this,  together  with  Lyon's  admission  above,  was  con- 
spicuously cited  in  my  original  paper  which  he  selected  for 
his  criticism.  Nor  can  he  be  ignorant  of  the  evidence  1 
adduced  that  other  Scottish  assumptions  had  been  as  fully 
recognised,  for  this  I  explained  at  great  length.  Yet  his 
treatise  certainly  conveys  the  impression  that  it  would  have 
been  out  of  the  question  for  such  an  assumption  to  obtain 
recognition  if  it  had  been  invalid,  and  he  further  endeavours 
to  prejudice  the  question  by  insisting  on  the  heinousness  of 
the  mala  fides  that  its  wrongful  assumption  would  have  involved. 
1  must  really  observe  that  those  who  are  conversant  with  the 
history  of  the  Scottish  peerage  in  the  eighteenth  century  cannot 
look  on  a  wrongful  assumption  as  a  rare  and  dreadful  thing 
or  imagine  that  the  conduct  of  those  who  so  assumed  titles 
was  deemed  in  any  way  heinous  by  themselves  or  by  others. 

Nothing  as  yet  has  been  adduced  to  shake  my  consistent 
theory  that  Ruthven  is  an  accidental  survival  of  the  other 
similar  assumptions  in  the  eighteenth  century ;  that  the  acci- 
dent of  its  survival  is  explicable  by  its  lucky  circumstances, 
which  saved  it  from  the  usual  perils  :  (i)  a  challenge  at  a 
close  election,  and  (2)  the  existence  of  a  counter-claim ;  and 

1  Since  writing  this  I  read  in  a  Scottish  paper  that  the  Earldom  of  Dun- 
fermline  has  been  'assumed'  by  a  Mr.  James  Seton. 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony        197 

that,    if   either    of   these   causes   had    brought    its    assumption 
before  the    House  of  Lords,  the  claim  of  those  who  assumed 
the  title  would  have  been,  and  indeed  must  have  been,  rejected. 
But  let  us  come  to  grips. 

I 

Mr.  Stevenson  concludes  his  address  by  a  vigorous  perora- 
tion, in  which  he  claims  to  have  shattered  at  every  point  c  the 
supposed  demonstration  that  this  peerage  of  Ruthven  of  Free- 
land  is  extinct.'  Let  us  see. 

My  first  point  in  my  original  article  was  this  : 
I  need  hardly  observe  that,  as  Riddell  reminds  us,   in  cases  where  the  con- 
tents of  a  patent  are  unknown  the  law  (as  laid  down  by  Lord  Mansfield,  and 
as  accepted  and  acted  upon  by  the  House  of  Lords)  always  presumes  a  limitation 
to  the  heir  male  of  the  body  (p.    168). 

As  the  contents  of  the  Ruthven  patent  are  admittedly  unknown, 

that  title  has  been  extinct  in  the  eyes  of  the  law,  as  now  understood  and 
acted  upon,  for  the  last  180  years  (p.  I69).1 

What  is  Mr.  Stevenson's  answer  to  this  ?  He  does  not  even 
attempt  one. 

It  is  particularly  interesting  to  find  that  Mr.  Maitland 
Thomson  goes  even  further  than  I  do,  holding,  I  gather,  that 
the  presumption  of  law  is  also  the  most  probable  presumption 
from  the  facts. 

For  the  present  he  (Mr.  Stevenson)  leaves  us  still  unable  to  resist  the  con- 
tention that  Lord  Mansfield's  doctrine,  the  presumption  for  limitation  to  heirs 
male  of  the  patentee's  body,  is  properly  applicable  to  the  Ruthven  case.  And 
here  its  application  would  not,  as  in  the  Lindores  and  Mar  cases,  bring  about 
any  sharp  conflict  between  the  legal  and  the  historical  presumption.2 

If  it  does  apply,  the  peerage  is  extinct,  and  there  is  an  end 
of  the  question. 

II 

The  barony  of  Ruthven  of  Freeland  is  one  of  an  interesting 
group  created  by  Charles  II.  when  in  Scotland  in  1650-1651. 
The  four  baronies,  so  far  as  I  can  find,  were  : 

DUFFUS,  8th  December,  1650.     Limitation:   Unknown. 
COLVILL    OF  OCHILTREE,   4th   January,    1651.       Limitation: 

Heirs  male  whatsoever. 
ROLLO  OF  DUNCRUB,  i oth  January,  1651.     Limitation:  Heirs 

male  whatsoever. 
RUTHVEN    OF    FREELAND.       Date  :     Unknown.      Limitation : 

Unknown. 
:This  was  written  in   1884.  2  Scottish  Historical  Review,  ut  supra. 


198        The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony 

Mr.  Stevenson  has  shown  (p.  2)  that  the  creation  must  be 
placed  somewhere  between  3Oth  March  and  24th  May,  a  wide 
enough  limit. 

It  is  a  singular  fact  that  one  other  Scottish  peerage,  created 
within  this  limit — the  earldom  of  Ormond,  with  its  baronies — 
was  held,  after  the  Restoration,  to  have  been  an  '  inept '  creation, 
because,  as  with  Ruthven,  it  had  not  passed  the  great  seal.1  I  do 
not  insist  in  any  way  upon  this,  but  merely  invite  attention  to  the 
fact  for  what  it  is  worth. 

Now,  I  have  always  laid  stress  upon  the  fact,  that,  of  these 
four  baronies,  Ruthven  and  Duffus  were  in  pan  passu,  inasmuch 
as  the  limitation  of  neither  was  known.  In  each  case  the  title 
was  assumed  after  the  death  of  the  peer  who  was  at  once  heir 
male  and  heir  of  line  of  the  patentee  and  body,  but,  of  the 
two  assumptions,  Duffus  was  the  more  justifiable,  because 
Benjamin  Dunbar  was  heir  male  of  the  patentee's  body. 
Yet  this  assumption  has  not  been  recognised.  Then  on  what 
ground  was  Ruthven  recognised  ? 

The  answer  is  simple :  it  is  that,  as  I  have  always  urged,  in 
the  Duffus  case  there  was  a  rival  claimant  (the  patentee's 
heir  of  line) ;  in  the  Ruthven  case  there  was  not. 

Let  me  now  briefly  deal  with  the  other  two  baronies.  The 
Rollo  patent,  as  is  well  known,  was  registered  in  the  Great 
Seal  Record  in  1764,  and  the  barony  has  never  presented  any 
difficulty  whatever.  Of  the  remaining  dignity,  Colvill  of 
Ochiltree,  I  need  only  say  that  the  assumptions  of  that  title 
are  selected  by  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson  (p.  108)  as  being  of 
the  worst  type,  and  that  Riddell  dismissed  the  first  as  'too 
absurd  and  preposterous  to  require  comment.'2  Yet  this 'mere 
pretender'  was  allowed  to  vote  without  protest  in  1783  and  1787, 
while  the  vote  of  a  later  pretender  was  accepted  in  1847.  We 
shall  see  the  importance  of  this  rebutting  evidence,  which  Mr. 
Stevenson  would  like  to  ignore,  when  we  come  to  his  insistence 
on  the  fact  that  '  the  Ruthven  vote  had  never  been  disputed,' 
an  argument  to  which  *  Riddell  had  no  answer  to  make  '  (p.  73). 

I  have  compared  the  cases  of  Ruthven  and  Duffus,  and  I 
will  now  compare  Ruthven  with  Oxenford,  created  ten  years 
later  (ipth  April,  1661).  I  do  so  because  the  two  present 
extraordinary  parallels.  In  each  case  the  patentee  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  son  and  heir ;  in  each,  on  the  death  of  that 

1  Riddell,  Peerage  and  Cons'utorial  Law,  pp.  67-8. 

2  Of.  fit.  p.  777. 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony        199 

son  and  heir,  the  title  was  assumed  by  his  (female)  heir  of 
entail  (1701  and  1705);  in  each  the  first  vote  tendered  in 
respect  of  that  assumption  was  in  1733  ;  in  each  that  vote 
was  accepted;  in  each  there  had  been  a  coronation  summons; 
in  each  possession  of  the  title  is  appealed  to ;  yet  that  Oxen- 
ford  assumption  was  pronounced  invalid.  Why  ?  Because 
there  was  a  counter-claimant \  whose  petition  brought  the  matter 
before  the  House  of  Lords.  In  the  Ruthven  case  there  was 
not. 

I  must  apologise  for  having  to  repeat  all  this  once  more ; 
but  until  Mr.  Stevenson  faces,  instead  of  ignoring,  these  argu- 
ments, there  is  no  alternative. 

Ill 

I  have  said  above  that  the  two  { usual  perils '  to  these 
assumptions  were  the  existence  of  a  counter-claim  and  a 
challenge  at  a  close  election.  In  the  Ruthven  case  there  never 
was  and  never  could  be  a  counter-claim,  for,  the  limitation 
being  unknown,  only  an  heir  male  of  the  patentee's  body 
could  successfully  counter-claim,  and  there  has  been  no  such 
heir  since  1701. 

Let  us  come  then  to  the  second  point.  According  to  Mr. 
Stevenson,  I  *  explain  '  that,  of  the  eleven  elections  (out  of 
thirty-three),  at  which  James  'Lord  Ruthven'  voted  till  his 
death  in  1783, — 

at  none  of  these  was  there  (i)  any  counter-claimant  for  the  right  to  vote 
as  Lord  Ruthven,  or  (2)  a  contested  election  in  which  his  vote  might  have 
turned  the  scale  (Call.  Gen.  184). 

Upon  which  he  thus  comments: 

with  regard  to  the  second  assertion,  that  Lord  Ruthven  never  voted  where 
his  vote  might  have  turned  the  scale,  where  is  the  proof  of  that  ?  (p.  72). 

My  reply  is,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  that  I  never  made  the 
*  assertion '  assigned  to  me  by  Mr.  Stevenson.  Here  is  the 
passage  to  which  he  refers : 

Wrongful  assumptions  were  challenged  in  one  of  two  ways  :  (i)  by  a  counter- 
claimant,  as  in  Oxenford  and  Rutherford.  This  was  the  normal  and  more 
frequent  method,  but  could  not  apply  to  Ruthven,  as  there  was  no  counter- 
assumption  to  raise  the  question  ;  (2)  by  the  vote  happening  to  turn  the  scale 
^t  a  contested  election,  as  in  Newark  and  Lindores.  This  wai  a  very  exceptional 
method,  and  the  only  important  occasion  on  which  it  was  enforced  was  the  famous  election 
of  179°?  ot  which  Lindores  and  Newark  voted,  but  Ruthven  (then  a  minor)  did  not. 
We  thus  perceive  that  it  was  from  special  circumstances  that  the  Ruthven 
assumption  escaped  challenge,  whereas  in  the  above  cases  these  circumstances 
did  not  exist  (Call.  Gen.  p.  184). 


200        The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony 

My  assertion,  it  will  be  seen,  is  clear,  namely,  that  the 
Ruthven  assumption  escaped  the  stormy  election  of  1790,  which 
proved  fatal  to  others,  through  the  lucky  circumstance  of  a 
minority  at  the  time.  As  for  the  above  '  James,  Lord  Ruth- 
ven,' he  had  then  been  dead  for  years ! 

It  is  a  pity  that  Mr.  Stevenson's  indignation  does  not  admit 
of  his  quoting  me  accurately  or  giving  my  arguments  correctly. 

IV 

The  question  of  the  weight  which  ought  to  be  attached  to 
the  acceptance,  with  or  without  protest,  of  votes  tendered  at 
elections  of  representative  peers  is  one  of  wide  interest.  How 
far  should  it  be  accepted  as  rebutting  the  legal  presumption  of 
a  limitation  to  the  heirs  male  of  the  patentee's  body  ? 

In  the  particular  case  of  Ruthven  I  had,  in  my  original 
article,  to  dispose  of  two  allegations  in  defence  of  the 
assumption  : l 

•  (i)  'the  votes  given  without  protest  by  the  third  and  later  lords  at  Holyrood, 
at  a  time  when  every  dubious  vote  was  challenged.' 

(2)  (James,  Lord  Ruthven)  'voted  at  nearly  all  the  elections  of  representative 
peers  after  his  succession  in  1732  till  his  death  in  1783.' 

Of  the  first  of  these  I  disposed  by  showing  that  when  he 
first  voted  (1733)  the  next  name  on  the  lists  was  that  of 
George  Durie  of  Grange,  whose  vote  was  accepted  '  without 
protest,  although  his  assumption  was  a  notorious  imposture.' 
And  Mr.  Stevenson  admits  that  this  was  so.  Behold  how  easy 
it  was  at  that  time  to  obtain  the  acceptance  of  an  assumption ! 

Of  the  second  I  disposed  by  showing  that  it  was  wholly 
contrary  to  fact,  James  having  only  voted  at  eleven  elections 
out  of  some  thirty  !  This  also  Mr.  Stevenson  admits,  though 
he  seems  to  be  much  annoyed  at  my  insisting  on  the  fact. 

Now,  let  it  be  clearly  understood  what  is  the  point  at  issue, 
so  far  as  Ruthven  is  concerned.  Was  it,  or  was  it  not,  possible 
for  the  Ruthven  assumption  to  continue  obtaining,  down  to  the 
death  of  Lord  Ruthven  in  1783,  the  recognition  so  lightly 
accorded  it  in  1733  ?  Mr.  Stevenson  vehemently  writes  : 

The  counter-claimant  and  the  closely-contested  election,  says  Mr.  Round,  were 
the  only2  contingencies  which  a  voter  in  an  election  of  Peers  in  Scotland  had  to 
fear.  The  assertion  is  preposterous.  There  was  no  competition  for  the  Earldoms 
of  Wigton  and  Stirling  ;  yet  in  Lord  Ruthven's  time  the  claimants  to  these  titles 

1  They  were  adduced,  at  that  time,  in  Burke's  Peerage. 
2 1  did  not  use  the  word  '  only.' 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony        201 

were  both  ordered  by  the  House  of  Lords  to  desist  from  styling  themselves  Peers 
till  they  had  proved  their  right.  There  was  no  competition  in  1766  or  in  1767 
for  the  right  to  vote  as  Earl  of  Caithness,  nor  was  there  any  close  contest,  that  we 
know  of,  impending  ;  yet  in  both  years  the  Lord  Clerk  Register  challenged  the 
right  of  James  Sinclair,  the  sole  (sic)  claimant,  to  vote  as  the  Earl.  On  the 
latter  occasion  Lord  Ruthven  was  present  and  voting. 

With  every  wish  to  be  respectful  to  Mr.  Stevenson,  I  must 
really  call  a  halt  at  this  amazing  statement.  The  'best  all-round 
historical  antiquary'  in  Scotland  must  be  perfectly  aware  that 
on  the  death  of  Alexander,  Earl  of  Caithness,  in  1765,  his  earl- 
dom was,  in  Riddell's  words,1  *  exclusively  claimed  by  two  asserted 
male  heirs — first,  by  James  Sinclair  .  .  .  and,  secondly,  by  a 
more  remote  relative,  William  Sinclair  of  Ratton.' 

'William  Sinclair  also  answered  another  protest  by  his  opponent,  James 
Sinclair,  as  before,  at  a  Peerage  Election  in  1768,  maintaining  his,  preferable 
claim  ;  and  that  by  the  laws  and  practice  of  this  country  it  is  an  established  rule 
that  where  a  collateral  heir-male  claims  a  peerage,  he  must  first  establish  his  right 
by  a  regular  service  as  heir  to  the  person  who  last  enjoyed  the  dignity,'  which,  he 
added, '  James  had  not  done  .  .  .  but,  with  the  highest  presumption,  had  assumed 
the  dignity,  which,  by  order  of  the  Court  of  Session,  in  the  litigation  to  be 
immediately  noticed,  he  was  obliged  to  lay  aside '  (Robertson's  Peerage  Proceedings, 
P-  3'9)-2 

Thus  we  discover,  on  examining  the  facts,  that  James  Sinclair, 
on  his  own  admission,  was  a  poor  and  destitute  man,  without 
any  interest  in  Caithness,3  who  could  not  even  produce  .a  retour 
to  show  that  he  was  heir  male  of  the  late  Earl ;  that  there 
was  notoriously  a  counter-claimant  of  higher  position,  who  was 
eventually  adjudged  to  be  the  right  one ;  that  this  counter- 
claimant's  reason  for  not  assuming  the  title  or  voting  was  only, 
as  he  tells  us  himself,  that  he  deemed  a  service  the  necessary 
preliminary;  and,  finally,  that  the  rival  claims  were  actually 
sub  judice  (before  the  Court  of  the  Macers)  in  1767! 

And  now,  what  are  we  to  say  of  Mr.  Stevenson's  argument 
that  the  Lord  Clerk  Register  '  challenged  the  right  of  James 
Sinclair,  the  sole  claimant,  to  vote  as  the  Earl'  in  1766  and 
1767  ?  Either  he  was  ignorant  of  the  above  facts,  in  which 
case  his  authority  is  nil;  or  he  knew  of  them,  in  which  case 
I  will  only  say  that  he  must  have  seen  that  the  case  differed 
from  that  of  Ruthven,  and  that  the  challenge  of  the  Lord 
Clerk  Register  is  abundantly  accounted  for  by  the  notorious 
existence  of  a  rival  claimant  and  by  James  Sinclair's  absence  of 
proof  that  his  was  the  rightful  claim. 

1  O/.  «'/.  p.  6 10.  2O/.  tit.  p.  611.  3O/>.  tit.  p  612. 


202        The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony 

My  answer  to  the  case  of  Stirling  is  no  less  decisive  and 
complete.  On  p.  74  Mr.  Stevenson  writes: 

Mr.  Round  points  out  with  truth  that  the  exclusion  of  doubtful  peers  was 
not  very  strict  when  the  claimant  for  the  title  of  Lord  Rutherford,  actually 
next  on  the  list  to  Lord  Ruthven,  was  allowed  to  vote  in  1733.  But  it  must 
be  recollected  that  in  1761  the  House  of  Lords  took  order  with  these  cases 
of  Rutherford,  Borthwick,  Kirkcudbright,  Stirling  and  Wigton,  and  that  even 
in  that  time  of  setting  all  things  right,  not  a  whisper  of  any  doubt  about  Lord 
Ruthven  was  ever  heard. 

Noting,  by  the  way,  that  this  last  statement  is  amazing 
enough  in  view  of  what  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson  describes  as 
the  doubts  f  handed  down  by  Crawford,  received  by  Mac- 
farlane  and  Hailes,'  I  come  straight  to  the  point.  Of  these 
cases  Stirling  and  Kirkcudbright  are  fully  accounted  for  by 
the  action  of  the  claimants  themselves,  who,  by  petitioning 
for  the  dignities,  had  admitted  that  they  had  no  right,  as  yet, 
to  vote  as  holding  them.1  The  Rutherford  case  had  long  been 
notoriously  a  public  scandal,  owing  to  the  strife  of  the  rival 
claimants,  who  had  actually  both  voted  at  some  elections,  as 
the  rival  Kirkcudbright  claimants  had  also  done. 

Of  the  five  cases,  therefore,  there  only  remain  two,  Wigton 
and  Borthwick,  of  which  Wigton  was  a  glaring  case  of  baseless 
assumption.  But  these  two  cases  will  not  avail  Mr.  Stevenson, 
for  what  he  has  to  prove  is  that  '  all  things '  were  set  right, 
and  if  it  can  be  shown  that  even  a  single  known  wrongful 
assumption  ran  the  gauntlet  successfully,  Mr.  Stevenson's  argu- 
ment breaks  down,  for  Ruthven  may  have  done  the  same. 

Such  an  instance  is  found  in  Newark,  to  which  I  have 
appealed  throughout.  Here  again  we  have  a  parallel  to 
Ruthven.  Created  ten  years  later,  and  limited  to  the  heirs 
male  of  the  patentee's  body,  the  barony  became  extinct  in  1694 
on  the  death  of  his  son.  Then,  as  in  the  case  of  Ruthven 
and  Oxenford,  it  was  assumed  by  a  female — Jean,  the  second 
lord's  daughter,  who  died  1740,  and  was  succeeded  in  the 
assumption  by  her  heirs  of  line.  Although  both  her  sons, 
in  succession  vested  in  respect  of  the  title,  the  House  of  Lords 
raised  no  question  in  1761  with  regard  to  it;  and  it  was  only 
the  fateful  election  of  1790  (which  Ruthven,  we  have  seen, 
escaped)  that  brought  it  within  their  province  and  led  to 
its  condemnation. 

1  The  petition  of  the  Stirling  claimant  had  been  referred  to  the  House  of 
Lords,  2nd  May,  1760.  One  of  the  Kirkcudbright  claimants  had  petitioned 
previously. 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony        203 

That  the  exceptional  action  of  the  House  of  Lords  was 
but  a  flash  in  the  pan  is  shown  by  the  Colvill  of  Ochiltree 
assumption.  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson,  indeed,  writes :  '  for 
claimants  of  the  Colville  of  Ochiltree  type  there  is  justice  in 
Scotland  as  swift  and  sudden  as  south  of  the  Tweed,'  but  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  claimant  of  that  barony  (1651)  actually 
had  his  vote  received  in  1784  and  1787. 

In  short,  my  '  preposterous '  assertion  appears  to  be  in 
absolute  harmony  with  the  reluctant  admissions  of  the  then 
Lyon  and  of  Dr.  Mackay,  on  the  curious  Scottish  system 
before  the  Lords'  Committee  in  1882. 

LYON.  DR.   MACKAY. 

184.  Therefore    the    only   occasion          47 1.  Is    there   any    form    in    which 

where  a   peer    is   liable  to  protest    is,  such  a  right  can  be  challenged,  except 

apparently,  voting  at  the  peers'  election.  by  a  competitor   or   claimant   for  the 

*  Yes,  practically.     One  would  think  same  title  ? 

the  question  might  arise  in  many  other          *  Practically  at  present  there  appears 

ways  whether  a  person  was  a  peer  or  to  be  none,  and  that  appears  to  me  to  be  a 

not,  for    in    Scotland    there   are    indi-  great  defect  in  the  existing  condition  of  the 

viduals  as  to  whom  it  may  be  a  matter  law  on  the  subject? 

of  dispute  as  to  whether  they  are  peers ;  555.  There  is  nothing  whatever  to 

but   practically    it    has    been    only   at  prevent  any  one  calling  himself  by  any 

elections  of  peers  that  the  question  has  title  he  thinks  fit  ? 
been  raised.'  *  That  is  so.' 


Mr.  Maitland  Thomson,  recognising  that  the  presumption 
of  law  is  against  the  validity  of  the  Ruthven  assumption, 
raises  the  question  whether  '  the  favourable  evidence '  is  sufficient 
to  rebut  it.  The  question  is,  legally,  whether  the  House  of 
Lords  would  consider  the  reception  of  votes,  the  summons  to 
coronation,  etc.,  sufficient  to  outweigh  the  presumption. 

Mr.  Stevenson  thus  scornfully  dismisses  Riddell's  argu- 
ment: 

When  Douglas  pointed  to  the  historical  fact  that  the  Ruthven  vote  had 
never  been  disputed,  Riddell  had  no  answer  to  make  to  the  argument.  He 
was  probably  too  well  versed  in  his  Robertson's  Proceedings  to  attempt  the 
assertion  which  Mr.  Round  has  ventured,  but  rode  off  with  the  irrelevant 
remark  that  *  the  legal  insignificance  of  such  circumstances  must  now  be  self- 
evident,  after  what  has  been  premised  as  to  the  exemption  of  Peerages  from 
prescription'  (p.  73). 

Riddell  is  a  dead  man,  who  cannot  defend  himself  or  show 
that  his  alleged  shuffle  was  distinctly  and  dangerously  relevant 
to  the  Ruthven  case.  A  reference  to  '  Prescription '  in  the 


204       The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony 

index   to    his    chief  work    will    guide    us   to    this    notable    pas- 
sage, which  I  must  quote  in  full: 

The  counter-pretension,  or  assumption,  by  the  Glencairn  heirs  male  for 
the  considerable  period  of  126  years,  from  1670  to  1796,  that  would  have 
been  so  fatal  at  common  law,  in  ordinary  succession,  was  not  held  a  legal  bar 
in  the  way  of  Sir  Adam  Ferguson,  the  heir  of  line.  And  this,  although  the 
preceding  had  voted  without  protest  at  Peerage  Elections.  Nay,  James,  Earl  of 
Glencairn,  elder  brother  of  John,  the  last  Earl,  had  even  been  returned  to 
represent  the  Scottish  peerage  in  1780,  and  had  sat  and  voted  accordingly  in 
the  House  of  Lords.  The  same  thing  has  also  been  illustrated  in  the  instance 
of  the  Earldom  of  Moray  in  1793,  where  there  was  alleged  adverse  possession 
from  1700  until  1784,  thus  evincing  the  existing  legal  understanding,  to  which 
I  do  not  demur,  as  it  seems  not  at  variance  with  our  law.  Further  still  in 
the  Errol  case  .  .  .  James,  Earl  of  Errol  .  .  .  had  been  equally  returned 
as  one  of  the  representative  peers  in  1770,  in  virtue  of  a  title  and  succession 
recognised  since  1717;  but  this  'possession'  also,  as  it  was  maintained,  when 
founded  upon  by  him,  was  not  deemed  conclusive  by  Lord  Rosslyn  (p.  829). 

Thus  we  see  that  even  if  *  Lord  Ruthven '  had  been  returned 
to  the  House  of  Lords  and  had  sat  and  voted  therein,  his 
right  to  the  title  would  not  have  been  homologated  thereby. 
Still  less  would  his  votes  at  elections  be  accepted  as  proof, 
more  especially  when  it  was  shown  that  the  absence  of  protest 
is  amply  accounted  for.  For,  as  I  have  shown,  there  was 
no  one  who  could  counter-claim  with  success,  there  being  no 
heir-male  of  the  patentee's  body.  And  as  to  protests  from 
other  peers,  they  were  rare,  and  only  based  (i)  on  a  claim 
being  at  variance  with  the  known  limitation,  and  possibly 
(2)  on  a  claimant  not  having  proved  his  pedigree.  Now,  in 
the  Ruthven  case  the  terms  of  the  limitation  were  unknown, 
and  the  pedigree  was  not  in  dispute.  Naturally,  therefore, 
there  was  no  protest,  because  these  grounds  of  a  protest 
were  wanting.  The  absence  of  a  protest  is  fully  accounted 
for,  and  the  reception  of  the  votes  cannot  avail  against  the 
presumption  of  law. 

VI 

It  is  admitted  that  some  obsqurity  surrounds  the  alleged 
summonses  to  the  coronations  of  George  I.  and  George  II.1 
But  here  is  Mr.  Stevenson's  argument  : 

*Mr.  Stevenson  writes  (p.  63):  'Douglas's  statement  also  of  the  issue  of  a 
summons,  in  1714,  to  the  peeress  of  the  day  (Jean,  though  he  says  Isobel  was 
the  name)  to  attend  the  coronation  of  George  I.  has  not  been  disproved  or 
even  contradicted.'  No  attempt,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  been  made  to  disprove  the 
statement,  but  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  it  would  be  accepted  as  evidence 
that  Jean  was  summoned,  when  Douglas  says  it  was  Isobel  !  Mr.  Stevenson 
must  not  accept  the  summons  as  a  fact  on  Douglas's  authority,  while  rejecting 
Douglas's  statement  as  to  the  person  summoned. 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony       205 

If  we  accept  them  as  facts,  they  prove  at  any-rate  that  the  Lyon  King  of 
Arms  of  1714 — Sir  Charles  Erskine,  and  his  successor  in  1727,  probably 
Brodie  of  Brodie — reported  the  peerage  to  be  extant.  These  are  facts  of 
weight  in  any  balance  of  the  evidence  for  or  against  any  peerage.  .  .  . 

But  whether  the  right  lady  or  gentleman  received  the  summons  or  not, 
the  important  fact  is  that  letters  were  issued  in  respect  of  the  peerage  on 
reports  of  the  Lyon  King  of  Arms,  thirteen  and  twenty-six  years  after  the 
extinction  of  the  male  ;  and  that  they  were  issued  to  ladies — Jean  and  Isobel 
respectively.1  So  that,  even  by  the  official  most  ignorant  of  their  pedigree, 
the  recipients  could  not  have  been  mistaken  for  heirs-male  (p.  44). 

Impressive,  perhaps;  but  I  duly  met  this  argument  in  my 
original  paper  (1884)  as  follows: 

The  argument  from  the  coronation  summons  has  been  met  and  disposed 
of  by  Riddell  (Scotch  Peerage  Law,  p.  137).  It  has,  moreover,  been  shown 
by  me  that  the  evidence  of  such  summons  in  proof  of  '  possession '  was 
founded  on  in  vain,  in  1733,  by  the  titular  *  Viscount  Oxenford,'  who  unsuccess- 
fully appealed  to  his  *  summons  to  be  present  at  the  coronation  of  his  present 
Majesty,  which  is  superscribed  by  his  Majesty,  and  signed  by  the  Earl  of 
Sussex,  depute  Earl  Marischal  of  England'  (Robertson's  Proceedings,  p.  137). 

This  case  is  conclusive.  It  may  be  added,  however,  in  further  illustration 
of  the  'legal  insignificance'2  of  such  summons,  that  in  England  there  had 
been  summoned  as  '  Baroness  Cromwell '  to  the  two  preceding  coronations 
a  lady  who,  as  in  the  case  of  Ruthven,  had  assumed  the  honours  without 
right,  on  the  extinction  of  the  male  line.  It  is  important  to  notice  that  in 
the  English  case  the  '  salutary  check,'  as  Riddell  terms  it,  of  the  intervention  of 
a  writ  of  summons  operated  in  bar  of  the  assumption  of  the  title  by  that 
lady's  son  and  heir.  In  the  Scottish  case  there  was  no  such  check,  and, 
consequently,  the  usurpation  has  been  continued  to  our  own  day  (p.  183). 

The  Ruthven  summons  no  more  proves  the  validity  of  the 
assumption  than  did  the  Oxenford  summons. 

Mr.  Stevenson  was  confronted  with  this  argument,  which 
disposes  of  his  own.  What  answer  does  he  make  to  it  ?  He 
does  not  even  attempt  one. 

VII 

Lord  Hailes'  story,  cited  by  Riddell,  is  that  '  Lady  Ruthven ' 
having  been  summoned  to  a  coronation, —  . 

In  a  jesting  way  she  said  that  this  was  her  patent,  and  that  she  would  preserve 
it  as  such  in  her  charter-chest,  and  what  she  said  in  jest 3  is  now  seriously  insisted 
upon. 

1  Douglas  and  Hailes  say  it  was  Isobel  in  both  cases.          2  Riddell's  phrase. 

8  In  my  original  paper  the  word  'earnest'  is  printed  by  mistake  for  'jest.' 
The  context  makes  the  sense  clear,  though  Mr.  Stevenson  denounces  my  '  almost 
incredible  carelessness.'  By  a  similar  one  in  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson's  review 
(p.  1 06)  Jean  and  Isobel  are  both  distinguished  as  the  'former,'  though  this 
word  must  in  one  case  be  printed  for  '  latter.'  Such  slips  are  difficult  to  avoid. 
Nay,  Mr.  Stevenson  himself,  on  p.  65,  when  discussing  the  omission  of  his  title 
by  a  'baronet,'  speaks  of  him  as  the  'knight'  !  Yet  I  should  not  accuse  him  for 
this  of '  almost  incredible  carelessness.' 


206        The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony 

Mr.  Maitland  Thomson,  I  observe,  is  disposed  to  accept  this 
story,  and  to  assign  it  to  the  coronation  of  1714,  writing  : 

The  suggestion  that  the  patent  ought  to  be  recorded  has  been  ventured  by 
a  friend  in  the  hearing  of  Baroness  Jean.  Her  reply  is  to  point  to  her  coronation 
summons  received  two  years  before,  and  exclaim,  '  Here  is  my  Patent ! '  A  fair 
repartee;  and  considering  that  the  lady  had  borne  (sic)  the  title  since  1702 
(as  Mr.  Stevenson  has  proved),  Mr.  Round's  comment  that  the  claim  originated 
in  a  joke  is  hardly  justified. 

Whether  my  words  express  the  point  of  Lord  Hailes'  story 
fairly  or  not  is  matter  of  opinion  ;  it  appears  to  me  that  they 
may  be  held  to  do  so  if  the  lady  seized  upon  this  document 
as  the  first  official  recognition  of  her  assumption,  the  earliest 
c  Patent '  forthcoming.  But,  in  any  case,  that  is  not  at  all  the 
point  raised  by  Mr.  Stevenson. 

In  the  section  headed  CA  practical  joke!'  (pp.  51-53)  he 
accuses  me,  with  awful  solemnity,  not  of  mistaking  the  point 
of  a  story,  but  of  recklessly  inventing  a  story  without  any 
foundation  at  all.  Mr.  Stevenson  had  a  perfect  right  to  say 
that  he  did  not  agree  with  my  way  of  alluding  to  the  above 
*  jesting'  remark;  but  to  say  that  I  have  failed  to  produce 
any  story  of  a  'joke  '  at  all  is — well,  rather  a  strong  measure. 
Yet  this  is  actually  what  he  does  : 

I  desire  to  call  attention  to  the  legal  aspects  of  the  assertion.  .  .  .  The  only 
proof  needed  to  end  the  whole  controversy  and  disprove  the  very  existence  of 
the  peerage  is  the  proof  of  the  joke  .  .  .  prepares  us  for  the  discovery  that  the 
story  is  not  forthcoming,  and  persuades  us  that  the  story  does  not  exist.  .  .  . 
such  a  damaging  and  prejudicing  statement  as  the  one  I  now  allude  to  made 
as  long  ago  as  in  1884,  and  since  repeated  in  effect1  again  and  again  at  intervals, 
and  never  attempted  to  be  substantiated,  cannot  be  passed  over  without  the 
observation  that  by  the  canons  alike  of  historical  investigation  and  of  literary 
discussion,  a  disputant  is  under  an  imperative  obligation  to  prove  the  truth  of 
a  statement  of  that  kind  or  to  withdraw  it  (p.  52). 

Superb  !  But  we  have  seen,  unfortunately,  that  Mr.  Maitland 
Thomson,  as  an  independent  critic,  understood,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  that  I  was  referring  to  the  jest  in  Lord  Hailes'  story. 
And  as  Mr.  Stevenson  had  himself  discussed  (pp.  44-47)  my 
mention  of  that  story,  and  had  even  written  *  But  suppose  that 
the  lady  did  make  the  jest  !  What  then  ? '  (p.  46),  it  seems 
curious  that  he  should  boldly  assert  that  '  the  story  does  not 
exist,'  and  that  I  have  never  produced  any  evidence  of  a 
'joke.' 

1  This  is  a  carefully  guarded  phrase,  but  I  am  afraid  I  must  point  out  that 
the  statement  has  not  been  repeated,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  even  '  in  effect.' 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony        207 
VIII 

We  have  still  to  seek  legal  evidence  sufficient  to  rebut  the 
presumption  of  law  that  the  Ruthven  assumption  was  wrongful. 
On  the  general  question  of  the  merits  of  the  Union  Roll  of 
1707,  I  am,  Mr.  Stevenson  admits,  at  one  with  Riddell. 

Must  I  again  repeat  his  vigorous  and  fearless  words  ? 

'The  Union  Roll,  if  truth  and  accuracy  are  to  be  here 
respected,  and  Peerage  rights  possess  a  tithe  of  that  value 
and  importance  which  they  seem  anciently  to  have  done,  calls 
loudly  for  correction  and  amendment.  It  has  been  transmitted 
to  us  in  no  solemn  or  authentic  form  owing  to  the  well 
known  hurry  and  distraction  of  the  moment,  when  lesser  interests 
were  sacrificed  to  greater,  adopting  the  gross  errors  in  the 
decreet  of  ranking  in  1606,  which  it  is  otherwise  faulty  and 
exceptionable  .  .  .  the  pretensions  of  impostors  at  elections  of 
the  sixteen  peers,  who  have  not  been  wanting  on  such  occasions, 
and  reception  of  undue  votes,  with  the  attendant  trouble  and 
perplexity,'  etc.,  etc.1 

But  let  me  quote  the  actual  words  of  my  original  argument 
on  the  point  at  issue  ;  for  although  they  move  Mr.  Stevenson 
to  wrath,  it  is  significant  that  he  does  not  quote  them. 

In  proof  of  the  true  value  of  the  Union  Roll,  it  is,  I  think,  sufficient 
to  observe  that  this  highly  vaunted  rex  rotulorum  on  the  one  hand  retained 
such  titles  as  Abercrombie,  and  Newark — the  former  notoriously  extinct  for 
more  than  twenty  years,  the  latter  also  extinct,  though  assumed  by  the 
heir-of-line  through  a  fraud  which  the  House  of  Lords  eventually  exposed  ; 
and  on  the  other  omitted  such  extant  titles  as  Somerville,  Dingwall,  and 
Aston  of  Forfar  !  (p.  174). 

How  does  Mr.  Stevenson  demolish  this  argument  ?  Why 
he  actually  has  to  admit,  thus  openly,  that  the  Union  Roll 
included  not  only  the  above  two,  but  three  extinct  titles  ! 

It  is  not  now  doubted  that  three  extinct  titles  were  placed  on  the  Roll 
in  1707,  namely  Abercrombie,  Newark,  and  Glasford  (p.  16). 

So  that  my  assertion  was  even  an  ««^r-statement  of  the 
case  !  And  yet  we  are  asked  to  admit  that  the  appearance  of 
Ruthven  on  the  Union  Roll  must  be  deemed  evidence  that  it 
was  not  extinct ! 

To  proceed.  How  does  Mr.  Stevenson  demolish  the  rest  of 
my  above  argument  ?  Why,  he  has  to  admit  that  Somerville 
and  Dingwall,  were  both,  as  I  asserted,  wrongly  omitted  and 
had  to  be  inserted  in  the  Roll  afterwards,  and  that  Aston  also 

1  Op.  cit.  p.  171. 


208        The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony 

was  wrongly  omitted,  though  in  this  case  he  makes  the  amazing 
excuse,  that 

Surely  the  officials  who  kept  the  Roll  of  the  Parliament  could  not  be  charged 
to  send  to  England  to  ascertain  if  the  Lords  Aston  were  still  extant  after  they 
had  not  been  in  their  place  for  well-nigh  seventy  years  (p.  i  5). 

How  about  the  barony  of  Fairfax,  created  for  an  Englishman 
in  the  same  year  (1627)  as  that  of  Aston  for  *  Sir  William 
Aston  of  Tixall,'  as  Mr.  Stevenson  terms  him  ?  Why  is  the 
title  of  Fairfax  on  the  Roll  and  that  of  Aston  not  ?  There 
could  not  be  the  slightest  difficulty  in  discovering  the  3rd  Lord 
Aston,  who  was  lord  of  Tixall,  like  his  grandfather  the  first 
lord,  and  who  subsequently  protested  in  Scotland  against  the 
omission  on  the  Roll.  Was  not  Riddell  right,  in  spite  of 
Mr.  Stevenson's  protest,  when  he  wrote  that  the  Aston  omission 
was  a  '  striking  corroboration '  of  his  remarks  on  the  *  care- 
lessness and  inaccuracy '  of  the  Union  Roll. 

But  let  me  complete  the  passage  from    my  original  article  : 

And  even  had  the  Roll  been  free  from  such  error,  its  retention  of  a  title, 
it  should  always  be  remembered,  was  merely  an  admission  that  its  extinction 
had  not  been  demonstrated,  and  was  not  a  *  recognition '  that  it  had  been  validly 
assumed  by  any  particular  person.  Thus  the  retention  on  the  Union  Roll  of  the 
titles  of  Ochiltree  and  Spynie  did  not  *  recognise '  their  assumption  by  the 
Aytons  and  the  Fullartons  any  more  than  the  similar  retention  of  Ruthven 
'  recognised '  its  assumption  by  the  so-called  '  baroness.'  Such  is  the  value  of 
the  argument  from  the  Roll,  and  so  little  will  it  avail  to  '  indicate,'  far  less  to 
prove  the  point  (p.  174). 

My  argument  here,  it  will  be  seen,  is  perfectly  clear.  How 
does  Mr.  Stevenson  meet  it  ?  He  asserts  that  I  impugn  the 
authority  of  the  Roll,  because  it  included  { the  extinct  titles  of 
Abercrombie  and  Newark,  and  the  dormant  titles  of  Ochiltree 
and  Spynie.'  On  which  he  comments  : 

'As  to  the  peerages  of  Ochiltree  and  Spynie,  it  need  only  be  answered  that 
the  inclusion  of  dormant  peerages  in  the  Roll  is  nothing  to  the  point.  For, 
by  the  very  statement  of  the  case,  they  are  not  extinct  peerages'  (p.  17). 

With  *  almost  incredible  carelessness '  (to  use  his  own  phrase) 
my  critic  first  attributes  to  me  an  argument  I  never  used,  and 
then  completely  ignores  the  argument  I  did  use,  as  to  Ochiltree 
and  Spynie.  It  thus  remains  unanswered. 

I  have  now  quoted  in  full  my  paragraph  on  the  Union 
Roll  and  have  shown  that  Mr.  Stevenson's  reply  to  it  may 
be  thus  summed  up  : 

(i)  He  more  than  confirms  my  statement  as  to  the  inclusion 
of  extinct  peerages  on  the  Roll ; 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony       209 

(2)  He    fully   confirms    my  statement  as  to  the    omission    of 

extant  peerages  from  the  Roll ; 

(3)  He  invents  for  me,  on  Ochiltree  and  Spynie,  an  argument 

I  never  used,  and  does  not  attempt  to  answer  the  argu- 
ment I  did  use. 

And,  having  done  all  this,  the  '  best  all-round  historical 
antiquary'  in  Scotland  hastens  to  comment  thus  on  his  own 
performance  : 

It  is  impossible  to  pass  from  this  exposure  of  the  inaccuracies  of  Riddell's 
and  Mr.  Round's  statements  regarding  that  Roll  without  observing  that  the 
carelessness  which  made  these  inaccuracies  possible  is  very  seriously  to  be 
reprobated,  especially  in  any  matter,  where  what  may  be  other  people's  rights 
of  inheritance  and  status  are  involved. 

The  Union  Roll,  therefore,  remains  a  document  of  very  material  as  well 
as  formal  importance  for  the  proof  of  any  statement,  such  as  we  have  seen 
canvassed,  which  it  contains  ;  its  inclusion  of  any  title  whose  circumstances 
were  those  of  the  Ruthven  title  raises  a  strong  presumption  of  the  subsistence 
of  that  title1  at  its  date  (p.  20). 

May  I  suggest,  in  all  humility,  that  it  is  impossible  to  pass 
from  this  exposure  of  Mr.  Stevenson's  arguments  and  methods 
without  observing  that  the  carelessness  which  made  his  inaccuracy 
possible  and  the  singular  audacity  with  which  he  claims  to  have 
exposed  statements  he  is  actually  forced  to  confirm  in  full,  should 
be  sufficient  to  prove  the  weakness  of  his  case  and  to  absolve  me 
from  further  exposure  of  the  methods  to  which  he  is  reduced.2 

When  Mr.  Stevenson  asserts  (p.  54)  that  such  statements  of 
mine  as  he  has  examined  '  have  crumbled  to  pieces  in  the 
handling,'  I  would  ask  to  be  excused  from  describing  that 
assertion  in  the  language  I  might  fairly  employ. 

1  But,  even  so,  not,  as  I  have  shown  by  Ochiltree  and  Spynie,  of  the  validity 
of  any  one's  assumption  of  it. 

2  Mr.    Stevenson    concentrates    his   fire    as    to    the    Union    Roll,    on    *  Mr. 
Round's  statement  that  the  Judges  had  found  that  twenty-five  of  the  titles  on 
the  Union  Roll  were  doubtfully  extant  when  they  were  placed  there'  (p.   18). 
My    readers   are  now,  doubtless,  prepared  to  learn  that  I  have  nowhere  made 
any    such    statement.     The    statement    that  the  Lords    of  Session    found    '  the 
titles  of  no  less  than  twenty-five  Peers  of  that  Roll  dubious'  is  triumphantly 
cited   by  Riddell   from  Douglas,  who  is  therefore  the  person  responsible  for  it. 
I   am   in  no  way  responsible  for  its  accuracy,  nor    did  I  myself  impugn    more 
than  two  titles,  besides    Ruthven,  on  the  Roll. 

J.  H.  ROUND. 

(To  be  continued.} 


The  Early  History  of  the  Scots  Darien 
Company 

I.  INTRODUCTION 

THE  Company  of  Scotland  trading  to  Africa  and  the  Indies 
owed  its  origin  to  the  desire  of  the  Scots  to  enjoy  economic 
advantages  similar  to  those  possessed  by  the  other  nations  of 
Europe.  The  remarkable  interest  in  commercial  companies 
which  is  characteristic  of  the  history  of  Europe  in  the  seventeenth 
century  was  late  in  reaching  Scotland.  She  was,  in  fact,  the  last 
of  the  nations  to  charter  such  a  company.  Her  people  were 
renowned  for  bravery  rather  than  business  ability.  The  country 
was  poor. 

Efforts  to  promote  trade  had  been  made  from  time  to  time. 
In  the  first  part  of  the  century,  while  the  rulers  of  Britain  were 
more  Scots  than  English,  the  northern  kingdom  had  prospered 
commercially.  During  the  Civil  War  industry  almost  died  out, 
and  there  were  scarcely  any  well-to-do  merchants.1  Under 
Cromwell,  trade  revived,2  but  the  English  navigation  acts  of 
the  Restoration  checked  Scottish  ambition,  although  there  is 
evidence  of  continued  interest  in  mercantile  enterprise.3  For  an 
act  was  passed  in  1661  for  the  encouragement  of  navigation  and 
trade,  restricting  the  importation 4  of  foreign  commodities  to 
Scots  vessels,  trading  directly  from  the  original  foreign  port. 
This  was  directed  against  the  Dutch  and  the  Germans,  and 
encouraged  the  merchant  adventurers  of  Glasgow  5  to  undertake 
shipbuilding.  They  sunk  a  large  amount  of  capital  in  trying  to 
advance  trade,  but  the  Dutch  continued  their  importations,  sup- 
ported by  those  merchants  who  profited  by  the  illegal  traffic. 

1  Robt.  Chambers,  Edinburgh  Merchants  and  Merchandise  in  Old  Times,  p.  1 7. 

2  J.  Hill  Burton,  History  of  Scotland,  vii.  55-60. 

*Acts  Par/.  Scot.,  VI.  i.  344,  374,  577,  578  ;  ii.  805,  827,  879.     VII.  96. 
4 /#</.,  257-  '/&/.,  454. 

210 


Early  History  of  Scots  Darien  Company     2 1 1 

Accordingly,  in  1663  the  Act  was  ratified  and  approved,  and  an 
endeavour  made  to  enforce  it.  Overtures  were  made  to  secure 
free  trade  with  England.  King  Charles  II.,  however,  was 
induced  to  favour  his  English  subjects  at  the  expense  of  Scotland, 
and  secured  the  passage  of  an  act  on  the  last  day  of  the  Parlia- 
ment of  1663  6  asserting  his  prerogative  in  all  matters  concerning 
trade,  and  his  right  to  put  such  restraints  on  trade  as  seemed 
best  to  him.  This  effectually  prevented  for  the  present  any 
entrance  into  the  field  of  foreign  commerce.  Feeble  efforts  were 
made  to  encourage  home  industries  7  in  1681  by  the  passage  of  a 
sumptuary  act  8  prohibiting  the  importation  of  all  finery,  '  includ- 
ing all  flour'd,  strip'd,  figur'd,  checker'd,  paint'd,  or  print'd  silk 
stuffs  or  Ribbands.'  9 

After  the  Glorious  Revolution,  however,  and  the  overthrow  of 
James  the  Second,  the  first  Parliament  of  William  III.  declared 
the  act  of  1663,  giving  the  King  power  to  impose  duties  at 
pleasure  upon  foreign  imports,10  a  grievance,  prejudicial  to  the 
trade  of  the  nation.  William,  in  his  anxiety  to  secure  the  adher- 
ence of  Scotland,  gave  his  permission  to  have  the  act  rescinded, 
and  instructed  his  commissioners  to  procure  an  act  for  the  encour- 
agement of  trade.11  As  a  result  of  this,12  an  act  was  passed  in 
1693,  declaring  that  companies  might  be  formed  for  carrying  on 
trade  in  foreign  regions ;  for  their  greater  encouragement,  they 
were  promised  letters  patent  under  the  great  seal.13 

About  this  time  in  England  new  charters  were  granted  to  the 
English  East  India  Company  14  which  proceeded  to  adopt  strin- 
gent measures  to  c  bear  down  '  on  interlopers  or  ships  sent  out 
by  private  traders.15  A  number  of  interlopers  were  owned  in 
Scotland.  Their  owners  became  aroused  at  the  renewed  activity 
of  the  English  company,  and  saw  in  the  act  of  1693  an  oppor- 
tunity to  secure  privileges  which  would  put  them  on  a  legal 
basis,  equal,  if  not  superior,  to  that  on  which  the  English  com- 

*Actt  Par/.  Scot.,  VII.  503.  7/3/V.,  VII.  257.  *  Ibid.,  VIII.  662. 

9I6M.,  478.  w/£/V.,  IX.  45. 

11  Thomas  Somerville,  History  of  Political  Transactions,  1 1 . 

12  Acts  Par!.  Scot.,  IX.  314. 

13  The  act  concludes  with  the  significant  recommendation  from  Parliament  to 
the  King  to  order  the  recovery  of  the  Company's  losses  by  force  of  arms  at  the 
public  expense  if  any  such  Company  were  attacked  or  disturbed  by  persons  not  in 
open  war  with  him.     This  foreshadows  a  clause  in  the  Act  establishing  the  Darien 
Company  which  was  to  be  the  cause  of  no  small  anxiety  to  the  English. 

14  Bruce,  Annah  of  the  East  India  Company,  39.  ^  Ibid.,  135. 


212  The  Early  History  of  the 

pany  operated.16  Furthermore,  there  were  in  London  a  number 
of  Scots  merchants  who  had  sent  out  interlopers.  The  English 
company  was  receiving  new  charters  and  making  it  more  and 
more  difficult  for  them  to  carry  on  private  trading  with  the  Indies. 
They  saw  that  their  fellow-countrymen  were  anxious  to  secure 
foreign  trade  on  a  considerable  scale.  They  too  saw  in  the 
act  of  1693  an  opportunity  to  enlarge  their  operations  on  a  secure 
legal  basis.  About  the  beginning  of  May,  1695,  one  of  them, 
Mr.  James  Chiesly,  conferred  with  his  friend,  William  Paterson, 
as  to  the  possibility  of  establishing  an  East  India  Company  in 
Scotland,17  and  asked  him  what  was  best  to  be  done  about  it.18 

William  Paterson,  the  Scotsman  whose  name  is  inextricably 
bound  up  with  the  whole  history  of  the  Darien  Company,  was 
at  this  time  a  fairly  well-to-do  London  merchant  about  thirty- 
five  years  old.19  He  was  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Bank  of 
England — in  fact,  the  credit  for  the  plan  of  the  Bank  belongs  to 
him  perhaps  more  than  to  anyone  else.  Of  his  early  life  various 
stories  are  told.  He  had  had  many  experiences,  and  had  been  in 
the  West  Indies.20  He  claimed  to  have  been  on  the  Isthmus.21 
He  was  a  visionary  rather  than  a  practical  man  of  affairs.  Some 
of  his  ideas  were  brilliant,  and,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Bank  of 
England,  worked  well  when  carried  out  by  men  with  more 
commonsense  than  he  had.  His  idealistic  tendencies  and  his  lack 
of  tact  had  brought  him  into  conflict  with  his  colleagues  of  the 
Bank,  and  he  had  left  the  directorate  under  somewhat  of  a 
cloud.22  One  of  his  most  cherished  ideas  was  the  establishment 
on  the  Isthmus  of  America  of  a  free  port,23  which,  by  reason  of 
its  geographical  position,  might  handle  the  greater  part  of  the 
commerce  between  Europe  and  the  far  East.  As  a  scheme  it 
was  magnificent.  It  was  planned  to  benefit  not  only  its  pro- 

16  It  was  doubtless  from  one  of  these  that  there  came  the  Treatise  touching  the 
East  Indian  Trade,  in  which  it  was  pointed  out  that,  although  Scotland  had  an 
abundance  of  ports  and  harbours,  she  had  little  commerce  and  no  colonies  or 
settlements.  It  was  urged  that  the  opportunity  presented  by  the  Act  of  1693  be 
improved. 

17 'Jour.  Ho.  Com.,  xi.  400.       18  J.  Hill  Burton,  History  of  Scotland,  1 897,  viii.  20,21. 

19  William  Pagan,  The  Birthplace  and  Parentage  of  Wm.  Paterson,  Founder  of  the 
Bank  of  England  and  Projector  of  the  Darien  Scheme. 

20  Report  by  William  Paterson  to  the  Directors,  Dar.  Pap.,  179. 

21  Letter  from  Paterson  to  the  Directors,  in  John  Dalrymple's  Memoirs  of  Gt. 
Brit,  and  I  re  I.,  iv.  154-156. 

22  Francis,  History  of  the  Bank  of  England,  i.  66. 

23  J.  Hill  Burton,  History  of  Scotland,  1897,  viii.  20  and  41  ;  S.  Bannister,  The 
Writings  of  William  Paterson,  i.  109-160. 


Scots  Darien  Company  213 

moters,  but  humanity;  for  profits  were  to  be  small  and  prices 
reduced.  He  had  carried  this  project  to  various  parts  of  the 
north  of  Europe,  and  endeavoured  to  get  the  Dutch  and  the 
Germans  to  take  it  up.  It  had  also  been  offered  in  London. 
But  in  all  these  places  the  practical  men  of  affairs  saw  the  insur- 
mountable difficulties  that  lay  in  the  way  of  any  such  undertaking 
and  refused  to  touch  it,  although  willing  enough  to  profit  by  it 
if  such  a  port  were  ever  established.  So  it  was  reserved  for  the 
Scots,  brave  in  spirit  but  inexperienced  in  foreign  trade,  to 
attempt  the  magnificent  but  impossible  scheme.  The  greatest 
difficulty  in  the  way  was  the  location  of  the  free  port  in  the  very 
heart  of  the  King  of  Spain's  most  treasured  possessions,  and 
within  a  couple  of  hundred  miles  of  that  port  from  which  all  the 
wealth  of  the  Peruvian  mines  was  sent  yearly  to  Spain.  It  was 
not  to  be  imagined  for  a  moment  that  the  King  of  Spain  would 
allow  his  dominions  to  be  encroached  upon  at  such  a  vulnerable 
point.  There  were  other  objections,  but  this  was  the  chief  one, 
and  one  that  was  amply  sufficient  to  those  who  understood  the 
condition  of  affairs.  To  Paterson,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
advantages  of  the  scheme  far  outweighed  the  obstacles,  and  he 
kept  hoping  against  hope  that  some  day  it  might  be  carried  out. 
When  Mr.  Chiesly  approached  him  in  May,  1695,  requesting 
ideas  for  a  charter  which  they  had  good  hopes  of  securing  from 
the  Parliament  of  Scotland,  Paterson  produced  the  draft  of  an  act 
providing  for  large  privileges  and  extraordinary  concessions.24 
But  no  mention  was  made  of  Darien.  That  secret  was  too  pre- 
cious to  be  broached  until  the  Company  was  actually  under  way. 

This  draft  with  some  amendments  was  finally  adopted  and 
became  the  charter  of  the  Company,  known  first  as  the  c  African 
Company,'  and  later  as  the  c  Darien  Company.5 

The  Company  itself  was  the  expression  of  Scotland's  desire 
to  join  in  seventeenth  century  appreciation  of  sixteenth  century 
discovery ;  the  immediate  occasion  for  its  establishment  was  the 
pressure  exerted  by  the  English  East  India  Company  on  private 
merchants ;  the  form  which  it  took  was  due  to  the  imagination 
of  one  of  the  idealistic  financiers  who  flourished  during  that 
epoch. 

II.   THE  ACT  OF  INCORPORATION 

Paterson's  draft  for  the  act,  being  approved  by  the  London 
merchants,  was  sent  to  their  friends  in  Edinburgh,  presented  to 

24  State  of  Mr.  Paterson's  Claim  upon  the  Equivalent,  1712,  p.  9. 


214  The  Early  History  of  the 

Parliament  on  the  i2th  of  June,  1695,  and  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Trade.1  Public  interest  had,  in  the  meantime,  been 
aroused  by  the  publication  of  a  sheet  entitled,  *  Proposals  for  a 
Fond  to  Gary  on  a  Plantation.'  2  We  are  informed  by  it  that 
£  persons  of  all  ranks,  yea  the  body  of  the  nation,  are  longing 
to  have  a  plantation  in  America,'  but  it  is  quite  possible  that  this 
was  issued  to  arouse  that  very  longing.  This  was  followed  by 
a  little  pamphlet  entitled  '  Memorial  to  the  Members  of  Parlia- 
ment of  the  Court  Party.'  3 

On  Saturday,  the  I5th  of  June,  the  bill  was  read  and  con- 
sidered by  the  committee,  who  ordered  that  two  of  their  number, 
Lord  Belhaven  and  Sir  Francis  Scott,  who  were  later  prominently 
identified  with  the  Company,  should  confer  with  the  Lyon  King 
at  Arms  in  regard  to  a  seal  for  the  Company.4  The  names  of 
the  patentees  had  not  yet  been  decided  upon,  but  an  understand- 
ing that  half  of  them  were  to  be  Scots  was  soon  reached.  An 
amendment  looking  towards  the  exemption  of  members  of  the 
Company  from  legal  inconveniences  was  suggested,  besides 
various  other  amendments.  On  Monday,  the  iyth  of  June,  the 
committee  considered  such  matters  as  the  duties  on  muslin,  an 
act  in  favour  of  manufacturing,  and  a  motion  looking  toward  the 
establishment  of  the  principle  of  the  f  open  shop.'  On  Tuesday 
more  amendments  were  made  to  the  Company's  act ;  and  on 
Wednesday,  Lord  Belhaven  being  in  the  chair,  it  was  again  con- 
sidered ;  as  was  also  an  act  for  the  manufacturing  of  gunpowder. 
On  Friday  it  was  further  amended,  and  the  names  of  the  patentees 
inserted,  but  they  were  not  finally  selected  until  the  following 
Tuesday,  when  the  act,  as  amended  by  the  committee,  was  finally 
agreed  upon,  and  ordered  to  be  reported. 

It  may  be  of  interest  to  note,  in  this  connection,  that  on  this 
same  day  the  committee  consider  acts  relating  to  <  skinners '  or 
furriers ;  the  manufacturing  of  leather,  salt,  and  combs ;  the 
herring  fishery,  and  the  post  office.  Trade  was  looking  up. 

On  the  26th  of  June,  a  fortnight  after  its  first  introduction, 
the  act  establishing  the  Company  of  Scotland  Trading  to  Africa 
and  the  Indies  was  reported  back  from  the  Committee,  read  in 

1  Acts  Par!.  Scof.,  II.  367. 

2  The  only  known  copy  is  in  the  John  Carter  Brown  Library,  Providence,  R.I. 

3  John  Scott,  Darien  Bibliography,  p.  10. 

4  MS.  Minutes  of  the  Committee  on  Trade,  preserved  in  the  General  Register 
House  in  Edinburgh.     These  were  not  known  to  Hill  Burton.     Vid.  his  History 
of  Scotland,  viii.  22. 


Scots  Darien  Company  215 

Parliament,  passed,  and  touched  with  the  sceptre  in  the  usual 
manner.5 

Reasons  for  this  haste  are  not  far  to  seek.  The  Act  had 
powerful  supporters,  and  it  was  not  likely  to  be  palatable  to  the 
English.  If  its  passage  had  been  delayed,  William's  English 
councillors  might  have  persuaded  him  to  disallow  it,  or  have  it 
amended,  so  as  to  render  it  abortive. 

The  Act  as  passed  contained  first  a  preamble,  or  narrative, 
which  based  it  on  the  Act  of  i693-6  It  then  proceeded  to  con- 
stitute ten  Scotsmen  and  ten  Englishmen,  whose  names  follow,  *  a 
free  incorporation  with  perpetual  succession.'  No  limit  was 
placed  on  their  capital  stock  except  that  at  least  half  was  to  be  set 
aside  for  residents  of  Scotland.7  No  one  could  hold  less  than 
100  pounds  of  stock,  nor  more  than  3000  pounds. 

Shares  subscribed  for  by  residents  of  Scotland  were  not  '  allow- 
able to  any  other  than  Scotsmen  living  within  this  kingdom.' 
It  was  declared  that  no  part  of  the  capital  stock,  or  of  the  real  or 
personal  property  belonging  to  the  Company  should  be  liable  to 
any  manner  of  confiscation  or  seizure  for  any  reason  whatsoever.8 
Creditors  of  members  of  the  Company  were  allowed  to  have  a 
lien  upon  the  profits  pertaining  to  their  debtors  without  having 
any  further  right  over  the  debtors'  stock.  The  patentees  were 
given  the  right  to  make  all  such  rules  and  ordinances  as  they 
thought  needful  for  the  government  of  the  Company.  They  also 
had  the  right  to  administer  and  take  oaths  de  fideli. 

They  were  empowered  for  the  space  of  ten  years  to  fit  out  and 
navigate  their  own  or  hired  ships  in  such  manner  as  they  thought 
fit.  Their  vessels  could  thus  be  fully  armed.9  They  were 
allowed  to  sail  from  any  port  or  place  in  Scotland,  or  from  any 
place  in  amity  with  His  Majesty,  to  any  place  in  Asia,  Africa,  or 
America,  there  to  plant  colonies  in  any  uninhabited  place,  or  in 
any  other  place,  by  consent  of  the  inhabitants,  provided  it  was 
not  possessed  by  any  European  sovereign.  Paterson  thought 
this  covered  the  Isthmus  of  Darien.  They  were  allowed  to 
fortify  such  places  and  defend  them  by  force  of  arms ;  also  to 
make  reprisals.  They  could  conclude  treaties  of  peace  and  com- 
merce with  the  governments  of  any  place  in  Asia,  Africa,  or 
America. 

Furthermore,  they  were  given  a  wide  monopoly.     No  subject 

5  Acts.  Par/.  Scot.,  IX.  377. 

6  Full  and  Exact  Collection  of  All  the  .  .  .  Papers  Relating  to  the  Company,  1 700,  p.  iii. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  iv.  8  Ibid.,  p.  v.  9  Ibid.,  p.  vi. 


216  The  Early  History  of  the 

of  Scotland  was  allowed  to  trade  with  any  place  in  Asia  or  Africa 
*  in  any  time  hereafter,  or  in  America  for  and  during  the  space 
of  thirty-one  years,5  without  permission  from  the  Company, 
under  penalty  of  forfeiting  one-sixth  of  the  value  of  the  ships 
and  cargo  to  His  Majesty,  and  one-sixth  to  the  Company.  The 
Company  was  allowed  to  seize  any  such  ships  and  cargoes  in  any 
place  of  Asia  or  Africa,  or  off  their  coasts.10  Subjects  of  Scot- 
land might,  however,  trade  without  prejudice  in  any  part  of 
America  which  the  Company  had  not  settled.  This  was  intended 
to  protect  those  Scots  who  already  had  a  considerable  trade  in 
those  parts.  At  this  very  time  the  Scots  merchants  in  London 
were  building  ten  frigates  to  secure  their  trade  to  the  West 
Indies.11 

The  Patentees  were  given  absolute  title  to  all  places  of  which 
they  should  possess  themselves,  with  full  rights  of  government 
and  admiralty,  and  of  delegating  to  others  such  rights  as  they 
thought  fit  and  convenient.  They  had  power  to  impose  and 
exact  such  customs  duties  as  they  thought  needful.  To  His 
Majesty  and  his  successors  for  the  acknowledgment  of  their 
allegiance,  they  were  to  pay  yearly  a  hogshead  of  tobacco  by  way 
of  Blench-duty.  The  Company  was  given  power  to  procure 
privileges  from  any  foreign  power  at  peace  with  His  Majesty, 
for  which  the  existing  treaties  of  peace  gave  sufficient  security.12 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  provisions  of  the  Act,  and  one 
which  occasioned  considerable  feeling  in  England,  was  that,  if 
any  of  the  persons  or  effects  of  the  Company  should  be  seized 
or  damaged,  the  King  agreed  to  have  restitution  made  at  the 
public  charge.  This  seemed  to  promise  that  the  prestige  and 
arms  of  England  should  be  used  to  settle  any  difficulties  which 
the  Company  might  get  into  with  foreign  powers,  and  was  used 
by  the  Company  as  a  great  point  in  securing  subscriptions. 
Opponents  of  the  Company  also  tended  to  exaggerate  the  import- 
ance of  this  provision  by  claiming  that  it  bound  the  King  of 
England  to  go  to  war  for  the  benefit  of  Scotland,  and  that  as 
Scotland  was  poor  and  weak  the  war  would  be  paid  for  by 
England. 

All  property  of  the  Company  was  to  be  free  from  taxes  for 
the  space  of  twenty-one  years,  excepting  that  tobacco  and  sugar, 
not  grown  in  their  own  plantations,  were  to  pay  the  regular 

™  Full  and  Exact  Collection  of  All  the  . .  .  Papers  Relating  to  the  Company,  1700,  p.viii. 
11 « Saturday  29  June.'      Narcissus  Luttrell,  Brief  Historical  Relation,  iii.  492. 
The  entry  in  his  diary. 

12  Putt  and  Exact  Collection,  p.  viii. 


Scots  Darien  Company  217 

duties ;  but  everything  else  which  their  ships  might  bring  in 
was  to  come  duty  free.  Here,  again,  was  cause  for  alarm  to  the 
merchants  of  London,  who  saw  the  possibility  of  large  quantities 
of  low-priced  merchandise  being  smuggled  into  England  from 
Scotland,  where  it  had  paid  no  duty. 

No  member,  officer,  or  servant  of  the  Company  could  be 
arrested  or  confined ;  and,  in  case  they  were,  the  Company  was 
authorised  to  release  them ;  and  all  magistrates,  civil  or  military, 
were  instructed  to  assist  under  pain  of  being  liable  for  damages.13 

The  Company  and  its  officers  and  members  were  to  be  free 
4  both  in  their  persons,  estates  and  goods  employed  in  the  said 
stock  and  trade  from  all  manner  of  taxes,  cesses,  supplies,  ex- 
cises, quartering  of  soldiers,  transient  or  local,  or  levying  of 
soldiers,  or  other  impositions  whatsoever,  and  that  for  and  during 
the  space  of  twenty-one  years.' 

Lastly,  all  persons  concerned  in  the  Company  were  declared  to 
be  free  citizens  of  Scotland,  all  those  which  settled  or  inhabited 
any  of  their  plantations  were  to  be  regarded  as  natives  of  Scot- 
land, and  to  have  the  privileges  thereof.14 

Such  was  the  Act  upon  which  were  to  be  based  the  hopes  of  a 
large  part  of  the  Scottish  nation.  No  wonder  it  was  said  that 
His  Majesty  had  granted  <  a  large  and  glorious  patent,  not  to 
be  paralleled  by  that  of  any  Company  or  Society  in  the  Uni- 
verse.'15 Theoretically,  it  was  almost  perfect.  With  permission 
to  plant  colonies  in  every  part  of  the  unclaimed  world,  with  free 
trade  for  a  long  period  of  years,  and  freedom  from  all  kinds  of 
embarrassing  legal  restrictions,  with  the  promise  of  the  King  of 
England  to  assist  them  in  maintaining  their  agreements  and 
privileges  with  other  nations,  it  seemed  as  though  Scotland  must 
soon  surpass  all  other  countries  in  the  extent  and  opulence  of 
her  trade.  The  chartered  companies  of  other  countries  were 
hampered  by  many  rules  and  restrictions,  from  which  hers  was 
to  be  free.  Had  the  Scottish  patentees  been  experienced  in 
business,  with  a  large  knowledge  of  the  world,  and  the 
ways  of  commerce,  it  is  possible  that  the  Clyde  might 
much  earlier  have  become  that  emporium  which  it  was  later 
destined  to  be.  Scarcely  had  the  Act  been  passed,  however, 
before  the  incompetency  of  the  incorporators  became  apparent, 
and  the  troubles  and  discords  which  were  to  ruin  the  Company 
began  to  show  themselves.  HIRAM  BINGHAM. 

13  Full  and  Exact  Collection,  p.  ix.  14  Ibid.,  p.  x. ;  Acts  Par!.  Scot.,  IX.  377. 

15  Defence  of  the  Scots  Abdicating  Darien,  1700,  p.  ii. 

(To  be  continued.} 


The  'Scalacronica'  of  Sir  Thomas   Gray 

The  Reign  of  Edward  I.  as  chronicled  in  1356  by  Sir 
Thomas  Gray  in  the  '  Scalacronica '  and  now  translated 
by  the  Right  Hon.  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,  Bart., 
continued. 


MS.  nr^HE  King  of  Scotland,  John  de  Baliol,1  sent  to  crave  peace 
0-199  JL  from  the  King  [Edward],  submitted  to  his  grace  and 
surrendered  to  the  king,2  with  his  son  Edward,  whom  he  offered 
to  him  as  hostage  for  his  good  behaviour,  and  these  two  were 
taken  and  sent  to  London,  and  forbidden  to  pass  further  than 
twenty  leagues  around  the  city. 

King  Edward  of  England  occupied  all  the  castles  of 
Scotland,  and  rode  through  the  country  until  he  came  to 
Stokforthe,3  and  appointed  his  officials,  and,  in  returning, 
caused  to  be  carried  away  from  the  abbey  of  Scone  the  stone 
whereon  the  kings  of  Scotland  were  wont  to  be  seated  at  the 
beginning  of  a  reign,  and  caused  it  to  be  taken  to  London  at 
Westminster,  and  made  it  the  seat  of  the  priest  at  the  high 
altar. 

King  Edward  of  England  caused  summon,  his  Parliament  at 
Berwick,  where  he  took  homage  from  all  the  magnates  of  Scot- 
land, to  which  he  had  their  seals  appended  in  perpetual  memory,4 
and  thence  he  repaired  to  England,  where,  at  the  abbey  of  New- 
minster,5  he  committed  the  custody  of  Scotland  to  the  Earl  of 
Warenne,  with  a  seal  of  government  for  the  same,  and  said  in 
jest :  '  He  does  good  business  who  rids  himself  of  dirt ! ' 6  The 

1  So  Sir  Thomas  Gray  styles  him  ;  but    the    Scottish    monarchs    were    never 
styled  Kings  of  Scotland,  but  Kings  of  Scots. 

2  July  2,   1296. 

3  Perhaps  Stracathro  or  Stocket  Forest  in  Aberdeenshire. 

4  The  Ragman  Roll,   1296. 

5  Westminster,  the  *  new  minster '  of  Edward  the  Confessor. 

0  Bon  boiolgne  Jait  qy  de  merde  se  deliuer :  reminding  one  of  the  famous  mot 
de  Cambronne  at  Waterloo. 

218 


The  Reign  of  Edward  I.  219 

king  appointed  Hugh  de  Cressingham  his  Chamberlain  of  Scot- 
land, and  William  de  Ormesby  Justiciar,  and  laid  commands 
on  them  that  all  persons  of  Scotland  above  fifteen  years  should 
do  homage,  and  that  their  names  should  be  inscribed.  The  clerks 
took  a  penny1  from  each,  whereby  they  became  wealthy  fellows. 
The  King  ordained  that  all  lords  of  Scotland  should  remain 
beyond  the  Trent,  so  long  as  his  war  with  France  should  last. 
In  which  year  of  grace  1297  he  levied  [a  tax  of]  half  a  mark 
sterling  upon  every  sack  of  wool  in  England  and  Scotland,  which 
before  paid  no  more  than  fourpence  ;  wherefore  it  was  called 
la  mal  tol.  The  King  went  to  Gascony. 

At  which  time  [1297]  in  the  month  of  May  William  Wallace  MS. 
was  chosen  by  the  commons  of  Scotland  as  leader  to  raise  war  !99 
against  the  English,  and  he  at  the  outset  slew  William  de 
Hesilrig  at  Lanark,  the  King  of  England's  Sheriff  of  Clydes- 
dale.2 The  said  William  Wallace  came  by  night  upon  the  said 
sheriff  and  surprised  him,  when  Thomas  de  Gray,3  who  was  at 
that  time  in  the  suite  of  the  said  sheriff,  was  left  stripped  for 
dead  in  the  mellay  when  the  English  were  defending  themselves. 
The  said  Thomas  lay  all  night  naked  between  two  burning 
houses  which  the  Scots  had  set  on  fire,  whereof  the  heat  kept 
life  in  him,  until  he  was  recognised  at  daybreak  and  carried  off 
by  William  de  Lundy,  who  caused  him  to  be  restored  to  health. 

And  the  following  winter,  the  said  William  Wallace  burnt 
all  Northumberland.  The  Earl  of  Warenne,  who  was  Keeper 
of  Scotland  for  the  King  of  England,  being  in  the  south,4  turned 
towards  Scotland  ;  where  at  the  bridge  of  Stirling  he  was  defeated 
by  William  Wallace,  who,  being  at  hand  in  order  of  battle,5 
allowed  so  many  of  the  English  as  he  pleased  to  cross  over  the 
said  bridge,  and,  at  the  right  moment,6  attacked  them,  caused 

1  Vn  dener. 

2  His  proper  name  was  Andrew  de  Livingstone,  usually  termed  de  Heselrig 
or  Hazelrig,  as  in  the  death  sentence  of  Wallace,  probably  on  account  of  his 
official  residence. 

3  Father  of  the  chronicler. 

4  Warenne,  or  Surrey,  which  was    his   principal  title,  had   been  recalled   on 
1 8th  August  for  service  with  King  Edward  on  the    Continent,   and   Sir   Brian 
Fitz  Alan  was  appointed  Keeper  of  Scotland  in  his  place.     But  Sir  Brian  having 
raised  a  difficulty  about  his  salary  (^1128   8s.),  the  Prince  of  Wales  wrote  on 
7th  Sept.,   1298,   requiring    Surrey   to    remain    at   his    post.       (See    Stevenson's 
Documents  illustrative  of  the  History  of  Scotland,  ii.  230.) 

5  En  batail,  in  force  or  in  order  of  battle  ;    used  in  both  senses. 

6  A  ioun  point. 


220    The  c  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray 

the  bridge  to  be  broken,  where  many  of  the  English  perished, 
with  Hugh  de  Cressingham,  the  King's  Treasurer  ;  and  it  was 
said  that  the  Scots  caused  him  to  be  flayed,  and  in  token  of 
hatred  made  girths  of  his  skin.  The  Earl  of  Warenne  took 
flight  to  Berwick.  William  Wallace,  to  whom  the  Scots 
adhered,  immediately  after  this  discomfiture,  followed1  the  said 
Earl  of  Warren  in  great  force,  and  skirting  Berwick,  arrived 
on  Hutton  Moor  in  order  of  battle ;  but  perceiving  the 
English  arrayed  to  oppose  him,  he  came  no  nearer  to  Berwick, 
but  retired  and  bivouacked  in  Duns  Park.2 

The  said  Earl  of  Warren,  on  the  approach  of  William  Wallace, 
took  his  departure  from  Berwick,  leaving  the  said  town  waste, 
and  went  to  the  King's  son,  who  was  Prince  of  Wales,  because 
the  King  was  in  Gascony.3 

On  account  of  these  tidings  the  King  returned  to  England. 
At  the  first  coming  of  the  Earl  of  Warenne  to  Scotland,  the  Bishop 
of  Glasgow 4  and  William  Lord  of  Douglas 5  came  to  give  assur- 
ance that  they  were  no  parties  to  the  rising  of  William  Wallace, 
albeit  they  had  been  adherents  of  his  previously  ;6  wherefore 
the  said  earl  caused  them  to  be  imprisoned — the  bishop  in  Rox- 
burgh Castle,  William  de  Douglas  in  Berwick  Castle,  where  he 
died  of  vexation.7 

William  Wallace,  perceiving  the  departure  of  the  Earl  of 
Warenne,  sent  the  chevalier  Henry  de  Haliburton  to  seize 
Berwick,  and  appointed  others  to  besiege  Robert  de  Hastings 
in  Roxburgh  Castle  with  a  strong  force. 

MS.  Robert  the  son  of  Roger,  who  at  that  time  was  lord  of  Wark- 
fo.  zoo  worth,  with  John  the  son  of  Marmaduke,  with  other  barons  of 
the  counties  of  Northumberland  and  Carlisle,  mustered  quickly 
and  came  by  night  to  Roxburgh,  and  came  so  stealthily  upon 
the  Scots  that,  before  they  knew  where  they  were,  the  English 
were  upon  them  and  killed  the  engineers  who  were  handling  the 

1  Suysf,  misprinted  fuyst  in  Maitland  Club  Ed. 

2  Not  Duns  Park  on  Whitadder,  but  in  a  place  which  then  bore  that  name 
a  little  to  the  north  of  Berwick. 

8  He  was  in  Flanders. 

4  Robert    Wishart,   one   of  the    Six    Guardians    appointed   on    the   death    of 
Alexander  III.   in   1286. 

5  Sir  William  de  Douglas  *le  Hardi,' a  crusader:  father  of 'the  Good  Sir  James.' 

6  They  deserted  him  at  the  capitulation  of  Irvine,  July,   1 297. 

7  De  mischef.     He  was  transferred  to  the  Tower  of  London,  where  he  died 
in   1298. 


The  Reign  of  Edward  I.  221 

hooks  of  the  engines1  to  shoot  into  the  castle  ;  whereby  they 
[the  Scots]  were  thrown  into  confusion,  many  being  slain. 
Henry  de  Haliburton,  with  others  who  were  in  Berwick,  hearing 
of  this  reverse,  drew  off  without  delay,  leaving  the  said  town 
empty. 

The  said  English  lords  recovered  the  said  town  of  Berwick, 
and  held  it  until  the  arrival  of  the  King,  who,  returning  from 
Gascony,  approached  Scotland  in  great  force,  entered  it  by  Rox- 
burgh, advanced  to  Templeliston  and  Linlithgow,  and  so  towards 
Stirling,  where  William  Wallace,  who  had  mustered  all  the  power 
of  Scotland,  lay  in  wait  and  undertook  to  give  battle  to  the  said 
King  of  England.  They  fought  on  this  side  of  Falkirk 2  on  the  day 
of  the  Magdalene  in  the  year  of  grace  mille  cclxxx  et  xv,3  when 
the  Scots  were  defeated.  Wherefore  it  was  said  long  after  that 
William  Wallace  had  brought  them  to  the  revel  if  they  would 
have  danced.4 

Walter,  brother  of  the  Steward  of  Scotland,  who  had  dis- 
mounted [to  fight]  on  foot  among  the  commons,  was  slain  with 
more  than  ten  thousand  of  the  commons.5  William  Wallace, 
who  was  on  horseback,  fled  with  the  other  Scottish  lords  who 
were  present.  At  this  battle,  Antony  de  Bek,  Bishop  of  Durham, 
who  was  with  King  Edward  of  England,  had  such  abundance 
of  retinue  that  in  his  column  there  were  thirty-two  banners  and 
a  trio  of  earls — the  Earl  of  Warwick,6  the  Earl  of  Oxford,7  and 
the  Earl  of  Angus.8 

At  this  time  the  town  of  St.  Andrews  was  destroyed.  The 
King  reappointed  his  officials  in  Scotland,  betook  himself  to 
England,  making  pilgrimage  to  holy  tombs,9  thanking  God  for 
his  victory,  as  was  his  custom  after  such  affairs. 

1  Lez  engines  a  trier. 

2  Ou  de  sa  [de9a]  le  Fawkirk. 

3  A  clerical  error.     The  date  was  zist  July,  1298. 

4  Qe  Willam  Walayi  lour  auoit  amene  au  karole  dauncent  slh  uolount. 

5  It  was  Sir  John  Stewart  of  Bonkill  who  was  thus  slain,  at  the  head  of  his  Selkirk 
bowmen.     Gray's  estimate  of  the  slain  is  more  reasonable  than  that  of  clerical 
writers.     Walsingham  puts  the  number  at  60,000,  probably  three  times  as  much 
as  Wallace's  whole  force  :  Hemingburgh  reduces  it  to  56,000. 

6  Guy  de  Beauchamp,  Lord  Ordainer  :  d.   1315. 

7  Probably  de  Vere,  6th  Earl.      The  line  was  extinguished  in   1 703    in    the 
person  of  Aubrey  de  Vere,  zoth  Earl  of  Oxford. 

8  Gilbert  de  Umfraville,  Earl  of  Angus  :  d.   1307. 

9  Or  '  to  relics  of  saints  ' — les  corps  saintz. 


222    The  c  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray 

In  the  following  year,  the  year  of  grace  milk  cc.lxxx.xix,  on 

the  day  of  the  translation  of  St.  Thomas,1  arrived  legates  from 

the  Court  of  Rome  to  King  Edward  at  Canterbury,  praying 

and  admonishing  the  King  that  he  would  leave  John  de  Baliol, 

lately  King  of  Scotland,  in   the   keeping  of  the  Holy   Father, 

since   he   had    surrendered    to    his    mercy.     The   King   granted 

this,  provided  he  [John]  should  not  enter  Scotland,  which  was 

undertaken,  and  the  said  John  was  delivered,  who  betook  himself 

MS.     to  the  estate  of  Baillof,  his  heritage  in  Picardy,  where  he  resided 

fo.  zoob  an  [the  rest  of]  his  life. 

In  the  following  year,  owing  to  the  diligence  of  persons  in 
Scotland  and  the  setting  forth  of  all  the  evidence  they  could 
devise,  letters  came  from  Pope  Boniface  to  King  Edward  of 
England,  declaring  that  the  realm  of  Scotland  was  held  in  fief 
of  the  Court  of  Rome,  and  that  he  had  intruded  to  the  dis- 
inheritance of  the  Roman  Church,2  desiring  him  and  admonishing 
him  to  remove  his  hand.  The  King  caused  a  general  parliament 
to  be  summoned  to  Lincoln,  where  it  was  declared  by  all  laws 
imperial,  civil,  canonical  and  royal,  and  by  the  custom  of  the 
Isle  of  Britain  in  all  times  from  the  days  of  Brutus,  that  the 
sovereignty  of  Scotland  belonged  to  the  regality  of  England, 
which  was  announced  to  the  Pope. 

The  said  King  Edward  went  to  Scotland,  invested  the  castle 
of  Carlaverock3  and  took  it,  after  which  siege4  William  Wallace 
was  taken  by  John  de  Menteith  near  Glasgow  and  brought 
before  the  King  of  England,  who  caused  him  to  be  drawn  and 
hanged  in  London.5 

The  said  King  caused  the  town  of  Berwick  to  be  surrounded 
with  a  stone  wall,  and,  returning  to  England,  left  John  de 
Segrave  Guardian  of  Scotland.  The  Scots  began  again  to  rebel 
against  King  Edward  of  England,  and  elected  John  de  Comyn 
their  Guardian  and  Chief  of  their  cause.  At  which  time  ensued 
great  passages  of  arms  between  the  Marches,  and  notably  in 
Teviotdale,  before  Roxburgh  Castle,  between  Ingram  de  Um- 
fraville,6  Robert  de  Keith,  Scotsmen,  and  Robert  de  Hastings, 

!yth  July,  1299. 

2  Leg/is  Romayne  in  MS.  misprinted  legatis  Romayne  in  Maltland  Club  Edition. 

3  July,  1300. 

4  Five  years  after  :  viz.  in  the  summer  of  1305.  5  23rd  August,  1305. 
6  This  Earl  of  Angus,  who  inherited  through  Matilda,  heiress  of  the  Celtic 

earls,  was  a   staunch  supporter  of  King   Edward,  and  it  seems  strange   to  find 
him  fighting  for  the  Scottish  cause. 


The  Reign  of  Edward  I.  223 

warden  of  the  said  castle.  John  de  Segrave,  Guardian  of  Scot- 
land for  King  Edward  of  England,  marched  in  force  into 
Scotland  with  several  magnates  of  the  English  Marches,  and 
with  Patrick  Earl  of  March,  who  was  an  adherent  of  the  English 
King,  came  to  Rosslyn,  encamped  about  the  village,  with  his 
column  around  him.  His  advanced  guard  was  encamped  a  league 
distant  in  a  hamlet.  John  Comyn  with  his  adherents  made  a 
night  attack  upon  the  said  John  de  Segrave  and  discomfited 
him  in  the  darkness ;  and  his  advanced  guard,  which  was 
encamped  at  a  distant  place,1  were  not  aware  of  his  defeat, 
therefore  they  came  in  the  morning  in  battle  array  to  the  same 
place  where  they  had  left  their  commander  overnight,  intending 
to  do  their  devoir,  where  they  were  attacked  and  routed  by 
the  numbers  of  Scots,  and  Rafe  the  Cofferer  was  there  slain. 

Because  of  this  news  King  Edward  marched  the  following 
year2  into  Scotland,  and  on  his  first  entry  encamped  at  Dry- 
burgh.  Hugh  de  Audley,  with  60  men-at-arms,  finding  difficulty  MS- 
in  encamping  beside  the  King,3  went  [forward]  to  Melrose  and  fo>  201 
took  up  quarters  in  the  abbey.  John  Comyn,  at  that  time 
Guardian  of  Scotland,  was  in  the  forest  of  Ettrick  with  a  great 
force  of  armed  men,  perceiving  the  presence  of  the  said  Hugh 
at  Melrose  in  the  village,4  attacked  him  by  night  and  broke 
open  the  gates,  and,  while  the  English  in  the  abbey  were 
formed  up  and  mounted  on  their  horses  in  the  court,  they  [the 
Scots  ?  ]  caused  the  gates  to  be  thrown  open,  [when]  the  Scots 
entered  on  horseback  in  great  numbers,  bore  to  the  ground  the 
English  who  were  few  in  number,  and  captured  and  slew  them 
all.  The  chevalier,  Thomas  Gray,5  after  being  beaten  down, 
seized  the  house  outside  the  gate,  and  held  it  in  hope  of  rescue 
until  the  house  began  to  burn  over  his  head,  when  he,  with 
others,  was  taken  prisoner. 

King  Edward  marched  forward  and  kept  the  feast  of  Christ- 
mas6 at  Linlithgow,  then  rode  7  throughout  the  land  of  Scotland, 
and  marched  to  Dunfermline,  where  John  Comyn  perceiving 
that  he  could  not  withstand  the  might  of  the  King  of  England, 
rendered  himself  to  the  King's  mercy,  on  condition  that  he 

1  Or  *  at  the  distance  of  a  league ' — ge  herbisez  estoit  de  ly  vn  lieu  loinz. 

2  May,   1303.     The    battle   of  Rosslyn  was    fought    24th    February,    1302-3. 
The  new  year  being  then  reckoned  to  begin  on  25th  March.     Edward's  inva- 
sion was  correctly  dated  in  the  following  year. 

3  Si  eisement  tie  purroient  my  eitre  herbisez  de  lee  le  roy. 

4  A  la  maner.          5  Father  of  the  chronicler.          CA.D.  1303.         7  Cheuaucha. 


224   The  c  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray 

and  all  his  adherents  should  regain  all  their  rightful  possessions, 
and  they  became  again  his  [Edward's]  lieges;  whereupon  new 
instruments  were  publicly  executed. 

John  de  Soulis  would  not  agree  to  the  conditions  ;  he  left 
Scotland  and  went  to  France,  where  he  died.1  William  Oliphant, 
a  young  Scottish  bachelor,  caused  Stirling  Castle  to  be  garrisoned, 
not  deigning  to  consent  to  John  Comyn's  conditions,  but 
claiming  to  hold  from  the  Lion.2  The  said  King  Edward, 
who  had  nearly  all  the  people  of  Scotland  in  his  power  and 
possession  of  their  fortresses,  came  before  Stirling  Castle,  in- 
vested it  and  attacked  it  with  many  different  engines,  and  took 
it  by  force  and  by  a  siege  of  nineteen  weeks.3  During  which 
siege,  the  chevalier  Thomas  Gray  was  struck  through  the  head 
below  the  eyes  by  the  bolt  of  a  springald,  and  fell  to  the 
ground  for  dead  under  the  barriers  of  the  castle.  [This  hap- 
pened] just  as  he  had  rescued  his  master,  Henry  de  Beaumont, 
who  has  been  caught  at  the  said  barriers  by  a  hook  thrown 
from  a  machine,  and  was  only  just  outside  the  barriers  when 
the  said  Thomas  dragged  him  out  of  danger.  The  said  Thomas 
was  brought  in  and  a  party  was  paraded  to  bury  him,  when 
at  that  moment  he  began  to  move  and  look  about  him,  and 
afterwards  recovered. 

The  King  sent  the  captain  of  the  castle,4  William   Oliphant, 

to  prison  in   London,  and  caused  the  knights  of  his  army  to 

joust  before  their  departure  at  the  close  of  the  siege.     Having 

appointed    his    officers    throughout    Scotland,    he    marched    to 

MS>     England,  and    left  Aymer    de    Valence,   Earl    of  Pembroke,   as 

fo.  20 1  b  Guardian  of  Scotland,  to  whom  he  gave  the  forests  of  Selkirk 

and  Ettrick,  where  at  Selkirk  the  said  Aymer  caused  build  a 

pele,  and  placed  therein  a  strong  garrison. 

1  He  was   joint-Guardian  with   Comyn  ;    was  banished  by  King   Edward  in 
1304  and  d.  1318. 

2  Se  clamolt  a  tenir  du  Lioun  :  apparently  from  the  Lion  as  emblem  of  Scotland. 

3  For  the  details  of  this  siege,  and  the  names  of  the  siege  engines,  see  Bain's 
Calendar  of  Documents  relating  to  Scotland,  ii.  420. 

4  Chastelain. 

(To  be  continued.) 

[  The  collation  of  the  Maitland  Club  edition  of  Scalacronica  with  the  original 
MS.,  part  of  which  was  done  by  Miss  Bateson,  has  been  continued  and 
completed  by  Mr.  Alfred  Rogers,  University  Library,  Cambridge.  I 
desire  to  acknowledge,  in  addition,  the  valuable  assistance  I  am  receiving 
in  the  work  of  translation  from  Mr.  George  Neils  on,  F.S.d.Scot. 

HERBERT  MAXWELL.] 


Reviews  of  Books 

CAMBRIDGE  MODERN  HISTORY.  Vol.  iii.  The  Wars  of  Religion. 
Pp.  xxviii,  914.  Ry.  8vo.  Cambridge :  University  Press,  1904. 
IDS.  nett. 

THIS  volume  covers,  roughly  speaking,  the  last  half  of  the  sixteenth 
and  the  first  quarter  of  the  seventeenth  centuries.  It  is  divided  into 
twenty-two  chapters,  contributed  by  sixteen  different  writers.  Of  these 
all  but  two  are  of  British  birth.  But  one  of  these,  Count  Ugo  Balzani, 
who  discourses  of  Rome  under  Sixtus  V.,  has  lived  so  much  in  England, 
and  is  so  well  known  to  historical  scholars  on  this  side  of  the  Channel,  that 
he  is  almost  as  one  of  ourselves.  Yet  if  this  great  work  planned  by  Lord 
Acton  is  to  be,  as  one  presumes  it  was  meant  to  be,  a  great  monument 
of  British  historical  scholarship,  we  cannot  but  regret  the  inclusion  of 
foreign  scholars.  In  the  interests  of  the  study  of  European  history  among 
ourselves,  it  would  have  been  advisable  to  entrust  all  the  articles  required 
to  writers  in  their  native  language.  No  doubt  to  this  volume  there  are 
an  unusual  number  of  contributors  whose  names  are  already  identified 
with  the  subjects  entrusted  to  them :  but  in  previous  volumes,  new, 
young  writers  have  had  a  chance  which  they  have  not  been  slow  to 
seize,  and  even  this  present  instalment  would  not  have  suffered  materially 
by  the  infusion  of  a  little  more  fresh  blood.  Two,  certainly  not  the 
least  distinguished  of  the  company  of  contributors,  had  passed  away 
before  the  volume  appeared — Dr.  S.  R.  Gardiner,  who  of  course  tells 
again  the  story  of  James  VI.  and  I.;  and  Mr.  T.  G.  Law,  who  gives 
a  careful  and  dispassionate  account  of  Queen  Mary  Stewart,  and  the 
important  part  which  she  played  in  the  politics  of  Europe.  He  is  content 
shortly  to  state  the  difficulties  with  regard  to  the  acceptance  or  the  rejection 
of  the  Casket  Letters  without  expressing  an  opinion  of  his  own.  Indeed, 
the  space  at  the  disposal  of  the  writers  forbids  any  argumentative  treat- 
ment of  even  the  more  important  points.  What  we  have  to  expect  in 
the  body  of  the  work  is  a  summary  of  conclusions  drawn  from  the  most 
authoritative  sources,  and  for  the  grounds  on  which  these  conclusions 
are  based,  we  must  turn  to  the  extensive  and  somewhat  bewildering 
bibliographies  at  the  end  of  the  volume.  In  these,  although  most  of  the 
compilers  disclaim  any  attempt  at  completeness,  none  but  serious  students 
will  find  much  enlightenment.  An  occasional  remark  is  added  on  the 
date  or  scope  of  a  particular  work,  but  no  attempt  is  made  to  guide  the 
reader  in  determining  between  the  respective  merits  of  the  long  lists  of 
books  in  many  European  languages.  It  is  a  real  cause  for  regret  that 
some  detailed  information  was  not  given  of  a  few  of  the  more  important 

225 


226  Cambridge  Modern  History 

authors,  and  that  the  names  of  any  others  were  not  left  to  professed 
bibliographical  works.  Among  the  chapters  of  more  general  interest  is 
one  dealing  with  French  Humanism  and  Montaigne.  But  it  is  too  short 
to  be  effective.  Four  pages  out  of  nineteen  are  devoted  to  Montaigne 
— none  too  many  to  that  curiously  detached  personality.  But  it  is  easier 
to  find  information  about  him  than  about  any  of  the  other  writers  dealt 
with,  and  such  important  people  as  Joseph  Scaliger  and  Isaac  Casaubon 
do  not  cover  a  page  between  them  ;  while  such  a  string  of  names  as 
'Estienne  Pasquier,  Antoine  Loisel,  the  brothers  Pithou,  Guy  du  Faur 
de  Pibrac,'  and  so  on,  about  most  of  whom  no  further  word  is  said,  is 
a  mere  parade  of  knowledge.  On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Neville  Figgis 
contributes  an  excellent  summary  of  the  political  thought  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  where  we  are  allowed  to  appreciate,  uninterrupted  by  biographical 
or  bibliographical  details,  the  formulation  of  the  great  principles  of  political 
thought  which  so  profoundly  influenced  action  in  the  two  succeeding  cen- 
turies. It  is  a  chapter  in  the  history  of  political  philosophy  which  deserves 
to  be  known  far  more  widely  than  is  usual,  even  among  those  who 
claim  some  acquaintance  with  the  leading  writers  in  this  branch  of  specu- 
lative science.  A  fourth  part  of  the  volume  is  devoted  to  British  History 
— a  larger  proportion  than  in  any  other  of  the  series,  and  it  is  entrusted 
throughout  to  competent  hands.  Mr.  Sidney  Lee  has  a  right  to  be  heard 
on  Elizabethan  Literature,  and  Professor  J.  K.  Laughton's  interesting 
contribution  on  the  naval  contest  with  Spain  does  not  invest  with  too 
rosy  colours  the  doings  of  the  English  seamen.  In  his  eyes,  the  *  ignorance, 
disobedience,  and  presumption  '  of  Sir  Richard  Greynvile  was  more  note- 
worthy than  the  bravery  with  which  he  and  the  crew  of  the  c  Revenge ' 
immortalised  their  defeat.  The  stirring  tale  of  the  Revolt  of  the  Nether- 
lands is  given  by  the  Rev.  George  Edmundson  ;  the  dull  but  necessary 
and  important  history  of  imperial  affairs  after  the  retirement  of  Charles  V. 
on  to  the  eve  of  the  outbreak  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  is  told,  not 
for  the  first  time,  by  the  Master  of  Peterhouse.  Mr.  Martin  Hume, 
of  course,  treats  of  Spain  ;  Mr.  Nisbet  Bain,  equally  of  course,  deals  with 
Poland.  The  French  Wars  of  Religion  go  to  Professor  A.  J.  Butler, 
while  Mr.  Armstrong  consoles  himself  (and  us)  with  what  may  be  called 
the  later  history  of  Tuscany,  or  the  earlier  history  of  Savoy.  The 
Turks  fall  to  Dr.  Moritz  Brosch,  while  Mr.  Stanley  Leathes,  one  of 
the  working  editors  of  the  series,  deals  with  the  important  period  of  Henri 
Quatre.  The  whole  volume  is  full  of  attractive  subjects,  and  it  main- 
tains the  high  standard  of  the  series. 

DUDLEY  J.  MEDLEY. 

HENRY  THE  THIRD  AND  THE  CHURCH  :  A  STUDY  OF  HIS  ECCLESIASTICAL 
POLICY  AND  OF  THE  RELATIONS  BETWEEN  ENGLAND  AND  ROME. 
By  Abbot  Gasquet,  D.D.  London :  George  Bell  &  Sons,  1905. 
8vo.  I2s.  nett. 

THOSE  who  know  the  temperate  judgment  which  Abbot  Gasquet  has 
displayed  in  his  contributions  to  historical  study  have  no  need  to  be 
reminded  of  his  fairness  of  mind  in  approaching  such  thorny  subjects 


Henry  the  Third  and  the  Church       227 

as  the  ecclesiastical  policy  of  Henry  III.,  and  the  relations  between 
England  and  Rome  during  the  reign  of  that  monarch.  But  Dr. 
Gasquet  has  thought  fit  to  make  his  apology  at  the  outset,  and  declare 
the  principles  which  guided  him  throughout  his  inquiry.  It  has  been 
his  endeavour,  he  says,  to  hold  an  even  balance  between  two  extremes 
— the  tendency  to  minimise  and  the  tendency  to  exaggerate — and  in 
pursuance  of  this  resolve  he  has  been  content  to  construct  his  narrative 
as  far  as  possible  from  the  language  of  the  chroniclers  and  the  docu- 
mentary records  of  the  period.  No  exception  can  be  taken  to  this 
attitude  of  mind  provided  that  the  requisite  self-control  is  manifested  in 
the  interpretation  of  evidences  which  appear  to  contradict  the  broad 
conclusions  to  which  the  narrative  of  the  author  points.  One  thing 
at  least  is  admirable  in  Dr.  Gasquet's  method  :  there  is  no  hesitancy 
about  his  ecclesiastical  views — he  has  the  courage  of  his  convictions. 
After  reviewing  the  difficulties  which  beset  the  student  of  this  unique 
period  in  the  history  of  the  English  Church,  his  verdict  on  the  relations 
between  England  and  Rome  has  been  tabulated  with  commendable 
precision.  The  Pope  of  Rome  was  the  suzerain  power  in  England, 
or,  in  other  words,  the  country  was  a  fief  of  the  Holy  See.  This 
state  of  things  was  not  acceptable  to  either  the  clergy  or  the  laity  of 
the  kingdom.  There  was  widespread  discontent  on  account  of  the 
rapacity  of  the  Roman  officials  in  church  and  state.  The  discontent, 
however,  was  reasonable,  inasmuch  as  it  was  absolutely  confined  to 
opposition  to  the  constant  demands  made  upon  the  revenues  of  English 
churches,  and  to  the  introduction  of  foreigners  to  English  benefices. 
And,  last  and  most  important  of  all,  there  was  no  attack  during  the 
reign  on  l  the  spiritual  supremacy  of  the  popes '  :  the  Catholic  theory 
of  papal  authority  was  frequently  assumed  in  unmistakable  terms  by 
those  most  determined  in  their  opposition  to  local  abuses  of  the  papal 
jurisdiction.  These  are  the  propositions  which  the  author  sets  forth 
after  an  impartial  study  of  the  evidences  of  that  period. 

There  is  no  need  to  take  sides  in  a  controversy  of  this  kind.  Men 
differ,  and  will  continue  to  differ  about  the  subtleties  which  underlie 
such  a  thesis  as  'the  spiritual  supremacy  of  the  popes'  in  England, 
whatever  that  phrase  may  mean.  Dr.  Gasquet  has  set  himself  the 
task  of  telling  his  story  in  the  documentary  language  of  the  period 
of  which  he  writes,  but  we  cannot  recall  a  single  document  of  the 
thirteenth  century  where  the  papal  supremacy  is  mentioned.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  it  was  some  centuries  later  that  the  phrase  arose  and 
became  the  subject  of  acute  discussion.  That  the  pope  had  power 
in  England  nobody  can  gainsay,  and  that  power  may  be  said  to  have 
reached  its  highest  limit  during  the  reign  of  Henry  III.  In  an  excellent 
chapter  Dr.  Gasquet  has  told  us  how  it  was  attained.  At  one  time 
King  John  said  that  with  the  common  consent  of  his  barons  he  had 
resigned  his  crown  into  the  hands  of  the  papal  legate,  and  at  another 
that  it  was  by  divine  inspiration  he  had  done  so.  Dr.  Gasquet  takes 
leave  to  doubt  the  truth  of  the  King's  first  assertion,  and  an  old 
historian  like  Jeremy  Collier  was  obliged  to  remark  on  the  second 


228       Henry  the  Third  and  the  Church 

that  it  was  an  odd  stretch  of  the  supremacy  to  make  John  *  a  vassal 
and  a  hypocrite  at  the  same  time.'  But  perhaps  on  one  proposition 
all  shades  of  opinion  may  agree.  If  one  King  with  or  without  the 
consent  of  his  subjects  could  place  the  kingdom  under  the  suzerainty 
or  overlordship  of  a  foreign  authority,  there  can  be  no  serious  opposition 
to  the  subsequent  occurrence  in  English  history  when  that  surrender 
was  definitely  annulled,  and  the  kingdom  withdrawn  by  future  sove- 
reigns. It  is  no  fault  of  Dr.  Gasquet's  work  that  he  has  confined 
himself  to  a  single  reign,  though  one  would  have  wished  to  see  the 
larger  issue  discussed  with  more  comprehension.  The  treatment  of 
great  questions  piecemeal  has  evident  drawbacks,  and  it  makes  little 
matter  how  independent  and  conscientious  a  writer  may  be,  he  is  apt 
to  leave  behind  him  a  wrong  impression.  There  is  nothing  in  these 
pages  to  warn  the  reader  that  the  relations  between  England  and 
Rome  were  not  always  so  close  during  the  medieval  period.  One  lays 
aside  the  book  with  the  feeling  that  the  author  had  selected  the  reign 
of  Henry  III.  as  characteristic  of  '  the  spiritual  supremacy  of  the 
popes'  in  England  before  the  ecclesiastical  revolution  in  the  sixteenth 
century.  It  is  true  that  such  did  not  come  within  the  scope  of  the 
work,  but  when  such  prominence  is  given  to  the  argument  about  papal 
supremacy,  and  every  shred  of  conventional  or  euphemistic  phraseology 
in  official  or  complimentary  letters  is  reproduced  without  abridgment, 
a  word  might  have  been  said  to  indicate  that  the  ecclesiastical  policy 
of  Henry  III.  was  exceptional,  and  that  succeeding  kings  were  obliged 
to  modify,  limit,  or  reverse  it  as  the  requirements  of  church  or  state 
demanded. 

It  is  a  matter  of  taste  whether  Dr.  Gasquet  has  adopted  the  best 
method  of  presenting  us  with  an  ecclesiastical  history  of  the  reign. 
Some  readers  might  not  be  inclined  to  regard  c  the  spiritual  supremacy 
of  the  popes'  as  a  vexata  quaestio,  and  in  consequence  they  might  not 
care  to  hear  so  many  arguments  in  its  support.  On  the  other  hand 
they  might  desire  to  know  more  of  the  results  of  the  new  policy  on 
the  religious  condition  of  the  people — the  high  spiritual  advantages 
accruing  to  the  English  nation  from  its  august  vassalage  to  the  Holy 
See.  In  vain  will  they  look  through  these  pages  for  any  such  presenta- 
tion. Nobody  with  the  documents  before  him  can  deny  the  almost 
unlimited  power  of  Rome  in  England  in  the  thirteenth  century,  and 
few  students  will  be  bold  enough  to  say  that  the  English  Church  had 
reached  its  highest  level  while  the  papal  power  was  practically  supreme. 
It  is  probable  many  will  be  found  to  agree  with  Matthew  Paris  that 
the  devotion  of  the  English  clergy  and  people  to  their  mother,  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  to  their  father  and  pastor,  the  Pope,  was  fast 
expiring  after  some  experience  of  the  actualities  of  subjection.  But 
taking  the  book  as  a  whole,  and  remembering  the  concessions  that  the 
author  has  made  to  those  not  likely  to  agree  with  him,  one  cannot 
withhold  a  word  of  praise  for  the  diligent  research  manifest  in  every 
chapter,  and  the  studied  fairness  with  which  one  of  the  hottest  of 
modern  problems  has  been  handled.  JAMES  WILSON. 


McKechnie :    Magna  Carta  229 

MAGNA  CARTA  :  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  GREAT  CHARTER  OF  KING 
JOHN,  WITH  AN  HISTORICAL  INTRODUCTION.  By  W.  S.  McKechnie, 
M.A.,  LL.B.,  D.Phil.  Pp.  xix,  607.  Demy  8vo.  Glasgow: 
MacLehose,  1905.  145.  nett. 

ALTHOUGH  those  who  are  least  familiar  with  the  contents  of  Magna  Carta 
are  among  the  most  devout  believers  in  its  supreme  importance  as  a  bulwark 
of  British  liberties,  it  is  not  possible  to  scoff  at  an  ignorance  which  has  had 
the  good  sense  to  single  out  for  imaginative  notice  just  this  particular 
document ;  for  it  is  a  document  which  is  an  inexhaustible  receiver  of  all 
the  learning  historians  can  provide,  and  still  leaves  room  for  ignorant 
imaginings.  Truly  to  know  Magna  Carta,  in  all  its  forms,  to  know  the 
Great  Charters  of  the  thirteenth  century,  and  the  Stewart  idea  of  Magna 
Carta,  and  to-day's  idea  of  Magna  Carta,  is  to  know  as  much  constitutional 
history  as  this  country  can  afford.  It  is  the  real  Magna  Carta  and  the 
Magna  Carta  as  seen  through  the  centuries  that  Dr.  McKechnie  has 
commented  upon  in  over  600  pages,  yet  deeply  as  he  has  studied  his  subject 
we  doubt  not  that  he  would  be  the  first  to  admit  that  it  is  not  exhausted. 
To  commentary  on  Magna  Carta  there  is  no  end,  but  we  question  whether 
another  commentary  will  venture  to  attempt  to  displace  this  one  until 
some  generations  of  historical  students  have  been  at  work  on  new  material. 
Dr.  McKechnie  has  searched  far  and  wide,  especially  among  all  manner  of 
English  sources,  in  pursuit  of  his  laborious  enquiry ;  and  if  in  variety  of 
legal  opinion  there  is  wisdom,  the  means  to  wisdom  are  provided.  The 
arrangement  of  the  book  entails  some  repetition,  and  some  matter  which 
can  hardly  be  regarded  as  essential  to  the  main  purpose  of  the  book  has 
been  included,  but  the  commentary  is  unfailingly  suggestive,  and  contains 
much  that  will  be  new  even  to  specialists.  Papers  which  have  appeared 
since  the  publication  of  the  work  have  already  carried  historical  knowledge 
a  stage  further  in  one  or  two  directions ;  for  instance,  on  the  subject  of  the 
Council  of  St.  Albans  or  the  history  of  the  persons  proscribed  by  the 
charter,  but  to  point  this  out  is  only  to  prove  that  most  additions  to  our 
knowledge  of  the  thirteenth  century  are  additions  to  our  knowledge  of 
the  charter.  Point  after  point  of  the  detailed  commentary  will  have  to  be 
weighed  by  those  who  are  engaged  in  teaching  constitutional  history  by 
means  of  '  Select  Documents.'  A  single  instance  must  here  suffice :  in  the 
very  elaborate  discussion  of  the  difficult  chapter  which  treats  of  the  *  judi- 
cium  parium '  the  author  rejects  the  explanation  offered  by  Mr.  Pike,  which 
seemed  likely  to  find  adherents,  namely,  that  the  'judicium  parium'  is  the 
judgment  of  the  feudal  court,  and  is  contrasted,  not  coupled,  with  the  '  lex 
terrae.'  Dr.  McKechnie,  on  the  contrary,  takes  vel  as  a  subdisjunctive,  and 
translates  and^  a  translation  for  which  a  passage  in  the  Dialogus  de  Scaccario 
will  give  warrant.  He  illustrates  in  a  particularly  successful  way,  from 
statements  closely  contemporary,  what  he  believes  to  be  the  true  drift  of 
the  clause,  that  judgment  must  precede  execution.  The  judgment  is  not 
to  be  the  judgment  of  inferiors,  and  the  accused  shall  have  the  customary 
means  of  proof,  battle,  ordeal,  compurgation,  inquest.  Careful  attention  is 
given  to  the  important  question  who  was  the  liber  homo  whom  Magna 


230  McKechnie:    Magna  Carta 

Carta  was  intended  to  benefit.  The  commentator,  whose  open-mindedness 
never  fails  him,  weighs  with  equal  respect  Stubbs'  singular  remark  that  the 
villeins  obtain  little  notice  in  the  charter  because  '  they  were  free  from  the 
more  pressing  grievances,'  and  Mr.  Jenks'  equally  remarkable  utterances  on 
the  purely  selfish  purpose  of  the  baronial  drafters  of  the  document.  When 
the  use  of  the  word  liber  homo  in  documents  closely  contemporary  is  con- 
sidered, there  seems  to  be  less  cause  for  hesitation  over  the  question  of  his 
position  than  Dr.  McKechnie  is  prepared  to  admit. 

Little  opportunity  indeed  for  rhetoric '  does  the  real  Magna  Carta  allow, 
and  Dr.  McKechnie  deprives  us  of  a  last  chance  even  over  the  concluding 
clauses,  which  he  pronounces  'unpractical.'  On  this  and  a  few  other 
matters  of  opinion,  as  well  as  on  a  few  matters  of  fact,  the  reader  may  be 
inclined  to  differ  from  the  author,  but  anyone  who  turns  to  these  pages  for 
help  in  particular  difficulties  will  find  enough  to  persuade  him  that  he  had 
better  read  every  section.  There  is  a  very  serviceable  index  and  appendix 
of  illustrative  materials.  MARY  BATESON. 


A  HISTORY  OF  ACCOUNTING  AND  ACCOUNTANTS.  Edited  and  partly 
written  by  Richard  Brown,  C.A.,  for  the  Chartered  Accountants  of 
Scotland.  Pp.  xvi,  459.  8vo.  Edinburgh :  T.  C.  &  E.  Jack,  1905. 

THE  art  of  setting  out  accounts  and  of  examining  them  when  presented 
as  a  record  of  transactions  must  have  been  in  existence  from  the  time 
that  accounts  began  to  be  kept,  but  apparently  no  history  of  Accounting 
and  Accountants  has  hitherto  appeared.  The  present  work  is  intended 
to  fill  the  gap,  and  contains  much  interesting  and  well-ordered  information. 
It  commences  with  a  chapter  on  numeration,  excellent  so  far  as  it  goes ; 
but  it  might  perhaps  have  been  usefully  extended  so  as  to  give  some 
account  of  early  arithmetic,  and  to  explain  how  the  ordinary  operations 
of  that  art  were  performed  with  the  cumbrous  notation  of  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  and  to  trace  the  development  of  the  existing  rules  after 
the  introduction  of  the  Arabic  notation.  The  ancient  systems  of  account- 
ing are  well  and  adequately  explained  in  so  far  as  concerns  public 
revenues.  Something  further  might  have  been  said  as  to  the  manner 
of  keeping  private  and  partnership  accounts  amongst  the  Romans.  The 
next  chapter  on  the  early  forms  of  accounts  is  particularly  good.  Without 
being  too  recondite  or  technical  the  method  of  stating  accounts  in  use 
in  this  country  from  the  earliest  times  is  lucidly  detailed,  and  the 
various  improvements  from  time  to  time  introduced  are  noted.  From 
the  forms  of  accounts  the  same  author  proceeds  to  auditing.  This 
chapter,  however,  deals  with  the  fact  that  accounts  were  audited,  rather 
than  with  the  manner  in  which  the  audit  was  conducted,  and  is  limited 
to  public  accounts. 

A  history  of  Accounting  must  necessarily  include  that  of  Book-keeping. 
Two  chapters  are  devoted  to  it,  and  they  give  the  best  and  fullest  account 
of  the  subject  that  has  appeared  in  the  English  language.  They  have 
the  advantage  of  being  written  by  one  who  is  practically  conversant 
with  all  the  details  of  Book-keeping,  and  who  is  consequently  able  to 


Brown:   Accounting  and  Accountants    231 

grasp  the  salient  points  in  each  of  the  works  he  deals  with  and  to 
compress  a  great  deal  of  matter  into  comparatively  short  compass.  The 
chapter  on  Early  Italian  Accountants  is  interesting  and  very  much  to 
the  point,  and  the  reader  will  wish  that  it  had  been  longer. 

From  medieval  Italy  to  modern  Scotland  is  a  long  leap,  but  we  are  asked 
to  make  it.  The  next  portion  of  the  volume  is  devoted  pretty  much 
to  the  recent  history  of  accounting  or  rather  of  accountants  in  Scotland, 
as  well  as  in  England,  Ireland,  the  British  colonies,  and  foreign  countries. 
In  reality  it  is  pretty  much  a  history  of  the  chartered  societies. 

The  Appendix  contains  a  chronological  list  of  printed  books  on 
Book-keeping  up  to  the  year  1800.  This  is  founded  principally  upon 
the  Elenco  Cronologico  delle  opere  di  computisteria  e  Ragioneria  venute  alia 
luce  in  Italia^  prepared  by  Giuseppe  Cerboni  and  issued  by  the  Italian 
Government;  and  the  list  given  in  the  late  Mr.  Benjamin  Franklin 
Foster's  Origin  and  Progress  of  Book-keeping.  This  list  contained  only 
the  books  which  Mr.  Foster  had  in  his  possession  or  had  passed  through 
his  hands,  and  was  necessarily  therefore  imperfect.  Some  additions  have 
been  made,  but  the  list  is  still  far  from  being  complete  even  as  regards 
English  works.  Why  it  should  stop  at  the  year  1800  is  not  explained, 
and  that  it  does  so  detracts  greatly  from  its  value.  Seeing  that  the 
professed  object  of  the  work  is  accounting,  this  bibliography  should 
surely  have  been  supplemented  by  a  bibliography  of  accounting.  Even 
if  nothing  further  had  been  done  than  to  bring  together  the  titles  of 
the  works  referred  to  in  the  foot-notes  this  would  have  formed  a 
serviceable  list,  and  it  could  have  been  enlarged  without  trouble. 

The  lists  of  deceased  Scottish  Accountants  are  useful,  but  necessarily 
imperfect,  as  until  within  the  last  few  years  there  was  no  official  register. 
They  have  evidently  been  prepared  with  much  care;  but  we  need 
scarcely  add  that  with  the  greatest  care  and  trouble  mistakes  will 
creep  in.  For  instance,  Ludovic  Grant  is  said  to  have  died  at  Smith- 
field,  September  3,  1793.  It  is  true  that  a  gentleman  of  this  name 
died  there  on  the  date  stated,  but  it  was  not  the  Edinburgh  accountant. 
The  latter  died  at  Edinburgh,  iyth  September,  1792.  The  former 
was  a  well-known  writer  in  Edinburgh  and  solicitor  to  the  window- 
lights. 

The  chartered  societies  are  to  be  congratulated  upon  the  appearance 
of  this  work,  which  goes  far  towards  accomplishing  the  object  aimed  at. 

DAVID  MURRAY. 

NORTH  AMERICA.    By  Israel  C.  Russell.    Pp.  viii,  435.    Oxford  :   Henry 
Frowde,  1904.     75.  6d.  nett. 

THE  *  Regions  of  the  World '  series  of  volumes  issued  by  the  Oxford 
University  Press  is  already  well  known  as  expounding  the  new  Geography 
— applied  Geography,  Biology,  and  Ethnography — which  is  very  different 
from  the  dry-as-dust  subject  that  has  been  wont  to  masquerade  in  our 
schools  under  the  title  of  Geography.  Professor  Israel  Russell's  volume  on 
North  America  is  well  fitted  to  rank  alongside  Mr.  Mackinder's  interesting 


232  Russell  :    North  America 

work  upon  the  Geography  of  Britain,  though  perhaps  less  complete  and 
comprehensive,  owing  no  doubt  to  the  fact  that  limitation  of  space  com- 
pelled the  author  to  excise  several  entire  chapters  of  the  work  as  originally 
planned.  The  book  as  published  is  divided  into  eight  chapters  dealing  in 
turn  with  (i)  The  Physiography  of  the  marginal  zone  of  the  Continent, 
with  its  projecting  submarine  shelf;  (2)  The  general  topography  of  the 
Continent ;  (3)  Climate ;  (4)  Plant  Life ;  (5)  Animal  Life ;  (6)  Geology ; 
(7)  Aboriginal  inhabitants ;  and  (8)  Political  Geography.  All  of  these  are 
to  be  commended  for  their  interest ;  and  in  many  passages  the  graphic 
descriptions  bear  witness  to  the  author's  intimate  personal  knowledge, 
gained  doubtless  in  great  part  during  his  work  as  a  field  Geologist.  It  is 
perhaps  the  last  two  chapters  which  call  most  for  special  remark  in  this 
review.  In  that  dealing  with  the  aboriginal  inhabitants,  the  author  first 
considers  the  general  problem  of  the  antiquity  of  Man  on  the  North 
American  continent.  He  shows  that  there  is  not  as  yet  any  trustworthy 
evidence  of  the  existence  of  Man  on  that  continent  until  after  the  close  of 
the  Glacial  Period.  But  while  the  evidence  of  the  existence  of  Man  is 
confined  to  times  which  are  Geologically  recent,  it  yet  extends  to  periods 
historically  very  remote.  Taking  the  highly  reliable  evidence  afforded  by 
language,  looking  to  the  wonderful  diversity  amongst  native  tongues  of 
America,  and  the  absence  of  any  signs  of  affinity  with  the  oldest  known 
linguistic  stocks  of  the  Old  World,  the  conclusion  is  unavoidable  that  Man 
*  set  foot  on  American  soil  before  the  sprouting  of  the  linguistic  twig, 
which,  after  millenniums,  produced  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  of  ancient 
Persia  and  Assyria.'  General  Ethnographical  evidence  entirely  supports 
this  view — the  evidence  of  beliefs,  arts,  customs,  the  presence  of  domesti- 
cated animals  and  plants  evolved  independently  of  those  of  the  Old  World. 
Perhaps  the  author  goes  too  far  in  saying  that  the  domesticated  animals  are 
'with  not  even  a  single  exception'  peculiar  to  the  Continent,  for  the 
existence  of  a  purely  native  name  for  *  dog '  in  various  American  languages 
seems  to  point  to  that  animal  having  been  domesticated  by  the  Aborigines 
of  America  long  before  the  advent  of  Europeans. 

In  passing,  the  author  takes  occasion  to  draw  attention  to  the  misleading 
use  of  the  too  persistent  terms  'Stone  Age' — with  its  subdivisions  paleolithic 
and  neolithic,  '  Bronze  Age,'  and  '  Iron  Age,' — pointing  out  that  classifica- 
tion of  this  artificial  character  would  bracket  together  as  of  equal  stages  in 
development  the  lowest  American  savage  and  the  highly  civilized  Aztec  or 
Maya. 

After  treating  of  such  general  topics,  the  author  proceeds  to  more 
particular  descriptions,  and  makes  a  survey  of  the  two  main  groups  of 
aboriginal  inhabitants — Eskimo  and  Indian — and  of  their  chief  subdivisions, 
giving  in  concise  and  interesting  form  an  account  of  their  more  prominent 
physical  and  ethnological  characteristics. 

The  concluding  chapter  on  Political  Geography  is  disappointingly 
short,  most  of  it  being  taken  up  with  a  discussion  of  ideal  and  other 
methods  of  forming  political  boundaries.  Finally,  the  conclusion — for 
which  much  is  to  be  said  and  which  is  certainly  pardonable  in  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States — is  reached  that  '  the  Continent,  as  shown  by  its  geology 


Russell  :    North  America  233 

and  geography,  is  a  unit,'  and  that  '  the  one  boundary  in  North  America 
should  be  the  Shore  boundary,  except  at  the  thirty-mile-wide  Isthmus  of 
Panama.' 

In  the  other  chapters  of  Professor  Russell's  work  much  valuable 
information  will  be  found  set  forth  in  thoroughly  readable  form.  There 
are  powerful  appeals  to  the  imagination  in  some  of  the  physiographical 
facts  described,  such  as  the  submerged  valley  of  the  Hudson,  passing  far  out 
under  the  Atlantic  in  a  great  canon  over  2500  feet  deep  and  three  miles 
wide,  or  that  of  the  St.  Lawrence  extending  right  out  to  the  brink  of  the 
continental  shelf  some  200  miles  to  the  eastward  of  Nova  Scotia.  And  in 
the  chapter  on  Animal  Life,  after  an  interesting  account  of  the  more 
prominent  wild  mammals,  we  find  a  charming  passage  describing  with  the 
touch  of  an  enthusiast  the  Spring  time  music  of  the  Bird  inhabitants — how 
in  the  New  England  woods  the  twittering  of  the  birds  at  the  first  flush  of 
dawn  gradually  swells  up  with  the  songs  of  hosts  of  warblers  and  thrushes 
till  the  air  pulsates  with  music,  and  how,  as  the  dawn  speeds  westward 
over  the  continent,  it  is  preceded  by  the  wave  of  song  induced  by  its 
coming,  which  ceases  only  when  the  sea-birds  of  the  Pacific  take  up  the 
note  that  was  dropped  on  the  distant  Atlantic  coast. 

J.  GRAHAM  KERR. 

A  STUDENT'S  HISTORY  OF  SCOTLAND.  By  David  W.  Rannie,  M.A. 
Pp.  x,  300.  With  4  maps.  Cr.  8vo.  London  :  Methuen  &  Co., 
1904.  33.  6d. 

SCOTTISH  students  of  history  probably  will  not  approve  of  this  any  more 
than  of  most  previous  attempts  to  sketch  the  history  of  their  country. 
But,  for  the  practical  purposes  of  the  schoolmaster  Mr.  Rannie's  work 
is  the  most  likely  book  that  has  yet  appeared.  The  drawback  of  Scottish 
history  for  young  students  is  the  amount  of  mere  antiquarianism  that  it 
necessarily  contains,  which,  however  inspiring  for  purposes  of  patriotism, 
is  deterrent  from  the  educational  point  of  view.  Mr.  Rannie  has  striven 
to  overcome  this  difficulty  by  writing  from  the  standpoint  of  the  relations 
between  Scotland  and  England.  If  the  study  of  English  history  is  ham- 
pered by  too  insular  a  view,  the  intelligent  appreciation  of  Scottish  history 
has  from  the  same  cause  become  almost  impossible.  Mr.  Rannie  pleads 
for  the  study  of  two  kindred  developments,  one  on  either  side  of  the 
Tweed,  and  his  little  book  of  300  pages  should  help  to  make  this  possible. 
It  is  clearly  conceived  and  readably  expressed,  and  the  maps  are  sufficient. 
A  map  of  ecclesiastical  Scotland  might  have  been  added  with  advantage. 
Scotland  was  not  so  isolated  before  the  Reformation  as  she  became  after- 
wards, until  the  Union  drew  her  once  more  into  commercial  connection 
with  outside  lands.  The  story  closes  necessarily,  from  the  writer's  point 
of  view,  at  1746.  If  there  ever  is  to  be  a  school  of  historical  study 
in  the  Scottish  Universities,  the  foundation  for  it  must  be  laid  in  the 
secondary  schools  by  the  inculcation  of  a  suspension  of  moral  judgments. 
With  such  judgments  the  historian  has  nothing  to  do.  Mr.  Rannie 
knows  this  and  strives  to  remember  it. 

DUDLEY  J.  MEDLEY. 


234  Menzies-Fergusson  :    Logie 


LOGIE  :  A  PARISH  HISTORY.  By  R.  Menzies-Fergusson,  M.A.,  Minister  of 
Logie.  Vol.  ii.  pp.  319.  With  23  illustrations.  Crown  4to.  Paisley: 
Alexander  Gardner,  1905.  155.  nett. 

THIS  handsome  volume  worthily  concludes  Mr.  Fergusson's  account  of 
the  parish  in  which  he  is  happily  settled.  The  first  volume,  which 
was  noticed  in  the  Scottish  Historical  Review  for  July  last,  dealt  very 
fully  with  the  ecclesiastical  annals  of  the  parish,  and  the  present  volume 
may  be  regarded  as  giving  its  civil  history,  although  the  method  adopted 
by  the  author  necessarily  omits  some  of  the  phases  of  parochial  life.  He 
takes  up  in  the  order  followed  in  the  Commissioners'  l  Report  on  the 
Kirk  and  Parish  of  Logic,'  prepared  in  1627,  the  various  estates  within 
the  parish  bounds,  and  gives  an  exhaustive  account  of  the  lands  and  their 
owners,  derived  from  historical  sources,  the  charters  and  other  writs  in 
the  possession  of  the  present  proprietors,  and  public  and  private  records. 
This  plan  has  the  advantage  of  affording  easy  reference  to  the  families 
which  have  been  connected  with  Logie  from  an  early  period,  and 
genealogists  will  find  information  about  pedigrees  which  has  not  hitherto 
been  available,  although  there  is  still  room  for  additional  labour  to  fill 
up  the  blanks  in  several  of  the  charts  here  published  for  the  first  time. 
Among  the  holders  of  land  in  the  parish,  as  Mr.  Fergusson  mentions 
in  his  preface,  will  be  found  the  Stuart  Sovereigns,  some  of  the  ancient 
religious  houses  (to  wit,  the  Abbey  of  Cambuskenneth  and  Cistercian 
Nunnery  of  North  Berwick),  and  many  of  the  noblest  and  oldest  families 
connected  with  the  Scottish  nobility.  The  Grahams  of  Montrose,  the 
Shaws  of  Sauchie,  the  Stirlings  of  Ardoch  and  Keir,  the  Erskines  of 
Mar,  the  Drummonds  of  Perth,  the  Setons  of  Touch,  the  Murrays  of 
Tullibardine  and  Polmaise,  the  Hopes  of  Hopetoun,  the  Campbells  ot 
Argyll,  the  family  of  Dundas,  the  Earls  of  Stirling  and  Strathearn,  and 
others,  appear  in  close  relation  with  the  civil  history  of  Logie.  A 
wider  interest  therefore  attaches  to  Mr.  Fergusson's  work  than  its  title 
would  indicate.  It  is  remarkable  how  many  eminent  Scotsmen  come 
within  the  author's  purview,  and  their  achievements  are  noted  with  a 
proper  pride.  No  one  who  peruses  these  pages  can  fail  to  be  impressed 
with  the  industry  of  which  they  are  the  product,  while  evidence  is  not 
wanting  of  Mr.  Fergusson's  carefulness  and  anxiety  to  be  accurate. 
Some  of  the  smaller  details,  indeed,  might  have  been  omitted  without 
injury  to  the  volume.  Taken  as  a  whole,  the  value  of  the  work  as  a 
parish  history  on  modern  scientific  lines  can  hardly  be  too  highly  esti- 
mated. A  popular  account  of  the  geology  of  the  parish  is  supplied  by 
Mr.  D.  B.  Morris,  Town  Clerk  of  Stirling,  and  there  is  a  list  of  place- 
names,  with  interpretations  of  their  Gaelic  origins  which  may  provoke 
criticism.  The  illustrations  include  reproductions  of  portraits  of  the 
famous  Abercrombys  of  Airthrey,  and  two  interesting  old  maps.  The 
index  is  deserving  of  praise. 

W.  B.  COOK. 


Barnard  :   Companion  to  English  History     235 


COMPANION  TO  ENGLISH  HISTORY  (MIDDLE  AGES).  Edited  by  Francis 
Pierrepont  Barnard,  M.A.,  F.S.A.  Pp.  xv,  352.  Crown  8vo.  With 
97  illustrations.  Oxford  :  Clarendon  Press,  1902.  8s.  6d.  nett. 

WITHIN  the  compass  of  350  pages  the  historical  student  will  find  essays 
on  such  subjects  as  architecture,  costume,  army  and  navy,  town  and 
country  life,  monasticism,  trade,  learning,  art,  to  which,  in  the  ordinary 
narrative  histories  allusions  are  so  tantalisingly  scanty.  Each  section  is 
the  work  of  a  separate  writer,  and,  where  there  is  so  much  ground  to 
cover,  great  restraint  has  been  necessary.  Twenty-four  pages  is  a  short 
allowance  for  a  description  of  the  ecclesiastical  architecture  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  but  by  the  aid  of  careful  arrangement  and  well-chosen  illustrations, 
the  salient  features  are  impressed  upon  the  reader's  mind.  The  names 
of  most  of  the  writers  are  a  guarantee  of  the  quality  of  the  work — 
Professor  Oman  on  Military  Architecture,  Mr.  Townshend  Warner  on 
Country  Life,  Dr.  Jessopp  on  Monasticism.  The  bibliography  at  the  end 
of  each  article  is  within  the  compass  of  anyone  who  has  access  to  a 
good  library. 

DUDLEY  J.  MEDLEY. 

It  is  a  pleasure  to  find  such  excellent  Readers  available  for  use  in 
schools  as  the  Scottish  Edition  of  Macmillaris  New  History  Readers. 
The  appearance  of  the  four  books  :  Primary,  Junior,  Intermediate,  Senior, 
is  itself  a  recommendation  ;  they  are  beautifully  printed  and  illustrated, 
and  tastefully  bound,  while  the  subject  matter  has  been  well  chosen  and 
skilfully  graded.  A  common  and  fatal  error  in  such  books  is  to  pack 
them  too  full  of  facts,  with  the  result  that  they  are  distinctly  dull ;  here, 
while  a  sufficient  amount  of  information  is  given,  mere  knowledge  has 
not  been  allowed  to  interfere  with  the  more  important  end  of  making 
the  subject  really  interesting.  The  concentric  method  has  been  adopted 
with  very  happy  results,  and  the  history  lessons  have  been  correlated 
with  geography.  Geographical  details  are  best  learned  in  their  associa- 
tions, and  one  would  fain  hope  that  few  teachers  now  condemn  their 
pupils  to  commit  to  memory  barren  lists  of  names.  In  deference  to  the 
feelings  of  those  that  object  to  the  constant  use  of  the  words  England, 
and  English,  when  the  British  Islands  and  their  inhabitants  and  interests 
are  being  spoken  of,  the  words  Britain,  Britons,  and  British,  are  used. 
These  terms  are  not  free  from  objection,  for  the  population  of  these 
islands  consists  of  Britons,  Gaels,  Jutes,  Angles,  Saxons,  Danes,  Norsemen, 
etc.,  and  a  common  name  is  not  easily  found.  Useful  summaries  are 
provided  of  the  Junior,  Intermediate,  and  Senior  Readers. 

A.  M.  WILLIAMS. 

From  the  Proceedings  of  the  British  Academy  comes  Ernst  Curtius 
(Oxford  University  Press,  pp.  24,  is.  nett),  being  Dr.  Thomas  Hodgkin's 
sympathetic  memoir  of  the  great  historian  of  Greece  (born  1814,  died 
1896),  who,  although  an  idealist  in  his  writings,  did  so  much  on  the 
severely  practical  modern  line  of  classical  research  by  excavations. 


236  Current   Literature 

Our  contributor  M.  Etienne  Dupont  has  compiled  a  Bibliographic 
Generate  du  Mont  Saint-Michel  (8vo,  pp  62  ;  Avranches,  Jules  Durand,  1 905 ), 
being  a  hand-list  of  (l)  special  works,  (2)  journal  articles,  and  (3)  early 
MSS.  relative  to  the  famous  rock  fortress  and  abbey.  He  begins  by  claim- 
ing that  in  literature  the  Mont  is  a  cycle.  This  he  proves  amply,  although 
his  list  needs  large  addition  of  romance  works,  French  and  English  ;  for  the 
place  had  a  poetic  renown  on  both  sides  of  the  Channel  wider  than  this 
useful  preliminary  bibliography  evinces.  One  interesting  Scots  item  occurs 
regarding  Scottish  prisoners  in  the  Mont  in  1547,  being  a  reference  to  the 
Revue  de  P  Avranchin  (tome  xi.  No.  I,  p.  40). 

We  have  received  new  editions  of  Life  of  Mansie  Wauch,  with  the 
Cruikshank  illustrations  (Blackwood  &  Sons,  2s.  6d.  nett),  and  the  trans- 
lation of  Goethe's  Faust  by  Anna  Swanwick,  with  an  introduction  by 
Dr.  Karl  Breul  (George  Bell  &  Sons,  2s.  nett).  These  are  both  pretty 
volumes  and  handy  in  size.  We  have  also  to  acknowledge  Notes  and 
Queries  for  Somerset  and  Dorset  (Sherborne,  J.  C.  &  A.  T.  Sawtell),  and 
Berks,  Bucks,  and  Oxon  Archaeological  Journal  (October),  with  good 
accounts  of  castles  and  churches.  Among  pamphlets  received  is  The 
Hungarian  Diet  of  1905,  compiled  by  A.  B.  Yolland  (Budapest,  Franklin 
Society,  1905),  a  curious  manifesto  containing  the  Hungarian  protest  and 
constitutional  claim  in  the  present  difficulty  with  his  '  apostolic  majesty ' 
the  king.  Also  a  social  science  monthly,  Kritische  Blatter  fur  die  gesamten 
Sozialwissenschaften  (Dresden,  Boehmert),  bibliographical  and  critical  in 
its  scope.  To  the  Hawick  Archaeological  Society  Mr.  J.  B.  Brown 
recently  communicated  a  detailed  article  on  the  French  troops  in  the 
Borders  in  1548,  containing  extensive  translations  from  Jan  de  Beaugu6's 
U Histoire  de  la  Guerre  d'Escosse,  first  published  at  Paris  in  1556.  He 
has  favoured  us  with  a  reprint.  Mr.  Brown's  rendering  of  the  French 
is  free  and  vigorous,  although  far  from  exact.  The  general  events  of  the 
Scottish  campaign  are  well  traced. 

In  The  English  Historical  Review  (Oct.)  Mr.  W.  T.  Waugh  traces 
to  its  close  the  Lollard  career  of  Sir  John  Oldcastle,  and  Professor  E.  P. 
Cheyney  tackles  a  difficult  theme — to  determine  the  state  of  international 
law  under  Elizabeth,  especially  in  sea  causes.  The  results  are  more  on 
the  side  of  light  than  the  deeds  of  the  sea-dogs  on  the  Spanish  Main  and 
elsewhere  might  have  led  us  to  anticipate.  Mr.  R.  W.  Ramsey  finds 
in  the  church  records  of  Houghton  le  Spring  in  Durham  much  curious 
information  on  rural  life,  prices,  taxation,  the  parish  share  in  the  civil 
wars,  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  the  church  collections  and  doles, 
the  library  and  the  epitaphs  of  the  place  from  1531  until  1771.  The  list 
of  bellringings  is  oddly  instructive  :  the  bells  followed  the  politics  of  the 
Vicar  of  Bray.  On  the  subject  of  the  alleged  Norman  origin  of  *  Castles ' 
in  England,  an  important  discussion  appears,  presenting  both  sides,  with 
an  editorial  footnote  containing  the  gist  of  the  original  contributor's 
rejoinder.  Dr.  T.  Davies  Pryce,  while  agreeing  with  Mrs.  Armitage 
that  the  Normans  erected  mattes  during  and  after  the  Conquest,  dissents 


Current   Literature  237 

from  the  assumption  that  they  were  then  novelties  in  England,  and  assails 
her  position  as  regards  several  specific  places  in  England,  Wales,  and 
Ireland.  Mrs.  Armitage's  answer  upholds  her  previous  statements  in  the 
instances  impugned,  although  she  does  not  pretend  to  offer  conclusive 
evidence  that  there  were  no  private  castles  in  England  before  the  Con- 
quest. On  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Pryce's  counter-argument  scarcely  appears 
to  go  so  far  as  to  challenge  the  proposition  that  the  matte  type  is  Norman 
and  to  be  interpreted  as  such  in  British  history.  Mr.  H.  W.  C.  Davis 
debates  the  '  unknown  charter  of  liberties '  which  Mr.  Round  first  edited 
and  which  has  since  been  discussed  by  Mr.  Prothero,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr. 
McKechnie  as  relative  to  Magna  Carta.  He  concludes,  a  little  differently 
from  Mr.  McKechnie,  that  the  unknown  charter  is  intermediate  between 
the  Articles  of  the  Barons  and  the  final  Great  Charter. 

We  congratulate  and  heartily  welcome  the  Modern  Language  Review 
(Cambridge  University  Press)  on  its  fresh  start  as  a  specialist  journal  of 
research  and  investigation,  largely  on  themes  of  English  language  and 
literature.  In  the  first  number  we  note  as  on  historical  lines  Mr.  Paget 
Toynbee's  paper  tracing  Dante's  English  translators  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  Mr  W.  W.  Greig's  discussion  of  the  authorship  of  songs  in  Lyly's 
plays,  and  Miss  Crosland's  editing  of  a  fifteenth  century  German  version  of 
the  widespread  legend  regarding  a  thief  on  the  gallows  who  is  miraculously 
kept  alive  by  the  Virgin  for  three  days,  when  he  confesses,  receives  the 
host,  and  goes  to  heaven. 

The  Reliquary  has  a  budget  of  capital  pictures  with  letterpress  equally 
informative.  There  are  glimpses  of  old  ploughs,  yokes,  ox-shoes,  and 
flails  ;  there  are  fine  examples  of  renaissance  medals  of  Christ ;  and  the 
sculpturings  of  the  caves  at  East  Wemyss  are  presented  with  cognate 
ornaments  from  Norries  Law.  A  Norman  font  from  Thorpe-Salvin, 
Yorkshire,  is  shown,  representing  the  Four  Seasons  of  the  year, — a  subject 
which,  as  Mr.  Romilly  Allen  says,  is  rare  in  Norman  sculpture  in  England. 

In  Scottish  Notes  and  Queries  (Aberdeen,  Rosemount  Press)  for  October, 
Mr.  J.  M.  Bulloch  traverses  in  some  detail  the  points  alleged  against  his 
views  by  Mr.  A.  H.  Millar  in  our  columns  (S.H.R.  ii.  192),  and  advances 
examples  of  confusion  between  '  Bulloch  '  and  '  Balloch.' 

The  Celtic  Review  has  from  time  to  time  notable  Gaelic  matter,  such 
as  Professor  Mackinnon's  editing  of  an  old  Irish  tale  from  the  Glenmasan 
MS.  and  Mr.  Macbain's  study  of  Highland  personal  names. 

In  the  American  Historical  Review  for  October  Mr.  James  F.  Baldwin 
shows  that  current  views  of  the  history  of  the  king's  council  in  fourteenth- 
century  England  require  to  be  modified,  and  that  its  organised  development 
dates  considerably  earlier  than  the  time  assigned  by  Sir  Harris  Nicolas. 
Professor  E.  P.  Cheyney  brings  out  a  curious  feudal  connection  between 
the  United  States  and  the  county  of  Kent  in  the  fact  that  charters  by 
James  VI.  and  L,  Charles  I.  and  Charles  II.,  of  Virginia,  Massachusetts 


238  Current   Literature 

Bay,  the  Carolinas,  and  other  lands  in  America,  were  granted,  to  be  held 
of  the  King  of  England  '  as  of  the  Manor  of  East  Greenwich  in  the 
County  of  Kent  in  free  and  common  soccage.'  This  tenure  derives  from 
the  residence  of  the  Tudor  sovereigns  at  Greenwich,  whence  it  passed 
into  common  form  in  the  grants  of  crown  lands,  and  continued  when 
James  and  his  successors  had  ceased  to  favour  Greenwich  as  their  home. 
Mr.  Paul  van  Dyke  discusses  Maximilian  I.  as  author.  Mr.  Goldwin 
Smith  sets  forth  Burke's  views  of  party,  and  Cap.  Mahan  examines,  with 
special  reference  to  their  American  aspects,  the  negotiations  for  the  Treaty 
of  Ghent  in  1814.  There  is  a  notable  review  of  M.  Henry  Vignaud's 
fetudes  Critiques  sur  la  Vie  de  Colomb  avant  ses  Decouvertes,  which  appears 
to  make  clear  some  places  darkened  by  diplomatic  inaccuracies,  for  which 
Columbus  himself  is  made  to  answer.  The  explorer,  however,  was  neither 
the  first  nor  the  last  to  coin  or  countenance  genealogical  fiction. 

The  Revue  Historique  (Sept.-Oct.)  is  chiefly  concerned  with  Rousseau 
in  Geneva  and  Napoleon  in  Italy.  A  critical  survey  of  medieval  studies 
in  French  history  lays  stress  on  the  pagan  origins  of  the  Ordeal  among 
European  institutions.  The  Nov.-Dec.  issue  has  a  full  and  careful  paper 
on  Marie  de  Medicis. 

In  a  critique  in  the  Revue  des  Etudes  Historiques  (July-August)  M. 
Louis  Madelin  examines  from  an  opposite  angle  M.  Coquelle's  Napoleon 
et  r  Angleterre^  1803-1813,  especially  as  regards  the  rupture  of  the  Peace 
of  Amiens. 

The  dnalecta  Bollandiana,  published  quarterly  at  Brussels  by  the  Soci£t6 
des  Bollandistes,  carries  on  a  noble  tradition  in  all  that  concerns  hagiology. 
Issues  of  July  and  October,  1905,  contain,  besides  minor  texts  of  the 
lives  of  saints,  an  important  series  of  catalogues  of  hagiographic  manu- 
scripts in  various  libraries,  viz.,  those  of  the  chapters  of  St.  Peter  in  the 
Vatican,  of  St.  John  in  the  Lateran,  and  of  St.  Mary  Major,  as  well  as 
those  of  the  Bollandist  Library  itself.  These  are  accompanied  by  a  valu- 
able bulletin  of  hagiographic  publications  containing  a  useful  survey  of 
historical  and  critical  studies  all  over  that  special  field.  Among  British 
subjects  of  discussion  we  note,  p.  393,  a.  commendation  of  Harnack's 
*  ingenious  exegesis '  relative  to  the  letter  of  King  Lucius  to  Pope  Eleu- 
therius  referred  to  by  the  Venerable  Beda  (Hist.  EccL  i.  cap.  4).  By 
the  new  reading  of  Beda's  supposed  source,  the  words  epistulam  a  Lucio 
Britannia  rege  are  interpreted  as  referring,  not  to  a  British  king  at  all, 
but  to  a  historical  potentate  of  Birtha  in  Edessa — a  Mesopotamian  realm, 
whose  actual  sovereign  was  Lucius  Aelius  Septimius  Megas  Abgarus  IX. 
Authorities  have  for  a  while  regarded  Lucius,  the  so-called  first  Christian 
king  of  Britain,  as  a  merely  fabulous  monarch  :  the  merit  of  Harnack's 
explanation  is  that  it  so  reasonably  accounts  for  the  misconception  which 
gave  him  birth.  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth,  it  may  be  remembered,  declared 
him  the  son  of  King  Coilus,  to  whom  Boece  and  Buchanan  and  Burns 
have  given  local  habitation  and  poetic  name  and  fame  in  Kyle.  A  less 


Current  Literature  239 

complete  process  of  disillusion  is  seen  in  progress  in  pp.  397-99,  where 
St.  Alban,  the  proto-martyr  of  England,  threatens  to  fade  into  a  shadow- 
picture  of  Saints  Irenaeus  and  Symphorian.  A  few  pages  further  on 
(pp.  510-12)  it  comes  to  a  Scottish  saint's  turn,  and  there  are  debated  the 
rival  claims  of  the  Breton  St.  Servais  and  our  St.  Serf  or  Servanus.  The 
latter  appears  to  get  short  shrift  from  Monsieur  1'Abbe  L.  Campion  : 
*  quant  a  Servanus '  (says  the  abbe's  critic  in  the  Analecta  setting  forth  the 
abbd's  conclusions),  '  tres  probablement  il  n'aurait  jamais  existeV  But  the 
critic  is  far  from  satisfied  with  the  abbe's  argument,  and  our  saint  of  Loch 
Leven  still  lives.  However,  he  is  challenged  by  his  namesake  of  the  town 
of  St.  Servan  in  the  department  of  Ille-et-Vilaine  (see  Annales  de  Bretagne, 
tome  xix.  pp.  321-63,  565-600,  629-30,  Revue  de  Bretagne,  tome  xxxi. 
(1904)  491-97).  It  is  a  sign  of  our  emancipated  time  that  the  Society 
of  Bollandists  can  with  the  most,  cheerful  historic  impartiality  contemplate 
such  sacrifices  as  these  would  imply  on  the  altar  of  the  higher  criticism. 

Englische  Studien  (Leipzig,  O.  R.  Reisland)  in  its  August  issue  has  a 
long  and  important  article,  CA  History  of  Pastoral  Drama  in  England 
until  1700;  by  Josephine  Laidler.'  Retracing  the  origins  of  Italian 
pastoral  drama  to  the  classical  bucolic  eclogue,  Miss  Laidler  shows  its 
evolution  through  the  Orfeo  of  Poliziano  (1474)  in  the  pastoral  romance, 
the  Arcadia,  of  Sannazzaro  (1504),  and  the  subsequent  experiments  of 
Sidney  Peele  and  Lyly  with  the  definitive  work  of  Sidney,  the  Arcadia 
of  1590,  which  so  powerfully  influenced  English  literature.  During  the 
seventeenth  century  numerous  plays  attested  the  pastoral  fashion,  and  one 
and  twenty  of  them,  by  authors  from  Daniel  (1606),  and  Fletcher  (1610), 
and  Jonson  (1637) — when  this  type  of  play  was  at  its  best — down  through 
Heywood  and  Cowley  (1638)  to  Flecknoe  (1664)  and  Oldmixon  (1697) 
are  analysed  by  Miss  Laidler.  She  perceives  the  increasing  sophistication 
of  the  age  as  the  cause  of  progressive  decay,  although  she  rightly  maintains 
that  the  great  charm  of  the  finest  pastoral  plays  being  poetic,  not  dramatic, 
the  human  element  vital  for  the  stage  was  necessarily  absent,  and  the  fates 
were  contrary.  Miss  Laidler's  well-documented  study  calls  for  hearty 
praise  were  it  only  for  its  helps  to  the  criticism  of  Allan  Ramsay's  Gentle 
Shepherd  (1725)  and  its  contribution  to  the  illustrious  pedigree  of  the 
rustic  figures  of  Patie  and  Roger.  The  November  issue  has  a  good 
note  on  the  Brut  and  the  Havelok  saga.  A  Scottish  question  of  interest 
is  asked  by  Dr.  W.  Bang,  who  seeks  to  know  the  whereabouts  of  the  MS. 
dating  circa  1513  of  the  Priests  of  Peebles  alluded  to  in  Laing's  preface  to 
that  poem.  The  immediate  point  involved  is  the  relationship  between 
the  moral  interlude  Everyman  and  the  third  tale  of  the  Priests  of  Peebles 
in  view  of  the  marked  allusion  in  the  line  : 

'  And  summond  this  riche  man  we  of  reid.' 

Perhaps  it  may  be  well  for  our  German  friends  to  look  at  Mr.  Renwick's 
Peebles :  Burgh  and  Parish,  pp.  55-57,  regarding  the  possible  identification 
of  the  three  priests  as  helping  to  fix  some  dubious  dates. 


Queries 

ADDER'S  HEAD  AND  PEACOCK'S  TAIL.  Ought  not  the 
last  line  of  Ian  Lom's  poem  (to  which  Mr.  Millar,  in  his  interesting 
*  Killiecrankie  described  by  an  Eye-witness,'  in  last  number  of  the  S.H.R. 
p.  IO,  refers  as  an  'obscure  metaphor')  to  be  rendered,  'With  an  adder's 
head  it  will  have  a  peacock's  tail '  ?  I  presume  the  word  in  the  original 
is  nathair  '  adder,'  which  is  also,  of  course,  the  general  word  for  '  serpent ' 
or  '  snake,'  the  adder  being  perhaps  the  only  representative  of  the  serpent 
or  snake  family  known  to  the  Gael ;  but  in  English  the  harmless  '  snake  ' 
is  usually  differentiated  from  the  venomous  '  adder '  or  viper.  In  Macleod 
and  Dewar's  Dictionary,  English-Gaelic  part,  I  find  '  adder '  rendered 
'  nathair,'  but  '  snake '  explained  as  gne  nathrach  gun  phuinnsein,  '  a  kind 
of  adder  without  poison.'  The  rhetorical  antithesis  between  the  stinging 
and  venomous  adder's  head,  and  the  harmless  and  brilliant  peacock's  tail 
is  well  known  to  me,  as  I  suppose  it  is  to  most  Scotchmen,  in  the  weather 
adage  which  I  used  to  hear  annually  when  a  youth  in  Teviotdale, 
'  March  comes  in  with  an  adder's  head,  and  goes  out  with  a  peacock's 
tail.'  I  remember  how  surprised  I  was  to  find  this  supplanted  in  the 
south  of  England  by  the  much  less  picturesque  '  March  comes  in  with 
the  lion  and  goes  out  with  the  lamb.'  One  would  like  to  know  the 
historical  relation  between  the  Gaelic  and  Lowland  Scotch  versions  of 
the  expression  :  is  the  Lowland  Scotch  a  translation  from  the  Gaelic,  or 
is  the  latter  taken  over  from  the  Lowland  speech  ?  How  old  is  the  pea- 
cock in  Scotland  ?  When  is  it  likely  to  have  been  first  known  in  the 
Highlands  ?  It  was  no  doubt  introduced  from  the  south,  and  known  in 
the  Lowlands  earlier  than  in  the  tir  nam  beann  'us  nan  gleann.  So  that 
the  antithesis  of  peacock's  tail  with  adder's  head  may  have  arisen  first 
in  the  Lowland  tongue.  But  can  any  example  of  the  Lowland  use 
be  found  older  than,  or  as  old  as  the  Gaelic  of  Ian  Lom  ? 

Oxford.  JAMES  A.  H.  MURRAY. 


CAMPBELLS  OF  ARDEONAIG.  According  to  Miss  M.  O. 
Campbell's  Memorial  History  of  the  Campbells  of  Melfort  Alexander 
Campbell  of  Ardeonaig  married,  1666,  Elizabeth,  daughter  of  Robert 
Campbell  of  Glenlyon,  by  whom  he  had  two  sons  :  Colin,  who  succeeded 
him,  and  John,  baptised  1677  ;  but  t^le  Perthshire  Sasines  show  that 
Alexander  Campbell  married,  first,  Jean,  daughter  of  Colin  Campbell 
of  Mochaster,  contract  dated  October,  1665,  secondly,  Elizabeth,  eldest 
daughter  of  Robert  Campbell  of  Glenlyon,  contract  dated  8th  September, 

240 


Queries  241 

1686.     Which  was  the  mother  of  his  two  sons  ?     There  is  some  reason 
for  believing  that  the  above  date  1677  may  be  a  mistake  for  1697. 

A.  W.  G.  B. 

ABBOTS  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DUNDRENNAN.  I  should  be 
glad  of  any  additions  to  the  following  list.  The  numbers  in  front  of 
the  names  indicate  the  order  in  which  Mr.  ^Eneas  B.  Hutchison  has 
placed  the  abbots  in  his  work  on  the  Abbey  : 

1.  Silvanus,   1142-1167.     Translated  to  Rievaulx. 

Galfrid,  c.  1617-1214.     (Chancery  Misc.  Portfolios,  41/125.) 

2.  Geoffry,   1222.     Died  at  Alba-ripa  (Mel   Chron.}. 

3.  Robert  Macussal,   1223.     Created  abbot  5th  Jan.  (Mel.  Chron.). 

4.  Jordan,   1236.     Deposed  (Mel.  Chron.}. 

5.  Leonas,   1236.      Elected  7th  May.      1239  Translated  to   Rievaulx. 

6.  Richard,   1239.     (Mel.  Chron.} 

7.  Adam,   1250.     Died  (Mel.   Chron.}. 

8.  Bryan,   1250.     (Mel.  Chron.} 
Walter,   1296.     (Ragman  Roll.) 

John,   1305.     (Charter  33,  Edw.  I.  m.  3.) 

Giles,   1347.     (Papal  Registers  of  Clement  VI.) 

Patrick  McMen,   1426.     (Olim  Abbate.     Reg.  Mag.  Sig.   185.) 

9.  Henry,   1437.     (Statistical  Account  of  Scotland.} 

10.  Thomas  was  abbot  fifteenth  century. 

11.  John  Maxwell,   1525.     (Monastic  Annals  of  Teviotdale.} 
Adam  Blackadder,   1559. 

12.  Edward  Maxwell,   1584-1595. 
John  Murray,   1598. 

The  Hayes,  Bakewell,  Derbyshire.  HENRY  A.  RYE. 

[Undernoted  are  four  additions  to  our  correspondent's  list : 

William,   1 1 80.     (Acts  Par/.  Scot.  i.  388  (red  ink).) 

William,   1456,    1460.      (Exchequer    Rolls,    vi.    191,    641.)       1473- 

(Exchequer  Rolls,  viii.  164.) 
James    Hay    (postulate),    1516,    1517.      (Reg-    Mag.    Sig.    iii.    145, 

163.)      (abbot)    1517.      (Exchequer    Rolls,    xiv.     279.)       1524. 

(Exchequer  Rolls,  xv.   84.) 
Adam  (commendator),   1543.     (&*£•  Mag.  Sig.  iii.  3106.)] 

JOHN  BUCHANAN,  LAST  LAIRD  OF  THAT  ILK.  Buchanan 
of  Auchmar  states  that  he  died  in  December,  1682.  Mr.  Guthrie  Smith 
in  his  History  of  Strathendrick  says  that  he  was  dead  before  6th  September, 
1681,  but  does  not  give  his  authority.  It  is  certain  that  the  Laird  was 
alive  in  January,  1681,  but  was  dead  before  January,  1683.  Where 
and  when  did  he  die  ? 

A.  W.  G.  B. 


Communications  and  Replies 

'GRETNA  GREEN  AND  ITS  TRADITIONS.'  I  desire  to 
offer  a  few  remarks  upon  the  notice  of  this  book  which  appeared  in  the 
Scottish  Historical  Review  for  October  (Vol.  iii.  p.  125).  Two  excellent 
illustrations  are  reproduced,  one  of  which  is  of  a  comparatively  modern 
sculpture  professing  to  represent  the  whole  achievement  of  Johnstone  of 
Gretna — the  escutcheon  displaying  the  paternal  arms  without  difference, 
an  esquire's  helmet  with  mantling,  surmounted  by  a  wreath  on  which 
is  set  the  crest,  and  over  all  a  scroll  with  the  motto  of  that  branch  of 
the  Johnstones — Cave  paratus. 

Johnstone  of  Gretna  or  Graitney  appears  never  to  have  obtained  a 
separate  grant  of  arms,  for  although  Nisbet  says  the  arms  of  that  branch 
of  the  clan  were  matriculated  in  the  Lyon  Register  as  argent,  a  saltire 
sable,  on  a  chief  gules  three  cushions  or  (Heraldry,  i.  144),  which  are  the 
arms  of  the  head  of  the  family,  Johnstone  of  that  ilk,  they  are  not  to 
be  found  there  now.  But  Nisbet,  writing  before  1722,  says  he  had  seen 
another  stone  *  in  front  of  the  house  of  Gratney,'  in  which  the  saltire 
is  given  between  two  mullets  or  stars  in  chief  and  in  base,  doubtless  for 
difference.  Mr.  G.  Harvey  Johnstone  has  discovered  this  stone  lately, 
built  into  the  wall  of  a  barn  at  Old  Graitnay  farm,  with  the  initials  J.  J. 
beside  the  shield  (Heraldry  of  the  Johnstones,  p.  36).  The  puzzling 
circumstance  is  that,  while  the  present  Gretna  Hall  dates  from  1710, 
the  Johnstones  had  parted  with  the  property  before  that  date. 

The  other  illustration  reproduced  from  Gretna  Green  and  its  Traditions 
represents  the  famous  Clochmabenstane,  rightly  so  described  under  the 
print,  but  referred  to  in  the  text  of  the  review  as  *  the  Lochmaben 
stane,'  by  which  name  it  is  commonly  called  in  the  neighbourhood.  I 
have  not  seen  the  book  itself,  and  do  not  know  whether  the  author 
explains  the  meaning  of  the  name,  which  I  was  at  pains  to  elucidate 
some  years  ago.  It  may  be  worth  while  to  repeat  very  briefly  the 
result. 

Constantly  as  it  is  mentioned  in  early  writings  both  as  a  trysting 
place  for  the  muster  of  troops  to  undertake  or  repel  invasion,  and  also  for 
meetings  between  the  English  and  Scottish  Wardens  to  settle  matters  in 
their  jurisdiction  or  to  arrange  the  terms  of  truce,  these  were  but  episodes 
in  the  old  age  of  the  Clochmabenstane.  In  the  New  Statistical  Account 
(1845)  it  is  stated  that  this  boulder  was  formerly  the  centre  of  a  ring 
of  large  stones,  enclosing  about  half  an  acre,  removed  in  the  operations 

242 


Gretna  Green  243 

of  agriculture.  Thus  this  boulder  was  part  of  a  prehistoric  monument 
of  the  kind  usually,  though  unwarrantably,  called  Druidic ;  probably 
sepulchral,  marking  the  grave  of  a  fallen  chief.  It  may  be  observed  in 
reference  to  its  popular  modern  name,  Lochmabenstane,  that  it  is  at 
least  seventeen  miles  from  Lochmaben,  that  there  is  no  '  loch '  near  it, 
and  that  the  true  form  of  the  name  may  be  found  in  Fcedera  (Vol.  iii. 
part  4,  p.  152)  in  connection  with  a  meeting  of  commissioners  in  1398 
at  Clockmabanstane.  Here  the  prefix  is  the  Gaelic  clock  (in  modern 
Gaelic  clach)y  a  stone,  and  the  suffix  is  pleonastic,  added,  no  doubt,  when 
the  English-speaking  people  of  Dumfriesshire  had  forgotten  the  meaning 
of  the  prefix.  Cloch  Mabon,  then,  appears  to  be  the  stone  or  burial 
place  of  Mabon,  just  as  Cloriddrich,  near  Lochwinnoch,  probably  marks 
the  burial  place  of  Rydderch  Hael,  the  Christian  conqueror  of  Strathclyde. 

Who  was  Mabon  ?  Was  he  an  individual,  or  is  the  name  to  be 
interpreted  in  the  modern  Welsh  sense  in  which  it  has  been  affectionately 
conferred  by  the  Welsh  miners  on  Mr.  Abraham  Thomas,  M.P.,  meaning 
a  young  hero  ? 

Two  individuals  at  least,  named  Mabon,  are  mentioned  in  the  Welsh 
Bruts.  The  3ist  poem  in  the  Black  Book  of  Carmarthen  contains  the 
following  : 

Line   II.  '  If  Wythnaint  were  to  go, 

The  three  would  be  unlucky  : 
Mabon  the  son  of  Mydron, 
The  servant  of  Uthir  Pendragon  ; 
Cysgaint  the  son  of  Banon, 
And  Gwyn  Godibrion 

Line  21.  Did  not  Manawyd  bring 

Shattered  shields  from  Trywruid  ? 
And  Mabon  the  son  of  Mellt 
Spotted  the  grass  with  his  blood.' 

The  late  Dr.  Skene  identified  Trywruid  with  Trathen  Werid,  the 
scene  of  King  Arthur's  tenth  battle,  fought  in  516,  taking  it  to  be  the 
same  as  the  Treuruit  of  Nennius.  He  gave  good  reasons  for  supposing 
it  to  have  been  on  the  estuary  of  the  Forth  near  Stirling. 

One  or  other  of  these  Mabons  receives  much  more  explicit  mention 
in  the  eleventh  and  eighteenth  poems  of  Taliessin,  a  bard  who  is  known 
to  have  written  in  the  sixth  or  early  seventh  century. 

xi.  line  26.          '  A  battle  in  a  wood  of  Beit  at  close  of  day, 
Thou  didst  not  think  of  thy  foes : 
A  battle  in  the  presence  of  Mabon.' 

This  poem  celebrates  the  deeds  of  Gwallawg  ap  Lleenag,  who,  it  has 
been  supposed,  was  that  Galgacus  whom  Tacitus  describes  as  fighting 
against  Agricola  in  A.D.  80,  the  same  as  the  shadowy  King  Galdus, 
whose  name  is  still  attached  to  the  fine  stone  circle  at  Torhouse,  near 
Wigtown — King  Galdus's  tomb.  Dr.  Skene  identified  the  wood  of  Beit 
with  Beith  in  Ayrshire,  but  it  is  just  as  likely  to  have  been  one  of  the 


244  Communications  and  Replies 

many  places  named  after  the  birch  in  Galloway — Beoch,  Dalbeattie, 
etc.  Moreover  in  this  poem  two  places  in  Galloway  are  specified  as 
scenes  of  Gwallawg's  battles,  viz.  'the  marsh  of  Terra,'  now  Glenterra 
or  Glentirrow  in  Wigtownshire,  and  pencoet  dedyfein — the  woodhead  of 
Cluden,  near  Lincluden. 

xviii.  line  1 7.  '  A  battle,  when  Owen  defends  the  cattle  of  his  country, 
Will  meet  Mabon  from  another  country, 
A  battle  at  the  ford  of  Alclud.' 

Alclud,  of  course,  is  Dunbarton  ;  the  topography  of  the  next  battle  may 
be  recognised  pretty  confidently  as  that  of  Mabon's  own  district  on  the 
Solway,  which  Owen  invaded  in  revenge  for  the  other's  raid. 

Line  23.     'A  battle  on  this  side  of  Llachar. 
The  trembling  camp  saw  Mabon 
A  shield  in  hand,  on  the  fair  portion  of  Reidol. 
Against  the  kine  of  Reged  they  engaged, 
If  they  had  wings  they  would  have  flown, 
Against  Mabon  without  corpses  they  could  not  go. 
Meeting,  they  descend  and  begin  a  battle ; 
The  country  of  Mabon  is  pierced  with  destructive  slaughter.' 

Here  Reidol  seems  to  be  Ruth  well  on  the  east  side  of  the  Lochar 
(Llachar).  The  *  kine  of  Reged '  are  Owen's  people  from  the  district 
between  Dunbarton  and  Loch  Lomond,  which  was  known  as  Reged. 
The  poem  goes  on  to  tell  of  the  total  defeat  of  Mabon,  'about  the 
ford  of  the  boundary,'  which  may  well  have  been  on  the  Kirtle  or  the 
Sark. 

Line  43.     'The  resting  place  of  the  corpses  of  some  was  in  Run. 
There  was  joy,  there  will  be,  for  ravens. 
Loud  the  talk  of  men  after  the  battle.' 

Here,  then,  we  may  suppose  that  Mabon,  the  chief  man  of  all  that 
district,  fell  and  was  buried  under  the  great  stone  close  to  'the  ford  of 
the  boundary ' ;  a  circle  of  smaller  stones  being  set  round  for  perpetual 
memorial.  It  may  well  be  that  Mabon  dwelt  beside  the  lake  called  after 
his  name  Lochmaben,  and  that  '  loch '  having  remained  in  the  lowland 
Scottish  vernacular,  while  *  cloch  *  has  disappeared  from  it,  the  similarity 
of  sound  in  the  two  vocables  has  caused  confusion  between  the  residence 
and  the  burial  place  of  Mabon. 

HERBERT    MAXWELL. 

[Our  Reviewer  of  this  book  (S.H.R.  vol.  iii.  p.  125)  writes  : 
'  Lochmabenstane '  has  been  the  standard  form  since  the  middle  of  the 
fifteenth  century.  (Rotuli  Scotiae,  ii.  p.  413,  510;  Bain's  Calendar,  iv. 
1409,  1513.)  The  battle  of  Sark,  fought  in  1449,  was  by  contemporaries 
styled  'the  battell  of  Lochmabane  stane.'  (Asloan  MS.  (print)  p.  18.)  As 
to  the  etymology  given  above,  the  cloch  is  an  old-established  certainty,  and 
the  maben  a  suggestion  to  be  considered  with  the  others.  (See  Neilson's 
Annals  of  the  Solway,  p.  19.)  As  to  Reidol  I  am  obdurate.] 


The  Andreas  and  St.   Andrew  245 

THE  ANDREAS  AND  ST.  ANDREW.  Among  the  too  scanty 
remains  of  Anglo-Saxon  poetry  is  an  interesting  work,  the  Andreas, 
which  treats  of  certain  marvellous  incidents  in  the  legendary  history 
of  the  Apostles  St.  Andrew  and  St.  Matthew.  It  forms  part  of  the 
great  find  made  in  1822  by  Dr.  Blume  at  Vercelli,  near  Milan,  of 
a  manuscript  volume,  the  Vercelli  Book,  or  Codex  Vercellensis,  in 
eleventh  century  handwriting,  of  Anglo-Saxon  homilies  and  poems. 
The  poems  are  six  in  number  and  of  supreme  interest ;  they  are 
Andreas,  Fates  of  the  Apostles,  Address  of  the  Soul  to  the  Body,  Falseness 
of  Men,  Dream  of  the  Rood,  Elene.  Of  Andreas  sufficient  will  be  said 
presently ;  here  a  word  or  two  may  be  said  about  the  others.  Fates 
of  the  Apostles,  in  itself  a  somewhat  dull  collection  of  versified  notes, 
has,  if  certain  critics  be  right,  an  important  bearing  on  the  authorship  of 
Andreas.  Professor  Gollancz  regards  it  not  as  an  independent  composition 
but  as  an  epilogue  to  Andreas,  and  at  Vercelli,  Professor  Napier  came  upon 
a  set  of  lines  containing  the  runes  of  the  name  Cynewulf,  a  somewhat 
shadowy  Anglo-Saxon  poet,  whom  we  know  as  the  author  of  three 
poems — Elene,  Crist,  Juliana,  from  the  fact  that  he  has  woven  into  each 
of  them  the  runic  spelling  of  his  name.  'In  the  Vercelli  book,'  says 
Professor  Earle,  '  it  occurs  in  the  Elene,  the  last  of  the  poems  in  the 
manuscript,  and  Mr.  Kemble  remarked  that  it  was  "  apparently  intended  as 
a  tail-piece  to  the  whole  book."  This  naturally  suggests  the  inference, 
which  indeed  is  generally  accepted,  that  all  the  poems  in  the  Vercelli  book 
are  by  Cynewulf.  This  poet's  runic  device  affects  us  somewhat  as  when, 
at  the  end  of  a  volume  of  Coleridge's  poems,  we  come  upon  his  epitaph, 
written  by  himself: 

*  Stop,  Christian  passer  by  ! — Stop,  child  of  God  ! 
And  read  with  gentle  breast.     Beneath  this  sod 
A  poet  lies,  or  that  which  once  seem'd  he — 
Oh  !  lift  one  thought  in  prayer  for  S.  T.  C.' 

But  all  critics  are  not  prepared  to  allow  the  Fates  to  be  tacked  on  to 
the  Andreas  (Professor  Saintsbury  is  wicked  enough  to  call  it  'a  process 
slightly  suggestive  of  what  is  said  to  be  occasionally  practised  on  violins '), 
or  to  accept  the  incorporation  in  the  Fates  of  the  runic  lines  discovered  by 
Professor  Napier.  If  the  two  positions  were  accepted,  the  authorship  of 
Andreas  might  be  assigned  to  Cynewulf,  and  a  hotly-contested  point  would 
be  settled.  The  Address  of  the  Soul  to  the  Body  in  the  Vercelli  Book  is  in 
two  parts,  the  first,  the  address  of  a  sinful  Soul,  the  second  (a  fragment) 
the  address  of  a  virtuous  Soul.  Another  text  of  the  first  part  is  preserved 
in  a  noble  volume  of  Old  English  verse,  the  Exeter  Book,  or  Codex 
Exoniensis,  one  of  the  books  gifted  to  Exeter  Cathedral  in  the  eleventh 
century  by  Leofric,  tenth  bishop  of  Crediton  and  first  bishop  of  Exeter, 
and  one  is  glad  to  have  two  texts  of  a  deeply  impressive  poem.  The  main 
idea  of  the  poem  is  exactly  defined  by  Milton  : 

'when  lust 

Lets  in  defilement  to  the  inward  parts, 
The  soul  grows  clotted  by  contagion'  ; 


246  Communications  and  Replies 

while   the   grim   realism  with  which  here  as  everywhere  our  old  poets 
treated  war,  storm  and  death,  is  faithfully  reproduced  by  Tennyson  : 

*  Hark  !  death  is  calling 
While  I  speak  to  ye, 
The  jaw  is  falling, 
The  red  cheek  paling, 
The  strong  limbs  failing : 

Ice  with  the  warm  blood  mixing  : 
The  eyeballs  fixing.' 

The  same  stern,  unrelenting  treatment  appears  in  Andreas.  Falseness  of 
Men  is  a  fragment  of  a  versified  sermon  on  the  28th  Psalm.  For  example, 
lines  15-18,  'Mischief  is  in  his  heart,  stained  is  his  soul  with  sin,  steeped 
in  treachery,  full  of  guile,  although  his  outward  speech  is  fair,'  expand  the 
Scriptural  passage — '  which  speak  peace  to  their  neighbours,  but  mischief  is 
in  their  hearts.'  This  paraphrasing  of  Holy  Writ  is  a  leading  feature  of 
Anglo-Saxon  Christian  literature  :  it  is  prominent,  for  example,  in  Andreas. 
The  Dream  of  the  Rood  deals  with  a  subject  that  had  been  treated  in  an 
earlier  poem,  part  of  which  is  cut  in  runes  on  the  Ruth  well  Cross,  and  is 
regarded  by  some  as  an  introduction  to  the  E/ene,  whose  subject  is  the 
finding  of  the  true  Cross,  and  which  gives  an  account  of  Constantine's 
dream  in  which  he  saw  the  Cross  and  was  told  '  vinces  in  hoc.' 

It  will  have  been  seen  that  the  Vercelli  Book  contains  an  interesting 
body  of  Christian  Poetry,  and  it  may  be  convenient  to  deal  here  with  a 
feature  of  the  Andreas  which  is  common  in  the  Christian  poetry  of  the 
Anglo-Saxons,  the  appearance,  namely,  of  words  and  phrases  reminiscent  of 
the  primary  heathen  poems.  Conversely  in  the  existing  (revised)  texts  of 
the  primary  poems  occur  interpolations  by  Christian  scribes  designed  to 
modernise  the  old-world  paganism  of  these  ancient  compositions.  In  the 
Dream  of  the  Rood  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  '  a  young  hero,'  and  on  the  other 
hand  the  old  mythology  crops  out  in  the  words  spoken  by  the  Cross.  '  I 
have  endured  many  a  cruel  fate,'  where  the  word  for  fate  is  wyrd  (weird), 
an  ancient  heathen  term.  Widsith^  the  tale  of  a  wandering  bard,  is  wholly 
pagan,  but  a  Christian  scribe  had  lodged  this  in  his  text : 

*  This  have  I  found  on  every  hand 

Who  empire  holds  from  God  above 
And  lives  a  prince,  is  dear  in  love 
To  those  that  dwell  throughout  the  land.' 

The  magnificent  story  of  Beowulf^  one  of  the  finest  examples  of  heathen 
epic,  has  many  interpolations.  When  mention  is  made  of  the  birth  of 
a  son  to  the  heathen  King  Scyld,  it  is  said  that  God  had  sent  him  for  a 
comfort  to  the  people,  that  the  glory  which  came  to  him  was  the  gift  of 
the  Lord  of  Life,  the  Prince  of  Glory.  And  the  heathen  gleeman  says : 

'  God  made  the  earth  with  beauty  rife 
Which  water  clasps ;  for  beaming  light 
The  sun  and  moon,  and  earth  made  bright 
With  trees  and  swiftly  moving  life.' 


The  Andreas  and  St.  Andrew  247 

The  fierce  monster  of  the  story,  a  terrible  being  named  Grendel,  is 
described  as  a  descendant  of  Cain,  and  when  an  appeal  is  made  to  the 
heathen  gods  for  protection  against  his  ravages,  the  poet  is  made  to 
say: 

'  They  knew  not  God  to  magnify  : 
The  praise  of  God,  of  Glory  King 
And  Judge  of  Deeds,  they  could  not  sing ; 
They  knew  not  Him  who  rules  on  high.' 

It  is  rather  interesting  to  collect  from  Beowulf  instances  of  the  expres- 
sion of  the  same  thought  both  in  Christian  and  in  pagan  terms.  Thus 
we  find,  '  He  that  death  takes  must  accept  the  Lord's  decree,'  and  also 
'  Fate  goes  ever  as  it  must ' ;  further  on  a  king  is  urged  to  enjoy  life's 
pleasures  till  leaving  to  his  sons  folk  and  realm,  he  goes  forth  to  see  the 
Godhead,  and  just  after  this  we  read  of  a  man  that  l  Fate  removed  him.' 
Scattered  over  the  poem  are  such  phrases  as  Holy  God,  Wise  Lord, 
Eternal  Lord,  Ruler  of  the  Skies,  Almighty  Creator,  Ruler  of  Men, 
Ruler  of  Glory.  Dear's  Lament  is  the  complaint  of  a  minstrel  supplanted 
in  his  lord's  favour  by  a  rival,  the  case  of  Cadwallon  and  Caradoc  in 
Scott's  Betrothed.  Otherwise  heathen  in  sentiment  and  expression  it 
contains  this : 

*  Then  may  he  think  that  here  below 

God  in  His  wisdom  separates 
The  man  on  whom  high  honour  waits 
From  him  that  bears  a  load  of  woe.' 

In  the  Wanderer,  a  fine  specimen  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  lyric,  there  is 
a  curious  blending  of  Christian  feeling  with  laments  for  the  destruction 
of  human  happiness  by  wyrd,  and  the  poem  closes  thus : 

*  'Tis  well  with  him  whose  trust  is  sure 

In  Him  who  lives  and  reigns  above  ; 
Who  rests  upon  our  Father's  love, 
The  rock  on  which  we  build  secure.' 

As  might  be  expected,  the  Charms,  going  back  as  they  do  to  the 
beginning  of  the  English  race,  show  in  their  present  form  abundant 
evidence  of  the  priestly  transcriber's  hand.  Instead  of  attempting  what 
would  probably  have  been  beyond  their  power,  to  banish  charms  alto- 
gether, the  priests  (who  themselves  perhaps  were  not  wholly  incredulous) 
sanctioned  them  in  a  more  or  less  altered  form.  A  Charm  for  Bewitched 
Land  is  a  good  illustration.  Here  is  a  passage,  for  instance,  where  new 
and  old  are  curiously  intermixed.  'Take  by  night  before  dawn  from 
four  parts  of  the  land  four  pieces  of  turf,  and  note  how  they  were  placed. 
Now  take  oil,  honey,  yeast,  milk  of  every  beast  that  is  in  the  land,  a 
bit  of  every  tree  that  grows  on  the  land,  except  hard  beams,  and  a  bit 
of  every  common  plant,  except  only  burdock  ;  pour  holy  water  on  them 
and  three  times  on  the  place  where  the  turfs  were,  and  say,  "  Grow, 
multiply,  and  fill  the  earth.  In  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost  be  ye  blessed."  Then  say  a  pater  noster.  Now  carry  the  turf 


248  Communications  and   Replies 

to  the  church,  and  let  the  priest  sing  four  masses  over  it.  Then  turn 
the  green  part  next  the  altar,  and  afterwards  before  sunset  carry  the 
turf  where  it  was  cut.  Now  make  of  aspen  four  crucifixes  and  write 
on  them  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  i  and  John.  Lay  a  crucifix  in  each  hole 
and  say,  "  Cross  of  Matthew,  Cross  of  Mark,  Cross  of  Luke,  Cross  of 
John."  Then  above  each  crucifix  place  a  turf  and  say  nine  times 
"Grow,"  and  pater  noster  as  often,  etc.'  Now  compare  with  this  another 
part  of  the  charm,  where  the  old  heathenism  is  left  almost  untouched  ; 
I  give  Stopford  Brooke's  translation  : 

*  Erce,  Erce,  Erce  !     O  Earth,  our  Mother  ! 
May  the  All-Wielder,  Ever  Lord,  grant  thee 
Acres  awaxing,  upwards  a-growing, 
Pregnant  with  corn,  and  plenteous  in  strength : 
Hosts  of  grain-shafts  and  of  glittering  plants  ! 
Of  broad  barley  the  blossoms, 
And  of  white  wheat  ears 'waxing, 
Of  the  whole  land  the  harvest.' 

To  come  now  directly  to  Andreas.  This  is  a  poem  of  1718  double 
lines,  yet  the  poet  is  not  satisfied  that  he  has  done  justice  to  his  subject. 
'  I  now  a  while,'  he  says,  *  have  been  setting  forth  in  words  the  teaching 
of  the  holy  one,  the  praise  of  the  songs  of  him  that  wrought  them,  a 
task  manifestly  beyond  my  power,'  and  he  deprecates  the  idea  that  he 
has  knowledge  to  enable  him  to  deal  with  more  than  a  portion  of  St. 
Andrew's  life.  However,  he  must  finish  what  he  has  begun,  *  Yet  will 
I  still  in  little  fragments  words  of  song  further  relate.'  And  a  wondrous 
tale  he  has  to  tell,  opening  it  in  the  language  of  the  old  war-poetry.  '  Lo  ! 
in  days  of  old  have  we  heard  of  twelve  glorious  heroes  beneath  the  stars, 
thanes  of  God  ;  their  courage  failed  not  in  battle  when  helms  crashed. 
Famed  they  were  throughout  the  earth,  leaders  keen  and  bold,  mighty 
men  when  shield  and  hand  guarded  the  helm  on  the  field  of  battle.'  The 
Lord's  decree  sends  St.  Matthew  to  Mermedonia  (Ethiopia),  a  land  of 
cannibals,  where  he  is  thrown  into  prison,  after  being  blinded  and  forced 
to  swallow  a  drink 

*  whereof  who  drinks, 

Forthwith  his  former  state  and  being  forgets, 
Forgets  both  joy  and  grief,  pleasure  and  pain,' 

and  is  made  4to  eat  grass  as  oxen.'  But  in  answer  to  his  earnest  cry 
and  supplication,  the  apostle  is  protected  against  the  evil  influence  of 
the  potion,  and  a  voice  from  heaven  promises  that  St.  Andrew  will  come 
to  his  aid.  The  scene  now  changes  to  Achaia,  where  a  heavenly  voice 
summons  St.  Andrew  to  set  forth  to  rescue  his  fellow  apostle,  and  rebukes 
him  when  he  shrinks  from  the  undertaking.  After  his  first  hesitation 
St.  Andrew  faces  his  duty  manfully,  and  with  his  chosen  companions 
makes  his  way  to  the  shore  of  the  loud-sounding  ocean.  There  he  finds 
a  boat  manned  by  three  sailors  of  Mermedonia,  and  bargains  for  a  passage. 


The  Andreas  and  St,   Andrew    «      249 

Though  the  apostle  does  not  know  it,  these  sailors  are  God  and  two 
angels,  and  it  is  with  curious  feelings  that  one  follows  the  conversation 
between  St.  Andrew  and  God,  who  is  described  as  sitting  on  the 
bulwark  above  the  tossing  waters.  Some  difficulty  seems  to  be  caused 
at  first  by  the  poverty  of  the  apostolic  company,  but  on  avowing 
themselves  servants  of  Jesus  Christ  they  receive  a  free  passage.  The 
voyage  begins,  and  with  that  intense  feeling  for  the  sea  which  marks 
our  oldest  poetry,  the  poet  introduces  a  splendid  description  of  a 
storm. 

*  The  ocean  tossed  and  boiled  ;  and  through  the  waves 
The  sword-fish  glanced,  and  grey  gulls  wheeled  in  air 
Greedy  of  prey.     The  suit  was  lost  in  gloom, 
The  gale  swept  roaring  o'er  the  groaning  ship, 
And  there  upon  the  hurtling  billows  rode 
In  pomp  of  arms  the  Terror  of  the  Deep.' 

St.  Andrew's  companions  are  terrified,  but  with  the  spirit  of  trusty 
warriors  they  refuse  to  be  landed  and  separated  from  their  leader. 
'Whither  shall  we  wander  lord-less,  sad  at  heart,  bereft  of  good,  sin- 
stained,  if  we  desert  thee  ? '  The  voyage  is  continued,  and  offers  occasion 
for  a  long  conversation,  in  the  course  of  which  St.  Andrew  is  led  to 
give  an  account  of  certain  incidents  in  the  life  of  Christ.  Much  of 
what  the  apostle  says  is  mere  paraphrase  of  the  Gospel  narrative,  but 
there  is  matter  whose  origin  must  be  sought  elsewhere  than  in  the 
canonical  books.  The  following  is.  somewhat  striking.  To  confound 
the  unbelieving  Jews,  Christ  causes  two  images  of  angels  to  descend 
from  the  wall  of  the  temple  and  to  testify  to  His  divinity,  and  there- 
after sends  them  to  Canaan  to  summon  from  their  graves  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  who  likewise  bear  witness  to  Christ.  By  and  by  a 
deep  sleep  falls  on  St.  Andrew  and  his  company,  and  in  this  state  they 
are  left  on  the  shores  of  Mermedonia,  where  they  slumbered  *  till  God 
permitted  the  bright  candle  of  Day  to  shine,  and  the  dark  shadows 
vanished  among  the  clouds.  Then  came  the  Torch  of  the  Sky,  and  its 
gleaming  light  flashed  upon  the  house-tops.'  St.  Andrew  wakens  first, 
and,  rousing  his  companions,  tells  them  his  conviction  that  God  him- 
self had  been  their  guide.  These  have  had  a  wonderful  dream.  '  Sleep 
fell  upon  us,  sea-weary  ones,  then  over  the  heaving  waves  proudly- 
plumaged  eagles  came  flying,  and  on  joyful  wings  the  glorious,  gracious 
birds  bore  our  souls  into  the  air,  to  where  they  lived  'mid  tender  love 
and  hymns  of  praise,  and  ever-flowing  streams  of  music.'  There  they 
had  a  glimpse  of  the  Paradise  above,  of  God  amid  the  countless  thousands 
of  His  angels  and  the  hosts  of  the  redeemed  in  Heaven.  Christ  now 
appears  to  St.  Andrew  and  bids  him  set  himself  to  the  rescue  of  St. 
Matthew,  warning  him  of  the  perils  he  will  encounter,  but  cheering 
him  with  the  assurance  that  he  will  turn  many  souls  to  repentance. 

We  now  reach  the  second  part  of  the  poem  and  return  to  St.  Matthew. 
As  invisible  to  mortal  eye,  St.  Andrew  approaches  the  prison  where  his 
fellow  apostle  is  confined,  the  seven  guards  of  the  dungeon  fall  dead  ; 
swift  destruction  seized  these  bloody  men.  At  the  touch  of  the  Holy 


250  Communications  and  Replies 

Spirit  the  prison  doors  fly  open,  and  St.  Andrew  entering  in  is  joyfully 
received  by  St.  Matthew,  to  whom  sight  has  been  restored,  and  who 
with  his  company  departs  praising  Him  who  rules  the  destinies  of  men. 
St.  Andrew  is  now  to  undergo  sore  tribulation.  The  day  has  come  on 
which  the  cannibals  were  to  feast  on  their  captives,  and  wrath  and  con- 
sternation fall  upon  them  at  the  death  of  the  guards,  and  the  escape 
of  St.  Matthew.  They  cast  lots  for  a  victim,  and  the  doom  falls  on 
an  old  man,  who  gives  up  his  son  to  be  eaten  ;  but  St.  Andrew  uses 
his  power  to  make  the  knife  wax,  and  the  lad  is  saved.  The  devil  appears 
and  denounces  St.  Andrew  as  the  cause  of  all  their  trouble,  and  the 
apostle  is  seized  and  cruelly  used.  '  The  body  of  the  holy  man  was 
bruised,  torn  by  many  wounds,  lapped  in  hot  blood,  which  poured  out 
in  waves.'  He  is  thrown  into  prison,  and  to  enhance  the  horrors  of 
the  situation,  the  poet  pictures  a  dreary  winter  scene.  '  Snow  wrapped 
the  earth  in  winter  weeds ;  fierce  cold  hail,  rime  and  frost,  subdued  the 
land  ;  chilling  ice  stilled  the  voice  of  the  waters  and  mantled  the  sea.' 
For  days  St.  Andrew  was  grievously  tormented  till  '  his  body  weary  with 
wounds  recked  not  of  the  work'  (a  fine  expression),  and  the  saint  cried 
to  heaven,  '  Look,  O  Lord,  on  mine  affliction.'  Fiends  assail  him, 
mocking  and  reviling  him,  but  his  faith  and  courage  put  them  to  flight. 
Yet  the  long  agony  has  at  last  broken  his  patience,  and  in  a  bold  outburst 
he  makes  his  complaint  to  God  and  petitions  for  death.  *  Thou  thyself, 
O  Saviour,  after  a  day  of  pain  didst  cry  on  the  Cross  to  thy  Father, 
"  Why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me  ? "  and  for  three  days  I  have  endured 
deadly  torments.  I  beseech  Thee,  O  Lord  of  Hosts  !  that  I  may  yield 
my  spirit  into  Thy  hand.'  A  heavenly  voice  proclaims  that  his  warfare 
is  accomplished,  and  as  he  looks  on  the  track  where  he  had  shed  his 
blood,  he  sees  it  thick  with  blooming  groves.  God  visits  the  apostle  in 
prison  and  comforts  him,  and  he  waxes  well  of  his  deep  wounds.  On 
the  plain  beside  the  city  wall  are  two  columns  standing  storm  driven, 
and  at  the  apostle's  command  they  send  a  flood  over  the  land.  'The 
foaming  waters  covered  the  earth,  bitter  was  the  mead  after  the  day  of 
feasting,'  and  as  the  poet  remarks  with  savage  irony,  '  Soon  there  was 
drink  for  all.'  The  terror-stricken  people  implore  help,  and  St.  Andrew 
stills  the  storm.  A  mountain  opened  and  swallowed  the  flood,  along 
with  the  most  malicious  of  the  apostle's  foes,  while  the  rest  of  the  people 
recognised  St.  Andrew  as  the  servant  of  the  King  of  all  living  creatures. 
At  the  apostle's  prayer  the  drowned  are  restored  to  life  and  are  baptised, 
a  church  is  built,  and  Plato  is  appointed  first  bishop. 

His  work  accomplished,  St.  Andrew  returned  to  Achaia.  His  new 
converts  accompanied  him  to  the  shore,  and  stood  weeping  as  they 
watched  him  take  his  way  across  the  path  of  the  seal.  There  they 
praised  God  and  sang  : 

'  One  Eternal  God  is  Lord  of  all, 
In  every  land  His  might  and  power  are  known  ; 
His  glory  lives  for  aye  in  heaven  above 
'Mong  angel  hosts.     He  is  Lord  and  King.' 

For  more  than    sixty   years   the   authorship   of  this    interesting    poem 


The  Andreas  and  St.   Andrew  251 

has  been  matter  of  discussion,  and  at  one  stage  it  was  assigned  with  some 
certainty  to  Cynewulf,  for  whom  at  the  same  time  the  critics  con- 
structed a  biography  extracted  with  much  ingenuity  from  poems  ascribed 
to  him.  Thus  Grein  identifies  the  poet  with  a  Bishop  Cynewulf,  who 
from  737  to  780  was  Bishop  of  Lindisfarne,  resigned  his  office  in  780, 
and  died  in  782  in  retirement.  He  was  expelled  from  his  see  in  750 
by  King  Eadberht,  and  must  have  spent  some  years  in  exile.  Born  of 
an  eminent  and  opulent  family  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century, 
Cynewulf  while  a  boy  seems,  agreeably  to  the  practice  of  his  time,  to 
have  attended  one  of  the  external  secular  Cloister  Schools.  The  glad 
time  of  his  ripe  youth  and  early  manhood  he  himself  depicts  in  the  first 
part  of  his  Rhyming  Poem,  and  to  this  time  of  keen  pleasure  belong, 
without  doubt,  the  Riddles.  But  the  day  of  joy  and  the  brightness  of 
youth  passed  away.  Cynewulf  entered  upon  the  clerical  life,  and  hence- 
forth devoted  himself  to  spiritual  poetry.  But  after  he  became  Bishop 
this  high  office  seems  to  have  brought  him,  in  a  highly-disturbed  and 
fighting  time,  nothing  but  trouble  and  sorrow,  and  in  this  time  of  care 
and  grief  his  poetic  work  may  well  have  been  for  him  a  source  of  comfort 
and  refreshment  until  he  was  afflicted  by  age,  and  weary  of  a  trouble- 
some life,  resigned  office,  and  retired  to  his  native  Ruthwell.  Hammerich 
thought  Cynewulf,  in  his  younger  days,  was  a  wandering  minstrel,  and 
afterwards  abandoned  the  secular  life,  and  probably  even  became  a  monk. 
At  all  events,  he  was  intimate  with  Holy  Writ  and  several  Church 
Fathers. 

In  the  light  of  the  assertions  of  Grein  and  Hammerich,  it  is  interesting 
to  note  the  undoubted  source  of  Andreas.  The  Andreas  is  practically  a 
rather  close  rendering  of  the  -rrpa^et?  'AvSpeov  KOI  MarOa/a  et?  rr/v  TTO\IV 
TWV  avOpa)Tro<j>d"y<i)v,  one  of  the  apocryphal  acts  of  the  Apostles,  although 
the  poet  takes  a  free  hand  occasionally,  as  when  he  introduces  the  fine 
description  of  the  storm  at  sea.  The  language  of  the  original  is  far  less 
impressive,  but  it  is  exceedingly  naive.  Thus  when  St.  Andrew  pressed 
his  followers  on  board  the  ship  to  take  food  that  they  might  be  able 
to  bear  the  voyage,  they  could  not  answer  him  a  word  because  they 
were  troubled  by  the  sea.  This  curious  work,  which  would  be  known 
in  a  Latin  translation  to  the  author  of  the  Andreas,  is  an  illustration 
of  the  wild  legends  that  grew  up  in  response  to  a  craving  to  know 
more  of  the  holy  men  of  old  than  the  Scriptures  tell.  Another  motive 
is  indicated  in  Professor  Earle's  remark  that  l  the  Greek  romances  of 
love  and  marvellous  adventure  were  probably  discountenanced  in  Christian 
families,  and  we  may  regard  the  secondary  Apocrypha  as  a  kind  of  pious 
substitute  for  such  entertaining  works  of  fiction.'  In  Alban  Butler's 
Lives  of  the  Fathers,  Martyrs,  and  other  Principal  Saints,  and  in  Baring- 
Gould's  Lives  of  the  Saints,  are  found  many  references  to,  and  summaries 
of,  these  apocryphal  narratives,  and  translations  are  given  in  Clark's 
*  Ante-Nicene  Library ' ;  the  source  of  the  Andreas  is  given  in  a  handy 
volume,  Acta  apostolorum  apocrypha,  by  Tischendorf.  From  the  brief 
notices  of  St.  Andrew  found  in  the  Bible,  it  is  easy  to  infer  that  he 
was  a  fine  type  of  man,  alert,  keen-witted,  eager  to  bring  men  to  Christ, 
and  impressing  himself  on  others  as  a  leader.  A  native  of  Bethsaida, 


252  Communications  and  Replies 

he  was  a  disciple  of  the  Baptist,  and  heard  his.  witness  to  Christ.  *  One 
of  the  two  that  heard  John  speak  and  followed  him  was  Andrew,  Simon 
Peter's  brother.  He  findeth  first  his  own  brother  Simon,  and  saith  unto 
him,  "  We  have  found  the  Messiah."  He  brought  him  unto  Jesus.' 
At  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  it  is  St.  Andrew  who  tells  Christ 
of  the  presence  of  the  lad  l  with  five  barley  loaves  and  two  small  fishes ' ; 
he  is  one  of  the  four  that  make  up  the  inner  circle  of  Christ's  disciples, 
4  Peter  and  James  and  John  and  Andrew,'  and  question  the  Master  as 
to  the  significance  of  His  prophecy  of  the  ruin  of  the  Temple  ;  and  again, 
it  is  to  him  Philip  goes  when  certain  Greeks  came  to  Philip  saying, 
'Sir,  we  would  see  Jesus.'  ' Philip  cometh  and  telleth  Andrew:  and 
again  Andrew  and  Philip  tell  Jesus.'  By  the  Greeks  St.  Andrew  is  called 
the  Protoclet,  or  first  called  :  Bede  calls  him  the  Introductor  to  Christ. 
There  was  a  persistent  tradition  that  St.  Andrew  laboured  in  Scythia,  and 
was  martyred  at  Patrae  in  Achaia. 

His  connection  with  Scotland  has,  of  course,  a  special  interest  for 
Scotsmen.  The  late  Marquis  of  Bute's  learned  paper  on  '  The  last  resting- 
place  of  St.  Andrew,'  namely,  the  Cathedral  of  Amalfi,  on  the  beautiful 
Bay  of  Salerno,  contains  an  interesting  treatment  of  the  apostle's  relation 
to  Scotland.  In  584  Gregory  the  Great  brought  to  Rome  from  Con- 
stantinople and  placed  in  the  monastery  of  St.  Andrew,  an  arm  of  St. 
Andrew  presented  to  him  by  the  Emperor  Tiberius  II.:  the  bones  of 
St.  Andrew  had  been  transferred  from  Patrae  to  Constantinople  by 
Constantine  the  Great.  Part  of  this  arm,  it  is  conjectured,  was  brought 
to  England  by  Augustine,  and  of  this  again  three  finger  bones  and  a 
part  of  the  arm  were  placed  in  the  Church  of  Hexham,  whence  they 
were  removed  by  Bishop  Acca,  when  he  was  expelled  from  his  see  in 
731.  The  Bishop  presented  the  precious  bones  to  Angus,  King  of  the 
Picts,  who,  to  honour  them,  changed  the  name  Kilrighmonaigh  to  St. 
Andrew,  and  proclaimed  the  apostle  the  Patron  Saint  of  his  kingdom. 
There  is,  however,  another  saint  connected  with  St.  Andrews.  The 
Palmer  says  to  Lord  Marmion  : 

*  But  I  have  solemn  vows  to  pay, 
And  may  not  linger  by  the  way, 

To  fair  St.  Andrews  bound  ; 
Within  the  ocean-cave  to  pray, 
Where  good  St.  Rule  his  holy  lay, 
From  midnight  to  the  dawn  of  day, 

Sung  to  the  billows'  sound.' 

The  Aberdeen  Breviary  contains  the  well-known  story  of  the  bringing 
to  Scotland  by  St.  Rule  of  the  relics  of  St.  Andrew.  According  to  the 
narrative  there  given,  St.  Rule  was  a  native  of  Patrae  in  Achaia,  and 
when  after  *  the  drums  and  tramplings  of  the  centuries '  had  passed 
over  the  martyr's  grave,  Constantius  marched  against  the  town  to  punish 
it  for  the  murder  of  the  apostle,  the  saint  was  warned  in  a  vision  of 
the  night  to  carry  off  the  relics  of  St.  Andrew,  and  these  are  carefully 
inventoried  as  three  fingers  of  the  right  hand,  one  arm  bone,  one  tooth, 
and  one  knee-cap.  St.  Rule  found  his  way  to  St.  Andrews,  and  deposited 


PRIORY   CHURCH    OF   ST.    MARY,    COLDINGHAM 


"^  &     -*         SEAL    OF    PRIORY 

^  '•'•%'          OF   COLDINGHAM 


See  page  255 


The  Andreas  and  St.   Andrew  253 

the  bones  there.  In  his  History  of  Scotland,  Bishop  Leslie  refers  to 
this  legend,  and  in  Book  V.  he  states  that  on  the  eve  of  a  victory  over 
the  Saxons,  Hung,  King  of  the  Picts,  saw  the  cross  of  St.  Andrew 
in  the  air,  a  visible  sign  of  his  patron  saint's  protecting  presence.  This 
is  a  variant  of  a  familiar  legend :  we  read  of  Constantine's  Cross,  of 
the  cross  that  appeared  to  Waldemar  II.  of  Denmark  before  he  defeated 
the  Esthonians,  and  of  the  cross  that  Alonzo  saw  before  he  triumphed 
over  the  Moors.  Whatever  the  origin  of  the  sentiment,  every  patriotic 
Scotsman  has  a  special  feeling  of  veneration  for  St.  Andrew,  and  for  the 
badge  of  his  order,  with  its  proud  motto,  c  Nemo  me  impune  lacessit.' 
Our  friends  across  the  Border  speak  of  the  canny  Scot,  but  Europe 
knows  another  Scot  who  answers  better  to  his  national  motto.  'Fier 
comme  un  Ecossois,'  laughs  Louis  XL  in  ^uentin  Durward,  and  to  the 
Continent  the  errant  Scot  of  the  Middle  Ages  was  exactly 

'  A  fiery  ettercap, 
A  fractious  chiel, 
As  het  as  ginger, 
And  as  stieve  as  steel.' 

A.  M.  WILLIAMS. 

CAMPBELL  OF  ARDKINGLASS.  There  is  a  slight  error  in  the 
notes  to  the  very  interesting  account  of  '  The  First  Highland  Regiment ' 
(S.H.R.  iii.  p.  29).  James  Campbell,  younger  of  Ardkinglass,  was 
son,  not  brother,  of  Sir  Colin  Campbell,  Bart.,  and  eventually  succeeded 
as  second  Baronet. 

A.  W.  G.  B. 

THE  SCOTS  DARIEN  COMPANY.  We  print  in  this  issue 
the  first  portion  of  Mr.  Hiram  Bingham's  paper  on  *  The  Early  History  of 
the  Scots  Darien  Company,'  the  remaining  portion  of  which  will  appear 
in  the  April  number  of  the  Scottish  Historical  Review. 

Mr.  Bingham's  position  as  Curator  of  South  American  History  and 
Literature  at  the  library  of  Harvard  University  has  afforded  him  special 
opportunities  of  making  a  study  of  this  subject.  He  has  also  made 
independent  search  among  the  archives  of  the  Advocates'  Library,  the 
General  Register  House,  the  British  Museum,  and  the  Public  Record 
Office  in  London,  and  in  the  Archives  of  the  Indies  in  Seville,  but  he 
is  very  desirous  of  securing  additional  documentary  evidence  as  to  various 
points  in  the  history  of  the  Darien  Company.  He  would  be  very  glad 
to  hear  of  any  letters  or  journals  in  either  public  or  private  collections 
which  throw  light  on  this  subject. 


Notes  and  Comments 

THE  Scottish  History  Society  has  been  fortunate  in  securing  the  services 

of  Mr.   Hay  Fleming  as  Secretary.     Bringing  to  the  office  a 

'    .    '     very  different  experience  and  a  very  different  standpoint  from 

££ff>    those  of  the  late  Mr.  T.  G.  Law,    he   has   the   same   eager 

spirit    of   research,    and    the    same    recognition    as    a    central 

principle   of  real  history,  that  it  is  mainly  the   new   data  which   count 

as  the  merit  of  current  studies.    Discovery  ranks  before  criticism.    Men 

who    have    toiled    at    the    roots,    although,    perhaps,    less    thanked,    are 

ultimately  more  valued.     Mr.  Hay  Fleming,  with  his  St.  Andrews  local 

and  diocesan   knowledge,  and    his   keen    Puritan   sympathy,  will,  in    his 

new    position,    editorially   and    otherwise,    render    the    better   service    to 

Scotland,    because    his    labours    have    been    directed    as    much    to    the 

archaeological  as  to  the  documentary  side  of  the  national   record.     It  is 

an  occasion  of  public   satisfaction  when    for   such  a  scholar  such  a  task 

is  found. 

A  CONGRESS  on  Facsimiles  was  held  at  Liege  in  August  last,  under  the 
auspices  of  the  Belgian  Government,  for  the  purpose  of  dis- 
Longress  on  cussjng  ^e  best  practical  methods  of  reproducing  manuscripts, 
coins,  and  seals,  as  well  as  for  preserving  the  originals  and 
ensuring  access  to  and  international  exchange  of  the  reproductions. 
Fifteen  nations  were  represented,  and  important  propositions  were 
formulated,  which  we  hope  to  consider  when  the  complete  record  of  the 
Congress  appears.  M.  Henri  Omont,  of  Paris,  Keeper  of  manuscripts  in 
the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  was  president  of  the  Congress,  which,  among 
its  resolutions,  included  the  formation  of  a  permanent  international  com- 
mittee for  the  promotion  of  the  interests  involved.  In  evident  line  with 
the  direction  of  this  Congress  is  the  announcement  by  MM.  Misch  and 
Thron,  Brussels,  of  an  enterprising  series  of  phototypic  facsimile  volumes 
of  manuscript  works  in  Belgian  libraries,  under  the  general  title  of 
Codices  Selecti  Belgici.  The  MSS.  to  be  reproduced  embrace  homilies, 
etc.,  an  eleventh  century  text  of  Cicero,  and  the  chronicles  of  Sigebert, 
of  Gembloux  (saec.  xi.),  and  of  Gilles  li  Muisis  (saec.  xiv.). 

THE  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  Newcastle-upon-Tyne  has  put  upon  record 

r  ._    ,       in  its  Proceedings  a  suitable   memorial  of  the  raid  across   the 

andFasf  Border  which  the  SocietX  made  in  August  last.     The  party 

Castle      ^ret  visited  Coldingham,  of  which  an  interesting  general  history 

has  been  compiled  from  the  published  works  on  the  subject. 

An  ecclesiastical  foundation  from  Saxon  days  before  the  Danish  inroads,  the 

254 


FAST    CASTLE,    BERWICKSHIRE,    FROM    THE   WEST 


COAST    LINE   LOOKING    NORTH    FROM    FAST   CASTLE 
From  photographs  by  Mr.  Joseph  Oswald 


See  page  255 


Notes  and  Comments  255 

reconstitution  of  Coldingham  as  •  a  religious  house  dependent  on  the 
Benedictine  monastery  of  Durham  at  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century — 
its  secular  geography  relating  it  to  Scotland,  while  ecclesiastically  its  con- 
nection was  English — gave  it  almost  an  international  character  of  peculiar 
interest.  The  early  charters  still  preserved  in  the  chapter  library  of 
Durham,  once  under  the  care  of  James  Raine,  the  historian  of  North 
Durham — now  under  the  charge  of  Canon  Greenwell,  still  more  famous 
among  the  antiquaries  of  North  England — have  supplied  an  abundance  of 
material,  not  merely  for  territorial  chronicle,  but  also  for  the  questions 
concerning  the  tenure  of  Lothian  by  Scottish  kings.  The  existing  remains 
of  the  priory  contain  much  fine  Transitional  work.  We  are  permitted  to 
reproduce  the  Society's  illustration  of  the  church,  which  was  dedicated  to 
St.  Mary,  whose  effigy  appeared  on  the  seal,  also  reproduced  from  the 
Society's  Proceedings.  After  examining  the  priory  church,  the  Tynedale 
antiquaries  visited  Fast  Castle,  which  was  the  'Wolf's  Craig'  of  the  Bride 
of  Lammermoor.  Mr.  Robert  Blair,  the  Secretary  of  the  Society,  favours 
us  with  two  illustrations,  which  well  convey  the  impressively  solitary  and 
wild  aspect  of  this  sea-beat  strong-hold.  It  was  once  the  home  of  the  ill- 
fated  Logan  of  Restalrig,  whose  after-death  trial,  condemnation  and  forfeiture 
in  1609  constitute  a  gruesome  memory  of  old  Scots  law  in  treason  cases. 
He  was  one  of  the  mystery-men  of  James  VI.'s  time,  whose  careers  have 
attracted  the  attention  if  not  the  favour  of  Mr.  Lang.  'A  friend  of 
thieves,  a  vain  loose  man,  but  of  a  good  clan  and  a  good  fellow ' — so  he  is 
described  in  a  despatch  quoted  in  Mr.  Lang's  Roxburghe  Club  book,  The 
Gowrie  Conspiracy.  Mr.  Blair's  pictures  and  Mr.  Lang's  description  of  the 
place  are  in  emphatic  coincidence.  '  Unapproachable  from  the  sea  except 
by  a  fortified  staircase  in  the  perpendicular  rock,  Fastcastle  was  almost  as 
hard  of  access  from  the  desolate  stretch  of  links  on  the  land  side.'  It  was 
a  fit  home  for  a  friend  of  thieves  who  might  any  day  find  himself  with  the 
king  at  his  throat. 

MR.  J.  MAITLAND  ANDERSON,  to  whom  students  of  the  history  of  St. 
Andrews   are   already    much    indebted,   has    made   a  very   in-  . 

teresting  discovery  with  regard  to  a  scheme  for  the  removal       .  a\n 
of  the    University    of  St.    Andrews    to    Perth    within   a  few    rr  •  ^*> 
years  of  its   foundation.     He   has  obtained  documentary  evi- 
dence of  this  scheme  from  the  Vatican  archives,  and  a  paper  giving  the 
full  text  of  the  documents  as  well  as  some  hitherto  unpublished  matter 
relating  to  the  early  history  of  St.  Andrews  will,  we  hope,  appear  in  the 
next  number  of  the  Scottish  Historical  Review. 

CONTRIBUTIONS  to  the  historical  and   philological  section    of  the    Royal 
Philosophical  Society  of  Glasgow  last  session,  now  printed  in       Early 
the     Transactions,    include    a    paper    by    Mr.    David    Murray,   Grammar 
LL.D.,   on   early   Grammars  and  other   School  Books   in  use     used  in 
in  Scotland.     It   traces   the    works  serving   as   standards  from     Scotland. 
the  Ars  Grammatica  of  Donatus  in  the  fifteenth  century  down  to  Ruddi- 
man's  Rudiments,   published   in  1714,  and  its  sequels  till  near  the  close 


256  Notes  and  Comments 

of  the  eighteenth  century — varying  the  bibliographic  task  with  many 
biographical  side-touches  regarding  such  grammarians  of  note  as  George 
Buchanan,  James  Kirkwood,  and  Andrew  Simson.  The  human  side  of 
the  matter  comes  quaintly  out  in  Kirkwood's  substituting  in  a  specimen 
verse  illustrative  of  metre, 

Ut  Regina  Soror  Pallas  Catharina  Leasna, 

the  name  *  Gelecina '  for  *  Catharina,*  on  the  ground  that  Gelecina  being 
his  wife's  name,  '  her's  as  well  as  his  Name  may  survive  when  they  are 
dead.'  The  President  of  the  Society  has  among  these  grammars  hit 
upon  a  very  attractive  by-way  of  research,  which  we  trust  he  will  continue 
to  explore.  Mr.  John  L.  Morison  discusses  Reginald  Peacock,  the  heretic 
bishop  of  the  fifteenth  century,  and  cites  from  MS.  telling  bits  of  the 
condemned  prelate's  vigorous  reasoning  and  expressive  English.  Perhaps 
the  most  striking  and  dangerous  doctrine  is  that  'all  goddis  creatures 
musten  nedis  obeie  to  doom  of  resoun.'  Mr.  Macgregor  Chalmers  recon- 
structs from  existing  remains  and  indications  a  tomb  which,  he  gives 
reasons  for  concluding,  was  probably  erected  about  the  middle  of  the 
thirteenth  century  in  the  crypt  of  Glasgow  cathedral.  Plans,  sections, 
and  elevation  make  the  proposition  clear  and  intelligible  in  detail.  Some- 
what different  in  scope  is  the  subject  taken  by  Mr.  John  Edwards — 
*  Duns  Scotus,  his  life  and  times.'  Examining  all  the  authorities  and 
traditions,  Mr.  Edwards  balances  against  the  to-name  of  c  Scotus '  and  the 
claim  of  John  Major  that  the  philosopher  belonged  to  Duns  in  Berwick- 
shire, the  anonymous  allegations  in  one  MS.  of  1381  that  he  was  an 
Irishman,' and  in  another  MS.  of  1455  that  he  came  from  Embleton  in 
Northumberland.  Mr.  Edwards  stoutly  guards  himself  from  being  thought 
to  decide  by  national  sympathy,  although  he  concludes  that  it  is  *  historic- 
ally safe '  to  reckon  him  a  Scot.  It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that 
Mr.  Edwards's  survey  of  the  authorities  is  incomplete.  Bale  under  the 
heading  *  loannes  Scotus  cognomento  Dons '  has  the  following : 

Hie  loannes  natus  erat  in  Duns  oppido  tribus  ab  Alnewico  milliarijs 
distante  minorita  de  custodia  Novi  castri.  (Index  Britanniae  Scrip- 
torum,  ed.  Poole  cum  Bateson,  1902,  p.  249.) 

Comparing  this  with  the  references  to  *  loannes  Dumbylton  doctor 
Oxoniensis  sophista'  in  the  last  cited  volume  (pp.  197-0,  516)  one 
wonders  whether  there  are  not  still  some  confusions  left  to  be 
explained  about  the  life  as  well  as  the  works  of  Duns  Scotus.  His 
biography,  so  far  as  the  meagre  data  go,  Mr.  Edwards  sketches :  the 
philosophical  life  he  modestly  refrains  from  attempting :  the  reputation 
of  the  '  Subtle  Doctor '  down  the  ages,  however,  is  interestingly  shown, 
including  the  curious  chapter  told  by  Antony  Wood  of  the  New  College 
quadrangle  at  Oxford  littered  with  '  the  leaves  of  Dunce,  the  wind  blow- 
ing them  into  every  corner' — a  final  symbol  of  rejection  by  the  seventeenth 
century. 


The 

Scottish    Historical    Review 

VOL.  III.,  No.  11  APRIL  1906 

Ballads  on  the  Bishops'  Wars,    1638-40 

THE  attempt  of  Laud  and  Charles  I.  to  impose  the  Service 
Book  on  Scotland,  and  the  two  wars  which  sprung  out 
of  that  attempt,  naturally  produced  an  excitement  which  found 
expression  in  the  popular  literature  both  of  Scotland  and  England. 
Even  in  the  works  of  the  poets  who  wrote  for  the  Court  and  the 
Universities  there  are  poems  referring  to  the  unsuccessful  cam- 
paigns which  the  King  undertook  to  suppress  his  recalcitrant 
subjects,  though  naturally  there  is  no  sign  of  sympathy  for  the 
rebels  in  them.  Cowley  has  a  set  of  verses  addressed  to  Lord 
Falkland  praying  '  For  his  safe  Return  from  the  Northern  Expedi- 
tion against  the  Scots.'  '  He  is  too  good  for  war,'  concludes 
Cowley,  '  and  ought  to  be l  As  far  from  danger  as  from  fear  he's 
free.'  Davenant  has  a  poem  of  over  a  hundred  lines  called  c  The 
Plots,'  in  which  he  describes  the  spread  of  Presbyterianism  from 
Scotland  to  England  and  the  conspiracy  of  *  Calvin's  meek  sons ' 
against  the  English  Church  and  Crown.  It  was  not  the  arms  of 
the  soldiers  under  Leslie,  but  the  intrigues  of  Court  nobles  such 
as  Hamilton  and  others,  that  were  really  to  be  feared  is  his 
conclusion  : 

'  We  feared  not  the  Scots  from  the  High-land  nor  Low-land  ; 

Though  some  of  their  leaders  did  craftily  brave  us, 
With  boasting  long  Service  in  Russe  and  Poland, 
And  with  their  fierce  breeding  under  Gustavus. 

'  Not  the  Tales  of  their  Combats,  more  strange  than  Romances, 

Nor  Sandy's  screw'd  Cannon  did  strike  us  with  wonder  ; 

Nor  their  Kettle-Drums  sounding  before  their  long  Launces, 

But  Scottish-Court-whispers  struck  surer  than  Thunder.' 2 

1  Works,  ed.  1 700,  p.  7. 

2 Sir  W.  Davenant,  Works,  ed.   1673,  p.   304. 

S.H.R.    VOL.    III.  R 


258  Professor  C.   H.   Firth 

In  popular  poetry  of  the  eventful  years  from  1638  to 
1640,  the  feeling  of  the  time  found  much  more  frequent  and 
more  outspoken  utterance,  though  but  few  of  the  perishable 
broad  sheets  on  which  it  was  printed  have  survived.  A  small 
collection  of  these  productions  was  printed  in  1834,  '  Ballads  and 
other  Fugitive  Poetical  Pieces,  chiefly  Scotish,  from  the  collections 
of  Sir  James  Balfour.'  Some  of  them,  and  many  others,  are 
included  in  Maidment's  Book  of  Scotish  Pasquils,  ed.  1868.  On 
the  other  hand,  English  collections  of  ballads,  such  as  those 
published  by  the  Percy  Society  and  those  edited  by  Mr.  Chappell 
and  Mr.  Ebsworth  for  the  Ballad  Society,  contain  practically  no 
pieces  dealing  with  this  particular  episode  in  the  relations  of 
England  and  Scotland.  Yet  there  is  ample  evidence  that  such 
pieces  were  printed  in  considerable  numbers.  Those  in  favour  of 
the  Scots  were  naturally  suppressed  by  the  English  government. 
Rushworth  prints  a  proclamation,  dated  March  30,  1640,  against 
'  libellous  and  seditious  pamphlets  and  discourses  from  Scotland,' 
said  to  be  circulated  both  in  manuscript  and  in  print,  especially 
in  London.1  Balladmakers  suffered  the  same  penalties  as 
pamphleteers.  '  There  was  a  poor  man,'  says  a  pamphlet,  '  who 
to  get  a  little  money,  made  a  song  of  all  the  caps  in  the  kingdom, 
and  at  every  verse  end,  concludes  thus : 

"  Of  all  the  caps  that  ever  I  see, 
Either  great  or  small,  blue  cap  for  me." 

But  his  mirth  was  quickly  turned  into  mourning  for  he  was 
clapt  up  in  the  Clinke  for  his  boldness  to  meddle  with  any 
such  matters.' z  The  ballad  itself  was  probably  an  adaptation  of 
an  older  one,  written  perhaps  about  1634,  which  is  to  be  found 
in  print  in  the  Roxburghe  Ballads,  i.  75  ;  but  however  innocent 
its  words,  anything  in  favour  of  the  Scots  was  for  the  moment 
regarded  as  hostile  to  the  government.  The  reaction  came  in 
1640,  when  the  King  was  obliged  to  summon  the  Long  Parlia- 
ment, and  the  gratitude  which  most  of  the  English  people  felt 
towards  the  Scots  could  freely  express  itself.  f  In  their  printed 
ballads,'  writes  Robert  Baillie,  '  they  confess  no  less,  for  their 
binding  word  is  ever  "  grammercie,  good  Scot." '  One  ballad 
with  this  refrain,  entitled  *A  New  Carrel  for  Christmasse,  made 
and  sung  at  London,'  is  reprinted  in  the  Balfour  collection 

1  Historical  Collections,  iii.  1094. 

2  A  Second  Discovery  by  the  Northern  Scout,  p.  7,  1642. 

3  Baillie  Letters,  i.  283. 


Ballads  on  the  Bishops'  Wars  259 

mentioned  above  (p.  36).  A  different  version  of  it,  with  the 
variant  'God  'a  mercy,  good  Scott,'  is  contained  in  the  Diary 
of  John  Rous,  published  by  the  Camden  Society  in  1856 
(p.  no).  A  third,  with  an  entirely  different  text,  may  be 
found  in  Maidment's  Book  of  Scotish  Pasquils  (p.  106). 
Fragments  of  ballads  and  verses  in  favour  of  the  Scots  may 
also  be  found  in  some  of  the  prose  pamphlets  of  the  time. 
One  called  'The  Scots  Scouts  Discoveries  by  their  London 
Intelligencer,'  purports  to  give  a  description  of  the  condition 
of  England  in  1639,  as  the  spies  of  the  Covenanters  reported 
it  to  the  Lords  of  the  Covenant.  Everywhere  the  spies  note 
the  general  hatred  which  prevailed  in  the  populace  against  the 
bishops,  and  the  general  sympathy  with  the  men  who  were 
struggling  against  episcopacy.  One  of  them  describes  the 
state  of  the  King's  camp  at  Berwick  in  May  1639,  and  the 
discontent  of  the  miscellaneous  army  Charles  had  got  together, 
amongst  whom  indifference  to  the  cause  was  heightened  to 
aversion  by  the  discomforts  of  their  service. 

*  I  met  with  a  great  many  gamesters  there,  and  with  some 
players  and  poets ;  but  all  out  of  imployment :  yet  a  poet 
told  me;  that,  because  he  would  keep  his  hand  in  use,  he 
made  every  day  a  few  lines  in  verse;  a  parcel  whereof  he  gave 
me  as  followeth : 

"  No  Enemy's  face  yet  have  we  seen 
Nor  foot  set  upon  your  ground  ; 
But  here  we  lie  in  open  field, 
With  rain,  like  to  be  drown'd. 

"  The  earth's  my  bed,  when  I  am  laid 
A  turf  it  is  my  pillow, 
Our  canopy  is  the  sky  above, 
My  laurel  turn'd  to  willow. 

"  Then  mighty  Mars  with-hold  thy  hand, 
And  Jove  thy  fury  cease  ; 
That  so  we  may,  as  all  do  pray, 
Return  again  in  Peace." ' 

'  Most  of  the  common  soldiers  in  the  camp,'  continues  the 
Intelligencer,  'are  such  as  care  not  who  lose,  so  they  get,  being 
mere  atheist  and  barbarian  in  these  revolutions  :  and  indeed 
they  are  the  very  scum  of  the  kingdom,  such  as  their  friends 
have  sent  out  to  be  rid  of,  who  care  not  if  both  kingdoms 
were  on  fire,  so  they  might  share  the  spoil.'  Nevertheless, 
to  inform  them  better  of  the  real  cause  of  the  quarrel,  the 


260  Professor  C.   H.   Firth 

Intelligencer  represents  himself  as  sticking  up  the  following 
queries  in  verse,  under  the  orders  posted  in  the  camp  for 
the  government  of  the  army. 

'  What  will  you  fight,  for  a  Book  of  Common  Prayer  ? 
What  will  you  fight,  for  a  Court  of  High  Commission  ? 
What  will  you  fight,  for  a  miter  gilded  fair  ? 
Or  to  maintain  the  prelates  proud  ambition  ? 
What  will  you  get  ?     You  must  not  wear  the  miter. 
What  will  ye  get  ?     You  know  we  are  not  rich. 
What  will  you  get  ?     Your  yoke  will  be  no  lighter. 
For  when  we're  slain,  this  rod  comes  on  your  Breech.' 

No  doubt  the  incident  related  was  pure  invention,  but  the 
verses  nevertheless  exactly  represent  the  feeling  of  the  moment 
at  which  they  were  supposed  to  be  written.1 

The  two  pamphlets  quoted  both  bear  the  imprint  1642, 
though  they  were  certainly  composed,  and  no  doubt  clandes- 
tinely circulated  earlier.  Probably  in  consequence  of  the  activity 
of  the  government  in  repressing  them,  few  of  the  pro-Scottish 
ballads  have  reached  us  except  those  preserved  in  Scottish 
Collections.  However,  amongst  the  State  Papers  in  the  English 
Record  Office  there  is  a  Scottish  ballad  on  the  subject  of  the 
Marquis  of  Hamilton's  return  to  Court,  in  July  1638,  after 
his  negotiations  with  the  Covenanting  leaders.  The  Calendar 
of  Domestic  State  Papers,  1638-9,  prints  a  couple  of  verses, 
but  the  readers  of  the  Review  will  probably  like  to  have  the 
whole  eleven.2 

1  Ane  misseif  letter 
Parrafraist  in  mitter. 

'  My  Lord  yowr  vnexpectit  post 
To  Court,  maid  me  to  miss 
The  happines  which  I  love  most 
Your  Lordshipe's  handes  to  kisse. 

'  But  tho  with  speid  ye  did  depairt 

so  fast  ye  shall  not  flie 
As  to  unty[?]  my  loving  heart 
Which  yowr  convoy  shall  be. 

'  I  neid  not  to  impairt  to  yow 

How  our  church  staite  do  stand 
by  this  new  service  buik  which  now 
so  trouble  all  the  Land. 

14  The  Scots  Scouts  Discoveries'  is  reprinted  in  the  collection  of  pamphlets 
entitled  Phoenix  Britannifus,  1732,  410,  pp.  454-473. 

"Calendar,  p.  270.  The  original  is  Volume  408,  number  115,  and  is 
undated. 


Ballads  on  the  Bishops'  Wars  261 

'  Nor  dar  I  the  small  boat  adventure 

Of  my  most  schallow  braine 
vpone  thees  fearfull  seas  to  enter 
In  this  tempestious  maine. 

*  vnles  that  by  authoritie 

I  chargit  be  to  do  so, 
Which  may  command  and  scheltir  me 
frome  schipwraik  and  from  vo. 

'Therefor  to  God  Its  to  dispose 

this  cause  I  will  commend, 
for  wofullie  it  is  by  those 
abuisit  who  should  it  tend. 

'  Ane  lyk  it  is  to  bring  great  ill 

Since  it  intrustit  was 
To  those  had  nather  strenth  nor  skill 
To  bring  such  things  to  pas. 

'  Bot  or  thees  flames  should  quenchit  be 

that  they  haue  set  on  fyre, 
both  wisdome  and  authoritie 
that  maitter  doth  requyre. 

*  Ane  varlyk  nation  still  we  are, 

Which  soone  may  flatrit  be 
Not  forst  and  brokin  once  we  are 
most  Loth  than  to  agrie. 

*  So  I  commend  yow  to  the  Lord 

And  shall  be  glad  if  I 
my  cuntrie  service  can  affoord 
my  loue  to  yow  to  try. 

'  And  howsoevir,  I  remain 

Your  Lordshipes  whil  I  die 

And  for  your  glad  returne  again 

Your  Beidman  I  shall  be.' 

FINIS. 

Ballads  against  the  Covenanters  are  more  easy  to  find,  partly 
because  they  were  not  suppressed  but  encouraged  by  the  King's 
government,  partly,  perhaps,  because  they  were  in  reality  more 
numerous.  <  There  hath  been,'  says  one  of  the  pamphlets  before 
quoted,  f  such  a  number  of  ballad  makers  and  pamphlet  writers 
employed  this  year,  as  it  is  a  wonder,  everything  being  printed 
that  hath  anything  in  it  against  the  Scots.'  '  Halter  and  ballad 
makers,'  says  the  other,  '  are  two  principal  trades  of  late :  ballads 
being  sold  by  whole  hundreds  in  the  City,  and  halteris  sent  by 
whole  barrels  full  to  Berwick,  to  hang  up  the  rebels  with  as  soon 
as  they  can  catch  them.'  Some  celebrated  the  valour  of  the 


262  Professor  C.   H.   Firth 

Welsh  soldiers,  who  were  said  to  be  extremely  zealous  for  the 
King.  '  There  is  a  kind  of  beagles  runs  up  and  down  the  town, 
yelping  out  your  destruction  crying :  "  O  the  valour  of  the 
Welchmen  !  who  are  gone  to  kill  the  Scots."  But  give  the 
Welchmen  leeks  and  good  words,  and  call  them  "  bold  Britons," 
and  then  you  may  do  with  them  what  you  will.'  Every  rumour 
from  the  camp  and  every  report  of  a  victory,  whether  real  or  not, 
was  at  once  put  into  rhyme.  '  Such  news  as  this  comes  out  by 
owl-light,  in  little  books  or  ballads,  to  be  sold  in  the  streets;  and 
I  fear  it  is  held  a  prime  piece  of  policy  of  state :  for,  otherwise 
how  could  so  many  false  ballads  and  books  be  tolerated  ?  Yet  the 
next  morning  sun  exhales  all  their  vain  evening  vapours  :  as  that 
news  of  taking  Leslie  prisoner  ;  killing  of  Colonel  Crayford  ;  and 
imprisoning  most  of  the  nobility.  But  I  never  believed  it, 
because  if  they  had  been  true  ballads  they  would  have  been  sung 
by  daylight,  books  printed,  bonfires  made,  and  a  solemn  pro- 
cession, with  a  Te  Deum  at  least,  had  not  been  wanting  at 
Lambeth.' J 

Yet  even  the  most  effusively  loyal  ballad  writer  was  liable  to 
be  severely  punished  for  any  ill-advised  comments  on  public  affairs, 
which  happened  to  give  displeasure  to  the  authorities.  This  was 
the  case  with  '  one  Parker,  the  prelates  poet,  who  had  made  many 
base  ballads  against  the  Scots.'  He  '  narrowly  escaped  jail  and  a 
whipping  to  boot '  when  the  Long  Parliament  met.  *  Now,'  says  a 
pamphlet,  dated  1641,  'he  swears  he  will  never  put  pen  to  paper 
for  the  prelates  again,  but  betake  himself  pitcht  kanne  and  his 
tobacco  pipe,  and  learn  to  sell  his  frothie  potts  again,  and  give 
over  poetry.' 2 

This  was  the  famous  Martin  Parker,  who  between  1630  and 
1656  was  the  best  known  and  most  prolific  ballad  writer  of  the 
time.  Amongst  Anthony  Wood's  collection  in  the  Bodleian 
there  are  copies  of  three  of  his  ballads  against  the  Scots,  which 
are  not  mentioned  by  Mr.  Seccombe  in  his  article  on  Parker  in 
the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  and  have  never  been 
reprinted.  Their  merits  are  rather  historical  than  poetical.  The 
first  wishes  the  King  good  fortune  in  his  expedition  against 
Scotland,  and  incidentally  sketches  the  history  of  the  rebellion  he 
was  setting  forth  to  quell. 

1  *  The  Scots  Scouts  Discoveries,'  Phoenix  Britannicus,  pp.  466,  467. 

2  A  Second  Discovery  by  the  Northern  Scout,   \  642,  p.   8.     See  also  Vox  Borea/is, 
1641. 


Ballads  on  the  Bishops'  Wars  263 


A  TRUE   SUBJECTS  WISH 

For  the|happy  successe  of  our  Royall  Army  preparing  to  resist  the  factious 
Rebellion  of  those  insolent  Covenanters  (against  the  Sacred  Majesty  of 
our  gracious  and  loving  King  Charles]  in  Scotland. 

To  the  tune  of,  O  how  nozu  Mars,  etc, 

'  If  ever  England  had  occasion 

Her  ancient  honour  to  defend, 
Then  let  her  now  make  preparation, 
Unto  a  honourable  end  : 
the  factious  Scot 
is  very  hot, 

His  ancient  spleene  is  ne'er  forgot 
He  long  hath  bin  about  this  plot. 

'  Under  the  colour  of  religion, 

(With  hypocriticall  pretence) 
They  make  a  fraction  in  that  Region, 
And  rise  against  their  native  Prince, 
whom  heaven  blesse 
with  happinesse, 
and  all  his  enemies  represse, 
accurst  be  he  that  wisheth  lesse. 

'  Our  gratious  Soveraigne  very  mildely 

Did  grant  them  what  they  did  desire, 
Yet  they  ingratefully  and  vildly, 
Have  still  continued  the  fire 
of  discontent 
gainst  government, 
but  England  now  is  fully  bent, 
proud  Jocky's  bosting  to  prevent. 

'  It  much  importeth  England's  honour 

Such  faithlesse  Rebels  to  oppose, 
And  elevate  Saint  Georges  banner, 
Against  them  as  our  countries  foes, 
and  they  shall  see 
how  stoutly  we, 

(for  Royall  Charles  with  courage  free) 
will  fight  if  there  occasion  be. 

*  Unto  the  world  it  is  apparent 

That  they  rebell  ith'  high'st  degree, 
No  true  Religion  wil  give  warrant, 
That  any  subiect  arm'd  should  be, 
against  his  Prince 
in  any  sence, 

what  ere  he  hold  for  his  pretence, 
Rebellion  is  a  foule  oftence. 


264  Professor  C.   H.   Firth 


Nay  more  to  aggravate  the  evill, 

And  make  them  odious  mongst  good  men, 
It  will  appeare,  that  all  their  levell, 
Is  change  of  government,  and  then, 
what  will  insue, 
amongst  the  crew, 
but  Jocky  with  his  bonnet  blew, 
both  Crown  and  Scepter  would  subdue. 

Who  of  these  men  will  take  compassion, 

That  are  disloyall  to  their  king, 
Amongst  them  borne  in  their  owne  nation, 
And  one  who  in  each  lawfull  thing, 
doth  seeke  their  weale, 
with  perfect  Zeale, 
to  any  good  man  I'le  appeale, 
if  with  King  Charles  they  rightly  deale.' 

The  Second  Part,  to  the  same  tune. 

The  Lord  to  publish  their  intentions, 

Did  bring  to  light  a  trecherous  thing, 
For  they  to  further  their  inventions, 
A  Letter  wrote  to  the  French  King, 
and  in  the  same, 
his  aide  to  claime, 

with  subtlety  their  words  they  frame, 
which  letter  to  our  Soveraigne  came. 

;  Then  let  all  loyall  subjects  judge  it, 

If  we  have  not  a  cause  to  fight, 
You  who  have  mony  doe  not  grudge  it, 
But  in  your  king  and  countries  right, 
freely  disburse, 
both  person,  purse 

and  all  you  may  to  avoyd  the  curse, 
of  lasting  warre  which  will  be  worse. 

'  If  they  are  growne  so  farre  audacious, 

That  they  durst  call  in  forraine  aide, 
Against  a  king  so  milde  and  gratious, 
Have  we  not  cause  to  be  afraid, 
of  life  and  blood, 
we  then  had  stood, 
in  danger  of  such  neighbourhood, 
in  time  to  quell  them  twill  be  good. 

'  Then  noble  Country-men  be  armed, 

To  tame  these  proud  outdaring  Scots, 
That  Englands  honour  be  not  harmed, 
Let  all  according  to  their  lots, 
couragiously 
their  fortune  try, 
against  the  vaunting  enemy, 
and  come  home  crownd  with  victory. 


Ballads  on  the  Bishops'  Wars  265 

'  The  noble  Irish  good  example, 

Doth  give  of  his  fidelity, 
His  purse,  and  person  is  so  ample, 
To  serve  his  royall  maiesty, 
and  gladly  he 
the  man  will  be, 
to  scourge  the  Scots  disloyalty, 
if  England's  honour  would  agree. 

*  Then  we  more  neerely  interessed, 

Ith  future  danger  that  might  chance, 
If  that  against  our  soveraigne  blessed, 
Those  rebels  had  got  aide  from  France, 
should  not  be  slacke, 
nor  ere  shrinke  backe, 
or  let  King  Charles  assistance  lacke, 
to  tame  in  time  this  saucy  Jacke. 

*  We  have  a  Generall  so  noble, 

(The  great  Earle  of  Northumberland) 
That  twill  (I  trust)  be  little  trouble, 
Those  factious  rebels  to  withstand  : 
his  very  name 
seemes  to  proclaime, 
and  to  the  world  divulge  the  same, 
his  ancestors  there  won  such  fame. 

4  The  God  of  hosts  goe  with  our  army, 

My  noble  hearts  for  you  ile  pray, 
That  never  any  foe  may  harme  ye, 
Nor  any  stratagem  betray 
your  brave  designe, 
may  beames  divine, 
upon  your  ensignes  brightly  shine, 
Amen  say  I,  and  every  friend  of  mine. 

«  M.  P.' 
FINIS. 

Printed  at  London  by  E.  G.  (C),  and  are  to  be  sold  at  the  Horse-shoe  in 
Smithfield.1 

The  mention  of  the  tune  to  which  the  foregoing  ballad  is 
to  be  sung,  enables  us  to  identify  another  of  Parker's  productions. 
It  is  probable  that  he  was  the  author  of  the  verses  against 
the  Scots  beginning,  '  Oh  how  now  Mars  what  is  thy  humour,' 
answered  stanza  by  stanza  by  some  poet  of  the  Covenanting 
party  and  printed  under  the  title  of  f  An  English  Challenge  and 
Reply  from  Scotland'  (Ballads  from  the  collection  of  Sir  James. 

1  Wood,  folio  Ballads,  401,  f.  141.     (Black  letter,  3  cuts.) 


266 


Professor  C.   H.   Firth 


Balfour,  p.  29  ;  Maidmenfs  Pasquils,  p.  134).     Both  were  evidently 
written  in   1639,  and  belong  to  the  first  Bishops'  War. 

The  ballad  which  comes  next  was  certainly  written  about  the 
beginning  of  September,  1640,  just  after  the  rout  at  Newburn, 
which  took  place  on  August  28,  1640. 


BRITAINES   HONOUR 

In  the  two  Valiant  Welchmen^  who  fought  against  fifteene  thousand 
Scots,  at  their  now  comming  to  England  passing  over  Tyne ;  whereof 
one  was  kill'd  manfully  fighting  against  his  foes,  and  the  other  being 
taken  prisoner,  is  now  (upon  relaxation)  come  to  Yorke  to  his  Majestic. 

The  tune  is,  How  now  Mars,  etc. 

1  You  noble  Briffaines  bold  and  hardy, 
That  justly  are  deriv'd  from  Brute, 
Who  were  in  battell  ne'er  found  tardy, 
But  still  will  fight  for  your  repute ; 
'gainst  any  hee, 
What  e'r  a'  be, 

Now  for  your  credit  list  to  me, 
Two  Welchmens  valour  you  shall  see. 

'  These  two  undaunted  Troian  worthies, 
(Who  prized  honour  more  than  life,) 
With  Royal  Charles,  who  in  the  North  is, 
To  salve  (with  care)  the  ulcerous  strife  ; 
Which  frantick  sots, 
With  conscious  spots, 

Bring  on  their  sowles ;  these  two  hot  shots, 
Withstood  full  fifteene  thousand  Scots. 

*  The  manner  how  shall  be  related, 

That  all  who  are  King  Charles  his  friends 
May  be  with  courage  animated, 
Unto  such  honourable  ends; 
These  cavaliers, 
Both  Musquetiers, 
Could  never  be  possest  with  feares, 
Though  the  Scots  Army  nigh  appeares. 

*  Within  their  workes  neere  Tyne  intrench'd 

Some  of  our  Soveraignes  forces  lay  ; 
When  the  Scots  Army  came,  they  flinched, 
And  on  good  cause  retyr'd  away  ; 
Yet  blame  them  not, 
For  why  the  Scot, 
Was  five  to  one,  and  came  so  hot, 
Nothing  by  staying  could  be  got. 


Ballads  on  the  Bishops'  Wars  267 

'  Yet  these  two  Martialists  so  famous, 

One  to  another  thus  did  say  ; 
Report  hereafter  shall  not  shame  us, 
Let  Welchmen  scorne  to  runne  away  ; 
Now  for  our  King, 
Lets  doe  a  thing 

Whereof  the  world  shall  loudly  ring 
Unto  the  grace  of  our  off-spring. 

*  The  vaunting  Scot  shall  know  what  valour, 

Doth  in  a  Britaim  brest  reside; 
They  shall  not  bring  us  any  dolour ; 
But  first  we'll  tame  some  of  their  pride. 
What  though  we  dy, 
Both  thee  and  I : 
Yet  this  we  know  assuredly, 
In  life  and  death  ther's  victor}'.' 

The  second  part,  to  the  same  tune. 

1  With  this  unbounded  resolution, 
These  branches  of  C adwalader  \ 
To  put  their  wills  in  execution 

Out  of  their  trenches  would  not  stir, 
But  all  night  lay, 
And  would  not  stray, 
Out  of  the  worke,  and  oth'  next  day, 
The  Scots  past  o'r  in  Battell  aray. 

'  The  hardy  Welchmen  that  had  vowed, 

Like  Jonathan  unto  his  David ; 
Unto  the  Scots  themselves  they  showed, 
And  so  couragiously  behaved 
Themselves  that  they 
Would  ne'r  give  way, 
But  in  despite  oth'  foe  would  stay, 
For  nothing  could  their  minds  dismay. 

*  Even  in  the  Jawes  of  death  and  danger 

Where  fifteene  thousand  was  to  two, 
They  still  stood  to  't  and  (which  is  stranger) 
More  then  themselves  they  did  subdue, 
Courage  they  cry'd  ;    • 
Lets  still  abide, 

Let  Brittaines  fame  be  dignifi'd, 
When  two  the  Scottish  hoasts  defi'de. 

*  At  length  (when  he  two  Scots  had  killed) 

One  of  them  bravely  lost  his  life, 
His  strength  and  courage  few  excelled  ; 
Yet  all  must  yeeld  to  th'  fatall  knife. 
The  other  hee, 
Having  slaine  three, 
Did  Prisoner  yeeld  himself  to  be, 
But  now  againe  he  is  set  free. 


268  Professor  C.   H.   Firth 

*  This  is  the  story  of  these  victors, 

Who  as  they  sprung  oth'  Troians  race, 
So  did  they  show  like  two  young  Hectors; 
Unto  their  enemies  disgrace  ; 
Hereafter  may, 
Times  children  say, 

Two  valiant  Welchmen  did  hold  play, 
With  fifteene  thousand  Scots  that  day. 

'  His  Maiesty  in  Princely  manner, 

To  give  true  vertue  it's  reward  ; 
The  man  surviving  more  to  honour, 
Hath  in  particular  regard. 
Thus  valiant  deeds, 
Rewards  succeeds, 

And  from  that  branch,  which  valour  breeds, 
All  honourable  fruit  proceeds. 

'  Now  some  may  say  (I  doe  confesse  it) 

That  all  such  desperate  attempts 
Spring  only  from  foole  hardinesse  ;  yet 
Who  ever  this  rare  deed  exempts, 
From  valour  true, 
(if  him  I  knew) 

I  would  tell  him  (and  'twere  but  due) 
Such  men  our  Soveraigne  hath  too  few. 

*  For  surely  tis  a  rare  example, 

Who  now  will  feare  to  fight  with  ten, 
When  these  two  lads  (with  courage  ample) 
Opposed  fifteene  thousand  men, 
Then  heigh  for  Wales, 
Scots  strike  your  Sayles, 
For  all  your  proiects  nought  prevailes, 
True  Brittains  scorne  to  turne  their  tayles. 

'M.  P.' 
FINIS. 

London,  Printed  by  E.  G.  and  are  to  be  sold  at  the  Horse  Shooe  in 
Smith-field.1 

The  third  of  Parker's  ballads  celebrates  a  trifling  success, 
which  for  a  moment  gave  fresh  hopes  to  King  Charles.  Baillie 
thus  relates  it:  'Sir  Archibald  Douglas,  going  out  of  Durham 
with  a  troup  of  horse  to  view  the  fields,  contrare  to  his  com- 
mission, foolishlie  passed  the  Tyse,  and  swaggering  in  the 
night  in  a  villadge  without  a  centinell,  was  surprised  by  the 
King's  horse  with  all  his  troupers'  (Letters,  i.  261).  His  story 
is  confirmed  by  the  letters  of  Sir  Henry  Vane  and  Captain 

1  Wood,  folio  Ballads,  401,  f.  132.     (Black  letter,  3  cuts.) 


Ballads  on  the  Bishops'  Wars  269 

John  Digby  (Calendar  of  Domestic  State  Papers,  1640-1,  pp. 
79-81)  and  told  with  some  additional  details  in  the  Life  of  Sir 
John  Smith,  published  in  1644  (Britannicae  Firtutis  Imago  or 
the  Effigies  of  true  Fortitude,  Oxford,  1644,  pp.  7-8).  The  account 
given  in  the  ballad  is  much  more  accurate  than  ballads  usually 
are,  though  it  makes  the  prisoners  39  in  number  instead  of 
37- 

GOOD    NEWES    FROM    THE    NORTH, 

Truly  relating  how  about  a  hundred  of  the  Scottish  Rebels,  intending 
to  plunder  the  house  of  M.  Thomas  Pudsie  (at  Stapleton  in  the  Bishoprick 
of  Durham),  were  set  upon  by  a  troupe  of  our  horsemen,  under  the 
conduct  of  that  truly  valorous  gentleman  Leiutenant  Smith,  Leiutenant 
to  noble  Sr.  John  Digby  ;  thirty  nine  of  them  (wherof  some  were  men 
of  quality)  are  taken  prisoners,  the  rest  all  slaine  except  foure  or  five 
which  fled,  wherof  two  are  drowned.  The  names  of  them  taken  is 
inserted  in  a  list  by  it  selfe.  This  was  upon  Friday  about  fore  of  the 
clock  in  the  morning,  the  eightenth  day  of  this  instant  September,  1640. 

The  tune  is,  King  Henry  going  to  Bulloine. 

1  All  you  who  wish  prosperity, 
To  our  King  and  Country, 

and  their  confusion  which  falce  hearted  be, 
Here  is  some  newes  (to  cheare  your  hearts,) 
Lately  from  the  Northerne  parts, 

of  brave  exployts  perform'd  with  corage  free. 

*  The  Scots  (there  in  possession), 
Almost  beyond  expression, 

afflict  the  people  in  outragious  wise ; 
Besides  their  lowance  (which  is  much) 
The  cruelty  of  them  is  such, 

that  all  they  find  they  take  as  lawfull  prize. 

*  Sheepe,  Oxen,  Kine,  and  Horses, 
Their  quotidiall  course  is 

to  drive  away  wherever  they  them  finde ; 
Money  plate  and  such  good  geere, 
From  the  Houses  far  and  neere, 

they  beare  away  even  what  doth  please  their  mind. 

'But  theirs  an  ancient  adage, 
Oft  used  in  this  mad  age, 

the  pitcher  goes  so  often  to  the  well  ; 
That  it  comes  broken  home  at  last, 
So  they  for  all  their  knavery  past 

shall  rue  ere  long  though  yet  with  pride  they  swell.' 


270  Professor  C.   H.   Firth 

'  As  this  our  present  story, 
(To  the  deserved  glory, 

of  them  who  were  the  actors  in  this  play,) 
Unto  you  shall  a  relish  give, 
Of  what  (if  heaven  let  us  live ;) 

will  come  to  pass  which  is  our  foes  decay. 

*  Those  rebels  use  to  pillage, 
In  every  country  Village, 

and  unresisted  romed  up  and  downe ; 
But  now  at  last  the  greedy  Scot, 
Hath  a  friday's  breakefast  got, 

few  of  such  feasts  wil  pull  their  courage  down. 

'  At  foure  o'th  clock  i'th  morning, 
(Let  all  the  rest  take  warning) 

about  a  hundred  of  these  rebels  came ; 
To  M  PtuUrft  house  where  they, 
Make  sure  account  to  have  a  prey, 

for  their  intention  was  to  rob  the  same. 

'  Of  no  danger  thinking, 
To  eating  and  to  drinking, 

the  Scots  did  fall,  but  sure  they  said  no  grace, 
For  there  they  eat  and  drank  their  last, 
With  ill  successe  they  brake  their  fast, 

most  of  them  to  disgest  it  had  no  space. 

'  An  English  troope  not  farre  thence, 
Had  (it  seemes)  intelligence 

of  these  bad  guests  at  Master  Pudseyes  house, 
And  with  all  speed  to  Stapleton 
With  great  courage  they  rode  on, 

while  Jocky  was  drinking  his  last  carouse. 

'  The  house  they  did  beleaguer 
And  like  to  Lions  eager, 

they  fell  upon  the  Scots  pell-mell  so  fast, 
That  in  a  little  space  of  time, 
By  th'  Rebels  fall  our  men  did  clime, 

they  paid  them  for  their  insolencies  past.' 


The  second  part.     To  the  same  tune. 

'  In  briefe  the  brave  Lieutenant, 
With  his  men  valiant, 

so  plaid  their  parts  against  the  daring  foes, 
That  quickly  they  had  cause  to  say, 
Sweet  meat  must  have  sowre  sauce  alway, 

for  so  indeed  they  found  to  all  their  woes. 


Ballads  on  the   Bishops'  Wars  271 

'  Thirty  nine  are  prisoners  taine, 
And  all  the  rest  outright  are  slaine, 

except  some  four  or  five  that  ran  away, 
And  two  of  those  (as  some  alledge) 
Were  drown'd  in  passing  o'er  Crofts  bridge, 

so  neer  they  were  pursu'd  they  durst  not   stay. 

1  Of  them  who  are  in  durance 
(Under  good  assurance) 

some  officers  and  men  of  quality, 
Among  them  are,  'tis  manifest, 

To  them  who  will  peruse  the  List, 

Wherein  their  names  are  set  down  orderly. 

Thus  worthy  Smith  his  valour, 
Hath  showne  unto  the  dolor, 

of  these  proud  Rebels,  which  with  suttle  wiles, 
Came  as  in  zeale  and  nothing  else, 
But  now  deare  bought  experience  tels 

those  were  but  faire  pretences  to  beguil's. 

;  But  th'  end  of  their  intention 
Is  if  (with  circumvention) 

they  can  make  us  beleeve  what  they  pretend, 
They  hold  us  on  with  fained  words, 
And  make  us  loath  to  draw  our  swords, 

to  worke  our  ruin,  that's  their  chiefest  end. 


But  God  I  trust  will  quickly, 
Heale  our  Kingdome  sickly, 

too  long  indeed  sick  of  credulity  ; 
And  their  blind  eyes  illuminate, 
Who  bring  this  danger  to  the  State, 

by  trusting  to  a  friend-like  enemie. 

He  dayly  pray  and  hourely, 
As  it  doth  in  my  power  lye, 

to  him  by  whom  Kings  reigne  ;  that  with  successe, 
King  Charles  goe  on  and  prosper  may, 
And  (having  made  the  Scots  obay,) 

rule  or'e  his  Lands  in  peace  and  happinesse.' 


List  of  Prisoners,  etc.,  given  at  the  end  of  'Good  Newes 
from  the  North'  [Wood,  fol.  Ballads,  401,  f.  134]. 

1 8  Septemb.  1640  being  Fryday  morning.  At  Stapleton  3  miles  beyond 
Pearce  bridge  wee  met  with  the  Scots  at  4  of  the  Clocke  in  the  morning, 
at  Master  Pudseys  house  in  the  Bishopricke  of  Durham,  at  breakfast,  when 
wee  made  our  Skirmish,  Lieutanant  Smith  had  the  day,  five  or  six  of  them 


272 


Professor  C.   H.   Firth 


escaped  by  Croft  bridge,  where  they  say  they  make  their  Randezvous,  the 
prisoners  that  were  taken,  are  these  that  follow,  viz. 


1.  Sir  Archibald  Douglasse,  Sergeant 

Maior  to  Collonell. 

2.  James  Ramsey. 

3.  John    Leirmouth,   Lieutenant   to 

Captaine  Ayton. 

4.  Hopper    Cornet    to    the    Maior 

Duglasse. 

5.  Ja.  Ogley,  Sarjeant   to   the    said 

Maior. 

6.  Patrick  Vamphogie  troup. 

7.  James  Coldvildell. 

8.  James  Levingston. 

9.  Hector  Mackmouth. 
jo.  John  Cowde. 

1 1 .  John  Hench. 

12.  Alexander  Paxton,  wounded. 

13.  William  Ridge. 

14.  David  Buens  wounded. 

15.  Adam  Bonnyer. 

1 6.  Rob.  Ferrony. 

1 7.  Jo.  Milverne. 

1 8.  David  Borret. 

FINIS. 


19.  Rob.  Leisley. 

20.  Ja.  Ramsey. 

21.  Allen     Duckdell     a     dutch     boy 

wounded. 

22.  Alexander  Fordringham. 

23.  Jo.  Cattricke. 

24.  Allen  Levingston. 

25.  George  Harret. 

26.  Andrew  Tournes. 

27.  Robert  Watts. 

28.  Alexander  Watts. 

29.  William  Anderson. 

30.  Jo.   Layton. 

31.  Alex.  Dick. 

32.  Patricke  Cranny. 

33.  William  Simpson. 

34.  Tho.  Husband  neere  dead. 

35.  Jo.  Hill. 

36.  Thomas  Ferley. 

37.  Andrew  Whitehall. 

38.  James  Vianley. 

M.  P. 


London  :  Printed  by  E.  G.  and  are  to  be  sold  at  the  signe  of  the  Horse- 
shooe  in  Smithfield,  I64O.1 

The  last  ballad  in  this  series  is  not  by  Parker,  but  by  some 
unknown  writer,  and  it  is  derived  not  from  a  printed  broad 
sheet  but  from  a  manuscript,  which  probably  formed  part  of 
the  miscellaneous  verses  collected  by  Archbishop  Sancroft  in 
his  youth.  The  original  is  in  the  Bodleian  Library,  in  volume 
306  of  the  Tanner  MSS.  (p.  292).  It  is  endorsed  simply, 
1  Verses  against  the  Scots  coming  into  England,'  and  was 
probably  written  about  January  1641,  during  the  early  days 
of  the  Long  Parliament,  but  before  the  execution  of  Strafford 
had  taken  place.  Clarendon  describes  the  leaders  of  the  popular 
party  in  the  Parliament  as  willing  to  provide  money  for  the 
support  of  the  two  armies  then  '  in  the  bowels  of  the  kingdom,' 
namely,  the  King's  own  army  and  the  Scots,  but  unwilling  to 
pay  them  off.  There  was  not,  he  says,  'the  least  mention 
that  the  one  should  return  into  Scotland,  and  the  other 
be  disbanded  that  so  that  vast  expense  might  be  determined  : 
but,  on  the  contrary,  frequent  insinuations  were  given  that 

JWood,  folio  Ballads,  401.  f.  134.      (Black  letter,  3  cuts.) 


Ballads  on  the  Bishops'  Wars  273 

many  great  things  were  first  to  be  done  before  the  armies 
could  disband'  (Rebellion,  Bk.  iii.,  §  23).  This  is  exactly  the 
situation  described  by  the  poet,  who  represents  the  Scots  as 
protesting  their  intention  of  staying  permanently  in  England, 
and  never  consenting  to  be  disbanded. 

1  Let  Englishmen  sitt  and  Consult  at  their  ease 
And  put  downe  their  Bishops  as  fast  as  they  please  ; 
Let  them  hang  up  the  Judges  and  all  the  Kings  friends, 
And  talke  of  Religion  to  serve  their  own  Ends  : 
Let  them  doe  what  they  will  to  put  on  the  plot, 
If  ere  we  returne,  then  hang  up  the  Scot. 

'Let  Puritans  rise,  let  Protestants  fall, 
Let  Brownists  find  favor,  and  Papists  loose  all ; 
Let  them  dam  all  the  Patients  that  ever  were  given, 
And  make  Pymm  a  Saint,  though  he  never  see  heaven, 
Let  them  prove  Madam  Purbeck1  to  be  wthout  Spott 
If  ere  we  returne,  then  hang  up  the  Scot. 

'  Let  them  firke  the  Lieutenant 2  as  much  as  they  will, 
And  lett  the  Scotts  Army  come  on  forwards  still ; 
Let  them  charge  him  with  Treasons  tho  never  so  great, 
And  make  all  such  Traytors  as  shall  but  eate  Meat  : 
All  this  will  not  doe,  nor  help  them  a  jott, 
If  ere  we  returne,  then  hang  up  the  Scot. 

'  Let  all  the  Contrivers  build  Castles  i'  th'  aire, 
And  laugh  in  their  sleeves  that  things  go  so  faire  ; 
Let  them  send  privy  Councellors  over  to  France, 
And  teach  them  to  follow  the  Lord  Keeper's  dance : 3 
Let  all  this  go  on,   be  they  never  so  hot, 
If  ere  we  returne,  then  hang  up  the  Scot. 

'  Let  all  things  be  carryed  in  such  a  strange  way 
As  no  man  shall  know  what  to  thinke,  or  to  say  : 
Let  Chronicle  Writers  now  stand  stil  and  wonder, 
To  see  this  great  business  they  must  now  go  under  : 
Let  the  Glory  of  their  Nation  be  cleerly  forgott 
If  ere  we  returne,   then  hang  up  the  Scot. 

'  Let  giving  of  Subsidyes  be  so  delay'd, 
And  at  the  Kings  charges  let  them  ever  be  payd 
Though  many  beleeve  we  come  for  their  good, 
And  therefore  are  loth  we  should  spend  any  blood  : 
When  ere  we  come  here,  you  must  all  to  the  pott, 
Then  too  late  you  will  say,  Lett  us  hang  up  the  Scot/ 

C.  H.  FIRTH. 

1  Frances   Coke,    wife    of  John  Villiers,    Viscount    Purbeck.     See    Gardiner's 
History  of  England,  viii.  144. 

2  Strafford. 

8  An  allusion  to  the  flight  of  Lord  Keeper  Finch,  Dec.   22,   1640. 

s 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 
VII.1 

WRITERS  on  the  subject  of  Mary's  portraits  usually  leave 
a  gap  between  the  Sheffield  type  of  1578,  and  the 
Memorial  Portraits,  executed  posthumously,  after  the  death  of 
the  Queen.  But  it  is,  we  think,  quite  certain  that  portraits  of 
Mary  were  done  in  the  latest  years  of  her  life,  when,  as  shown 
in  the  Blairs  College  Memorial  Portrait,  her  face  had  grown 
older  and  stouter  than  it  was  in  1578.  As  proof  of  this, 
in  her  book,  The  Tragedy  of  Fotheringay  (p.  244),  Mrs. 
Maxwell  Scott  photographs  a  reliquary,  inscribed  M.A.R. 
(Maria  Anglic  Regina)  in  the  possession  of  Lady  Milford, 
with  a  miniature  of  Mary.  She  wears  not  a  white  but  a  black 
cap,  black  ear-rings,  and,  round  the  neck  and  on  the  breast, 
a  profusion  of  black  ornaments  which  had  come  into  fashion, 
as  several  contemporary  likenesses  of  ladies  prove.  The  hair 
and  eyes  are  brown,  the  eyebrows  are  very  faintly  indi- 
cated (they  are  much  more  distinct  in  the  Sheffield  type)  ; 
the  nose  is  long  and  low,  as  in  the  Morton  portrait, 
not  as  in  Oudry's,  a  beak.  This  miniature  is  probably  a  very 
good  likeness  of  the  Queen  at  about  forty  years  of  age,  the 
face  is  decidedly  plump.  The  little  portrait's  exactness  is 
fully  corroborated  by  the  description  of  Winkfield,  an  eye- 
witness of  her  execution.  '  Her  face  full  and  flat,  double- 
chinned,  and  hazel-eyed.'2  The  miniature  varies  much  from 
the  Oudry  and  Morton  types,  in  which  the  face  is  thin  and 
long,  and  younger  than  in  Lady  Milford's  reliquary.  One 
is  led  to  think  the  Queen  sat  to  an  artist  about  1583-86. 

Mrs.   Maxwell    Scott   remarks   that   *  the   date   can  be   fixed 
as  being   not   later    than    1622';    it    belonged    to    the    Darrell 

1  See  Scottish  Historical  Review,  vol.  iii.  p.  129. 

2  MS.    in    the    Bodleian,    numbered    E.    Muses,    178,    cited    by    Mr.    Cust 
(pp.  99,  100),  from  Oxford  Historical  Society's  Publications,  vol.  xxxiv.    1897. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      275 

family,  and  '  a  Darrell  was  appointed  to  be  Queen  Mary's 
steward  during  her  captivity.'  Mr.  Marmaduke  Darrell 
attended  Mary's  funeral  at  Peterborough.  Among  the  relics 
in  the  reliquary  are  those  of  '  Blessed  Campion,'  Walpole, 
and  Garnet. 

I  am  disposed  to  consider  this  the  best  portrait  of  Mary 
in  her  last  years.  By  a  happy  chance,  I  had  no  sooner  recorded 
this  venture  at  an  opinion  than  I  found  it  corroborated  by  Dr. 
Williamson.  He  observed  a  similar  miniature,  not  quite  so  well 
executed,  I  think,  in  the  Rijks  Museum.  This  piece  he  calls 
'  really  one  of  the  most  important  miniatures  of  Mary  Stuart 
that  have  been  preserved.' l  A  miniature  of  this  period,  in  the 
hands  of  Jane  Kennedy  or  Elizabeth  Curie,  at  Antwerp,  may 
be  the  source  of  the  Memorial  Portrait  at  Blairs  College.  The 
miniature  once  in  the  possession  of  Lady  Orde,  and  now  the 
property  of  Captain  Edwards  Heathcote,  is  of  the  same  order. 
It  has  been  attributed  to  Hilliard,  and  the  curious  story  of 
its  provenance  may  seem  to  justify  the  attribution.2  The  anecdote 
is  given  by  Mr.  Foster,  from  a  narrative  dictated  by  a  lady 
of  the  Edwards  family.  It  is  said  that,  about  1801,  a  Mr. 
Edwards  did  a  piece  of  diplomatic  service  for  the  British  Govern- 
ment. He  refused  a  sum  of  £500  as  reward,  he  had  only 
acted,  he  said,  out  of  private  friendship  for  Lord  Spencer.  That 
nobleman  then  presented  Mr.  Edwards  with  nine  miniatures, 
found  in  France,  and  once  in  the  possession  of  the  Royal 
House  of  Stuart.  Among  the  nine  were  Henry,  Prince  of  Wales, 
his  brother  Charles,  and  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  all  by  Hilliard. 
Now  this  miniature  is  that  once  owned  by  the  Dowager  Lady 
Orde,  and  published  by  Mr.  Cust  (Plate  xvi).  It  is  larger, 
and  shows  more  of  the  dress  and  figure  than  Lady  Milford's 
miniature.  The  cap  is  white,  not  black,  the  eyebrows  are  much 
more  marked,  the  nose  is  slightly  aquiline,  but  the  chin  is 
double.  Probably  Lady  Milford's  is  the  better  likeness ;  it 
corresponds  better  to  the  Rijks  Museum  miniature.  These 
three  portraits  are  all  later,  I  think,  by  several  years,  than  the 
Sheffield  type  of  1578.  They  represent  an  older  and  stouter 
woman.  They  lead  up  naturally  to  the  Mary  of  the  Blairs 
College  posthumous  portrait,  bequeathed  by  Elizabeth  Curie,  one 
of  the  Queen's  faithful  attendants,  to  the  Scots  College  at  Douai. 
Elizabeth  also  bequeathed  a  miniature  of  her  mistress  in  a  jewel 
of  gold,  given  to  her  by  Mary  '  on  the  morning  of  her  martyr- 

1  Williamson,  i,  49,  Plate  xlvii,  No.  8.  2  Williamson,  vol.  i.  31,  32, 


276  Andrew  Lang 

dom.' 1  Is  it  too  rash  to  conjecture  that  this  miniature  was 
of  the  Milford  type,  and  was  used  as  a  model  by  the  artist 
who  wrought  the  Memorial  portrait  ?  Mention,  however,  is 
also  made  of  miniatures  of  the  Queen's  mother,  husband,  and 
of  herself,  in  the  possession  of  Elizabeth  Curie  :  this  miniature 
of  Mary  would  doubtless  represent  her  in  her  youth. 

In  this  connection  we  must  compare  a  miniature  in  the 
Museo  Nazionale  of  Florence,  reproduced,  but  not  commented 
on  by  Mr.  Cust.2  The  Queen  wears  a  black  cap,  her  hair  looks 
grey,  she  has  pearl  ear-rings,  and  a  black  dress  with  pearls  in 
patterns,  no  religious  emblems,  and  a  rather  small  laced  ruff. 
The  face  is  flat  and  fat,  the  eyes  deep  sunken  in  the  flesh,  the 
long  low  nose  is  bulbous  at  the  tip,  '  an  enemy  has  done  this 
thing,'  but  it  seems  attached  to  the  Milford  type. 

We  have  now  tried  to  unravel  the  history  of  the  early  French 
portraits  and  miniatures  (1552-1561),  of  the  Sheffield  type  of 
portrait  (1578),  of  the  Morton  portrait,  and  of  the  miniatures 
of  the  Queen's  latest  years. 

We  have  next  to  ask  whether  there  is  any  likeness  done  during 
Mary's  reign  in  Scotland  (1561-1567)  or  any  copy  of  such  a 
likeness  ?  That  Scotland  had  no  native  portrait  painters 
about  this  time,  is  more  than  probable.  In  1682  there 
was  no  painter  in  Scotland!  In  1581  we  hear  of  '  Adrianc 
Vaensoun,  Fleming,  painter,'  who  executed  for  Beza  the 
Reformer,  two  likenesses ;  the  names  of  the  sitters  are  not 
given  in  the  Treasurer's  Accounts.  But,  on  November  13,  1579, 
the  tutor  of  James  VI.,  Peter  Young,  answered  Beza's  request 
for  a  portrait  of  Knox,  to  be  reproduced  in  Beza's  Icones  (pub- 
lished in  1580).  The  Scots,  says  Young,  entirely  neglect  the 
art  of  portrait  painting.  There  is  no  portrait  of  Knox.  But 
there  are  painters  of  a  sort,  whom  Young  has  approached  ; 
meanwhile  he  sends  a  description  of  Knox,  done  by  himself  from 
memory.  He  adds  in  a  postscript,  that  a  painter  has  just 
brought  to  him  heads  of  Knox  and  Buchanan  on  one  panel. 

If  it  was  Vaensoun  who  executed  these  likenesses  in  1579' 
he  was  not  paid  till  June  I58i.3  That  a  Fleming  was  employed 
suggests  the  absence  of  native  talent  in  Scotland.  Mr.  Cust 
points  out  to  me  that  the  Duke  of  Devonshire  possesses  at 
Hardwick,  an  excellent  full  length  of  James  VI.,  dated  1574, 

1Cust,  p.  103.  2  Cust,  Plate  vi,  No.  2,  p.  40. 

8  Hume  Brown,  John  Knox,  ii.  pp.  320-324.  Beza  also  received,  at  all  events 
he  published  a  portrait  of  James  VI.  Was  that  by  Vaensoun  ? 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      277 

when  the  King  was  aged  eight.  This  must  have  been  done 
in  Scotland  (unless  a  sketch  was  sent  to  France  and  a  picture 
done  from  that),  and  we  may  conjecture  that  the  artist, 
necessarily  a  foreigner,  painted  the  masterly  portrait  of  the 
Regent  Morton,  in  the  possession  of  the  Earl  of  Morton.  An 
even  more  spirited  coloured  sketch  for  this  portrait  exists,  re- 
produced in  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell's  House  of  Douglas.  We 
have  found  no  portrait  of  Mary  done  in  Scotland. 

VIII. 

Mary,  in  Scotland,  could  only  be  painted  by  a  foreigner.  But, 
in  1566-67,  as  we  have  seen,  Mary  may  have  had,  among  her 
valets  de  chambre,  *  Jehan  de  Court,  peintre.'  He  does  not  appear 
among  the  valets  de  chambre  in  a  rough  list  of  July,  1562,  now  in 
the  Bodleian  Library.1  That  list  is  a  household  statement,  like 
another  of  1560,  not  an  Etat  or  complete  catalogus  familiae.  Mr. 
Way  has  pointed  out  an  anecdote  which  raises  a  presumption 
that  Mary  had  a  painter,  necessarily  foreign,  at  her  Court  of 
Holyrood,  in  1565,  when  she  married  Darnley.  A  picture 
representing  the  Queen,  Darnley,  and,  behind  them,  David 
Riccio,  the  unhappy  secretary,  was  sent  to  Cardinal  Guise.  He 
said,  *  What  is  that  little  man  doing  in  that  place  ?  '  and,  later 
(March,  1566),  when  the  news  of  Riccio's  murder  came,  the 
Cardinal  said,  'The  Scots  have  taken  the  little  man  out  of 
the  picture.'  The  authority  for  the  story  is  a  Hawthornden 
manuscript.2 

If  any  portrait  of  Mary  by  Jehan  de  Court  exists,  the  portrait 
exhibited  in  1866  by  the  then  Earl  of  Leven  and  Melville,  and 
photographed  in  Mr.  Foster's  book,  may  be  that  likeness,  or  a 
copy  from  it.  The  history  of  this  picture  is  obscure,  and  there  is 
every  reason  to  suppose  that  it  is  not  an  heirloom  of  these  loyal 
servants  of  Mary,  Sir  Robert,  Sir  James,  and  Sir  Andrew  Mel- 
ville ;  for  the  Melville  family  heirlooms  have  remained  in  the 
possession  of  the  representative  of  the  female  line,  Miss  Cart- 
wright  Melville,  while  the  titles  adhere  to  the  male  line. 

The  painting  (20  inches  by  23)  is  round  in  form  and  is  on 
canvas.  It  was  seen,  and  annotated  upon  (in  MS.),  Mr. 
Cust  says,  by  Sir  George  Scharf,  who  published  nothing  about 
it.  In  a  communication  to  The  Athenaeum  (March  25,  1905) 

1  Privately  printed,  anonymously,  by  Thomas  Thomson,  without  date. 

2  Way,  xv.     Chalmers,  Life  of  Mary,  i.  xv. 


278 


Andrew  Lang 


Mr.  Cust  writes  'the  portrait  was  then  (in  1866,  at  the 
Exhibition  of  National  Portraits  at  South  Kensington)  carefully 
inspected  by  Mr.  George  Scharf  (afterwards  Sir  George 
Scharf,  K.C.B.),  and  his  notes  and  sketches  are  in  the  Library 
of  the  National  Portrait  Gallery.  It  is  clear  from  these  notes 
that  in  Scharf's  opinion  the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait  could 
not  in  any  way  be  accepted  either  as  a  true  portrait  of  Mary 
Stuart  or  as  a  painting  contemporary  with  her  life.  So  decided 
was  Scharf's  opinion  that  I  omitted  the  Leven  and  Melville 
portrait  from  those  worthy  of  serious  consideration  in  the  book 
which  I  myself  published  as  a  contribution  to  the  study  of 
the  authentic  portraits  of  Mary  Stuart.' 

This  was  unfortunate,  for  the  portrait  decidedly  deserved,  and 
has  since  received,  the  study  of  Mr.  Cust.  The  portrait  does 
not  vary,  in  complexion,  features,  expression,  colour  of  hair,  eye- 
brows, and  contour  of  face,  from  the  authentic  early  portraits, 
and  the  medal  of  1558.  Again,  the  face  appears  to  me  to  be 
indubitably  the  face  of  the  Morton  portrait, — younger  by  many 
years,  and  happier  by  half  an  eternity.  Here  as  in  the  early 
miniature  of  the  Rijks  Museum,  we  see  (or  at  least  /  see)  a  Mary, 
not  prettified  in  the  manner  of  the  eighteenth  or  nineteenth 
centuries  (as  in  Hilton's  copy  of  the  Morton  portrait),  yet  with 
charm,  witchery,  the  faintest  of  smiles,  and  a  pleasant  slyness  in 
the  sidelong  glance. 

It  may  be  unseemly  to  differ  from  an  expert  so  distinguished 
as  Sir  George  Scharf,  who  clearly  rejected  the  claims  of  this 
portrait.  But  Sir  George  accepted  *  the  long  pale  face,  pale  red 
lips,  pale  yellow  hair,  and  large  blue  eyes'  of  that  interesting 
picture,  but  impossible  portrait  of  Mary,  the  '  Fraser-Tytler ' 
piece,  in  the  National  Portrait  Gallery.1  He  also  accepted  the 
portrait  with  round  staring  eyes,  black  bonnet,  white  plume, 
and  foolish  expression,'  picked  up  by  the  Prince  Consort,  and 
now  in  Buckingham  Palace.  Mr.  Cust  cannot  here  follow  Sir 
George  Scharf,  and  thinks  that  this  painting  may  have  been  done 
from  a  bad  eighteenth  century  engraving  of  a  drawing  from 
'  an  original  painting '  of  some  person  unnamed.2  The  figure,  as 
in  the  Morton  portrait,  holds  a  laced  handkerchief  in  one  hand. 
The  expression  is  frankly  impossible  in  a  genuine  portrait  of 
Mary,  but  the  jewelled  carcan  round  the  neck  ought  to  be 
examined  to  discover  whether  it  corresponds  with  any  carcan 
catalogued  in  the  Inventories  of  the  Queen's  jewels.  She  does 
1  Cust,  pp.  140-143.  2Cust,  pp.  127-130. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      279 

not  wear  it  in  a  miniature  in  the  Uffizi  at  Florence,  where  she 
does  wear  a  bonnet  and  plume.  Since  we  must  differ  from  Sir 
George  Scharf  as  to  the  Fraser-Tytler  and  Buckingham  Palace 
portraits,  I  am  encouraged  to  differ  from  him  also  about  the 
Leven  and  Melville.  I  regard  it  as  an  original  portrait  of  Mary 
in  youth ;  or  a  copy  of  such  an  original.  Of  course  I  do  not 
pretend  to  be  an  authority  as  to  date  of  execution. 

My  opinion  is  based  on  the  close  resemblance  to  genuine  early 
portraits  ;  on  what  seems  to  me  the  close  resemblance,  allowing 
for  difference  of  age,  to  the  Morton  portrait  :  on  the  witchery  of 
the  expression, — which  Mary  did  possess;  and  on  some  other 
things  which,  from  *  record  evidence,'  we  know  that  she  possessed 
— namely  the  chief  jewels  which  the  subject  wears — in  the  Leven 
and  Melville  portrait. 

As  I  am  to  rely  much  on  the  jewels  for  the  identification  of 
the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait,  a  few  words  must  be  said  on  the 
nature  of  the  evidence.  It  may  be  urged  against  me  that  painters 
are  apt  to  indulge  their  fancy  by  decorating  their  sitters  with 
jewels  which  they  do  not  possess.  A  late  artist,  composing  a 
picture  of  a  Queen,  would  naturally,  it  may  be  said,  stick  fancy 
jewels  all  over  her  person.  To  this  I  must  reply  that  the  artist, 
in  this  case,  adorns  Mary  with  jewels,  which,  as  we  shall  show 
from  documentary  evidence,  she  really  possessed  ;  though  most 
of  them  appear  in  no  other  known  portrait  of  the  Queen. 
Moreover,  the  painters  of  her  day  are  notorious  for  the 
extreme  and  elaborate  minuteness  of  their  painting  of  jewels. 
(See  No.  II.)  In  the  contemporary  likenesses  of  Elizabeth 
of  Austria,  wife  of  Charles  IX.,  of  Louise  of  Lorraine,  of 
Elizabeth  of  France,  wife  of  Philip  II.  of  Spain,  of  Henri  III., 
and  others,  the  jewels  are,  indeed,  all  in  the  same  taste  and 
style,  as  is  natural,  as  those  of  the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait  ; 
but  are  by  no  means  identical  with  them.  It  was  usual  to 
wear  large  stones,  such  as  diamonds,  rubies,  or  sapphires, 
alternating  with  pearls  continuously.  The  pearls  might  be  single, 
or  in  groups  of  two,  three,  four,  or  five,  and  the  fashion  of 
the  settings  varied.  We  see  many  such  belts  of  jewels  in  the 
portraits  of  the  age.  But  I  have  only  noted,  outside  the  Leven 
and  Melville  picture,  one  car  can  of  alternate  diamonds  (?)  and 
couplets  of  pearls,  set  one  above  the  other.  That  carcan  is  worn 
round  the  neck  of  Elizabeth  of  France,  daughter  of  Henri  IX. 
(otherwise  she  is  styled  Isabella  de  Valois),  in  the  Greystoke 
portrait,  and  in  a  later  miniature.  The  setting  is  not  the  same  as 


280  Andrew  Lang 

in  Mary's  carcan,  worn  across  the  breast  in  the  Leven  and  Mel- 
ville portrait.  In  other  contemporary  belts  of  jewels,  in  portraits, 
the  pearls  are  single,  or  in  groups  of  two,  four  or  five. 

Painting  a  prince  or  princess,  a  Court  painter  depicted  the 
actual  well-known  jewels  of  the  subject.  They  were  not  common 
things  ;  the  great  diamond  cross  of  Elizabeth  of  France,  and  of 
Elizabeth  of  Austria,  was  a  treasure  of  the  Crown,  though  smaller 
and  less  costly  crosses  existed.  It  is  not  possible  that  a  painter 
should  accidentally  invent  jewels  known  to  the  Courts  of  France 
and  Scotland  to  have  been  Mary's.  In  the  portraits  of  the  great, 
minute  accuracy  in  depicting  their  princely  ornaments  was  the 
duty,  and  apparently  the  pleasure,  of  the  painter.  But  critics,  as 
a  rule,  do  not  seem  to  have  thought  of  consulting  the  numerous 
extant  Royal  and  noble  inventories  for  descriptions  of  the  actual 
jewels  displayed  in  portraits  of  the  sixteenth  century.1  An 
exception  is  M.  Bapst,  who,  in  his  learned  book  on  'The 
Crown  Jewels  of  France,  frequently  compares  the  descriptions 
in  Inventories  with  the  ornaments  in  portraits  of  their 
owners. 

Now  as  to  the  jewels  which  Mary,  against  the  advice,  it  is 
said,  of  her  uncle,  the  Cardinal  Guise,  insisted  on  bringing  to 
Scotland,  in  1561,  we  have  abundant  information.  In  1815 
Thomas  Thomson  published,  anonymously,  Inventories  and  Other 
Records  of  the  Royal  Wardrobe.  The  original  MSS.  were  then 
in  the  General  Register  House  of  Edinburgh,  one,  of  1556,  was 
in  the  Duke  of  Hamilton's  muniment  room.  In  1863,  Joseph 
Robertson  published  Les  Inventaires  de  la  Royne  d'Escosse,  a 
work  of  remarkable  learning.  He  reprinted  some  of  Thomson's 
papers,  and  others  unknown  to  Thomson,  one  (of  1566)  having 
then  been  but  recently  discovered  in  a  mass  of  old  legal  docu- 
ments. In  the  eighteenth  century  the  MSS.  lay,  with  masses 
of  others  unconsulted,  and  baffling  even  the  tireless  patience 
of  the  historian  Wodrow,  in  a  dark  and  damp  cellar  '  the  laigh 
house  '  of  the  Parliament  House  of  Edinburgh.  They  are  never 
alluded  to  by  Goodall,  or  Dr.  Robertson, — our  best  historians 
of  Mary's  period  during  the  eighteenth  century,  or  by  any 
historians  before  1815,  1863. 

It  does  not  appear  that  Sir  George  Scharf  consulted  the 
Inventories,  which  were  accessible  to  him  in  print.  Queen  Mary, 
in  1560-1567,  had  some  fourteen  tours  or  bordures  de  tourety 

1  See  Hohenzollern  Jahrbuch,  Seidel,  Berlin,  1902,  pp.  84,  85,  90,  for  an 
attempt  to  identify  the  known  jewels  of  Brandenburg  in  pictures  by  Lucas  Cranach. 


PLATE  XII. 


I!Y  FRANCIS  CLOUET. 

The  property  of  the  Earl  of  Leven  and  Melville. 


See  page  277. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      281 

jewelled  frameworks  on  which  was  expanded  the  prodigious 
winged  object  which  then  surrounded  the  fashionable  neck.  It 
is  vain  to  argue  that  such  articles  did  not  '  come  in '  till  a  later 
date,  on  the  evidence  of  other  portraits.  The  inventory  of  1561 
shows  that  Mary  then  possessed  two  tours,  or  tourets^  hung  with 
some  fifty  large  pearls.  These  could  not  be  got  into  smaller  space 
than  they  are  in  the  touret  of  the  Leven  and  the  Melville  portrait.1 

That  ornament,  setting  aside  a  jewel  of  gold,  enamelled  in 
black  and  red  at  the  top  of  the  head,  is  entirely  decorated 
with  pearls  great  and  small.  I  reckon,  at  most,  thirty-eight 
large  pearls,  plus  four  pendant  above  the  brow  ;  and  the  hair 
on  the  right  side  probably  conceals  others.  In  the  records  is 
frequent  mention  of  les  entredeux,  which  are  the  jewels  that 
alternate  in  regular  order  with  those  which  the  scribe  mentions 
first,  and  apparently  thinks  the  more  important.  In  this  tour 
of  the  portrait,  les  entredeux  are  clusters  of  three  round  pearls 
apiece.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  on  the  tour  there  are  ten  or 
eleven  great  pearls  with  no  entredeux  :  the  places  for  les  entredeux 
are  empty,  but  we  see  the  clamps  for  their  attachment.  Why 
should  an  artist  paint  the  ornament  in  this  oddly  imperfect  state, 
if  he  did  not  actually  see  it  ?  The  Inventories  contain  no  record 
of  a  tour  absolutely  identical  with  the  incomplete  object  in  the 
portrait. 

We  cite,  from  the  Inventory  of  1561,  the  description  of 
*  A  thouret  of  pearls  in  which  there  are  thirty-three  pearls  and 
nine  pendants.'2  In  the  Inventory  of  1561-62,  this  tour  seems 
to  have  been  modified  by  the  addition  of  entredeux,  or  alternating 
pearls  :  or  at  least  they  are  now  first  mentioned.  We  read  ca  tour 
of  great  pearls,  of  which  there  are  thirty-three,  and  nine  pendants 
of  pear-shaped  pearls,  and  thirty-three  little  pearls  which  make 
the  entredeux' 3  This  is  not  the  lour  as  seen  in  the  portrait. 

Finally,  in  May  or  June,  1566,  the  Queen  had  an  Inventory 
of  her  jewels  drawn  up,  and  wrote  opposite  each  piece,  in  her 
own  hand,  the  name  of  the  person  to  whom  she  wished  to 
bequeath  it,  if  neither  she  nor  her  expected  child  survived  its 
birth.  The  entry  now  is  { A  tour  garnished  with  thirty-three 
great  pearls,  nine  pendant  pear-shaped  pearls,  and  thirty-four 
pearls,  making  the  entredeux?  This  she  bequeathes  *  To  the 
House  of  Guise.'  None  of  these  three  varying  descriptions 

JFor  touret  see  Laborde,   Glossaire  Frartfaise  du  May  en  Age,  p.   520,   1872. 
2  Robertson,  Inventaires,  p.   10.  3  Ibid.  p.  81. 


282  Andrew  Lang 

corresponds  with  the  tour  in  the  picture.  In  place  of  either 
thirty-three  or  thirty-four  'pearls,'  or  'small  pearls'  as  entredeux, 
I  reckon  only  about  twenty-four  entredeux  of  three  pearls  apiece, 
with  from  nine  to  eleven  vacant  spaces,  empty  of  entredeux,  but 
showing  the  clamps  for  attaching  them. 

Meanwhile  Mary,  in  1561,  had  another  '  thouret  de  grosses 
perles  auquel  il  fen  a  xlix  perks.'1  She  possessed  the  same 
tour  with  forty-nine  great  pearls  in  i $61-62*  She  still  had 
this  in  1566,  when  the  Inventory  records,  ung  autre  thouret 
garny  de  cinquante  grosses  perlesj  while  a  note,  through  which 
a  pen  has  been  drawn,  adds,  senfault  une  perle — '  one  pearl 
missing.'  Thus  there  were,  in  fact,  forty-nine  great  pearls. 
If  we  add  to  the  tour  as  shown  in  the  portrait,  seven 
or  eight  great  pearls,  concealed  by  the  hair  on  the  right  side, 
we  make  a  total  of  forty-nine  or  fifty.  This  would  answer  to 
the  second  tour  of  the  Inventories,  but  no  entredeux  are  men- 
tioned in  the  description  of  that  jewel.  But  entredeux  are  not 
mentioned  in  the  first  description  (1561)  of  the  other  tour. 
Their  presence  was  the  rule  in  the  jewellery  of  the  period.3 
The  absence  of  mention  does  not  prove  the  absence  of  the 
entredeux.  The  argument  is  this :  the  tour  mentioned  first 
certainly  does  not  correspond  to  that  in  the  portrait.  The 
second  tour  does  correspond  in  number  of  great  pearls,  allowing 
for  those  hidden  by  the  hair,  but  it  has  no  mention  of 
entredeux  in  the  Inventories.  But  none  are  mentioned  in  the 
first  tour,  in  the  Inventory  of  1561.  That  tour,  however,  has 
entredeux  in  the  Inventory  of  1561-62.  Therefore  they  were 
either  added,  and  the  same  addition  might  be  made  in  the  second 
tour ;  or,  more  probably,  they  were  merely  not  mentioned  in  the 
note  of  the  Inventory  of  1561,  and  the  same  omission  has 
occurred  in  the  note  on  the  second  tour.  The  tour  of  the 
portrait  is  certainly  incomplete,  lacking  from  nine  to  eleven  entre- 
deux. We  know  from  notes  in  French  on  the  Inventories, 
that  jewels  were  often  altered  ;  portions  of  one  being  taken 
away  and  added  to  another  :  only  pieces  of  some  jewels  remain 
in  some  entries.4 

1  Robertson,  Inventaires,  p.    10.  z  Ibid.  p.   81. 

3  See    the    '  Ermine '    portrait    of   Queen    Elizabeth   at    Hatfield.      Her   tiara 
has,    alternately,    a    large    pear-shaped,    and    two    smaller  round  pearls,    it   does 
not  surround  the  shoulders  in  the  fashion  of  a  tour. 

4  Robertson,    Inventaires,    pp.    11,    62,    81,    82,     97     (two    cases    of  losses    of 
pearls  and  coral  beads  from  a  belt),  98,    100,    114,    195,  201. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary   Stuart      283 

In  these  circumstances  perhaps  it  will  be  admitted  that  the 
tour  of  the  portrait  is  fairly  coincident  with  the  second  descrip- 
tion of  the  tour  in  the  Inventories,  especially  when  we 
remember  that  it  is  in  a  curiously  incomplete  condition. 

My  opinion  is  that  an  artist  would  not  paint  a  jewel  in 
an  incomplete  condition,  as  is  the  tour  in  the  portrait,  unless 
he  saw  it  in  that  state  before  his  eyes.  If  he  followed, 
about  1615-1620,  the  records  in  the  Inventories,  he  would 
paint  exactly  what  was  there  described.  If  the  tour  itself  was 
found  by  James  VI.  among  Elizabeth's  jewels  (she  had 
bought  some  of  Mary's  pearls  in  April-May  1568),  Elizabeth 
might  have  had  incomplete  alterations  made,  and  the  subtle 
archaeological  painter  might  add  the  tour,  as  he  saw  it  in 
this  modified  condition,  to  his  artful  picture  of  Mary  in  youth, 
and  in  her  own  jewels.  In  doing  this  he  would  decline 
from  his  conscientious  purpose  of  representing  the  jewels 
as,  on  the  evidence  of  the  Inventories,  they  actually  were 
in  Mary's  time.  Unluckily,  though  Elizabeth  certainly 
treated  herself  to  Mary's  pearls,  to  the  tune  of  some  £3000, 
she  apparently  did  not  buy  the  bordure  de  tour  with  which  we 
are  concerned.  Nothing  of  the  kind  occurs  in  Elizabeth's 
MS.  Inventories  in  the  British  Museum.  She  bought  *  six 
ropes  of  pearls,  strung  like  beads  on  a  rosary,  and  also  about 
twenty-five  loose  pearls,  still  larger  and  more  beautiful  than 
those  which  are  strung.' x  Her  Inventories  record  a  f  lace ' 
of  twenty-three  great  pearls.  Mary  had  such  a  set,  unmounted, 
of  twenty-three,  but  gave  two  to  her  page.2 

In  the  miniature  of  Mary,  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Windsor 
Castle  (circ.  1558-60),  she  wears  a  rope  of  pearls  round  her 
neck  ;  it  descends  in  a  double  ply  to  her  waist,  and  is  knotted 
round  her  waist.  This  rope  Elizabeth  probably  bought  in 
1568.  It  was  most  improbable  that  Elizabeth  would  purchase 
and  preserve  the  tour — the  mere  rigging  of  the  fashionable  sail 
of  silk.  The  pearls,  if  sold,  would  be  taken  off  the  framework, 
but  I  shall  keep  in  mind  the  off-chance  that  Elizabeth  bought 
the  framework,  when  I  later  offer  a  little  historical  explanation 
of  the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait. 

Mr.  Cust  gives  his  impressions  of  the  Leven  and  Melville 
portrait,  and  offers  suggestions  as  to  its  nature  in  his  letter 
to  The  Athenaeum,  already  cited.  He  writes  :  *  Recently  I  have 

1  Report  of  de  la  Forest  to  Catherine  de  Medici,  Robertson,  Inventaires, 
cxxviii,  Note  3.  2 Robertson,  Inventaires,  p.  n. 


284  Andrew  Lang 

been  corresponding  with  the  reviewer  of  Mr.  Foster's  book 
in  The  Athenaeum,  and  the  interesting  details  which  he  brought 
forward  as  to  the  jewels  worn  by  the  Queen  impelled  me 
to  wish  to  see  with  my  own  eyes  that  which  I  had  before 
taken  upon  Scharfs  word.  By  the  kind  permission  of  the 
Earl  of  Leven  and  Melville  I  have  been  able  to  inspect  the 
portrait  in  question,  in  company  with  a  well-known  expert 
critic  of  pictures.  I  found  myself  in  complete  agreement  with 
Scharfs  opinion  as  to  the  date  of  the  picture,  which  cannot 
be  contemporary,  as  Mr.  Foster  would  suppose,  or  the  work 
of  Jehan  de  Court,  or  another  painter  of  the  French  School, 
as  your  reviewer  would  wish  it  to  be.  The  jewels  do  not 
exactly  tally  with  the  description  given  in  the  inventories, 
but  they  are  sufficiently  alike  to  make  one  suppose  that  the 
Leven  and  Melville  portrait  may  be  either  a  copy  from  an 
older  portrait,  or  a  later  portrait,  made  up  in  the  seventeenth 
century  under  the  direction  of  some  person  who  knew  by 
personal  association  or  by  tradition  the  special  jewels  in  which 
Mary  Stuart  arrayed  herself  in  the  heyday  of  her  beauty  and 
prosperity.  The  portrait  itself  is  carefully  painted  and  the 
work  of  an  expert  artist,  and  differs  from  the  many  fabrica- 
tions which  are  too  often  to  be  met  with.  It  is,  moreover, 
an  undoubted  likeness  of  Mary  Stuart,  though  its  resemblance 
to  the  "  Morton "  portrait  is  not  so  striking  as  your  reviewer 
would  seem  to  make  out.  A  photograph  of  the  Leven  and 
Melville  portrait  was  included  in  the  series  published  by  the 
Science  and  Art  Department  after  the  exhibition  in  1866.  The 
portrait  was  only  acquired  in  recent  days  by  the  ninth  Earl 
of  Leven  and  Melville.' 

Mr.  Cust,  in  this  verdict,  does  not  tell  us  what  '  Scharfs 
opinion  as  to  the  date  of  the  portrait '  may  have  been,  except  that 
he  held  the  work  *  not  contemporary.'  He  does  not  state  his 
reasons  for  being  certain  that  it  '  cannot  be  the  work  of  Jehan  de 
Court,  or  another  painter  of  the  French  School,'  though  so  very 
little  is  known  of  Jehan  de  Court  that  any  additional  information 
would  be  welcome.  As  to  the  jewels  *  not  tallying  exactly  with 
the  description  given  in  the  inventories,'  I  think  that  in  the 
circumstances  the  agreement  with  the  second  tour  is  sufficiently 
close. 

To  take  another  example  of  the  jewels  and  to  return  to  the 
Leven  and  Melville  portrait.  Mary,  in  that  work,  wears  across 
her  breast  a  broad  belt  of  large  linked  jewels.  Counting  from  the 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary   Stuart      285 

spectator's  left  hand  there  are  visible,  first,  a  gold  jewel  set  with 
two  large  pearls,  one  above  the  other  :  next,  in  the  belt,  a  table 
ruby  :  then  the  pearls  again  :  then  a  table  diamond :  then  the 
pearls  again  :  then  a  table  ruby,  and  the  pearls  once  more.  This 
jewel  is  described,  I  think,  very  exactly  (except  that  only  part  of 
it,  in  the  portrait,  is  worn,  attached  to  the  dress)  in  an  Inventory 
of  1556  :  a  list  of  the  Royal  jewels  of  Scotland,  sent  to  Mary  by 
the  ex-Regent,  the  Duke  of  Chatelherault.  The  description  is 
*  A  carcan  in  which  there  are  six  rubies,  one  table  of  diamond,  and 
eight  couplets  of  pearls.'1  Mary  is  wearing  only  part  of  the 
jewel,  attached  to  her  bodice,  a  practice  still  not  unusual,  but 
the  description  tallies  exactly.  I  do  not  observe  this  carcan  in 
the  Inventories  of  1560-66.  It  is  not  recorded  there.  It  is 
vain  to  contend  that  a  carcan  is  one  thing,  and  a  bodice  ornament 
another  thing.  M.  Bapst  points  out  that  the  same  jewel  was 
used  indifferently,  either  as  a  band  in  the  hair,  as  a  bodice 
ornament,  or  as  a  carcan^  or  necklace.  (Bapst,  Joyaux,  p.  57.) 
But  there  appears  in  each  of  the  three  Inventories  of  1560-66 
a  similar  carcan,  the  only  difference  being  that,  in  place  of  table 
rubies,  table  diamonds  occur  ;  while  there  is  a  pendant,  a  jewel 
containing  '  a  great  faceted  point  of  diamond.' z  Precisely  such  a 
faceted  diamond,  in  the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait,  is  attached 
as  a  pendant  to  the  centre  of  the  belt  of  table  rubies,  double 
pearls,  and  one  table  diamond. 

Is  it  more  probable  that  Mary  occasionally  wore  this  grosse 
poincle  de  diamant  faille  a  faces^  a  large  faceted  diamond  in  an 
enamelled  jewel,  attached  to  the  part  of  the  carcan  of  table  rubies 
and  double  pearls,  with  one  table  diamond  ;  or  that  a  student 
about  1615-20  'combined  his  information,'  and  attached  the 
pendant  of  1560  to  the  carcan  of  1556  ? 

Still  examining  the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait,  we  observe 
that  the  waist  of  the  dress  is  decorated  with  a  cotoire  consist- 
ing alternately  of  oval  clusters  of  small  pearls,  and  of  small  table 
rubies  set  in  gold.  This  seems  to  be  recorded,  in  the  Inven- 
tory of  1561,  and  never  again,  as  'a  cottouere  garnished  with 
little  tables  of  ruby  and  with  pearls.'  It  was  worn  with  a  belt 
(cincture]  of  the  same,  but  the  portrait  does  not  show  the  cincture : 
it  stops  just  above  the  belt.3  Mary  had  probably  given  away  both 

1  Robertson,  Inventaires,  p.  5.  *  Ibid.  p.  94. 

3  Robertson,  Inventaires,  p.  197.  Cottouere,  Cotoire  is  defined  in  Laborde's 
Glossaire,  as  lacet,  cordonnet,  ornement  de  cou  dispose  en  cordon.  But  Laborde  gives 
examples  of  '•piece  cottouere  de  soye,'  and  deux  aulnes  et  demie  de  cotoere  tannee  et 


286  Andrew  Lang 

cincture  and  cottouere  before  leaving  France  :  they  do  not  appear  in 
her  Scottish  Inventories. 

Again,  pendent  from  the  faceted  diamond  already  described 
is  a  very  large  oval  ruby,  cut  cabochon,  with  a  huge  pendent 
pearl.  I  by  no  means  suggest  that  this  is  *  a  large  ruby  balais, 
a  jour  .  .  .  called  the  Naples  Egg,  to  which  hangs  a  pear- 
shaped  pearl.  Estimated  at  seventy  thousand  crowns.'  Mary 
restored  this  gaud,  a  Crown  jewel  of  France,  to  the  commissioners 
of  Charles  IX.  (February  26,  I56O-6I).1  In  any  case  (and  I 
lay  no  stress  on  the  large  ruby  with  a  pearl  pendent),  the 
cottouere  and  the  ruby,  pearl,  and  single  diamond  carcan, 
suggest  that  the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait  (or,  if  it  be  a  copy, 
its  original)  was  painted  when  Mary  possessed  these  jewels,  that 
is,  before  she  left  for  Scotland  in  August,  1561.  My  argument 
is  cumulative.  The  carcan,  used  as  a  breast  ornament,  is  cer- 
tainly identified,  I  think.  The  tour  is  identified  with  high 
probability.  The  cotoire  contains  the  arrangement  of  table  rubies 
and  pearls  which  Mary  possessed.  These  coincidences  with  the 
Inventories  cannot  be  accidental. 

M.  Dimier,  on  the  other  hand,  informs  me  that  the  costume  of 
the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait  cannot  by  any  means  be  earlier 
than  1572-1574.  On  this  point  I  am  no  authority,  while 
M.  Dimier  is  master  of  the  subject.  The  dress  is  one  with  which 
I  am  unfamiliar.2  The  costume  is  undeniably  one  donned  for 
some  great  courtly  occasion  :  it  is  not  a  dress  for  the  day- 
time, nor  an  ordinary  evening  dress,  but  rather  resembles  that 
of  Elizabeth  of  France  in  the  Greystoke  portrait.  Judging  from 
the  age  of  Elizabeth,  as  shown  in  that  portrait,  namely  about 
fourteen  or  fifteen,  the  work  should  be  of  about  1559.  The 
dressing  of  the  hair  puffed  out  in  fuzzy  fashion  from  the  sides 
of  the  head,  is  first  found  by  M.  Dimier,  in  other  portraits, 
about  1572-1574.  For  all  that  I  know,  the  dressing  of  the 
hair  may  have  been  one  of  the  fancies  of  Mary  Seton.  Since 

bleue  pour  attachez  les  patenostres.  There  is  also  a  great  scented  cottoire  of  musk, 
covered  with  gold,  to  wear  on  the  neck.  (1592.)  M.  Bapst  explains  what 
a  cotoire  really  was.  Originally  it  was  a  piece  of  embroidery  applied  to  a  dress. 
Under  Catherine  de  Medici  a  garniture  of  precious  stones  took  the  place  of 
the  embroidery  in  ladies'  best  frocks,  while  the  embroidery  was  used  in  their 
less  sumptuous  costumes  (Bapst,  p.  14). 

1  Robertson,  Inventaires,  p.    197. 

2  The  ruff  worn  by  Mary  in  the  Leven    and   Melville   portrait,  is    the   ruff 
of  the    Duke   of  Portland's    miniature    of    1558-1560.      The    hair    in    that 
miniature  is  puffed  out. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary   Stuart      287 

1561  at  least,  Mary  wore  perrukes,  in  that  year  her  steward, 
Servais  de  Conde,  notes  that  he  gave  out  linen  to  cover  the 
Queen's  perruke  box.1  In  1568  Sir  Francis  Knollys,  guarding 
Mary  at  Carlisle,  writes  that  Mary  Seton  is  '  the  finest  busker 
of  a  woman's  hair  to  be  seen  in  any  country.  .  .  .  Every 
other  day  she  hath  a  new  device  of  head-dressing  that  setteth 
forth  a  woman  gaily  well.' 

A  lady  who  wore  her  hair,  or  wig,  differently,  every  other  day, 
cannot  be  bound  down  to  any  particular  coiffure. 

Moreover,  from  what  conceivable  motive  should  an  artist, 
in  or  after  1572-1574,  paint,  as  a  girlish  Queen  (that  she  is 
girlish  I  have  no  doubt),  in  costume  of  1572,  a  lady  who  at 
that  moment  was  a  mourning  black-clad  captive  of  from  thirty 
to  thirty-two  ?  Why,  while  representing  jewels  which  the  Queen 
had  long  lost,  should  he  attire  her  hair  as  in  1572-1574?  I 
ask  for  a  working  hypothesis  as  to  what  was  the  sense  of  the 
performance  ? 

If  Mr.  Cust  is  right  in  asserting — with  confidence,  but  without 
giving  his  reasons — that  the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait  cannot 
be  contemporary  or  of  the  French  School,  then,  while  waiting  to 
learn  the  grounds  of  his  opinion,  I  take  the  liberty  to  think  it 
a  good  copy  of  a  contemporary  work.  There  is  a  fascination  in 
the  face,  an  enchantment,  that  seems  equally  unusual  in  a  portrait 
of  the  French  School  of  about  1560,  and  in  any  copy  of  any 
picture  that  ever  was  done  by  any  copyist.  There  is,  as  we  have 
already  stated,  at  Greystoke  what  Mr.  Cust  calls  '  an  interesting 
painting  belonging  to  the  Howard  family  in  which  the  princess  in 
a  red  dress  resembles  Isabella  of  Valois'  (a  sister  of  Mary's  husband, 
the  Dauphin,  later  Francis  II.)  '  rather  than  Mary  Stuart.' 2  The 
dress  is  crimson,  studded  with  pearls,  as  in  the  Leven  and 
Melville  portrait,  and  round  her  neck  the  princess  wears  a  carcan 
of  which  the  double  pearls,  if  not  the  alternating  jewels  (these  are 
table  stones  of  unascertained  species),  answer,  save  in  setting,  to 
the  double  pearls  of  the  Leven  and  Melville  carcan. 

There  is  a  reduced  photogravure  of  this  portrait  in  Mr. 
Foster's  book  (p.  xv.).  In  style  of  jewelry  (the  princess  wears  a 
table  ruby  with  pearl  pendant,  and  a  cross  of  five  table  diamonds 
with  pendant  pearls,  such  as  Queen  Mary  actually  obtained  in 
1561)  the  Greystoke  portrait  is  exactly  contemporary  with  the 
Leven  and  Melville.  As  to  manner  and  style,  the  photographs 
exhibit  no  difference,  whatever  the  originals  may  show.  '  The 

1  Robertson,  Inventaires.  2  Cust,  p.    1 74.. 


288  Andrew  Lang 

work  is  of  the  school  of  Janet,'  says  Mr.  Foster  (p.  26),  and  it  is 
attributed,  without  any  documentary  evidence  adduced,  to  Jehan 
de  Court,  Mary's  painter. 

Will  any  one  call  the  Greystoke  portrait  an  early  seventeenth 
copy  of  a  sixteenth  century  picture,  or  a  '  compilation '  of  the 
seventeenth  century  ? 

Of  the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait,  as  regards  style,  Mr. 
Foster  writes :  *  the  technique  of  the  work  is  first-rate,'  and  he 
*  thinks  that  it  cannot  fail  to  be  admired,  whether  it  be  con- 
temporary or  not.'  He  ventures  the  conjecture  that  {  it  may 
have  been  painted  in  Scotland.'  On  questions  of  date  as 
determined  by  style  and  technique,  in  the  matter  of  portraits 
of  the  late  or  middle  sixteenth  and  early  seventeenth  centuries, 
I  might  have  an  opinion,  indeed,  but  I  would  never  venture 
to  produce  it  where  experts  differ.  To  me,  for  example,  the 
Morton  portrait  of  the  Regent  Morton  (which  nobody 
impeaches),  seems  a  work  more  free,  larger,  and  more  recent 
in  manner  than  the  Morton  portrait  of  Queen  Mary.  Yet 
the  Morton  portrait  of  the  Regent  is  not  supposed  to  be  other 
than  contemporary  with  that  unamiable  statesman,  whom  Mary 
outlived  by  six  years. 

This  very  disputable  question  of  the  determination  of  date 
by  internal  evidence  of  style  1  leave  to  experts,  especially  as 
my  bias  is  to  believe  the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait  to  be 
contemporary,  or  a  good  copy  of  a  contemporary  likeness,  or 
a  painting  from  a  contemporary  drawing  in  crayons.  Mr. 
Cust  remarks,  as  we  have  seen,  that  '  the  portrait  itself  is  care- 
fully painted,  and  the  work  of  an  expert  artist,  and  differs 
from  the  many  fabrications  which  are  too  often  to  be  met 
with.  It  is,  moreover,  an  undoubted  likeness  of  Mary  Stuart,' 
though  Mr.  Cust  does  not  find  the  resemblance  to  the  Morton 
portrait  so  striking  as  I  do.  But  I  am  making  allowance 
for  some  fourteen  years  of  Inferno  upon  earth  !  Such  was 
Mary's  life  from  the  autumn  of  1565  to  1578.  To  myself 
the  likeness  appears  to  be  executed 

'  As  when  a  painter,  poring  on  a  face, 
Divinely  through  all  hindrance  finds  the  man,' 

or  rather  the  woman. 

However,  if  it  be  but  a  copy,  *  the  work  of  an  expert 
artist,'  and  *  an  undoubted  likeness  of  Mary  Stuart,'  then,  at 
last,  we  know  what  the  Queen  was  like  in  her  youth  and  her 
witchery.  I  ask  for  no  more !  I  understand  Mary  Stuart. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      289 

But  take  Mr.  Gust's  alternative  hypothesis  :  '  A  later  portrait, 
made  up  in  the  seventeenth  century  under  the  direction  of 
some  person  who  knew  by  personal  association  or  by  tradition 
the  special  jewels  in  which  Mary  Stuart  arrayed  herself  in  the 
heyday  of  her  beauty  and  prosperity.' 

Tradition,  I  fear,  could  not  convey  to  an  artist,  though 
other  portraits  might,  the  precise  nature  of  the  costume  owned 
by  Mary  about  1560,  1566.  But  suppose  that  some  person 
knew  the  jewels  by  actual  association  with  the  Queen.  Will 
that  theory  march  ?  Who,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  knew 
the  things  worn  by  Mary  some  fifty  years  earlier  ? 

After  Mary's  fall  in  June  1567,  her  jewels  were  scattered  to 
all  the  winds.  In  April-May  1568,  Elizabeth,  as  we  saw, 
bought  from  the  Regent  Moray  (to  whom,  as  her  brother, 
Mary  had  entrusted  her  precious  things  for  safe-keeping)  the 
best  pearls,  ropes  of  pearls,  and  about  twenty-five  loose  ones. 
Many  things  were  pawned  or  sold  by  Kirkcaldy  during  the 
siege  of  Edinburgh  Castle  (1571-73),  others  remained  in  the 
Castle,  and  Morton  scraped  together  what  he  could  for 
James  VI.1  Wrecks  remained  in  Mary's  possession  to  the 
last,  but  some  were  stolen  in  her  captivity  in  1 576.2  In  none 
of  the  lists  drawn  up  after  1566  do  I  find  any  of  the  jewels 
which  decorate  Mary  in  the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait.  By 
1615  few  people,  perhaps  only  Mary  Seton,  in  very  old  age 
abroad,  or  Bothwell's  widow,  the  aged  Countess  of  Sutherland, 
who  had  wedded  *  her  old  true  love,'  Ogilvy  of  Boyne,  would 
remember  the  jewels  of  the  Queen's  youth  (1556-67).  That 
any  artist  or  archaeologist  of  about  1615-20  consulted  a  very 
old  lady  in  the  north,  I  think  to  the  last  degree  improbable. 
I  doubt  if  about  1615,  or  later,  it  was  in  the  human  nature 
of  the  period  to  *  make  up  a  fairly  accurate  likeness '  of  the 
Queen  in  her  youth,  from  such  materials  as  are  known  to  have 
then  existed  in  England,  say  from  the  miniature  in  the  Royal 
collection  at  Windsor  Castle.  As  to  any  painter's  restoring, 
about  1615,  the  jewelry  from  the  MS.  Inventories,  or  from 
the  memories  of  persons  aged  at  least  seventy,  the  proceeding 
is  incompatible  with  the  mental  processes  of  the  period.  Indeed 
nobody  was  likely  to  think  of  doing  such  a  feat  before  1 8  50. 

1  Robertson,  cl.  cli.     Thomson,  pp.   203-273. 

2  Catalogue  of  Library  of  Mr.  Scott  of  Halkshill,  p.  157,  No.   1463   (1905). 
Letters    of  Cecil,    Shrewsbury,    and   Walsingham,   May    1576.       Labanoff,    vii. 
PP-  23i>  2?4- 

X 


290 


Andrew  Lang 


I  will,  however,  state  the  case  in  the  most  favourable  light. 
James  VI.  and  I  revisited  Scotland  in  1617.  It  is  barely  con- 
ceivable that  he  desired  to  have  a  picture  of  '  our  dearest 
mother,  bonny  and  young,  and  in  a'  her  braws'  ;  that  he 
caused  her  Inventories  to  be  hunted  out,  at  Hamilton,  and  in 
the  State  Papers ;  that  he  had  found  among  Elizabeth's  jewels 
a  tour  of  his  mother's  (not  inventoried),  modified  to  the  taste 
of  Elizabeth,1  (though  I  have  stated  the  objections  to  that 
theory),  but  incomplete ;  that  he  placed  all  these  materials, 
with  the  Windsor  miniature,  before  an  artist,  and  that  the 
artist  out  of  these  materials  compiled  the  Leven  and  Melville 
portrait ;  which,  however,  is  not  certainly  mentioned  among 
the  possessions  of  Charles  I.  Let  it  be  added  that  James 
consulted  the  Countess  of  Sutherland,  who,  in  youth  (1566), 
had  married  Bothwell.  All  this  is  not  impossible,  but  James 
was  not  sentimental,  and,  for  obvious  reasons,  was  not  fond 
of  raking  in  the  ashes  of  his  mother's  past.  It  will  be  con- 
ceded, I  think,  that  if  the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait  is  not 
an  original  probably  painted  in  France  about  1560,  it  is  a  very 
good  copy  of  such  an  original,  and  not  an  archaeological 
reconstruction  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

A  word  ought  to  be  said  about  the  jewels  in  the  Greystoke 
portrait.  The  carcan  of  alternate  double  pearls,  one  above 
the  other,  in  a  gold  setting,  and  of  dark  table  cut  stones,  of 
an  undetermined  species,  may  be  the  carcan  of  table  diamonds 
alternating  with  double  pearls,  which  reappears  in  a  miniature 
said  to  represent  Isabella  de  Valois,  daughter  of  Henri  II., 
and  wife  of  Philip  II.  of  Spain.2 '  The  great  cross  of  five 
large  table  diamonds,  (?)  with  a  pendant  pearl  at  each  limb,  and 
at  the  foot,  reminds  us  of  that  cross,  valued  at  50,000  crowns, 
which  was  part  of  the  Crown  jewels  of  France,  and  was  restored 
by  Mary  to  Charles  IX.  on  February  26th,  1561.  But  that 
jewel  also  contained  four  other  diamonds,  three  of  which 
formed  the  foot,  and,  as  far  as  described,  had  but  one  pendant 
pearl.  The  cross  in  the  Greystoke  portrait  has  three  pearls, 
and,  in  place  of  three  small  faceted  diamonds  at  the  base,  has 
a  triangle  of  diamonds.  On  this  cross,  with  its  alterations, 
see  M.  Bapst's  book  on  French  Crown  jewels;  he  reconstructs 

1  In   British    Museum,    MSS.    App.    68.  Book  of  Jewels  in  the  custody  of 
Miss  Mary  Radcliffe,  gentlewoman  of  the  Privy  Chamber  in  July    1587. 

2  Burlington     Fine    Arts    Club    (1559).  Exhibition    of    1885,    plate    xxxi. 
p.   21. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      291 

it  from  various  sources,  including  a  portrait  of  Elizabeth, 
wife  of  Charles  IX.  In  the  Greystoke  portrait  Elizabeth 
wears  in  her  hair  a  belt  of  stones  alternating  with  jewels  of 
four  large  pearls.  This  belt  she  also  wears  in  her  miniature,  in 
the  Book  of  Hours  of  Catherine  de  Medicis. 


IX 

Monsieur  Henri  Bouchot  recognises  as  authentic  portraits  of 
Mary  no  more  than  four.  These  are  the  drawing  of  Mary  in 
her  tenth  year,  in  1552,  the  drawing  of  about  1558,  by  'the 
presumed  Jehan  de  Court,'  the  drawing  in  white  mourning 
(1561)  by  Francois  Clouet  (Janet  II.),  and  the  Windsor 
miniature.  On  the  others,  he  says,  we  need  not  dwell.1 

We  have  ventured  to  exceed  these  narrow  limits,  while 
admitting  that  perhaps  no  other  portrait  of  Mary,  except  the 
Florence,  Amsterdam,  and  Welbeck  miniatures,  with  possibly  one 
or  two  late  miniatures,  has  been  actually  done  direct  from  the 
life,  or  by  the  artist  from  his  own  sketch  in  crayons.  The  precise 
relation  of  the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait  to  work  done  direct 
from  the  life  we  can  only  guess  at,  and  the  same  remark  applies 
to  the  Morton  portrait,  and  the  portraits  of  the  Sheffield  type. 
But  all  of  these  have  some  relationship  to  the  life  :  if  not  the 
rose,  they  have  been  near  the  rose. 

So  much  cannot  be  said  for  the  popular  portraits  of  Mary 
Stuart  that  decorate  the  walls  of  many  a  country  house,  appear  in 
most  of  the  books  about  the  Queen,  and  are  solemnly  shown 
at  Loan  Exhibitions  as  portraits  of  the  Clytaemnestra  of  the 
north.  At  the  Glasgow  Exhibition  of  1901,  out  of  numbers 
972-980,  the  numbers  972,  977,  980  were  variants  of  what  Mr. 
Foster  calls  '  the  Ailsa  type,'  from  the  work  in  the  possession  of 
the  Marquis  of  Ailsa.  There  are  uncounted  examples  of  this 
type  which  was  multiplied  by  John  Medina  (ob.  1796),  the  grand- 
son of  the  more  famous  Sir  John  Medina.  A  very  personable 
girl  appears  in  'a  close  fitting  long  waisted  dress  of  crimson  with 
gold  embroidery,  large  ungraceful  puffs  or  balloons  over  the 
shoulders,  the  hair  enclosed  in  a  little  crimson  and  gold  cap  set 
with  jewels,  and  to  a  string  of  large  pearls  round  her  neck  is 
appended  a  jewelled  cross.'  None  of  the  jewels  is  to  be  identified 

1  Quelquef  Dames,  p.  23. 


292  Andrew  Lang 

in  the  Inventories,  and  Mr.  Way,  whose  description  we  have 
quoted,  says  that  the  portrait  '  attributed  to  Zucchero '  '  presents 
no  appearance  of  being  contemporary  with  the  time  of  Mary.' 
The  Glasgow  catalogue  says  that  the  Marquis  of  Ailsa's 
example  '  has  been  preserved,  it  is  believed,  ever  since  1558  as  an 
heirloom  at  Culzean  Castle.'  I  understand  that  the  Marquis 
also  possesses  a  pearl  necklace,  with  a  cross,  as  in  the  portrait, 
supposed  to  be  a  gift  from  Mary  and  an  important  item  of 
evidence.  The  portrait  is  on  canvas.  I  can  come  to  no  certain 
opinion  of  the  work,  which  I  have  not  had  the  opportunity  of 
seeing.  Miss  Leslie  Melville's  copy,  bought  in  1819,  at  the 
sale  of  Kinross  House,  'is  stated  to  be  the  work  of  Peter 
Pourbus,'  not  of  Zucchero.  Zucchero,  or  Zuccaro,  was  not 
in  England  before  1574.  No  evidence  is  produced  to  prove 
that  he  was  painting  in  Paris  in  1558.  Sir  Robert  Menzies' 
copy  candidly  bears,  on  the  back  of  the  canvas,  '  Jo.  Medina 
pinxit,  1767.' 

This  thoroughly  popular  portrait  is  manifestly  affiliated  to  the 
1  Carleton  portrait,'  a  full  length  of  a  tall  lady  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  who  stands  with  a  window  behind  her,  while  her  right 
hand  rests  on  the  arm  of  a  chair.  A  jewelled  cap  crowns  her 
brown  hair,  her  eyes  are  brown,  her  dress  is  crimson.  I  have  seen 
a  good  specimen  described  as  '  Elizabeth  of  York,  wife  of  Henry 
VII.,'  in  the  window  of  a  picture  dealer's  shop  in  London. 
I  advised  the  tradesman  to  rechristen  it  £  Mary  Stuart,  Queen 
of  Scots.'  Vertue,  the  engraver  (1713),  'put  but  a  doubtsome 
trust '  in  this  portrait,  which  he  engraved  as  the  frontispiece  of 
Jebb's  '  De  Vita  et  Rebus  Gestis  Mariae  Scotorum  Reginae ' 
(1725).  The  engraving  (only  a  half  length)  is  the  source  of 
a  common  country  house  portrait  of  Mary.  Often  the  figure 
holds  two  White  Roses,  as  if  her  Majesty  had  anticipated  the 
birth  of  the  White  Rose  Prince  of  Wales  (James  VIII.  and  III.), 
on  June  10,  1688.  The  Jacobitism  of  the  years  after  the  Forty- 
Five  gave  a  vogue  to  these  copies  in  oil  of  Vertue's  engraving. 
On  the  back  of  the  chair  he  inserted  the  Scottish  thistle  head, 
which  was  not  in  the  original  painting  of  a  lady  unidentified,1  'the 
Carleton  portrait.' 

The  '  Orkney  '  type  of  false  portrait  turns  up,  variously  dis- 
guised, in  many  miniatures,  pictures,  and  engravings,  at  home 
and  abroad.  The  amateur  who  fancies  a  Mary  with  '  a  round  fat 

1  For  details  see  Cust,  pp.  133-136. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      293 

face,  thick  lips,  double  chin,  a  strongly  retrousse  nose,  large  staring 
eyes,  well  marked  eyebrows,  and  flat  smooth  hair,'  to  quote  Mr. 
Gust's  description,  should  select  a  copy  of  the  Orkney  type.  For 
'  all  persons  pining  after  it,'  thousands  of  copies  were  taken  says 
Vertue.  The  original  was  a  miniature  which,  apparently  before 
1710,  a  Duke  of  Hamilton  *  recovered.'  He  had  it  '  amended  or 
repaired  by  L.  Crosse,  who  was  ordered  to  make  it  as  beautiful  as 
he  could  by  the  Duke.' l  There  is  a  copy  of  this  unlucky  work 
of  art  at  Windsor,  by  Bernard  Lens.  He  has  written  on  the 
back  '  By  leave  of  his  Grace  the  Duke  of  Hambleton  (sic)  in 
whose  hands  the  original  is,  taken  out  of  her  strong  box  after  she 
was  beheaded.' 2  The  Duke  who  acted  so  foolishly  was  Beatrix 
Esmond's  Duke  of  Hamilton,  he  who  met  Colonel  Hooke  in 
a  dark  room,  so  as  to  be  able  to  swear  that  he  never  saw  him 
(1707).  I  get  at  this  very  fickle  politician  through  Vertue's 
remark,  '  his  attestation  of  its  being  genuine — latter  part  of  Queen 
Anne's  time — it  took  and  prest  upon  the  public  in  such  an  extra- 
ordinary manner.'  The  Duke,  as  all  readers  of  Esmond  know, 
was  killed  by  Lord  Mohun  in  a  duel,  c  latter  part  of  Queen 
Anne's  time.'  The  present  Duke  possesses  a  silver  casket, 
probably  one  of  the  two  silver  caskets  of  Mary's  which  Hepburn 
of  Bowton  saw  at  Dunbar  in  April-May,  1567*  The  other 
contained  the  signed  *  band '  for  Darnley's  murder.  This  casket 
of  the  Duke's,  then  bearing  Mary  Stuart's  arms,  was  bought  by 
the  Marchioness  of  Douglas,  c  from  a  papist,'  after  1632.  The 
lady  collected  relics  of  Queen  Mary.  Her  eldest  son  married  the 
heiress  of  the  House  of  Hamilton,  this  lady  was  the  mother  of 
the  Duke  who  had  the  miniature  *  made  as  beautiful  as  he  could ' 
by  L.  Crosse,  and  the  chances  are  that  the  Marchioness  of 
Douglas  who  bought  the  silver  casket  also  collected  the  miniature 
which  the  foolish  Duke,  her  grandson,  caused  to  be  altered  by 
L.  Crosse. 

Crowds  of  copies  of  this  *  foolish  fat-faced '  altered  miniature 
were  made  by  the  younger  Bernard  Lens,  in  the  eighteenth 
century  :  a  mezzotint  was  also  done,  and  was  copied  in  oils,  and 
this  is  one  of  the  most  popular  false  portraits.  An  example  of 
this  miniature,  inscribed  Maria  Scotiae  Regina  above  the  head, 
belongs  to  Lady  Edgar,  Toronto,  Canada.  With  miniatures  of 

1  Vertue,  MS.  Add.  British  Museum,  23073,  f.  15,  25.     Quoted  by  Mr.  Cust, 
PP-  137.  138- 

2  Williamson,  p.  43. 

3  See  his  Confession  :  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart,  p.  xvi.  1901. 


294  Andrew  Lang 

James  III.  and  VIII.,  and  Prince  Charles,  it  has  descended  to 
Lady  Edgar  from  her  husband's  ancestor,  Mr.  James  Edgar, 
the  honest,  learned,  and  loyal  secretary  of  the  exiled  Kings, 
from  1740  to  1766.  Lady  Edgar's  example  varies  in  essential 
respects  from  the  Lens  copies  of  the  Hamilton  miniature, 
as  she  informs  me.  I  have  not  seen  it,  and  it  may  be  authentic ; 
it  was  probably  accepted  by  Mary's  latest  descendants  in  the 
male  line. 

Another  common  type  is  called  by  the  Grafinn  Eufemia 
Ballestrem  l  '  Das  Ham  House  Portrait.'  It  is  a  miniature  signed 
by  '  Catherine  da  Costa,'  and  the  Queen  gave  it  to  Mary  Fleming, 
who  married  Maitland  of  Lethington.  Madame  von  Ballestrem 
photographs  a  copy  in  the  Museum  at  Cassel,  a  copy  by  the  hand 
of  an  English  princess.  The  Queen  has  'eyes  as  large  as 
billiard  balls '  and  wears  a  pearled  coif,  an  ear-ring  of  three  pear- 
shaped  pearls,  a  necklet  of  large  round  pearls,  pearls  alternating 
with  rubies  are  on  the  collar  of  her  dress,  which  is  trimmed  with 
white  fur ;  a  large  closed  crown  stands  beside  her. 

The  extreme  pinnacle  of  Marian  myth  is  attained  in  the 
'  traditions '  about  this  miniature  of  Mary  at  Ham  House.  As 
Dr.  Williamson  says,  its  source  is  either  the  Hamilton  miniature, 
beautified  and  made  ridiculous  for  ever  by  Laurence  Crosse, 
about  1707-1710,  or  is  a  mezzotint  done  after  that  grotesque 
effigy.  Thus  the  Ham  House  miniature  cannot  be  earlier  than 
the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century.  It  is  signed  *  Catherine 
da  Costa,'  and  is  inscribed,  says  Dr.  Williamson,  '  Maria  Regina 
Scotland,' — probably  by  Catherine  da  Costa  who  knew  rather 
less  Latin  than  even  Pierre  Oudry. 

Who  was  Catherine  ?  She  has  hitherto  been  claimed  as  a 
seventeenth  century  painter,  whose  only  known  work  is  a  copy 
of  an  eighteenth  century  miniature  !  Dr.  Williamson  writes  : 
1  There  is  another  tradition  as  to  Catherine  da  Costa  which 
must  be  mentioned  here.'  *  It  is  stated  that  amongst  the 
attendants  who  came  over  with  the  Queen'  (1561)  'from 
France  there  was  a  young  catholic  girl  bearing  this  name,  and 
that  she  was  the  author  of  the  picture  in  question.'  If 
Catherine  was  born  in  1540,  she  painted  the  miniature  in  old 
age,  for  she  certainly  did  not  copy  Crosse' s  folly  before,  say, 
1707,  when  she  was  one  hundred  and  sixty  seven  years  of 
age.  Worse  remains ;  '  Catherine  is  said  to  have  painted ' 

1  Maria  Stuatt,  p.  47.     Hamburg,  1889. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      295 

the  beautiful  Welbeck  miniature  of  Mary,  with  the  motto 
Virtutis  Amore^  of  which  we  have  already  written.  If 
Catherine  executed  that  masterpiece,  say  in  1560,  her  style  had 
greatly  altered  when  she  copied  L.  Crosse's  foolish,  fat-faced 
princess,  in  the  eighteenth  century. 

Dr.  Williamson  thinks  Catherine's  piece  '  more  than  a  century 
later'  than  the  Welbeck  relic.  As  he  holds  that  Catherine 
was  probably,  or  possibly,  a  daughter  of  Emanuel  Mendes  da 
Costa,  who  was  writing  books  between  1757  and  1778,  Cather- 
ine's one  known  work  must  be  two  centuries  later  than  the 
Welbeck  miniature  of  about  1560. 

The  Ham  House  Inventory  alleges,  according  to  Dr. 
Williamson,  that  the  Duke  of  Lauderdale  of  the  Restora- 
tion '  inherited '  an  object  which  in  his  day  did  not  exist, 
the  Ham  House  miniature,  '  from  his  ancestor,  Sir  William 
Maitland,  Lord  of  Lethingen?  Under  this  title  we  scarcely 
recognise  William  Maitland,  younger  of  Lethington,  (not 
4  Lethingen' ),  who  was  not  an  ancestor  of  the  Duke  of 
Lauderdale,  but  a  remote  collateral.  '  This  statement,  if 
accurate,  must  either  refer  to  another  miniature  altogether, 
or  else  Catherine  da  Costa  must  have  followed  the  example 
of  Lawrence  Crosse,  and  amended  the  original  portrait  to  corre- 
spond with  the  likeness  accepted  in  her  time,'  that  is  with 
Crosse's  foolish,  fat-faced  lady.  If  the  real  Catherine  da  Costa 
was  painting  about  1780,  all  this  mass  of  myth  has  grown  up 
around  her  and  her  little  piece  of  copyist's  work  with  remarkable 
speed  and  luxuriance.1 

The  makers  of  family  myth  never  ask  whether  there  is  any 
trace  of  a  Catherine  da  Costa  in  any  of  the  Household  Lists 
of  Mary  Stuart.  Certainly  none  is  known  to  me,  and,  if  a 
Catherine  da  Costa  did  come  to  Scotland  in  1561,  she  could 
hardly  be  copying  miniatures  in  1707-1730.  Dr.  Williamson, 
of  course,  is  not  responsible  for  the  legends  which  he  collects, 
the  folklore  of  historical  portraiture.  Fables  of  this  kind  probably 
have  their  germs  in  guesses.  The  Lauderdales  were  of  the 
Lethington  family,  Maitland  of  Lethington  was  Secretary  of 
State  under  Mary  ;  a  late  miniature  of  Mary,  an  eighteenth 
century  concoction,  exists  in  a  Lauderdale  house,  and  somebody 
combines  his  information  and  guesses  that  the  picture  came 
from  Mary  to  her  Secretary  or  his  wife,  and  so  descended, 

1Dr.  Williamson  in  Ham  House,  by  Mrs.  Charles  Roundell,  pp.  144,  145. 
Bell  &  Sons,  1904. 


296  Andrew  Lang 

as  many  of  Lethington's  political  papers  did  descend,  to  the 
Ducal  branch  of  the  house.  Then  the  guess,  contradicted 
as  it  is  by  the  modern  character  of  the  miniature,  becomes  a 
legend,  and  being  a  legend,  is  immortal. 

In  many  versions  of  the  mythical  Mary  after  L.  Crosse's 
concoction,  a  bonnet  and  plume  are  sometimes  substituted  for 
the  coif,  and  the  thing  appears  as  Mary  in  book  illustrations 
of  the  early  nineteenth  century.  Beautifications,  prettified  at 
third  hand,  of  the  Morton  portrait,  in  miniature,  are  also 
common,  dating  from  about  1820,  and  have  often  been  engraved. 
A  comic  example  of  false  portraiture  is  given  by  Mr.  Foster.1 
He  writes  that  a  picture  c  said  to  have  been  brought  from  the 
Kings  closet  at  Versailles  by  Beau  Lauder  of  Carrolside,  a 
well-known  Jacobite  of  his  day,'  (a  Jacobite  unknown  to  me), 
was  exhibited  in  Edinburgh  in  1856.  It  had  the  collar  of 
white  fur,  and  a  crown  on  the  left,  pearls  in  the  hair,  and 
'  took  after '  Mary  Fleming's  Ham  House  miniature  by 
Catherina  da  Costa.  '  Mr.  James  Drummond,  formerly  Curator 
of  the  Royal  Scottish  Academy,  also  exhibited  a  portrait  from  the 
Kings  closet' 

'This,  all  this  was  in  the  golden  year'  1856.  In  1875 
Mr.  Drummond  knew  better.2  He  read  a  paper  on  Scottish 
Historical  Portraits  to  the  Antiquaries,  attributing  most  of  the 
Knoxes  and  Marys  to  the  Medina  who  died  in  1796.  'This 
school  of  manufactory  was  continued  into  the  nineteenth  century.' 
Mr.  David  Roberts,  R.A.,  told  Mr.  Drummond,  that  as  a  boy  he 
was  acquainted  with  one  Robertson,  '  who  lived  by  doing 
portraits  of  Queen  Mary,  Prince  Charles  and  such  like'  Mary 
he  painted  now  in  red,  now  in  black,  now  with  a  veil,  anon 
holding  a  crucifix.  '  And,  if  required,  a  crown  was  introduced 
somewhere  or  other,  a  favourite  inscription  on  the  back  being 
From  the  original  in  the  King  of  France's  closet.'  Now  the  closet 
is  open,  and  we  view  the  skeleton,  feu  Robertson  !  He  did 
4  a  little  judicious  smoking  and  varnishing '  when  an  '  original ' 
was  demanded. 

We  have  described  the  most  popular  types  of  Marys  who 
never  were  Mary,  but  will  remain  Mary  till  the  end  of  time,  in 
family  tradition,  and  in  the  shops  of  dealers  in  engravings, 
and  in  the  illustrations  of  popular  books.  The  Ailsa  type  is 

1  Foster,  p.  2 1 . 

-Proceedings,  Scottish  Society  of  Antiquaries,  vol.  xi.  1870,  pp.  251,  252. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      297 

now  attributed  to  Pourbus,  and  now  to  Zuccaro,  as  taste  and 
fancy  direct,  while  I  have  seen  it  set  down  to  Clouet !  The 
charming  Fraser-Tytler  portrait  of  a  lady  unknown,  now  in 
the  National  Portrait  Gallery,  has  never  got  into  proper  cir- 
culation, nor  has  the  Duke  of  Devonshire's  dainty  coquette 
(published  in  Major  Hume's  Love  Affairs  of  Mary  Stuart\  nor 
the  Tudor  princess  (?)  in  Darnley's  room  at  Holyrood.  It 
is  a  common  trick  to  fake  any  portrait  of  a  lady  of  the  sixteenth 
century  into  a  Mary  Stuart.  Tricks,  of  course,  are  endless,  and 
now  that  attention  has  been  drawn  to  the  genuine  jewels  of  Mary, 
new  portraits,  wearing  specimens  of  these,  may  appeal  to  the 
rich  and  the  inconsiderate. 

There  exists,  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Fraser  Tytler,  a 
little  enamelled  jewel  representing  a  boy  chevying  a  mouse, 
and  this  is  said  to  have  -been  given  to  Mary  by  Francis  II. 
when  Dauphin.  The  illustrated  catalogue  of  the  Stuart  Exhibi- 
tion of  1889  says:  'There  is  a  portrait  of  the  Queen  in  the 
possession  of  Lord  Buchan  in  which  she  is  represented  wearing 
it.'  Unluckily,  Mr.  Cust  makes  no  reference  to  this  very 
interesting  portrait,  authenticated  as  it  is  by  a  jewel  about 
which  there  can  be  no  mistake,  that  is,  if  its  connection  with 
Mary  is  satisfactorily  demonstrated.  The  illustrated  catalogue, 
in  describing  the  very  few  jewels  exhibited  as  relics  of  Mary, 
does  not,  as  a  rule,  advance  any  proof  that  they  ever  were 
in  the  jewel  house  of  the  Queen.  Their  claims  repose  on 
such  phrases  as  ( it  is  traditionally  reported '  that  this  was  the 
case.  There  are,  probably,  several  portraits  in  existence  which 
descend  from  actual  but  lost  likenesses  of  Mary.  Brantome 
mentions  her  costume  a  F Espagnolle  ;  and  this,  writes  Mr.  Cust, 
'  would  be  a  close-fitting  dress,  with  fur  round  the  neck  and 
fur  trimmings  to  the  puffed  sleeves  at  the  shoulders.  .  .  .  There 
are  portraits  purporting  to  represent  Mary  which  show  a 
similar  costume,  and  which  may  possibly  be  traced  back  to 
some  lost  original,  from  which  they  have  drifted  far  astray  in 
process  of  translation.' x  Such  an  one  is  the  Hamilton  miniature 
as  beautified  by  L.  Crosse.  Mr.  Newton-Robinson  also 
possesses  an  old  portrait  of  a  lady,  on  a  small  panel,  which 
might  be  looked  on  as  Mary,  if  we  judged  merely  by  a 
description.  The  subject  has  a  lofty  brow  ;  thin  eyebrows,  wide 
apart  ;  red  brown  eyes,  the  white  of  the  eye  touched  with 

1  Cust,  p.  50. 


298  Andrew  Lang 

blue  ;  a  very  long,  low,  straight  nose,  yellowish  brown  hair  ; 
mouth  and  chin  as  in  the  miniature  in  the  Royal  collection 
at  Windsor.  She  wears  a  cap  studded  with  diamonds  ;  attached 
to  this  are  lappets  apparently  of  wool  in  a  gold  edged  reticulated 
covering,  fastened  beneath  the  chin.  The  dress  has  a  collar 
of  light  grey  fur,  the  same  fur  trims  the  sleeves  at  the  shoulders. 
The  expression  is  hungry,  the  complexion  is  sallow.  The  panel 
is  inscribed  in  very  distinct  raised  letters,  ANO.  DNI.  1562. 
In  letters  much  darker,  and  more  obliterated  we  read  ANO-  AET. 
22.  In  1562  Mary  would  be  twenty,  not  twenty-two,  but 
1540  is  given  as  the  date  of  her  birth  in  Haydn's  Dictionary 
of  Dates.  Thus  the  ANO-  DNI.  1562  may  be  an  ingenious 
but  erroneous  modern  addition,  derived  from  Haydn.  It  is 
an  unlovely  effigy,  but  may  be  related  to  some  portrait  of 
the  Queen  dressed  a  rEspagnolle,  and  is  certainly,  I  think,  of 
the  sixteenth  century. 

I  have  also  been  allowed  to  see  a  curious  portrait  of  Mary 
on  old  panel.  She  wears  a  very  tall  tiara  of  pearls,  table 
rubies,  and  flowers  in  enamel.  The  hair  is  well  painted,  and 
of  the  right  colour,  reddish  brown  or  auburn.  The  face  is 
beautified  in  the  taste  of  the  eighteenth  century  ;  the  eyes 
are  blue  grey  ;  the  nose  long  and  straight,  '  a  Grecian  nose '  ; 
the  little  full  mouth  has  the  arch  of  Cupid's  bow  ;  the  eyebrows 
are  arched  and  well  marked,  the  whole  effect  is  not  unlike 
that  of  the  portrait  of  the  beautiful  Duchess  of  Argyle  (Miss 
Gunning),  the  cheeks  being  rosy,  rounded,  and  prosperous. 
The  striking  peculiarity  is  the  costume,  The  dress  is  dark  green, 
richly  studded  with  round  pearls,  and  across  the  breast,  as  in 
the  Leven  and  Melville  portrait,  the  Queen  wears  a  broad  belt 
of  jewels.  These  consist  of  alternate  double  pearls,  one  pearl 
above  the  other,  and  of  large  table  diamonds,  as  in  the  carcan 
which,  in  1566,  Mary  bequeathed  to  the  House  of  Guise.  From 
the  carcan  depends  a  great  ruby,  with  pearl  pendant.  How 
are  we  to  account  for  the  correctness  of  tiara  and  carcan  ?  The 
tiara  I  do  not  find  in  the  Inventories,  but  it  is  entirely  in  the 
style  of  1560-1570.  Have  we  here  a  beautified  copy,  in 
eighteenth  century  taste,  of  a  genuine  portrait  of  Mary,  or,  as 
in  the  Bodleian  picture,  has  a  portrait  been  painted  over  an  older 
portrait  on  the  old  panel,  retaining  the  correct  jewelry  and 
costume  ?  Possibly  the  face  only  has  been  repainted,  while 
the  tiara,  the  hair,  and  the  dress  and  jewels  have  been  left 
much  as  they  were. 


Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart      299 

This  piece  has  been  explained  as  a  seventeenth  century  *  gallery 
portrait'  of  Elizabeth  of  France,  Queen  of  Philip  II.  But  it 
does  not  resemble  her  in  a  single  particular  :  Elizabeth  had  black 
hair  and  black  eyes,  if  we  may  trust  Brantome  who  knew  her  ;  and 
a  turned-up  nose,  if  we  may  believe  most  of  her  portraits. 

Reviewing  our  results,  and  setting  aside  coins,  posthumous 
memorial  pictures,  and  the  interesting  effigy  on  the  Queen's 
tomb,  we  find  that  the  following  portraits  have  complete  proof  of 
being  contemporary  and  authentic,  or  at  least  are  related  closely 
to  others  which  did  possess  these  qualities : 

1.  The  Chantilly  drawing  of  1552. 

2.  The  Bridal  medal  (1558). 

3.  The  drawing  of  about    1558-1559,  by    'the    presumed 

Jehan  de  Court.'      The  Douce  portrait  in  the  Jones' 
collection,  South  Kensington. 

4.  The  Florentine,  Rijks  Museum,  Medicean  Book  of  Hours, 

and  Welbeck  miniatures.      The  Breslau  wax  medallion. 

5.  The  miniature  in  the  Royal  collection  at  Windsor. 

6.  The  Leven  and  Melville  portrait,  derived,  at  least,  from 

some  work  of  1558-1560. 

7.  In  first  widowhood  (1561),  Janet's  drawing  of  the  Dueil 

Blanc. 

8.  As  derivatives,  Mrs.  Anstruther-Duncan's,  Lord  Leven's, 

and  the  Powis  miniatures,  claiming  to  date  from  1572. 

9.  The  Sheffield  type  of  portrait,  dating  from  1578. 

10.  The  Lesley  medallion,  published  in  1578. 

1 1 .  The  Morton  portrait. 

12.  The  Hilliard  miniature  of  1579  (?). 

13.  Lady  Orde's,  the  Rijks  Museum,  and  Florentine  later 

miniatures  of  circ.  1584. 

All  of  these  present  the  self-same  face  at  various  periods  extend- 
ing over  thirty-four  years  of  a  life  predestined  to  unhappy 
fortunes.  I  must  add  a  line  on  the  Freshfield  portrait. 

This  interesting  portrait  on  panel  was  exhibited  by  Messrs. 
Shepherd,  King  Street,  St.  James's,  in  summer,  1905.  It  was 
bought  by  Messrs.  Shepherd  from  the  representatives  of  a 
gentleman,  deceased,  who,  it  seems,  was  a  descendant  in  the  female 
line  of  Mr.  Andrew,  or  Andrewes,  Sheriff  of  Northamptonshire, 
who,  in  his  official  duty,  was  present  at  Mary's  taking  off  at 
Fotheringay.1  The  family  legend  that  it  was  presented  by  Mary 

iAshmole  MS.   830  1.    18,  Bodleian.     Cf.   Mrs.   Maxwell  Scott's  Tragedy  of 
Fotheringay,  p.  265. 


300      Portraits  and  Jewels  of  Mary  Stuart 

to  the  Sheriff  may  be  discounted,  but  there  is  no  reason  why  Mr. 
Andrewes  should  not  have  procured  the  piece  from  one  of  her 
attendants,  and  the  Queen  certainly  possessed  her  own  portrait, 
as  appears  from  her  latest  inventories  in  Labanoff.  The  face  is 
one  of  more  than  mournful  beauty,  wasted  and  tormented 
but  still  fair.  The  russet  hair,  the  high  brow,  the  nose  and  the 
chin  are  all  in  accordance  with  her  authentic  likenesses.  The 
carnations  are  soft  and  warm  ;  not  improbably  she  used  rouge. 
The  eyebrows,  as  in  the  Morton  portrait,  are  too  dark  and  thick, 
though  here,  too,  she  may  have  c  corrected  natural  beauty.' 
The  eyes  are  larger  and  rounder  than  they  were,  but  are  right  in 
colour,  and  the  mouth  appears  to  have  been  retouched.  The 
ruff  is  not  known  to  me  earlier  than  the  close  of  1578,  when  it 
was  generally  worn  by  persons  of  fashion,  and  probably  the 
piece  represents  the  Queen  as  she  was  in  1579,  before  the  later 
broadening  and  flattening  of  her  face.  She  is  dressed  in  black, 
and  no  jewels  or  religious  emblems  are  visible. 

This  portrait,  a  quarter  length,  is  certainly  among  the  most 
pleasing  extant,  and,  despite  the  faults  noted,  is  convincing  in 
the  expression.  In  1579  Mary  would  wish  to  have  a  portrait  to 
send  to  her  son,  whom  her  secretary,  Nau,  then  attempted  to 
visit,  as  has  been  said.  Beyond  these  facts  we  cannot  go  with 
safety.  The  work,  purchased  by  Mr.  Douglas,  Freshfield,  has 
been  well  photographed  by  the  Autotype  Company,  and  figures 
as  the  frontispiece  of  Mrs.  MacCunn's  Mary  Stuart  (Methuen  & 
Co.,  I905).1 

ANDREW  LANG. 

1 1  find  that,  in  quoting  Mr.  Lionel  Cust,  I  have  never  given  the  full  title  of 
his  book,  which  in  part  is  based  on  notes  left  by  Sir  George  Scharf.  The  title 
is  '  Notes  on  the  Authentic  Portraits  of  Mary  Stuart.' 


James  I.   of  Scotland   and  the  University  of 
St.  Andrews 

A  LTHOUGH  the  main  facts  regarding  the  foundation  of 
AJL  the  University  of  St.  Andrews  have  long  been  generally 
known,  a  good  deal  still  remains  to  be  discovered  as  to  its 
actual  origin  and  early  history.  The  story  of  its  beginning 
was  first  told  by  a  contemporary  writer,1  whose  brief  and 
simple  narrative  was  long  afterwards  transformed  into  one  of 
the  most  picturesque  and  oft-quoted  passages  to  be  met 
with  in  Scottish  history.2  This  well-known  account  of  the 
University's  inauguration  is  quite  satisfactory,  so  far  as  it  goes, 
and  its  terse  and  graphic  language  could  scarcely  be  improved 
upon.  But  it  fails  to  answer  many  of  the  questions  that  arise 
in  the  mind  of  a  serious  inquirer  into  the  genesis  of  so 
venerable  and  illustrious  an  institution.  One  would  like  to 
know,  for  example,  what  special  circumstance,  or  set  of  cir- 
cumstances, led  to  its  foundation  at  that  particular  time;3  who 
started  the  idea  of  founding  it ;  who  took  the  first  step 
towards  its  realisation  ;  what  body  or  bodies  of  men  deliberated 
upon  its  constitution  and  organisation ;  and  what  precisely 
were  the  stages  through  which  the  negotiations  passed  that 
culminated  in  its  erection  and  confirmation.  To  such  questions 

1  Walter  Bower,  Abbot  of  Inchcolm,  in  his  continuation    of  Fordun's  Scoti- 
chronicon,  lib.  xv.  cap.  xxii. :  '  De  fundatione  universitatis  Sancti  Andreae.' 

2  Tytler,  History  of  Scotland,   1864  ed.  vol.  ii.   p.  43. 

3  In   the  absence  of  definite   information,   the   conjecture   may   be    hazarded 
that   the   immediate   cause  of  the   opening  of  a   University  at   St.  Andrews   in 
1410    was    the    action  of  the    Council,   or   Synod,   of  Pisa   in   deposing   Popes 
Gregory  XII.  and   Benedict   XIII.,  and   electing  Alexander  V.,  in    1409.       As 
Scotland  continued  to  adhere  to  Benedict,  Scottish  students  became  schismatics 
in  practically  every  University  they  had  been  accustomed   to   frequent.     Their 
position  was   thenceforth   to   be  as    uncomfortable  in    France  and   elsewhere   as 
it  had  previously  been  in  England.      Hence  the   urgent  need  for  a   University 
at    once    easily    accessible    and    located    within    the    obedience   of   the    Pope   to 
whom  Scotsmen  remained  steadfast. 

301 


302 


j.   Maitland  Anderson 


as  these  written  history  gives  no  definite  answer.  To  the  facts 
recorded  by  Bower,  writers  like  Boece,  Buchanan,  and  Spottis- 
woode  add  practically  nothing.  For  further  insight  one  must 
have  recourse  to  contemporary  documents,  but,  unluckily, 
these  are  not  so  numerous  as  they  might  have  been,  and 
probably  once  were. 

So  far  as  is  known  only  one  original  contemporary  docu- 
ment connected  with  the  founding  of  the  University  is  still  in 
existence.  It  is  one  of  the  six  papal  bulls  granted  by  Peter 
de  Luna,  as  Pope  Benedict  XIII.,  on  2 8th  August,  1413. 
The  five  other  bulls  granted  by  him  on  the  same  date  exist 
in  chartulary  copies  only.1  The  charter  granted  by  Bishop 
Wardlaw  on  28th  February,  1411-12,  has  not  been  preserved, 
but  it  is  quoted  in  extenso  in  the  bull  just  mentioned,  and 
there  are  chartulary  copies  of  it  also.  The  records  of  the 
Faculty  of  Arts  commence  in  1413,  immediately  after  the 
receipt  of  the  papal  confirmation  (ab  initio  studii  Sancti  Andreae 
fundati  et  privilegiati  per  Benedictum  papam\  but  they  make 
no  allusion  to  events  of  earlier  date.  This  may  possibly  have 
been  done  in  the  Acta  Rectorum,  the  earliest  volume  of  which, 
however,  is  lost. 

Bower  states  quite  explicitly  that  the  c  general  study  of  the 
University  in  the  city  of  St.  Andrew  of  Kylrymonth  in 
Scotland  began  in  1410,  after  the  feast  of  Pentecost  [i  ith  May], 
in  the  time  of  Henry  of  Wardlaw,  bishop,  and  of  James  Biset, 
prior.'  As  Bower  had  ample  means  of  knowing  the  facts, 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  general  accuracy  of  his  state- 
ment. It  is  indeed  substantially  confirmed  by  the  charter 
subsequently  granted  by  Bishop  Wardlaw,  who  refers  to  the 
University  as  already  praiseworthily  begun  (jam  laudabiliter 
inchoata)  by  the  Doctors  and  others  to  whom  the  charter  is 
addressed.  Curiously  enough  Bower  is  silent  as  to  who  was 
the  founder  of  the  University.2  He  gives  the  date  of  its 
beginning  and  the  names  of  its  first  teachers ;  he  duly 
chronicles  the  arrival  of  the  papal  bulls  and  the  festivities  that 

1The  bulls  were  twice  printed  by  the  University  Commissioners  of  1826, 
and  may  be  read  in  the  volume  of  '  Evidence '  relating  to  St.  Andrews  pub- 
lished in  1837,  pp.  171-6.  A  facsimile  of  the  one  which  is  still  preserved, 
along  with  a  transcript  and  a  translation,  will  be  found  in  part  ii.  of  the 
National  Manuscripts  of  Scotland. 

-  In  an  earlier  section  of  the  Stotichnn'uon  (lib.  vi.  cap.  xlvii.),  probably 
also  written  by  Bower,  Wardlaw  is  described  as  '  Hie  vir  mansuetus  .  .  .  qui 
in  civitatem  Sancti  Andreae  primus  fundator  Universitatem  introduxit.' 


University  of  St.  Andrews  303 

followed  thereon  ;  but  he  takes  no  notice  of  Bishop  Wardlaw's 
charter.  Wardlaw  and  Biset  are  only  casually  named  as  the 
bishop  and  the  prior  who  happened  to  be  in  office  when  these 
events  happened.  But  Wardlaw,  in  his  charter  of  1411-12, 
claims  to  have  de  facto  instituted  and  founded  the  University, 
and  in  that  document  he  proceeds  to  found  it  over  again 
(ex  abundanti\  with  the  consent  of  his  chapter,  and  to  confer 
upon  it  various  immunities  and  privileges.  The  prior  and 
convent  of  St.  Andrews  likewise  ordained  the  bishop's  con- 
cession of  privileges  to  be  observed  throughout  their  respective 
baronies.  In  the  absence  of  any  other  document,  this  composite 
charter  of  28th  February,  1411-12,  must  be  held  to  be  the 
foundation  charter  of  the  University.  If  any  earlier  writing 
of  a  similar  nature  ever  existed,  no  trace  of  it  can  now  be  found. 
Papal  confirmation  of  the  foundation  being  essential  to 
enable  the  new  University  to  become  effective,  and  especially 
to  confer  degrees  carrying  with  them  the  jus  ubique  docendi, 
Henry  Ogilvy,  a  Master  of  Arts  of  the  University  of  Paris 
and  a  priest  of  the  diocese  of  St.  Andrews,  appears  to  have 
been  despatched  to  the  Court  of  Benedict  XIII.,  the  pope  to 
whom  Scotland  at  that  time  adhered,  to  procure  the  indispens- 
able bull.  He  carried  with  him  the  customary  petition, 
addressed  to  the  pope  in  name  of  the  king  of  Scotland,  and 
the  bishop,  prior,  archdeacon  and  chapter  of  St.  Andrews ; 
and  it  was  in  response  to  it  that  the  six  bulls  already  referred 
to  were  issued.1  For  more  reasons  than  one,  I  have  long  been 
anxious  to  see  the  full  text  of  this  petition,  and  quite  recently 
I  caused  a  search  to  be  made  for  it  in  the  Vatican  archives. 
The  petition  itself  could  not  be  found,  but  the  substance  of 
it  has  been  preserved  in  the  papal  registers  in  a  form  which 
seems  to  indicate  that  nothing  essential  has  been  omitted  and 
that  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  original  have  for  the  most  part 
been  retained.  An  abstract  of  this  document,  in  English,  has 
long  been  at  the  Record  Office  in  London,  and  was  printed 
in  1 896.2  I  have  thought  it  worth  while  to  procure  a  com- 

1  The    issue    of  so    many  bulls    to    the    same  University  on  the  same  day  is 
probably  a  unique  event  in  academical  history.     It   arose   from    the    somewhat 
unusual    form    of  the    petition    and    the    consequent    necessity  of  dealing  with 
some    of   its    clauses    in   separate   documents.     An    almost    parallel    case    is    the 
University  of  Cahors,  which  obtained    an    equal    number    of  bulls    from    Pope 
John  xxii.  in   1332,  but  they  were  not  issued  simultaneously. 

2  Calendar  of  Papal  Registers.     Petitions,  vol.  i.  p.  600. 


304  J.   Maitland  Anderson 

plete  transcript  of  it,  and  append  it  to  this  article  as  a  hitherto 
unpublished  document  of  some  importance  affecting  the  incep- 
tion of  the  University.1 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  movement  to  found  a  Scottish 
University  was  a  national  one.  The  proposal  was  discussed 
not  only  in  the  Chapter  House  at  St.  Andrews  but  also  in 
the  Scottish  Parliament,  and  it  had  received  the  imprimatur  of 
the  Three  Estates,  while  King  James  himself  is  named  as  one 
of  the  petitioners  for  its  confirmation.  The  king,  as  is  well 
known,  was  at  the  time  a  prisoner  in  England  and  so  was 
prevented  from  taking  any  active  part  in  promoting  the  scheme 
in  his  own  country ;  but  he  appears  to  have  been  made 
acquainted  with  it  by  those  who  had  occasional  access  to  him, 
and  to  have  given  it  his  hearty  commendation  and  support. 
Bower  indeed,  in  recounting  James's  many  virtues,  credits  him 
with  carrying  on  a  vigorous  correspondence  on  behalf  of  the 
University,  including  letters  to  the  Pope  on  the  subject  of  its 
privileges.2 

The  various  clauses  of  the  petition  have  been  transferred 
to  one  or  other  of  the  six  papal  bulls,  sometimes  almost  word 
for  word.  But  there  is  one  striking  exception  affecting  a  no 
less  important  office  than  that  of  the  Chancellorship.  According 
to  the  Rev.  C.  J.  Lyon,  cWe  have  still  the  foundation-charter 
of  the  University,  dated  1411,  in  which  the  bishop  fixes  its 
constitution,  settles  its  discipline,  confers  various  privileges  upon 
its  professors  and  members  ;  and  invests  the  government  of  it 
in  the  Rector,  subject  to  an  appeal  to  himself  and  his  successors, 
whom  he  creates  its  perpetual  chancellors.'3 

This  is  rather  a  loose  statement  to  be  made  by  a  historian 
who  had  closely  examined  the  charter  and  relative  bulls  and 
published  summaries  of  them  in  English.  To  refer  to  one 
point  only,  the  word  Chancellor  is  entirely  absent  from  Ward- 
law's  charter,  nor  does  it  occur  once  in  Benedict's  half  dozen 
bulls.  In  the  petition,  the  pope  was  quite  plainly  asked  to 

1  Appendix  A. 

2 '  Ipse  etenim  non  solum  erat  natural!  ingenio  callens,  sed  et  morali 
philosophia  multis  etiam  clarae  scientiae  viris  praeditus  et  praedoctus,  qui  in 
tantum  philosophiam  et  ceteras  artes  liberales  in  regno  suo  introduci  affectans, 
quod,  ad  ipsius  instantiam,  multiplicatis  intercessionibus,  et  diversis  literis 
propria  manu  cancellatis  et  signatis,  cum  tamen  ipse  pro  tune  in  captivitate 
fuerat  detentus,  pro  privilegiis  Universitatis  in  ipso  regno  fiendae  summo 
pontifici  scripsit  et  obtinuit.'  Scotichronicon,  lib.  xvi.  cap.  xxx. 

3  History  of  St.  Andrews,  vol.  i.  p.   203. 


University  of  St.  Andrews  305 

ordain  that  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews  should  preside  over 
the  University  as  Chancellor,  and  that,  with  the  consent  of 
the  Faculties,  he  should  have  power  to  regulate  the  manner 
of  conferring  degrees,  and  to  make  laws  and  regulations  for 
the  government  of  the  University.  But  this  request  is  not 
given  effect  to  in  the  bulls,  and  the  only  passage  in  them 
bearing  upon  the  office  of  Chancellor  (which  is  never  named) 
is  one  ordaining  that  graduands  in  the  different  Faculties  are 
to  be  presented  to  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews,  or  to  his 
vicar-general,  whom  failing,  to  some  other  suitable  and  duly 
accredited  person,  for  their  degrees.  In  drafting  the  principal 
bull  Benedict  adhered  pretty  closely  to  the  phraseology  employed 
by  him  in  the  one  he  had  issued  in  favour  of  Turin  on 
2yth  October,  1404  (which  in  turn  had  been  modelled  on  Urban 
VI.'s  bull  of  2 ist  May,  1388,  in  favour  of  Cologne),  and  so 
avoided  the  formal  appointment  of  a  Chancellor.1 

He  probably  disliked  the  innovation,  and  in  particular  the 
request  to  confer  upon  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews  the  right 
of  taking  part  in  the  general  management  of  the  University, 
and  thus  of  encroaching  upon  the  functions  of  the  Rector.2 
In  other  respects  the  prayer  of  the  petition  was  fully  given 
effect  to,  either  in  the  principal  bull  or  in  the  supplementary 
bulls. 

The    papal    bulls    arrived     in    St.    Andrews    on     Saturday, 

1  It  may  be  noted  that  in  acting  thus    Benedict   simply   followed    the   long- 
established    practice   of  the  papal  chancery.     I  do  not  remember  to  have  seen 
a  foundation  bull  of  the  fourteenth  century  in  which  the   title   of  Chancellor 
was    conferred    upon    any    archbishop,    bishop,   provost,    or   other    ecclesiastical 
dignitary  to  whom  the  power  of  conferring  degrees  was   committed.     On    the 
other   hand,  with   a    few   exceptions,    this  title  was  regularly  conferred  by  the 
papal  bulls  of  the  fifteenth  century.     The    practice  was    probably    inaugurated 
by  Alexander  V.,  who  introduced  the  following   clause   into    his   Bull  of  gth 
September,    1 409,   founding    the    University   of   Leipsic :    *  Et    insuper    dictum 
episcopum    Merseburgensem    existentem  pro  tempore  huiusmodi    studii    cancel- 
larium  auctoritate  prefata  constituimus  et  etiam  deputamus.'     Urkundenbuch  der 
Universlt'dt  Leipzig,  p.  3. 

2  At  Louvain,  for  example,  the  Provost  of  the  Collegiate  Church  of  St.  Peter, 
who  had  been  created  Chancellor  by  Martin  V.  in  1425,  had  no  administrative 
powers.     *  Summum  et  unum  est  Academiae  caput,  seu   Princeps   unus  :    hunc 
Rectorem    appellamus.     Ejus  dignitas  omnino   magna  est.'  ...     *  Secundus    in 
Academia  Honor  est  Cancellarii,  isque  perpetuus.     Eius  officium  est,  titulos  et 
honores  Academicos  Magisterii,  Licentiae,  Doctoratus,  exactis  Studiorum  spatiis, 
auctoritate    Pontificia,    conferre    more    in    Academiis    recepto.      Jurisdictionem 
nullam    exercet ;    habet    vero    in    publicis    consessibus    omnibus    proximum    a 
Rectore  locum.'     Nico/ai  Vemulael  Academia  Lovaniensis,   1 667,  pp.   1 1 ,   19. 


306  J.   Maitland  Anderson 

3rd  February,  141 3-14^  and  were  presented  to  Bishop  Ward- 
law  at  nine  o'clock  on  the  following  morning  in  the  Refectory 
of  the  Priory,  where  they  were  read  in  presence  of  a  solemn 
assembly  of  clergy.  A  religious  service  in  the  Cathedral 
followed,  and  thereafter  amid  much  '  boisterous  enthusiasm/ 
the  University  started  upon  its  career  as  a  fully  privileged 
Studium  Generate. 

The  king  does  not  appear  to  have  been  directly  represented 
on  this  auspicious  occasion,  nor  is  there  any  authentic  record 
of  his  connexion  with  the  University  until  some  time  after  his 
return  to  Scotland.  Notwithstanding  this,  modern  writers  have 
followed  each  other  closely  in  attributing  to  King  James  various 
forms  of  activity  with  respect  to  the  University  and  its  members 
in  the  period  immediately  succeeding  his  coronation  by  Bishop 
Wardlaw,  at  Scone,  on  2ist  May,  1424.  Thus  Dr.  M'Crie, 
writing  in  1819,  says  : 

*  James  I.,  who,  in  recompence  of  his  long  captivity,  had 
received  a  good  education  in  England,  patronised  the  newly- 
erected  University  after  his  return  to  Scotland.  Besides  con- 
firming its  privileges  by  a  royal  charter,  he  assembled  those 
who  had  distinguished  themselves  by  teaching,  and  by  the 
progress  which  they  had  made  in  their  studies,  and  after 
conversing  familiarly  with  them,  and  applauding  their  exertions, 
rewarded  them  according  to  their  merit  with  offices  in  the 
state  or  benefices  in  the  church.'2 

Twenty-four  years  afterwards,  Lyon  had  discovered  some 
additional  particulars  and  was  able  to  expand  this  statement 
a  little,  as  follows  : 

'  One  of  his  first  cares,  after  [his  return],  was  to  sanction 
and  encourage  the  infant  University.  From  the  Continental 
universities  he  invited  many  learned  theologians,  and  particularly, 
it  is  added,  some  Carthusian  monks,  to  assist  in  following  up 
his  undertaking.  The  public  disputations  of  the  students  he 
countenanced  with  his  presence,  and  ordered  that  the  Professors 
should  recommend  none  for  ecclesiastical  preferment  but  such 

1  They    had    thus   been    five   months    on    the   way.      Following   Archbishop 
Spottiswoode,  Dean    Stanley,   Principal    Cunningham,   and   others    have   repre- 
sented these  bulls  as  coming  from  Rome.     But  it  was  only  metaphorically  that 
they  emanated  from  the  Eternal  City.     As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  came   from 
Pefiiscola,  a  rocky  fortress  on  the  east  coast  of  Spain,  to  which   Benedict   had 
retired  after  the  Council  of  Pisa. 

2  Life  of  Andrew  Melville,  vol.  i.  p.  21 7. 


University  of  St.   Andrews  307 

as  were  skilful  in  their  several  faculties,  as  well  as  virtuous  in 
their  lives.  He  likewise  enacted,  that  all  commencing  Masters 
of  Arts  should  swear  to  defend  the  Church  against  her  enemies, 
and  particularly  against  all  adherents  of  the  heretical  sect  then 
denominated  Lollards.'1 

Later  still,  in  1883,  Principal  Shairp,  without  getting  much 
beyond  Lyon,  contrived  to  tell  a  slightly  different  story  to  an 
Oxford  audience  : 

*  But  the  king,  as  soon  as  he  was  restored  to  his  throne, 
made  it,  we  are  told,  one  of  his  earliest  cares  to  resort  with 
his  queen  to  St.  Andrews,  and  lodge  with  Henry  Wardlaw 
in  his  episcopal  residence  in  the  old  sea-fort.  He  visited, 
accompanied  by  the  Bishop,  the  rising  schools,  and  was  present 
at  the  disputations  held  there  by  the  students.  He  did  all  he 
could  to  encourage  the  growth  of  the  university.  He  invited 
from  foreign  universities  many  learned  theologians  to  come 
and  teach  in  the  young  Paedagogium,  and  especially  monks 
of  the  Carthusian  order.  And  he  ordered  the  regents  or 
professors  to  recommend  to  him  for  ecclesiastical  preferment 
none  but  students  of  proved  capacity  and  learning  and  of 
virtuous  life.'2 

There  is  doubtless  a  certain  amount  of  truth  in  some  of  these 
assertions,  which  have  been  gathered  from  Bower,  Boece, 
Buchanan,  and  Spottiswoode.  But  the  statements  of  these 
writers  are  very  general,  and  some  of  them  can  have  no  reference 
to  St.  Andrews  at  all.  There  is  no  documentary  proof  for  any 
of  them  in  the  possession  of  the  University,  nor  indeed  do 
its  records  give  any  indication  of  the  king's  interest  in  its  welfare 
between  1424  and  1432.  It  can,  on  the  other  hand,  be  quite 
clearly  shown  that  Lyon  was  wrong  in  attributing  the  oath 
against  Lollardism  to  King  James.  It  was  as  early  as  6th  June, 
1416,  that  the  Faculty  of  Arts  prescribed  the  form  of  oath 
to  be  taken,  in  the  hands  of  the  Bedellus,  by  those  about  to 
incept.  It  consisted  of  eight  clauses — the  fifth  being  in  these 
terms  : 

c  Item  jurabitis  quod  ecclesiam  defendetis  contra  insultum 
Lollardorum  et  quibuscumque  eorum  secte  adherentibus  pro 
posse  vestro  resistetis.' 

With  Laurence  of  Lindores,  *  inquisitor  of  heretical  pravity,' 

1  Hist-jjj  of  St.  Andrew,  voL  i.  p.  208. 

2  Sketches  in  History  and  Poetry,  pp.  264-5. 


308  J.   Maitland  Anderson 

as  Dean  of  the  Faculty,  and  Robert,  Duke  of  Albany,  as 
Governor  of  the  Kingdom — a  man  who 

*  wes  a  constant  Catholike  ; 
All  Lollard  he  hatyt  and  heretike/1 

it  surely  did  not  require  an  injunction  from  the  exiled  king 
to  stir  up  the  University  to  exact  from  its  graduates  a  solemn 
promise  to  defend  the  faith  of  the  Church. 

All  the  same,  it  may  readily  be  believed  that,  after  his  libera- 
tion, James  was  no  stranger  to  St.  Andrews,  and  that  he  found 
in  its  University  an  institution  worthy  of  his  fostering  care. 
But  it  now  transpires  that  before  long  he  formed  the  opinion 
that  it  was  not  located  in  the  safest  and  most  suitable  place, 
and  that  he  even  went  the  length  of  applying  to  Pope  Martin  V. 
for  permission  to  transfer  it  from  St.  Andrews  to  Perth.  This 
hitherto  unrecorded  fact  is  learned  from  a  papal  missive  of  which 
the  text  is  here  published  for  the  first  time.2  This  application 
was  made  within  two  years  of  the  king's  coronation,  and  he 
seems  to  have  been  alone  responsible  for  it.  Charters  under 
the  great  seal  issued  from  St.  Andrews  in  1426  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  James  was  there  in  January,  February,  April, 
and  July  of  that  year.3  His  views  and  intentions  must  have 
been  known  to  the  officers  of  the  Crown  who  accompanied 
him,  as  well  as  to  Bishop  Wardlaw  and  the  Rector  and  Masters 
of  the  University ;  but  his  letter  to  the  Pope,  like  some  of 
those  earlier  ones  referred  to  by  Bower,  had  been  transmitted 
by  his  own  authority  and  under  his  own  sign  manual. 

Only  two  reasons  were  given  in  the  king's  petition  to  the 
Pope  for  the  removal  of  the  University  from  its  original  site. 
First,  that  St.  Andrews,  being  situated  on  the  sea-coast,  was 
rather  close  to  England,  between  which  country  and  Scotland 
there  were  frequent  wars  and  dissensions;  and  second,  that 
Perth  being  situated  in  the  centre  of  the  Kingdom,  and  having 
a  better  climate  and  a  more  abundant  supply  of  provisions  than 
other  places  in  Scotland,  offered  all  the  advantages  required 
by  those  resorting  to  a  university.  James  had  no  doubt  other 
reasons  for  the  scheme  he  had  in  hand.  Perth  was  still  the 

1Wyntoun,  Book  IX.  chap.  xxvi. 

2  Appendix  B.       I  am  indebted    to    Professor    Enrico    Celani,  of  the  Officio 
Bibliografico  in  Rome,  whom  I   had   employed  to  search  for  the   Petition,  for 
drawing  my  attention  to  the  existence  of  this  important  letter. 

3  Registruffi  Magni  Sigilti,  vol.  ii.  pp.  6-10. 


University  of  St.   Andrews 


3°9 


capital  of  Scotland  and  had  long  been  the  ordinary  meeting-place 
of  Parliaments  and  General  Councils.  James's  first  Parliament 
had  met  there  on  26th  May,  1424,  and  had  been  followed  by 
others  on  i2th  March,  1424-25,  and  nth  March,  1425-26. 
In  the  last  mentioned  year  James  was  also  negotiating  for  the 
foundation  of  a  Carthusian  monastery  at  Perth.  His  aim 
appears  to  have  been  to  make  Perth  the  principal  city  of  his 
Kingdom — the  centre  of  legislation,  religion,  and  learning. 

The  scheme  was  a  bold  one  considering  that  the  University 
had  been  so  recently  founded,  and  that  it  was  located  in  the 
ecclesiastical  metropolis  of  the  country.  But  even  then  it  was 
not  without  precedent.  Almost  at  the  very  same  time  the 
University  of  Turin  had  been  actually  removed  to  Chieri ;  while 
two  centuries  earlier  a  contract  was  prepared  for  transferring 
the  University  of  Padua  to  Vercelli.1  In  one  sense  the  removal 
of  the  University  from  St.  Andrews  to  Perth  would  have  been 
attended  with  no  great  difficulty.  It  was  at  the  time  entirely 
unendowed,  and  had  no  material  possessions  of  any  kind  in  St. 
Andrews,  with  the  exception  of  a  small  building  with  a  narrow 
strip  of  ground  attached,  which  had  been  gifted  to  it  in  1418 
by  a  certain  Robert  of  Montrose  for  the  purpose  of  founding 
a  College  in  honour  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist.  The  public 
meetings  of  the  University  were  held  in  the  different  churches 
and  religious  houses,  and  its  teaching  was  carried  on  in  halls 
or  pedagogies  opened  by  the  various  masters.  The  students 
lived  in  rooms  throughout  the  town  just  as  they  do  now, 
although  the  Faculty  of  Arts  had  favoured  'collegiate'  living 
as  early  as  1414. 

Martin  V.'s  answer  to  the  king's  petition  was  eminently 
discreet  and  cautious.  While  not  unwilling  to  grant  the  royal 
request,  the  Pope  felt  that  he  had  not  sufficient  knowledge 
of  the  circumstances  to  warrant  his  giving  effect  to  the  prayer 
of  the  petition  without  careful  inquiry.  He  accordingly  referred 
the  whole  matter  to  the  Bishops  of  Glasgow  and  Dunblane, 
directing  them  to  examine  diligently  into  the  truth  of  the  state- 
ments set  forth  in  the  petition  and  to  make  certain  that  the 
University  and  its  members  would  be  invested  with  such  royal 
privileges  and  liberties  as  seemed  to  them  to  be  useful  and 
necessary  for  its  favourable  growth  and  preservation.  If  the 
two  bishops  were  able  to  satisfy  themselves  that  the  statements 

1  Rashdall,  The  Universities  of  Europe  in  the  Middle  Ages,  vol.  ii.  pp.  57,  12; 
Scot.  Hist.  Rev.  vol.  iii.  p.  53. 


310  J.   Maitland  Anderson 

were  true,  and  that  Perth  was  in  all  respects  a  suitable  place 
for  a  university,  they  were  empowered,  by  apostolic  authority, 
to  transfer  the  University  of  St.  Andrews  thither,  along  with 
its  masters,  doctors,  and  scholars,  but  in  such  a  manner  and 
under  such  conditions  that  the  University  and  all  connected 
with  it  should  continue  to  enjoy  in  the  town  of  Perth  exactly 
the  same  privileges  and  immunities  that  they  enjoyed  in  the 
city  of  St.  Andrews. 

What  the  two  bishops  did  in  the  matter,  it  is  impossible 
meantime  to  say.1  So  far  as  I  can  discover,  no  further  notice 
of  the  transaction  exists.  The  University  records  that  have 
come  down  to  us  give  no  hint  whatever  that  any  such  proposal 
was  ever  made.  It  was  a  scheme  which  could  not  fail  to  excite 
considerable  opposition,  especially  in  St.  Andrews,  and  if  it  had 
been  persevered  in  some  notice  was  almost  bound  to  have  been 
taken  of  it  in  contemporary  documents.  The  probability  is 
that  the  king  found  that  it  would  be  inexpedient  to  press  the 
matter  and  so  allowed  it  to  drop.  Be  that  as  it  may,  it  probably 
had  the  effect  of  stirring  up  the  University  authorities,  including 
Bishop  Wardlaw  himself,  to  do  something  to  make  its  position 
more  stable  at  St.  Andrews.  Thus  we  find  the  Faculty  of  Arts 
on  9th  March,  1429-30,  voting  forty  shillings  from  its  funds 
towards  the  expenses  of  the  Rector  and  some  other  deputies 
who  had  gone  to  the  Parliament  then  sitting  in  Perth,  to 
endeavour  to  obtain  certain  privileges  for  the  University.  To 
add  dignity  to  their  mission  they  were  also  allowed  to  have  with 
them  the  Faculty  mace.2  Then,  in  the  very  same  month,  Bishop 
Wardlaw,  who  had  so  far  done  nothing  towards  endowing  the 
University,  announced  his  intention  of  handing  over  a  tenement 
situated  beside  the  Chapel  of  St.  John  for  the  purpose  of  erecting 
a  College  for  the  Faculty  of  Arts,  provided  the  Faculty  would 

1  As  *  St.  Andrews  men '  they   were    probably  not   much    in    favour    of  the 
scheme.     John  Cameron,  Provost  of  Lincluden,  who  had  just  been  elected  to 
the  See  of  Glasgow,  is  understood  to  be  the  Johannes  de  Camera  whose  name 
appears  among  the  Bachelors  of  Arts  of  the    University  in    1416,   and   among 
the  Licentiates  in   1419.       He   was   appointed   Official  of  Lothian    by    Bishop 
Wardlaw  in   1422,  and  had  been  at  St.  Andrews,  in   the   capacity   of  Keeper 
of  the  Privy  Seal,  several  times  in   1426.     William  Stephen,    Bishop   of  Dun- 
blane, was  one  of  the  first  Masters  in    the    Faculty   of  Theology   and    Canon 
Law  at  St.  Andrews. 

2  On  2ist  January,   1436-37,  a   further   grant  of  five  merks   was  made   'pro 
expensis  faciendis  per  rectorem    et    ceteros    deputatos    apud    Perth    pro    nostris 
privileges  servandis,'  but  it  is  not  clear  to  what  particular  mission  this  refers. 


University  of  St.  Andrews  311 

make  a  grant  from  its  common  purse  towards  the  construction 
of  the  building.  The  Faculty  cordially  agreed  to  do  so,  and 
several  of  its  members  also  promised  contributions  from  their 
own  resources.  The  charter  of  donation  was  completed  on  pth 
April,  1430,  and  on  the  day  of  infeftment  there  was  much  mutual 
congratulation  and  speech  making,  while  the  ceremony  itself  was 
witnessed  by  the  Bishop  of  Caithness,  the  Rector  of  the  Univer- 
sity, and  a  goodly  company  of  other  dignitaries.  Fully  five 
years  elapsed  before  the  building  was  first  used  as  a  meeting 
place  for  the  Faculty  of  Arts.  It  was  at  first  known  as  the 
*  Magna  Scola  Collegii,'  and  afterwards  as  the  *  Nova  Scola 
Facultatis.' 

Nothing  more  is  recorded  of  the  visit  of  the  deputation  to 
Perth  in  1430,  but  it  may  be  assumed  it  was  not  altogether  in 
vain,  for  by  a  charter  under  the  great  seal,  dated  at  Perth  2Oth 
March,  1431-32,  the  king  took  the  University  and  all  its 
members  under  his  firm  peace,  custody,  defence  and  maintenance, 
and  declared  them  to  be  exempt  from  all  taxations  and  burdens 
of  every  kind  imposed  within  the  Kingdom  of  Scotland.  In 
granting  these  privileges  the  king  expressed  his  ardent  desire 
for  the  welfare  of  the  University  (which  he  called  his  *  beloved 
daughter'),  and  his  earnest  hope  that  it  would  produce  men 
distinguished  for  knowledge,  lofty  counsel,  and  upright  life, 
through  whom  the  orthodox  faith  would  be  defended  and  justice 
and  equity  maintained.  This  was  the  first  of  a  lengthy  series 
of  royal  charters  issued  on  behalf  of  the  University  by  the 
Scottish  sovereigns.  It  was  immediately  followed  by  another 
charter,  also  under  the  great  seal,  dated  at  Perth  3ist  March, 
1432,  confirming  the  privileges  which  had  been  granted  to  the 
University  by  Bishop  Wardlaw.  Among  the  local  witnesses 
to  these  two  charters  were  Bishop  Wardlaw,  Laurence  of  Lin- 
dores,  Rector  of  the  University,  James  Haldenston,  Prior  of 
St.  Andrews,  and  Thomas  Arthur,  Provost  of  St.  Andrews.1 

The  University  had  now  obtained  all  the  patronage  and 
protection  it  required.  Fortified  with  episcopal,  papal,  and 
royal  charters,  its  autonomy  was  complete,  and  it  required  no 
more  help  from  without  except  endowments  and  a  continuous 
supply  of  students.  But  it  was  founded  in  a  turbulent  age, 
and  peace  did  not  always  reign  within  its  borders.  Rival 
pedagogies  had  almost  from  the  first  been  a  source  of  strife 

1  Evidence,  p.   178;  Reg.  Mag.   Sig,  vol.  ii.  p.  46. 


312  J.   Maitland  Anderson 

among  the  masters  and  the  cause  of  insubordination  among 
the  students.  Pecuniary  and  other  purely  mundane  troubles 
likewise  cropped  up  now  and  then :  hence  we  read  in  one  place 
that  de  isto  computo  non  fuit  concordia  inter  dictos  deputatos.  The 
king  no  doubt  knew  all  this,  and  having  taken  the  University 
under  his  royal  protection,  and  conferred  upon  it  every  possible 
privilege,  he  next  tried  to  bring  about  law  and  order  among 
its  members.  On  2ist  November,  1432,  the  Faculty  of  Art& 
met  to  consider  an  *  Appunctamentum '  which  had  been  received 
from  William  de  Foulis,  Keeper  of  the  Privy  Seal,  and  formerly 
one  of  the  first  teachers  in  the  University.  This  decree  had 
been  drawn  up,  or  approved,  by  the  king1  for  transmission  to 
the  Faculty  in  the  expectation  that  it  would  be  accepted  and 
its  injunctions  duly  complied  with.  But  the  Faculty  was  an 
independent  body  and  had  already  declined  to  acknowledge  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  University  in  the  disposal  of  its  revenues. 
The  meeting  evidently  did  not  relish  the  interference  of  the 
king  in  the  internal  affairs  of  the  Faculty,  but  after  deliberation 
a  way  out  of  the  difficulty  was  found.  It  was  resolved  that 
the  *  Appunctamentum '  should  not  be  made  into  a  statute,  but 
that  it  should  have  the  force  of  one,  so  that  it  should  not  be 
kwful  for  any  master  or  scholar  to  infringe  or  disobey  it,  unless 
perchance  it  were  first  of  all  revoked  in  whole  or  in  part.  This 
'  Appunctamentum '  is  a  somewhat  lengthy  document  of  eleven 
clauses.  It  provides,  among  other  things,  that  the  Dean  of 
the  Faculty  be  held  in  becoming  reverence  by  its  members  and 
his  orders  obeyed;  that  the  Dean  should  pay  a  weekly  visit 
to  the  different  pedagogies  and  take  note  of  the  manner  in  which 
they  were  conducted ;  that  the  Dean  should  have  the  assistance 
of  three  of  the  senior  masters  in  the  performance  of  his  duties ; 
that  students  wishing  to  pass  from  one  pedagogy  to  another 
should  give  satisfactory  reasons  before  being  allowed  to  do  so ; 
that  the  masters  and  scholars  of  the  various  pedagogies  should 
frequent  each  other's  weekly  disputations  with  a  view  to  mutual 
intercourse  and  friendship;  and  that  means  should  be  taken 
to  restrain  the  students  from  excesses.2 

With  this  well-meant  endeavour  to  promote  peace  and  concord 
in  the  Faculty  of  Arts,  King  James's  efforts  on  behalf  of  the 
University  appropriately  closed.  At  any  rate  no  other  direct 

1  As  transcribed  into  the  Faculty  Register  it  is  initialled  I.  R. 

2  The    full    text    of   this    document    will  appear   among    the   Acta   Facultath 
Artium,  which  are  at  present  being  prepared  for  publication. 


University  of  St.   Andrews  313 

reference  to  his  connexion  with  the  University  has  been  met 
with  in  contemporary  sources  of  information.  As  already  noted, 
the  University  would  appear  to  have  been  concerned  about  its 
privileges  in  the  beginning  of  1437,  but  by  that  time  the  king's 
tragic  end  was  drawing  near,  and  nothing  more  is  heard  of  the 
matter.  His  interest  in  the  University  probably  never  flagged, 
and  he  may  have  done  more  for  it  than  the  meagre  records 
that  have  survived  might  lead  one  to  suppose.  The  University 
of  St.  Andrews  was  singularly  fortunate  in  its  founders  and 
early  patrons.  Henry  Wardlaw  was  one  of  the  best  of  Scottish 
bishops,  and  James  I.  was  one  of  the  most  cultured  of  Scottish 
kings.  James  Biset,  the  prior,  '  was  like  a  well-grafted  shoot 
of  a  true  vine  that  grew  into  a  choice  tree ' ;  while  Laurence 
of  Lindores,  its  first  Rector,  was  a  churchman  of  outstanding 
ability  and  learning.  Equally  distinguished  for  learning  and 
culture  was  Benedict  XIII.,  who,  as  a  pope,  'failed  through 
intellectual  rather  than  moral  faults.'  It  is  not  surprising 
that  the  University  prospered  and  attracted  students  from  all 
parts  of  the  country  as  well  as  from  all  ranks  of  society.  The 
actual  numbers  have  doubtless  been  greatly  exaggerated,  but  that 
the  University  justified  its  foundation,  even  in  the  early  decades 
of  its  existence,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt. 

The  documents  appended  to  this  article  are  printed  exactly 
in  accordance  with  the  copies  received.  The  transcripts  were 
made  by  Dr.  Vincenzo  Nardoni,  of  the  Vatican  Secret  Archives ; 
they  have  been  carefully  collated  and  are  certified  to  correspond 
in  every  respect  with  the  papal  registers. 

J.  MAITLAND  ANDERSON. 


APPENDIX  A. 

Beatissime  pater  pro  parte  devotorum  filiorum  vestrorum  Jacobi  regis  Scotorum 
illustris,  Henrici  episcopi,  prioris  et  capituli  ac  archidiaconi  Sancti  Andree  exponitur 
S.  V.  quod  cum  ipsi  nuper  de  consilio  et  consensu  ac  communi  tractatu  trium 
statuum  seu  brachiorum  regni  Scotie  pie  devocionis  et  sinceritatis  fidei  fervore 
accensi,  considerantes  quamplura  discrimina  et  pericula  clericis  sue  dictionis  in 
facultatibus  theologie,  juris  canonici,  civilis,  medicine  et  liberalium  artium 
cupientibus  erudiri  propter  viarum  transitum  quotidie  imminere,  ac  guerras 
et  capturas  ipsorum  et  rixas  in  ipsorum  transitu  per  scismaticos  eorum  perfidos 
inimicos  enormiter  perpetrari  ac  etiam  quia  multi  in  regno  predicto  dociles 
existentes  propter  viarum  discrimina  et  expensas  et  onera  supradicta  verentur 
ad  studia  litterarum  accedere  etiam  propter  deffectum  expensarum,  et  in  ipsis 
facultatibus  erudiri,  qui  si  in  regno  predicto  generale  studium  existeret  de  facili 


J.   Maitland  Anderson 


instrui  et  doceri,  et  sic  dicti  regni  inhabitatores  viris  scientiarum  peritis  possent 
luculenter  decorari  in  civitate  Sancti  Andree  ad  hoc  habili  et  ydonea  reputata, 
generale  studium  seu  universitatem  studii  generalis  institui  et  fundari  proponerent, 
auctoritate  sedis  apostolice  mediante.  Et  propterea  rex,  episcopus,  prior, 
capitulum  et  archidiaconus  prelibati  propter  zelum  et  fervorem  ipsius  universi- 
tatis  seu  studii  generalis,  et  ut  clerici  ipsius  regni  cupientes  dictis  facultatibus 
insudare,  et  in  scientiis  proficere  litterarum,  ut  fructum  in  Dei  ecclesia  afferant 
peroptatum,  et  in  ipso  studio  melius  valeant  insistere  seu  vacare,  ipsam  universi- 
tatem vestra  auctoritate  apostolica  fundandam  et  instituendam  ac  studentes 
in  eadem  certis  privilegiis,  immunitatibus  et  libertatibus  immuniendos  atque  dotan- 
dos  ac  a  diversis  oneribus,  collectis,  vigilliis,  muneribus,  tributis  et  exactionibus 
liberandos  ac  bedellis,  scutiferis,  familiaribus  et  servientibus  ac  aliis  dicte 
universitatis  officiariis  privilegia  concedenda  secundum  quod  in  publico  instru- 
mento  sigillis  episcopi  et  capituli  predictorum  munito  plenius  designatur  ad 
S.  V.  occurrunt  humiliter  supplicantes  et  devote  quatenus  E.  S.  sua  benignitate 
apostolica  dictum  studium  cum  singulis  facultatibus  in  dicta  civitate  Sancti 
Andree  designatum  perpetuis  temporibus  duraturum  instituat,  corroboret  et 
confirmet.  Statuentes  ut  episcopus  Sancti  Andree,  qui  pro  tempore  fuerit,  et 
vacante  sede  suus  vicarius  in  spiritualibus  ibidem  presint,  ut  dicti  studii  can- 
cellarius  qui  habeant  circa  regimen  dicti  studii  cum  consensu  facultatum  in 
dicto  studio  degentium,  circa  promovendos  in  eodem  et  alia  que  occurrunt 
ad  regimen  dicti  studii,  laudabiles  ordinaciones,  constitutiones  et  conservationes 
facere  valeant  imponere  et  ordinare.  Item  quod  viri  habiles  ad  dictum  studium 
convolantes  etiam  beneficiati  per  totum  regnum  petita  sui  ordinarii  licentia, 
licet  non  obtenta,  in  prefato  studio  per  decenium  insistere  valeant,  et  fructus 
recipere  suorum  beneficiorum,  elapsoque  decennio  si  in  antedicto  studio  regere 
vellint  in  scollis  publice  legendo  hujusmodi  fructus  in  absentia  percipere  valeant, 
quamdiu  hujusmodi  lecturis  publice  perinsistunt.  Item  quod  rector  dicti  studii 
per  hujusmodi  facultates  assumendus  seu  eligendus,  graduatus  existat  et  infra 
sacros  constitutus.  Item  quod  singuli  studentes  in  dicto  studio  secundum 
ordinationem  sacrorum  canonum  libere  testamentum  condere  valeant  quod  suus 
ordinarius  seu  officialis  quicumque  occasione  prefati  testamenti  aliquid  exigere 
minime  valeant  seu  a  suis  executionem  aliqualiter  vendicare.  Ita  quod  singula 
privillegia  per  episcopum,  priorem,  capitulum  et  archidiaconum  in  publico 
instrumento  designata,  ac  suis  sigillis  roborata,  ad  eorum  instantiam  per  V.  S. 
confirmentur,  et  perpetuis  temporibus  roborentur.  Item  ut  omnia  et  singula 
perpetuis  temporibus  observentur  de  benignitate  ejusdem  sedis  apostolice  dictis 
studentibus  conservatoriam  concedere  dignemini  vestra  de  gratia  ampliori.  Et 
insuper  pro  augmentatione  dicti  studii  inchoandi  quod  bacallarii  seu  licentiati 
in  aliis  studiis  de  presenti  scismaticis  in  dicto  studio  suos  cursos  perficere  valeant 
et  eorum  gradus  recipere.  Juramentis  in  contrarium  prestitis  non  obstantibus 
quibuscumque. 

Fiat  et  instituimus   ac    fundamus,  confirmamus,  statuimus   et  concedimus  ut 
supra  continetur.     L.  S. 

Datum    Paniscole    Dertusensis   diocesis    quinto    kal.    Septembris    anno    deci- 
monono.     Expedita  loco,  die  et  anno  predictis.1 

APPENDIX  B. 

Martinus   etc.  Venerabilibus   fratribus   Glasguensi    et    Dumblanensi    episcopis 
salutem  etc.     In  apostolice  dignitatis  specula  licet  immeriti  constituti  ad  singula 

iv.  Vatic.  Ben.  XIII,  antlp.  Reg.  suppl.  vol.  88,  fol.  197. 


University  of  St.  Andrews  315 

paterne  considerationis  aciem  extendentes  et  actente  prospicientes  quod  per 
litterarum  studia  viri  efficiantur  ydonei  quorum  salutaris  disciplina  Dei  letificat 
civitatem  instruuntur  rudes,  provecti  ad  altiora  concrescunt,  justicia  colitur  tarn 
publica  quam  privata,  inducimur  non  indigne  ut  ad  ea  que  pro  studiorum  hujus- 
modi,  et  illis  insistentium  commodis,  utilitate  et  tranquillitate  oportuna  fore 
conspicimus  efficaces  opem  et  operam  impendamus.  Exhibita  siquidem  nobis 
nuper  pro  parte  carissimi  in  Christo  filii  nostri  Jacobi  regis  Scotorum  illustris 
peticio  continebat  quod  ipse  generale  studium  per  quondam  Petrum  de  Luna 
in  ejus  obedientia  de  qua  partes  ille  tune  erant  nuncupatum  in  civitate  Sancti 
Andree  in  Scocia  fundatum  et  erectum  ad  villam  Sancti  Johannis  Sanctiandree 
diocesis  ipsius  regis  regali  dominio  subiectam  et  in  medio  regni  Scocie  situatam 
turn  propter  guerras  et  discidia  inter  Anglic  cui  ipsa  civitas  propter  maris 
propinquitatem  satis  vicina  existit  ac  predictum  Scocie  regna  frequenter  suscitata, 
turn  etiam  propter  aeris  temperiem  ac  victualium  quorumlibet  copiam  et  opulen- 
tiam  quibus  ipsa  villa  pre  ceteris  dicti  regni  Scocie  locis  habundare  dinoscitur 
pro  commodo  utilitate  et  tranquilitate  ad  studium  hujusmodi  confluencium 
transmutari  atque  transferri  desiderat.  Quare  pro  parte  dicti  regis  nobis  fuit 
humiliter  supplicatum  ut  studium  hujusmodi  de  prefata  civitate  ad  dictam 
dillam  transferre  et  alias  super  hiis  oportune  providere  de  benignitate  apostolica 
vignaremur.  Nos  igitur  de  premissis  certam  noticiam  non  habentes  hujusmodi, 
supplicationibus  inclinati  fraternitati  vestre  de  qua  in  hiis  et  aliis  specialem 
in  Domino  fiduciam  obtinemus  per  apostolica  scripta  committimus  et  mandamus 
quatenus  de  premissis  omnibus  et  eorum  circumstantiis  universis  auctoritate 
nostra  vos  diligenter  informetis  et  inquiratis  diligentius  veritatem,  et  si  per 
informationem  hujusmodi  ea  vera  esse,  dictamque  villam  aeris  temperie  refertam, 
victualibus  opulentam  ac  pro  hujusmodi  studio  alias  aptam,  fertilem  et  accom- 
modam  fore  reppereritis  ipseque  rex  studium  ipsum  et  ad  illud  pro  tempore 
confluentes  illique  insistentes  suis  regiis  privilegiis  et  libertatibus  decorare  voluerit 
postquam  rex  ipse  rectori  et  scolaribus  in  dicto  studio  pro  tempore  residentibus 
oportuna  privilegia  et  libertates  que  vobis  pro  felici  incremento  et  conservacione 
dicti  studii  utilia  et  necessaria  videbuntur  concesserit,  super  quibus  omnibus 
vestras  conscientias  oneramus  dictum  studium  de  prefata  civitate  ad  dictam 
villam  auctoritate  apostolica  transferatis  ac  una  cum  universitate  magistris, 
doctoribus  et  scollaribus  sub  illis  modis,  formis,  clausulis  et  conditionibus  quibus 
generale  studium  in  dicta  civitate  institutum  fuit  et  erectum  in  ipsa  villa  eadem 
auctoritate  instituatis  et  etiam  erigatis.  Ita  quod  de  cetero  in  ipsa  villa  generale 
in  facultate  qualibet  prout  hactenus  in  dicta  civitate  fuit  sit  studium  illudque 
ibidem  perpetuis  temporibus  vigeat  et  observetur,  quodque  universitas,  magistri, 
doctores  et  alii  scolares  qui  in  illo  pro  tempore  residebunt,  postquam  ad  prefatam 
villam  translatum  fuerit,  ut  prefertur,  omnibus  et  singulis  privilegiis,  exemptioni- 
bus,  libertatibus,  franchisiis  et  indultis  tarn  apostolica  quam  ordinaria  auctoritate 
ac  per  ipsum  regem  et  predecessores  suos  aut  alias  quovis  modo  eis  concessis, 
quibus  in  prefato  studio  in  dicta  civitate  gaudent  et  potiuntur  de  present! 
ex  tune  etiam  in  dicta  villa  uti  valeant  pariter  et  gaudere.  Non  obstantibus 
constitutionibus  et  ordinationibus  apostolicis  ac  statutis  et  consuetudinibus  dicti 
studii,  juramento,  confirmatione  apostolica  vel  quacunque  firmitate  alia  robo- 
ratis,  ceterisque  contrariis  quibuscumque.  Datum  Genezani  Penestrine  diocesis 
kal.  Augusti  anno  nono.1 

1  Archiv.  Vatic.  Reg.  Lateranen.  Mart.  V.  an.  IX.  vol.  260,  fol.  146". 


The  Early  History  of  the  Scots  Darien 
Company 

ORGANISATION   IN   LONDON* 

THE  London  merchants  who  had  sent  Paterson's  draft  to  Scot- 
land anxiously  awaited  news  of  the  passage  of  the  Act.  They 
felt  fairly  confident,  nevertheless,  that  it  would  go  through  with 
slight  modification,  and  went  so  far  as  to  engage  a  secretary  for 
the  Company  that  was  still  in  embryo.1  Roderick  Mackenzie, 
scrivener,  had  just  passed  his  thirtieth  year.  Faithful  to  his 
employers,  and  extremely  loyal  to  the  Company,  he  continued  to 
serve  as  its  secretary  until  its  dissolution.2 

As  soon  as  the  welcome  news  arrived,  a  correspondence  began 
between  William  Paterson  and  the  Lord  Provost  of  Edinburgh, 
which  is  of  great  interest  as  showing  the  former's  attitude  of 
mind,  and  the  dilatory  methods  of  the  Edinburgh  patentees. 
On  the  4th  of  July,  1695,  he  wrote  expressing  his  belief  in  the 
great  importance  of  their  undertaking,  which  nothing  but  pru- 
dent management  could  bring  to  a  successful  issue.  He 
cautions  them  that  the  principal  designs  were  only  to  be  dis- 
closed as  they  were  executed.  The  latter  part  of  October  is 
suggested  as  a  time  for  the  first  meeting  of  the  patentees.  The 
London  promoters  suggested  a  capital  stock  of  360,000  pounds. 
They  thought  also  that  subscriptions  ought  to  be  canvassed  for. 
Here  was  the  method  suggested :  *  As  for  reasons  we  ought  to 
give  none  but  that  it  is  a  fund  for  the  African  and  Indian  Com- 
pany, for  if  we  are  not  able  to  raise  the  fund  by  our  reputation, 
we  shall  hardly  do  it  by  our  reasons.'  3  The  resemblance  to  cer- 

*  See  Scottish  Historical  Review,  vol.  iii.  p.  210,  for  the  earlier  stages  of  the 
History  of  the  Scots  Darien  Company. 

1  State  ofMt.  Paterson's  Claim  upon  the  Equivalent,  1712,  p.  5. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  4-6. 

•Letter  from  William  Paterson  to  the  Lord  Provost  of  Edinburgh,  Dar.  Pap.  3. 

316 


Early  History  of  Scots  Darien  Company    317 

tain  modern  companies  that  have  been  floated  on  the  reputa- 
tion of  the  promoters  is  very  marked.  Satisfaction  is  expressed 
with  the  choice  of  patentees  in  Edinburgh.  The  general  tone 
of  the  letter  is  hopeful  and  extremely  tactful,  but  it  is  interesting 
to  note  this  premonition  of  the  evil  that  was  to  come. 

Five  days  later  he  wrote  again,  urging  that  as  great  a  number 
as  possible  of  the  patentees  should  meet  in  London  to  settle  the 
constitution  of  the  Company.  Evidently  the  Scots  promoters 
wished  the  first  meeting  to  be  in  Edinburgh ;  for  Paterson  says : 

*  It's  needful  the  first  meeting  should  be  in  London,  because 
without  the  advice  and  assistance  of  some  gentlemen  here  it  will 
not  be  possible  to  lay  the  foundation  as  it  ought,   either   to 
counsel  or  money.'4     Fears  are  expressed  that  the  Parliament  of 
England  might   take  unfavourable  notice  of  the  Company  in 
the  ensuing  Session,  which  was  expected  shortly. 

The  English  Parliament  was  not  sitting  at  the  time  of  the 
passage  of  the  Act,  and  in  fact  was  not  to  meet  until  the  latter 
part  of  November.  In  the  meantime  much  might  be  done,  and 
the  Company  fairly  launched  before  it  was  interfered  with  by 
the  powerful  chartered  companies  that  had  Parliamentary  influ- 
ence. The  London  promoters  however  had  not  realised  how 
unbusinesslike  their  Edinburgh  colleagues  could  be.  The  Scots 
were  so  patriotic  and  felt  that  they  had  already  accomplished  so 
much  by  securing  the  passage  of  the  Act  that  they  were  in  no 
haste  to  acknowledge  the  leadership  of  the  London  patentees,  and 
in  fact  were  in  no  haste  to  do  anything.  The  opportunities  which 
the  Act  gave  for  establishing  a  large  trade  were  clearly  seen  in 
London,  together  with  the  necessity  for  engaging  '  some  of  the 
best  heads  and  purses  for  trade  in  Europe  therein.'  5  Opposition 
from  the  English  and  Dutch  companies  was  expected,  which  was 
another  reason  for  keeping  the  design  secret. 

Paterson  continued  to  urge  the  Scots  to  make  no  distinction 
of  parties  in  this  great  undertaking,  but  if  a  man  were  a  member 
of  the  Company,  to  look  upon  him  as  of  the  same  interest 
as  they,  no  matter  of  what  nation  or  religion  he  might  be.  He 
knew  the  habits  of  his  countrymen,  and  foresaw  that  very  dis- 
union and  bad  management  which  eventually  brought  the  under- 
taking to  grief.  In  fact,  he  is  almost  prophetic  when  he  ^writes  : 

*  We  may  be  sure,  should  we  only  settle  some  little  colony  or 

4  Letter  from  William  Paterson  to  the  Lord  Provost  of  Edinburgh,  Dar.  Pap.  4. 

5  Same  to  same,  Dar.  Pap.  3. 


Hiram  Bingham 

plantation,  and  send  some  ships,  they  6  would  look  upon  them 
as  interlopers,  and  all  agree  to  discourage  and  crush  us  to  pieces.' 
His  ideas  of  the  way  things  were  likely  to  go  were  based  on 
examples  of  the  failure  of  the  French,  Danish,  and  Prussian 
companies.  ( We  ought  to  expect  no  better  success  if  our 
designs  be  not  well  grounded  and  prudently  managed.'  7 

A  month  later  he  wrote  again  in  no  very  happy  frame  of  mind, 
for  they  had  heard  nothing  from  Edinburgh  since  the  news  of 
the  passage  of  the  Act,  and  had  as  yet  received  no  authentic 
copies  of  it.  He  reminds  them  *  that  the  life  of  all  commerce 
depends  upon  a  punctual  correspondence.'  8  Evidently  the  pro- 
moters had  been  at  work  interesting  possible  subscribers,  but 
could  do  nothing  definite  until  they  knew  the  wording  of  the 
Act.  In  the  meantime,  on  the  xyth  of  June,  the  Scots  Parlia- 
ment had  adjourned,  but  not  without  passing  an  act  to  enable 
the  administrators  of  the  public  funds  of  boroughs  to  invest  in 
the  Company.9  Even  trust  funds  were  to  be  imperilled  to  favour 
the  new  project. 

On  the  1 4th  of  August  the  London  promoters  received  a 
letter  from  Edinburgh,  which  encouraged  them  to  prepare  for 
a  general  meeting  of  the  corporation  in  October  or  November. 
The  next  day  Paterson  wrote  that  at  least  three  of  the  persons 
named  in  the  Act  must  come  from  Scotland,  for  two  of  the 
London  promoters  had  been  misnamed,  so  that  three  more  would 
be  needful  to  make  up  the  requisite  majority  until  the  mistaken 
names  could  be  rectified.  They  were  much  chagrined  to  find 
printed  copies  of  the  Act  in  the  hands  of  their  enemies  before 
they  had  any.  The  Edinburgh  directors  do  not  appear  to  have 
had  much  business  sense  or  caution.  London  merchants  were 
already  becoming  alarmed  as  they  came  to  appreciate  the  large 
powers  granted  to  the  Company.  Secrecy  was  no  longer  of 
any  value,  but  haste  became  absolutely  essential  to  success. 

The  first  regular  meeting  c  of  the  gentlemen  concerned  in  the 
company '  occurred  on  the  29th  of  August.  None  had  arrived 
from  Scotland,  but  all  of  the  London  patentees  were  present, 
except  the  two  whose  names  were  incorrectly  given  in  the  Act, 
and  one  other  who  seems  to  have  dropped  out  of  the  corpora- 
tion, as  his  name  does  not  appear  on  the  list  of  those  present  at 
any  of  the  subsequent  meetings.  It  was  resolved  that  all  persons 

6  The  English  and  Dutch  Companies. 

7  Letter  from  William  Paterson  to  the  Lord  Provost  of  Edinburgh,  Dar.  Pap.  4. 

8  Same  to  same,  Dar.  Pap.  4.  9  Acts  Pad.  Scot.  IX.  463. 


Early  History  of  Scots  Darien  Company     319 

who  were  desirous  of  joining  the  Company  give  their  names, 
with  the  sums  for  which  they  were  willing  to  subscribe,  to 
Roderick  Mackenzie,  the  newly-appointed  secretary,  who  was 
cautioned  not  to  allow  said  names  or  sums  to  be  known  to  any 
persons  whatsoever,  without  special  direction  of  a  majority  of 
the  members.  This  caution  he  observed  even  under  the  fire  of 
Parliamentary  investigation.  In  order  to  defray  necessary 
expenses,  each  of  the  gentlemen  present  agreed  to  advance  25 
pounds  until  the  Company  could  be  definitely  established.10 

Meanwhile  the  Act  was  discussed  about  the  city.  The  poli- 
ticians favoured  the  passage  of  a  similar  act  for  England  rather 
than  any  interference  with  the  Scots  Company,  and  apparently 
the  East  India  merchants  were  not  yet  alarmed.  As  the  Act 
met  with  such  a  favourable  reception,  Paterson  wrote,  on  the 
3rd  of  September,  urging  that  the  persons  to  be  sent  from  Edin- 
burgh be  dispatched  with  all  expedition.11  He  importunes  them 
to  get  the  Act  past  the  seals  as  soon  as  possible,  hinting  darkly 
at  important  reasons  for  this  haste,  which  it  was  not  fit  for  him 
to  write.  Parliament  was  to  meet  in  the  week  following,  and 
doubtless  Paterson  feared  action  would  be  taken  to  interfere  with 
the  establishment  of  the  Company.12  Besides  news  had  just 
been  received  of  the  fall  of  Namur,  and  the  King  might  be 
expected  home  at  any  time.13  If  the  Act  had  not  already  passed 
the  seals  he  might  be  influenced  by  the  London  companies  to 
give  orders  forbidding  it.  Within  four  days  of  the  writing  of 
this  letter  a  squadron  was  *  ordered  to  go  to  convoy  the  King 
home.' 14 

As  the  Company  became  more  and  more  public,  it  became 
more  necessary  to  have  definite  proposals  to  offer  to  those 
interested,  before  their  ardour  should  cool  or  the  opposition  grow 
more  powerful ;  the  delay  in  the  arrival  of  the  members  from 
Scotland  grew  more  and  more  fatal.  Although  only  three  were 
required,  and  Paterson  continued  every  few  days  to  urge  their 
immediate  presence,  his  letters  seemed  to  have  been  in  vain. 
Whether  the  delay  was  on  account  of  the  difficulties  of  the 
journey,  or  jealousy  of  the  London  merchants,  or  for  some  other 
reason,  is  not  clear.  Fortunately,  the  meeting  of  Parliament 

uJottr.  Ho.  Com.  xi.  401. 

11  Letter  from  William  Paterson  to  the  Lord  Provost  of  Edinburgh,  Dar.  Pap.  6. 
12Narcissus  Luttrell,  Brief  Historical  Relation,  iii.  503. 
iJ.  518.  ™W<1.  522. 


320 


Hiram  Bingham 


was  postponed  from  time  to  time.15  But  preparations  for  the 
King's  arrival  continued  daily.16  His  coming  meant  the  opening 
of  Parliament. 

On  the  1 9th  of  September  Paterson  wrote :  *  We  find  our- 
selves daily  more  and  more  obliged  by  the  constitution  of  affairs 
to  press  the  coming  of  those  persons  who  shall  be  deputed  from 
you,  the  reasons  still  increasing  for  us  to  get  our  business  here 
despatched  before  the  approaching  sessions  of  Parliament.' 17 

Enemies  of  the  Company  were  industriously  spreading  abroad 
rumours  that  some  of  the  persons  concerned  in  the  Company 
spoke  contemptuously  of  the  ability  of  the  English  government 
to  restrain  the  new  project.  Whereupon  the  promoters,  at  a 
meeting  on  the  26th  of  September,  ordered  the  members  of  the 
Company,  upon  all  occasions,  to  speak  with  due  respect  of  the 
English  government.18 

Little  business  could  be  done  while  they  were  waiting  for  the 
arrival  of  the  members  from  Edinburgh.  Yet  apparently  some 
of  the  Edinburgh  patentees  were  still  of  the  opinion  that  the 
business  could  be  transacted  by  correspondence ;  or  else  that  some 
of  the  London  promoters  should  go  to  Scotland.19  This  was  out 
of  the  question.  Furthermore,  the  King  had  now  arrived.20 
So  they  wrote  through  Paterson :  {  We  must  now  tell  you  that 
if  you  neglect  coming  up  by  a  few  days  after  this  comes  to  hand 
it  will  endanger  the  loss  of  the  whole  matter.3  21  But  the  King 
went  off  to  the  races  at  Newmarket,  where  a  horse  of  his  won 
one  of  the  big  events.22  He  then  proceeded  to  enjoy  the  hospi- 
tality of  his  nobles  at  a  few  house  parties  before  Parliament 
should  open  late  in  November.23 

Thus  relieved  for  the  present,  the  London  promoters  decided, 
on  the  22nd  of  October,  to  begin  to  take  subscriptions  in  a  fort- 
night, and  to  fix  the  capital  of  the  Company  at  ,£600,000  ster- 
ling.24 While  waiting  for  the  arrival  of  the  dilatory  Scots,  they 

15  Narcissus  Luttrell,  Brief  Historical  Relation,  iii.  524,  526. 
W16ut.  524,  525,  526,  530,  532. 

17  Letter  from  William  Paterson  to  the  Lord  Provost  of  Edinburgh,  Dar.  Pap.  7. 

18  Jour.  Ho.  Com.  xi.  401. 

19  Letter  from  William  Paterson  to  Scots  patentees,  Dar.  Pap.  8. 

20  Narcissus  Luttrell,  Brief  Historical  Relation,  iii.  536. 

21  Letter  from  Wm.  Paterson  to  Scots  patentees,  15  Oct.,  Dar.  Pap.  8. 

22  Narcissus  Luttrell,  Brief  Historical  Relation,  iii.  537,  540. 
nIKd.  536,  537,  541,  542.  24Jour.  Ho.  Com.  xi.  401. 


Early  History  of  Scots  Darien  Company    321 

proceeded,  on  the  24th  of  October  to  decide,  provisionally,  that 
the  government  of  the  Company  should  rest  in  a  court  of 
directors,  consisting  of  the  twenty  patentees,  and  thirty  other 
proprietors.  These  last  were  each  to  hold  at  least  1000  pounds 
in  their  own  name,  and  the  proxies  of  18,000  pounds  more.  By 
the  29th  of  October  the  300,000  pounds  assigned  to  England  had 
been  over-subscribed.25 

This  stimulated  the  English  East  India  Company  to  enlarge 
their  own  capital.26  Money  was  so  plentiful  they  raised  an 
additional  ^125,000  in  less  than  three  weeks.27  The  Scots 
Company,  however,  had  other  troubles. 

The  Edinburgh  patentees  seemed  to  have  distrusted  Paterson 
and  his  London  friends  from  the  very  beginning.  They  were 
slow  in  answering  letters  from  London,  careless  in  forwarding 
necessary  documents,  and  reluctant  to  acknowledge,  by  sending 
delegates  to  London,  that  the  seat  of  the  enterprise  was  not  in 
Scotland.  Perhaps,  too,  they  realised  that  the  Londoners  had 
little  expectation  of  Scotland's  being  able  to  carry  on  the  enter- 
prise alone.  They  were  undoubtedly  jealous  of  the  great  London 
merchants,  although  they  themselves  had  had  little  or  no  experi- 
ence in  large  mercantile  undertakings. 

Realising  the  necessity  for  action,  the  London  promoters  con- 
tinued to  make  provisional  arrangements  for  the  establishment 
of  the  Company.  On  the  3rd  of  November  they  selected  an  office, 
and  agreed  that  all  subscribers  be  obliged  to  pay  down  one 
quarter  part  of  their  subscription.  They  drew  up  a  preamble, 
which  declared  that,  inasmuch  as  Paterson  had  been  at  great 
expense  in  making  discoveries  in  both  the  Indies,  and  likewise  in 
procuring  privileges  from  foreign  powers  which  were  to  benefit 
the  Company,  he  was  to  receive  two  per  cent,  of  the  money  to 
be  subscribed  for  the  said  capital  fund,  as  well  as  three  per  cent, 
of  the  profits  for  twenty-one  years ;  that  the  management  of  the 
Company  was  to  rest  in  the  court  of  directors ;  and,  finally,  that 
the  persons  named  in  the  Act  were  to  be  a  complete  court  until 
others  were  added.  This  was  dated  London,  the  6th  of 
November,  i695-28 

Apparently  the  three  delegates  arrived  from  Edinburgh  on 
the  9th  of  November,  for  on  that  date  the  minutes  read  for  the 
first  time,  {  at  a  meeting  of  the  Company  of  Scotland  Trading 
to  Africa  and  the  Indies.'  They  had  previously  read,  *  at  a 
402.  26  Narcissus  Luttrell,  Brief  Historical  Relation,  iii.  544. 

553.  2s  Ho.  of  Lords  MSS.  ii.  1 5. 


322 


Hiram  Bingham 


meeting  of  the  gentlemen  concerned  in  the  Company,  etc.' 
Their  first  business  was  to  correct  the  names  of  the  two  London 
merchants  which  had  been  incorrectly  spelled  in  the  Act ;  their 
next,  to  approve  the  selection  of  Roderick  Mackenzie  as  secre- 
tary. The  Scots  directors  were  surprised  at  the  greatness  of  the 
proposed  capital,  but  were  satisfied  by  the  reasons  given,  which 
Paterson  was  requested  to  put  in  writing,  and  transmit  to  Scot- 
land, together  with  the  proceedings  or  the  Company.  Upon 
examining  the  minutes  of  previous  meetings,  all  were  declared 
and  confirmed  to  be  the  sense  of  the  Company,  excepting  the 
resolution  concerning  the  court  of  directors,  which  was  to  be 
further  considered.  This  was  on  Saturday. 

On  Monday  evening  the  Company  met  again.  The  manage- 
ment and  constitution  of  the  Company  were  discussed,  but  no 
decision  was  reached. 

The  English  East  India  Company  first  took  official  cognizance 
of  the  existence  of  the  Scots  Company  by  voting,  the  nth  of 
November,  that  no  member  of  their  Company  could  be  con- 
cerned with  the  Scots  without  breaking  his  oath  to  the  English 
Company.29  They  also  petitioned  the  King  to  grant  them  his 
gracious  assistance.30  He  had  now  returned  from  his  progress 
and  was  entertained  on  Wednesday  evening  by  fireworks  in  St. 
James  Square,  which,  says  Luttrell  in  his  diary,  fwere  very 
fine.' 31 

The  Scots  met  again  on  Thursday,  the  I4th,  when  it  came 
out  that  some  of  the  patentees  in  Scotland  might  decline  being 
directors  in  such  a  large  company.  Accordingly  it  was  resolved 
that  the  subscribers  there  have  an  opportunity  to  appoint  sub- 
stitutes in  places  of  those  named  in  the  Act.32  On  November 
1 5th  the  deputies  from  Scotland  made  further  objections  to  the 
preamble  of  the  subscription  book,  but  appear  to  have  been  satis- 
fied by  Paterson's  explanations;  and  on  the  i8th  the  preamble 
was  confirmed.  A  second  meeting  was  held  in  the  evening  when, 
pursuant  to  the  preamble,  two  new  directors  were  admitted  after 
producing  proxies  representing  ^"20,000  of  stock  each.  On 
Wednesday  four  more  directors  were  admitted,  and  a  Com- 
mittee of  Treasury  was  appointed  to  examine  the  notes  of  the 
subscribers  who  had  not  paid  cash.  It  is  characteristic  of  the 
good  business  policy  of  the  London  directors  that  a  majority, 

29  MS.  East  India  Company's  Court  Book,  No.  37,  folio  38A. 

30  Narcissus  Luttrell,  Brief  Historical  Relation,  iii.  550. 

550.  32/<?ar.  Ho.  Com.  xi.  402. 


Early  History  of  Scots  Darien  Company    323 

and  a  quorum,  of  the  first  committee  to  be  appointed,  consisted 
not  of  the  old  directors  but  of  the  new  ones,  men  who  had  been 
appointed  directly  by  the  stockholders  exercising  their  right  of 
proxy.  For  the  present  they  acted  as  a  kind  of  executive  com- 
mittee.33 

On  the  22nd  of  November,  at  a  meeting  of  the  directors,  two 
others  were  admitted,  and  the  subscription  book  was  declared 
closed,  as  the  complete  sum  of  ^300,000,  being  that  half  of  the 
capital  destined  for  England,  had  been  taken  up.34  The  books 
were  closed  in  the  nick  of  time,  for  Parliament  assembled  this 
very  day.35  While  the  necessary  business  connected  with  its 
opening  occupied  the  new  Parliament  and  engrossed  its  attention, 
the  directors  proceeded  to  establish  the  Company  more  firmly  in 
London. 

On  the  day  of  the  opening  there  appeared  a  little  four-page 
pamphlet  entitled,  <  Some  Considerations  upon  the  late  Act  of 
the  Parliament  of  Scotland  for  Constituting  an  Indian  Company.' 
It  bears  the  earmarks  of  Paterson's  work.  It  was  a  very  clever 
attempt  to  fend  off  impending  danger  to  the  Company  by  calling 
the  attention  of  the  English  nation  to  the  fact  that  the  best  way 
to  keep  ahead  of  the  Scots  was  to  make  their  own  trading  laws 
less  stringent  and  not,  as  many  proposed,  to  attack  the  new 
Company.36 

On  the  25th,  two  new  directors  were  admitted  and  a  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  secure  permanent  offices  for  the  Com- 
pany. Here  again  the  directors  who  represented  stockholders 
were  in  the  majority  on  the  committee.  At  the  next  meeting, 
Nov.  27th,  it  was  agreed  that  all  the  directors,  officers,  and  ser- 
vants of  the  Company  should  take  an  oath  de  fideli,  as  enjoined 
by  the  Act.  At  this  time  also  a  motion  was  made  to  send  some 
ship  or  ships  to  the  East  Indies  to  secure  a  settlement  for  the 
Company.  It  was  further  proposed  that  such  parts  of  the  capital 
as  were  not  needed  for  immediate  use  be  loaned  at  high  rates  of 
interest  upon  unquestionable  security  on  notes  payable  two  days 
after  demand. 

33  From  now  on  the  minutes  bear  the  superscription,  *  At  a  Court  of  Directors 
of  the  Company  of  Scotland  Trading  to  Africa  and  the  Indies'  (Jour.  Ho.  Com. 
xi.  403). 

34  Jour.  Ho.  Com.  xi.  403. 

85  Narcissus  Luttrell,  Brief  Historical  Relation,  iii.  554. 

36  Some  Considerations  upon  the  late  Act  of  the  Parliament  of  Scotland,  for  Constituting 
an  Indian  Company.  In  a  Letter  to  a.  Friend.  London,  1695.  A  copy  is  in  the 
British  Museum. 


324 


Hiram  Bingham 


These  proposals  were  further  considered  on  Friday,  the  29th 
of  November.  The  form  of  the  oath  was  taken  into  considera- 
tion and  approved,  and  signed  by  all  the  directors  then  present. 
This  oath  declared  that  during  his  term  of  office  the  juror  would 
not  disclose  anything  that  was  given  him  to  be  kept  secret,  but 
would  endeavour  to  the  utmost  of  his  power  to  promote  the 
Company's  interests.  The  matter  of  sending  ships  to  the  East 
Indies,  and  the  proposal  to  start  a  small  banking  business  were 
referred  to  a  new  Committee  of  Trade.  This  committee  con- 
sisted of  nine  directors,  of  whom  only  one  besides  Paterson  was 
a  charter  member.  Either  the  promoters  of  the  Company  were 
losing  control,  or  else  thought  it  advisable  to  allow  representa- 
tives of  the  stockholders  to  have  a  free  hand  in  directing  the 
Company's  affairs.37 

The  most  interesting  feature  of  this  meeting,  however,  was 
the  formal  renunciation  and  release  by  Paterson  of  the  royalty 
which  had  been  guaranteed  him  in  the  preamble  to  the  subscrip- 
tions. In  the  release  he  stated  that  it  was  done  c  for  divers  good 
causes  and  considerations.'  He  declared  orally  that,  as  he  had 
the  satisfaction  of  seeing  himself  vested  with  the  legal  right  to 
these  royalties,  and  as  the  majority  of  the  Court  consisted  of  men 
in  whose  justice  and  gratitude  he  had  confidence,  he  was  resolved 
£  to  take  hold  of  so  glorious  an  opportunity  of  showing  the 
generosity  of  his  heart.'  He  also  stated  that  he  had  insisted  upon 
the  two  per  cent,  in  hand,  and  the  three  per  cent,  of  the  profits  in 
the  preamble  of  subscriptions,  not  because  of  any  doubt  that  he 
had  had  in  the  justice  and  generosity  of  the  Company,  but 
because  of  the  ingratitude  he  had  met  with  from  others,  and 
because  he  had  spent  nearly  ,£10,000  of  his  own  and  other  men's 
money,  besides  '  ten  years'  pains  and  travel,  six  whereof  were 
wholly  spent,  in  promoting  the  design  of  this  company.'  This 
sounds  very  noble  and  generous,  but  sixteen  years  later,  when 
struggling  to  have  Parliament  recoup  his  losses,  he  stated  that 
his  release  *  was  only  given  in  trust.'  He  pleads  that :  c  Soon 
after  compleating  the  Subscriptions  in  London  the  Parliament 
met,  about  which  time  the  Clamours  were  so  great  against  this 
Company  and  the  Proceedings  thereof,  that  Ruin  was  threatened 
to  those  who  were  concern'd ;  and  among  other  insinuations,  it 
was  confidently  pretended,  That  the  two  per  Cent.  Premium  was 
already  receiv'd,  and  divided  amongst  several  great  Men,  who 
procur'd  the  Act  of  Parliament,  for  constituting  the  Company. 

37  Jour.  Ho.  Com.  xi.  404. 


Early  History  of  Scots  Darien  Company    325 

ThoJ  those  concern'd  well  knew  that  all  this  was  utterly  False 
and  Groundless,  yet  considering  the  impending  Danger,  they 
intreated,  and  prevail'd  with  the  Petitioner,  on  the  29th  of 
November,  1695,  being  the  very  last  Day  of  their  meeting  in 
London,  to  execute  this  Release,  with  Promise,  it  should  be 
only  in  Trust,  and  never  us'd  against  him,  as  in  effect  it  never 
hath.'  38 

It  was  true  that  Parliament  had  already  met,  and  that  great 
clamours  were  arising  against  the  Company,  but  it  was  not  true 
that  the  29th  of  November  was  the  last  day  of  their  meeting 
in  London.  However,  this  is  a  small  point,  and  one  on  which 
he  was  more  likely  to  be  mistaken  after  the  lapse  of  sixteen 
years  than  the  fact  that  in  issuing  his  release  he  had  yielded  to 

freat  pressure  and  the  unhappy  circumstances  of  the  time.39 
robably  there  is  a  measure  of  truth  in  both  accounts,  and  that, 
while  it  had  been  practically  essential  that  he  should  make  this 
release,  he  was  really  glad  to  do  so  by  way  of  showing  his  con- 
fidence in  the  future  of  the  Company  and  the  honesty  of  the 
directors. 

Although  the  House  of  Lords  had  a  long  debate  over  the 
Scots  Act  on  the  3rd  of  December,  the  directors  of  the  Com- 
pany met  on  the  4th  and  resolved  to  fit  out  c  with  all  convenient 
speed '  one  or  more  ships  to  trade  from  Scotland  to  the  East 
Indies.40  There  were  twenty  directors  present,  and  there  is 
nothing  in  the  minutes  to  indicate  any  fear  of  immediate  dis- 
solution. The  next  meeting  of  the  directors  was  on  December 
6th.  After  hearing  the  reports  of  committees,  they  went  into 
such  minute  details  as  to  take  notice  of  the  fact  that  many  of 
the  directors  came  late  to  the  meetings,  and  caused  the  others 
to  lose  time.  They  decided  what  fines  must  be  paid  for  tardi- 
ness. They  even  took  the  trouble  to  determine  which  clock 
should  determine  whether  a  member  were  late  or  not.  This 
triviality  was  the  last  recorded  act  of  the  London  directors.41 
They  adjourned  to  meet  on  the  following  week,  but  by  that 
time  they  were  in  the  toils  of  the  Parliamentary  investigation. 
In  fact,  on  the  very  next  day  the  Lords  ordered  seven  of  those 
who  had  been  named  in  the  Act  to  appear  before  the  bar  of  the 
House  on  December  9th.42 

So  ended  the  attempt  to  organise  the  Company  in  London. 

38  State  of  Mr.  Pater  sorts  Claim  upon  the  Equivalent,  1712,  p.  54. 
™Ibid.  54.  *ojour.  Ho.  Com.  xi.  405. 

41  Jour.  Ho.  Com.  xi.  405.  4ZJour.  Ho.  Lords,  xv.  607. 


326    Early  History  of  Scots  Darien  Company 

The  investigation  carried  on  by  the  English  Parliament  effec- 
tually changed  the  history  of  the  enterprise.  The  London 
merchants,  whose  efforts  had  started  the  Company  and  given  it 
form,  were  destined  to  have  little  say  in  its  affairs.  The  account 
of  their  proceedings  is  interesting  chiefly  because  it  shows  what 
the  Company  was  intended  to  be  and  what  it  might  have  become. 
Directed  by  men  accustomed  to  the  ways  of  the  world  and 
versed  in  the  intricacies  of  large  commercial  undertakings,  the 
Company  would  probably  have  followed  the  legitimate  lines  of 
trade  and  not  have  staked  their  all  on  that  vague  chimera — the 
Darien  Scheme. 

The  question  of  the  organisation  in  London  has  either  been 
overlooked  or  misunderstood  by  most  writers.  Macaulay  and 
others,  following  Dalrymple,  have  misplaced  this  episode 
entirely,  making  it  follow  the  organisation  in  Edinburgh.43 
Although  the  minutes  of  the  London  meetings  of  the  directors 
have  long  been  printed  in  the  Commons'  Journals,  no  one  seems 
to  have  made  any  use  of  them.44 

HIRAM  BINGHAM. 

43  Macaulay,  Hist.  ofEng.  viii.  211. 

44 A  paper  on  the  'Investigation  by  the  English  Parliament  into  the  affairs  of 
the  Scots  Darien  Company'  to  appear  in  the  July  number  of  the  Scottish 
Historical  Review  will  conclude  this  series. 


The  c  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray 

The  Reign  of  Edward  I.  as  chronicled  in  1356  by  Sir 
Thomas  Gray  in  the  '  Scalacronica /  and  now  trans- 
lated by  the  Right  Hon.  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,  Bart., 
continued. 

AT  this  time  the  Count  of  Flanders  was  captured  at  Bethune 
and  kept  in  prison  by  the  King  of  France ;  wherefore  the 
commons  of  Flanders  made  war  upon  the  French,  and  on  St. 
John's  day  at  midsummer  they  fought  with  the  power  of  France 
at  Courtrai,  where  the  Comte  d'Artois  and  several  other  French 
counts  and  barons  met  their  death  through  pride  and  arrogance, 
because  they  charged  the  Flemings  in  their  trenches.1  Enraged 
at  this,  the  King  of  France  laid  siege  to  Lille  with  all  his 
forces.  The  Flemings  sent  to  King  Edward  of  England  to 
ask  for  help,  which  king  was  aged  and  in  bad  health  and  his 
treasure  spent  in  his  wars  with  Scotland,  in  which  his  people 
were  so  deeply  involved2  that  he  could  interfere  to  no  good 
purpose.  Who  [nevertheless]  willingly  undertook  to  aid  them, 
[and]  adopted  a  stratagem,  causing  a  letter  to  be  forged  [as  if] 
from  the  eschevins  of  Ghent  to  himself  which  was  expressed 
thus  : — 

'To  their  redoubtable  lord,  the  King  of  England,  his  humble  servants  of  Ghent 
[present]  all  honours  and  services. 

*  Forasmuch  we  think  it  will  be  agreeable  to  your  nobility  to  hear  the 
joyous  news  of  the  well-being  of  our  Lord  the  Count  of  Flanders,  your 
ally  if  you  please,  please  your  highness  to  understand  that  we  have  purchased  to 
our  [cause]  a  pretty  large  conspiracy  of  private  and  powerful  people  in  the  King 
of  France's  army,  who  have  covenanted  with  us  under  sufficient  surety  to  take 

1  The  date  of  this  '  Battle  of  the  Spurs '  is  wrongly  given.     It  was  not  fought 
on  St.  John's  Day  (24th  June),  1304,  but  on    nth  July,  1302.     En  tour  fossez. 
It  is  doubtful  whether  these  fosses  were  military  entrenchments  or  the  existing 
ditches  of  the   country.       I  incline  to   think   that  they  were  defensive  works 
constructed  for  the  occasion  ;  like  Bruce's  pits  at  Bannockburn. 

2  Enlacez. 

327 


328  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,  Bart. 

the  king  out  of  his  tent  within  these  fifteen  days,  and  to  send  him  to  us  at  a 
certain  fixed  place1  to  be  exchanged  with  our  said  lord. 

'May  it  please  your  very  excellent  lordship  to  keep  this  matter  secret,  and  to 
aid  and  defend,  sustain  and  govern,  your  humble  adherents2  if  they  should 
require  assistance  when  the  aforesaid  business  is  accomplished,  which  cannot 
well  fail  and  will  tend  greatly  to  the  increase  of  your  estate.  Which  [things] 
we  hope  to  perform,  for  if  they  are  not  done  one  day,  they  cannot  fail  on 
another ;  of  so  much  we  are  certain.' 

King  Edward  took  this  letter,  and  one  day  when  he  rose 
from  bed  with  his  wife  the  Queen,  who  was  sister  to  the  King 
of  France,  and  was  at  that  time  in  Kent,  he  pretended  to 
search  in  his  purse  for  letters,  then  left  this  [forged]  letter  lying 
on  his  wife's  bed,  and  went  off  to  chapel  to  hear  mass.  The 
Queen  perceived  the  letter,  which  she  took  and  read  and  re- 
placed. In  the  middle  of  the  mass  the  King  returned  hastily 
to  the  Queen's  chamber,  asking  impatiently3  and  abruptly 
whether  anybody  had  found  a  letter ;  went  to  the  bed,  found 
MS  the  letter,  snatched  it  up,  folded  it  up  with  satisfaction,  and 
fo.  202  departed  quickly  without  saying  more.  The  Queen,  who  had 
read  the  letter,  noticed  the  King's  countenance,  and,  being  in 
great  fear  and  sorrow  lest  her  brother  should  be  betrayed  in 
this  manner  by  villains,  caused  secret  letters  to  be  written  to 
her  brother  the  King  of  France  [containing]  all  the  substance 
of  that  letter,  and  warning  him  to  be  on  his  guard.  These 
letters  were  despatched,  and  as  soon  as  the  King  of  France  had 
seen  the  contents  of  his  sister's  letters,  he  departed  from  the  siege 
that  very  night.  And  thus  craft  availed,  which  is  often  of 
great  use  when  force  is  wanting.  This  happened  after  [the 
feast  of]  St.  Michael.4  And  later  in  the  same  summer  the 
King  of  France  collected  an  army,  re-entered  Flanders,  and,  on 
the  same  St.  John's  Day,  one  year  after  the  battle  of  Courtrai, 
the  Flemings  were  defeated  at  Mons-en-Pevele5  and  their 
leader,  William  de  Juliers,  who  was  brother  to  the  Count  of 
Juliers,  was  slain.  After  which  the  Count  Robert  [of  Flanders] 
was  released  from  prison  under  an  arrangement  that  the  three 
cities  of  Flanders  which  were  on  the  frontier  of  France  should 
belong  to  the  King  of  France,  [namely]  Douai,  Lille  and 
Bethune. 

At  this  same  time  Robert   de    Brus,  Earl    of   Carrick,    who 

1 A  certain  lieu  limite.  2  foz  simples  enherdauntz. 

3  Irrousement.  4  29th  September. 

5  Mouns  en  Paitver,  i.e.  Mons,  capital  of  the  province  of  Hainault,  called  Mons- 
en-Pevele,  anciently  written  Mons-en-Pevre. 


The  (  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray   329 

retained  a  strong  following  through  kinsmanship  and  alliance, 
always  hoping  for  the  establishment  of  his  claim  of  succes- 
sion to  the  realm  of  Scotland,  on  the  4th  of  the  kalends 
of  February  in  the  year  of  grace  I3O61  sent  his  two 
brothers,  Thomas  and  Neil,  from  Lochmaben  to  Dalswin- 
ton  to  John  Comyn,  begging  that  he  would  meet  him 
[Robert]  at  Dumfries  at  the  [church  of  the]  Minorite  Friars, 
so  that  they  might  have  a  conversation.  Now  he  had 
plotted  with  his  two  brothers  aforesaid  that  they  should  kill 
the  said  John  Comyn  on  the  way.  But  they  were  received  in 
such  a  friendly  manner  by  the  said  John  Comyn  that  they  could 
not  bring  themselves  to  do  him  any  harm,  but  agreed  between 
themselves  that  their  brother  himself  might  do  his  best.  The 
said  John  Comyn,  suspecting  no  ill,  set  out  with  the  two 
brothers  of  the  said  Robert  de  Brus  in  order  to  speak  with 
him  [Robert]  at  Dumfries,  went  to  the  Friars  [Church]  where 
he  found  the  said  Robert,  who  came  to  meet  him  and  led  him 
to  the  high  altar.  The  two  brothers  of  the  said  Robert  told 
him  secretly — f  Sir,'  they  said,  *  he  gave  us  such  a  fair 
reception,  and  with  such  generous  gifts,  and  won  upon  us  so 
much  by  his  frankness,  that  we  could  by  no  means  do  him 
an  injury.' — *  See  ! '  quoth  he,  'you  are  right  lazy:  let  me 
settle  with  him.' 

He  took  the  said  John  Comyn,  and  they  approached  the 
altar. 

'Sir,'    then    spoke    the    said    Robert    de    Brus    to    the    said 
John  Comyn,  *  this  land  of  Scotland  is  entirely  laid  in  bondage 
to  the    English,  through    the   indolence   of   that   chieftain  who 
suffered  his  right  and  the    franchise  of  the  realm    to   be    lost. 
Choose  one  of  two  ways,  either  take  my  estates  and  help  me     MS 
to  be  king,  or  give  me  yours  and  I  will  help  you  to  be  the  fo.  202 
same,    because   you    are   of  his   blood  who  lost  it,  for  I  have 
the  hope  of  succession  through  my  ancestors  who  claimed  the 
right    and  were    supplanted    by  yours  ;   for  now  is  the  old  age 
of  this  English  King.' 

'  Certes,'  then  quoth  the  said  John  Comyn,  *  I  shall 
never  be  false  to  my  English  seigneur,  forasmuch  as  I  am 
bound  to  him  by  oath  and  homage,  in  a  matter  which  might 
be  charged  against  me  as  treason.' 

1  No  ? '  exclaimed  the  said  Robert  de  Brus ;  *  I  had  different 
hopes  of  you,  by  the  promise  of  yourself  and  your  friends. 

1  According  to  the  fourteenth  century  calendar  the  year  should  have  been  1305. 


330  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,   Bart. 

You  have  betrayed  me  to  the  King  in  your  letters,  wherefore 
living  thou  canst  not  escape  my  will — thou  shalt  have  thy 
guerdon  ! ' 

So  saying,  he  struck  him  with  his  dagger,  and  the  others 
cut  him  down  in  the  middle  of  the  church  before  the  altar.  A 
knight,  his  [Comyn's]  uncle,1  who  was  present,  struck  the  said 
Robert  de  Brus  with  a  sword  in  the  breast,2  but  he  [Bruce] 
being  in  armour,  was  not  wounded,  which  uncle  was  slain 
straightway. 

The  said  Robert  caused  himself  to  be  crowned  as  King  of 
Scotland  at  Scone  on  the  feast  of  the  Annunciation  of  Our 
Lady 3  by  the  Countess  of  Buchan,  because  of  the  absence  of  her 
son,  who  at  that  time  was  living  at  his  manor  of  Whitwick  near 
Leicester,  to  whom  the  duty  of  crowning  the  Kings  of  Scotland 
belonged  by  inheritance,  in  the  absence  of  the  Earl  of  Fife,4  who 
at  that  time  was  in  ward  of  the  King  in  England.  The  said 
Countess  this  same  year  was  captured  by  the  English  and  taken 
to  Berwick,  and  by  command  of  King  Edward  of  England 
was  placed  in  a  little  wooden  chamber5  in  a  tower  of  the 
castle  of  Berwick  with  sparred  sides,  that  all  might  look  in 
from  curiosity. 

King  Edward  of  England,  perceiving  the  revolt  that  Robert 
de  Brus  and  his  adherents  was  making  in  Scotland,  sent  thither 
Aymer  de  Valence.  Earl  of  Pembroke,  with  other  barons  of  England 
and  several  Scottish  ones,  descended  from  the  blood  of  John 
Comyn,  who  all  set  themselves  against  the  said  Robert  de  Brus. 
The  said  Earl  of  Pembroke  went  to  the  town  of  Perth6  and 
remained  there  for  a  while.  Robert  de  Brus  had  gathered  all  the 
force  of  Scotland  which  was  on  his  side,  and  some  fierce  young 
fellows  easily  roused  against  the  English,  and  came  before  the 
town  of  Perth  in  two  great  columns,  offering  battle  to  the 
said  earl  and  to  the  English.  He  remained  before  the  said  town 
from  morning  until  after  high  noon.  The  said  Earl  of  Pem- 
broke kept  quite  quiet  until  their  departure,  when,  by  advice 

1  Sir  Robert  Comyn,  whom  Barbour  calls  *  Schir  Edmund.' 

2  Hu  pice :  apparently  the  same  word  as  pix,  which  de  Roquefort  gives  as  poitrine, 
fstomac,  pectus. 

3  2$th  March,  whereas  the  coronation  actually  took  place  on  29th  March,  1306. 

4  It  was  the  hereditary  office  of  the  Earls  of  Fife.     The  Countess  of  Buchan 
was  sister  to  the  Earl  of  Fife,  who  at  that  time,  like  her  husband,  was  in  the 
English  interest. 

5  Mesounceaux  de  fust,  6  La  vile  de  Saint  Johan. 


The  c  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray  331 

of  the  Scottish  lords  who  were  with  him  in  the  town,  friends 
of  John  Comyn  and  adherents  of  the  English — the  lords  de  Ms 
Moubray,  de  Abernethy,  de  Brechin  and  de  Gordon,  with  fo.  203 
several  others — he  [Pembroke]  marched  out  in  two  columns. 
Their  Scottish  enemy  had  decamped,  sending  their  quarter- 
masters l  to  prepare  a  camp  at  Methven ;  they  formed  up  as 
best  they  could  and  all  on  horseback  attacked  the  said  sortie; 
but  the  Scots  were  defeated.  John  de  Haliburton  caught  the 
reins  of  the  said  Robert  de  Brus,  and  let  him  escape  directly 
that  he  saw  who  it  was,  for  he  [Brus]  had  no  coat  armour, 
only  a  white  shirt.  Thomas  Randolf,  nephew  of  the  said  Robert 
de  Brus,  he  who  was  afterwards  Earl  of  Moray,  was  taken  at 
this  same  battle  of  Methven,2  and  was  released  at  the  instance 
of  Adam  de  Gordon,  and  remained  English  until  at  another 
time  he  was  retaken  by  the  Scots.3 

Robert  de  Brus,  most  of  his  following  being  slain  or  captured 
at  this  battle  of  Methven,  was  pursued  into  Cantyre  by  the 
English,  who  invested  the  castle  of  the  said  country,  thinking4 
that  the  said  Robert  was  within  it,  but  upon  taking  the  said 
castle  they  found  him  not,  but  found  there  his  wife,  a  daughter 
of  the  Earl  of  Ulster,  and  Niel  his  brother,  and  soon  after  the 
Earl  of  Athol  was  taken,  who  had  fled  from  the  said  castle.5 
The  said  Niel,  brother  to  the  said  Robert  de  Brus,  with  Alan 
Durward  and  several  others,  was  hanged  and  drawn  by  sentence 
at  Berwick,  and  the  wife  of  the  said  Robert  was  sent  to  ward  in 
England.  The  Earl  of  Athol,  forasmuch  as  he  was  cousin  of 
the  King  of  England,  [being]  the  son  of  Maud  of  Dover  his 
[Edward's]  aunt,  was  sent  to  London,  and,  because  he  was  of  the 
blood  royal,  was  hanged  on  a  gallows  thirty  feet  higher  than 
the  others. 

In  the  same  year6  the  King  made  his  son  Edward,  Prince 
of  Wales,  a  knight  at  Westminster,  with  a  great  number  of  other 
noble  young  men  of  his  realm,  and  sent  him  with  a  great  force 

1  Herbisours.  2  Sunday,  26th  June,  1306. 

3  On  the  Water  of  Lyne,  in  1 309. 

4  Quidantz  :  omitted  in  Maitland  Club  Edition, 

5  Qi   de   dit   chattel  fu  fuis,  misrendered    in    Maitland  Club  ed.,  [au]    le   dit 
chattel.     Gray's   statement    is    incorrect.     Athol  did  not  go  to  Dunaverty  with 
the    King.      Bruce  sent  his  Queen  Elizabeth,  his  daughter  Marjorie,  his  sister 
Marie,  and  the  Countess  of  Buchan,  under  charge  of  his  brother  Niel  or  Nigel, 
and  the  Earl  of  Athol,  to  Kildrummie  Castle  in  Aberdeenshire,  where  they  were 
taken  by  the  Prince  of  Wales  in  September. 

6A.o.  1306. 


332  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,   Bart. 

to  Scotland  with  all  these  new  knights.  Thomas  Earl  of  Lan- 
caster and  Humfrey  de  Bohun  Earl  of  Hereford,  passing 
through  the  mountains  of  Scotland,  invested  the  castle  of  Kil- 
drummie  and  gained  it,  in  which  castle  were  found  Christopher 
de  Seton  with  his  wife,  the  sister  of  Robert  de  Brus,  who,  as  an 
English  renegade,  was  sent  to  Dumfries  and  there  hanged,  drawn 
and  decapitated,  where  he  had  before  this  caused  to  be  slain  a 
knight,  appointed  sheriff  of  a  district  for  the  King  of  England.1 
The  Bishops  of  Glasgow  and  St.  Andrews  and  the  Abbot  of 
Scone  were  taken  in  the  same  season  and  sent  to  ward  in 
England. 

Piers  de  Gaveston  was  accused  before  the  King  of  divers 
crimes  and  vices,  which  rendered  him  unfit  company  for  the 
King's  son,  wherefore  he  was  exiled  and  outlawed. 

In  the   year  of  Grace    1306   King  Edward  having  come  to 

Dunfermline,  his  son  Edward  Prince  of  Wales  returned  from 

MSt     beyond  the  mountains,  and  lay  with  a  great  army  at  the  town 

fo.  zo3b  of  Perth.     Meanwhile,  Robert  de  Brus  having  landed  from  the 

Isles  and  collected  round  him  a  mob  in  the  defiles  of  Athol, 

sent  a  messenger  having  a  safe  conduct  to  come  and  treat,  to 

arrange  for  a  treaty  of  peace  with  the  said  son  of  the  king.     He 

came  to  the  bridge  of  the  town  of  Perth,  and  began  negocia- 

tion  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  he  could  not  find  grace,  which 

parley  was  reported  to  the  King  at  Dunfermline  on  the  morrow.2 

He  was  almost  mad  when  he  heard  of  the  negociation  and 
demanded : 

*  Who  has  been  so  bold  as  to  attempt  treating  with  our 
traitors  without  our  knowledge  ? '  and  would  not  hear  speak 
of  it. 

The  King  and  his  son  moved  to  the  Marches  of  England. 
Aymer  de  Valence  remained  the  King's  lieutenant  in  Scotland. 
Robert  de  Brus  resumed  [his]  great  conspiracy  ;  he  sent  his 
two  brothers  Thomas  and  Alexander  into  Nithsdale  and  the  vale 
of  Annan  to  draw  [to  him]  the  hearts  of  the  people,  where  they 

1  There  seems  to  be  some  confusion  here  between  Sir  Christopher  de  Seton,  who 
certainly  was  hanged  at  Dumfries,  as  his  brother  Sir  Alexander  was  at  Newcastle, 
and  John  de  Seton,  also  hanged  at  Newcastle,  for  having  captured  Tibbers  Castle 
in   Dumfriesshire,  and  making  captive   Sir  Richard   de   Siward,  Sheriff  of  that 
county. 

2  This  is  an  error.     King   Edward    did    not    cross   the  Border  in   1 306,  but 
remained  ill  in  the  North  of  England.     Bruce  landed  at  Turnberry  in  February 
or  March,   1306-7,  but  there  is  no  evidence  to  confirm  Gray's  statement  that 
he  attempted  to  open  negociations. 


The  c  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray  333 

were  surprised  by  the  English  and  captured,1  and  taken  by  com- 
mand of  the  King  to  Carlisle,  and  there  hanged,  drawn  and 
decapitated.  Robert  de  Brus  had  assembled  his  adherents  in 
Carrick.  Hearing  of  this,  Aymer  de  Valence  marched  against 
him,  when  the  said  Robert  de  Brus  encountered  the  said  Aymer 
de  Valence  at  Loudoun,  and  defeated  him,  and  pursued  him  to 
the  castle  of  Ayr  ;2  and  on  the  third  day  [after]  the  said  Robert 
de  Brus  defeated  Rafe  de  Monthermer,  who  was  called  Earl  of 
Gloucester  because  Joan  the  King's  daughter  and  Countess  of 
Gloucester  had  taken  him  for  husband  out  of  love  [for  him]. 
Him  also  he  [Brus]  pursued  to  the  castle  of  Ayr,  and  there 
besieged  him  until  the  English  army  came  to  his  rescue,  which 
[army]  reduced  the  said  Robert  de  Brus  to  such  distress 3  that  he 
went  afoot  through  the  mountains,  and  from  isle  to  isle,  and  at 
the  same  time  in  such  plight  as  that  occasionally  he  had  nobody 
with  him.  For,  as  the  chronicles  of  his  actions  testify,  he 
came  at  this  time  to  a  passage  between  two  islands  all  alone, 
and  when  he  was  in  the  boat  with  two  seamen  they  asked  him 
for  news — whether  he  had  heard  nothing  about  what  had  become 
of  Robert  de  Brus.  *  Nothing  whatever,'  quoth  he.  *  Sure,' 
said  they,  '  would  that  we  had  hold  of  him  at  this  moment,  so 
that  he  might  die  by  our  hands  ! '  *  And  why  ? '  enquired  he. 
*  Because  he  murdered  our  lord  John  Comyn,'  [said  they]. 
They  put  him  ashore  where  they  had  agreed  to  do,  when  he 
said  to  them :  *  Good  sirs,  you  were  wishing  that  you  had  hold 
of  Robert  de  Brus — behold  me  here  if  that  pleases  you  ;  and 
were  it  not  that  you  had  done  me  the  courtesy  to  set  me  across  Ms. 
this  narrow  passage,  you  should  have  had  your  wish.'  So  he  fb.  204 
went  on  his  way,  exposed  to  perils  such  as  these.4 

The  aforesaid  King  Edward  of  England  had  remained  at  this 
same  time  exceedingly  ill  at  Lanercost,  whence  he  moved  for 
change  of  air  and  to  await  his  army  which  he  had  summoned  to 
re-enter  Scotland.  Thus  he  arrived  at  Burgh-on-sands,5  and 
died  there  in  the  month  of  July,  in  the  year  of  grace  1307, 
whence  he  was  carried  and  was  solemnly  interred  at  Westminster 
beside  his  ancestors  after  he  had  reigned  34  years  7  months 
and  1 1  days,  and  in  the  year  of  his  age  68  years  and  20  days. 

1  On  the  shore  of  Loch  Ryan,  gth  February,  1 307. 

2  Battle  of  Loudoun  Hill,  May  1307. 

3  Enboterent  le  dit  Robert  de  Bruys  a  fie!  meschef. 

4  All  this  was  antecedent  to  the  Battle  of  Loudoun  Hill. 

5  Eurch  sure  le  Sabloun. 


334  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,  Bart. 

This  King  Edward  had  by  his  first  wife,  the  daughter  of  the 
King  of  Castile,  but  one  son  who  lived.  By  his  second  wife, 
sister  of  the  King  of  France,  he  had  two  sons,  Thomas  and 
Edmund.  Upon  Thomas  he  bestowed  the  earldom  of  Norfolk 
and  Suffolk,  with  the  Marshaldom  of  England,  which  earldom 
and  office  belonged  by  inheritance  to  Roger  Bigod,  who,  having 
no  offspring,  made  the  King  his  heir,  partly  for  fear  lest  the  King 
should  do  him  some  injury,  because  there  had  once  been  at 
Lincoln  a  conspiracy  against  him  [the  King]  between  him  [Bigod] 
and  others.  To  Edmund  his  younger  son  he  devised  in  his  will 
4000  marks  of  land,  to  be  discharged  with  his  benison  by 
Edward  his  son  and  heir,  which  heir  afterwards  gave  to  the  said 
Edmund  the  earldom  of  Kent  with  part  of  the  land  bequeathed  to 
him,  but  the  whole  of  it  [the  bequest]  was  not  completed  before 
the  time  of  the  third  Edward.  This  Edward  the  First  after  the 
Conquest  had  several  daughters ;  one  was  married  to  the  Earl  of 
Gloucester  j1  another  to  the  Duke  of  Brabant;2  the  third  to  the 
Count  of  Bar  ;3  the  fourth  to  the  Count  of  Holland,  after 
whose  death  she  was  married  again  to  the  Earl  of  Hereford  ;4 
the  fifth  was  a  nun  at  Amesbury.6 

Innocent  V.  was  Pope  after  Gregory  X.  for  five  months.6 
He  was  named  Peter  of  Taranto  :  he  was  of  the  Order  of 
Preachers  and  Master  in  Divinity.  After  which  Innocent, 
Adrian  V.  was  Pope  for  two  months.7  He  had  been  sent 
by  Pope  Clement  to  England,  to  settle  the  dispute  between 
the  King  and  his  barons.  After  which  Adrian,  John  V.  was 
Pope  for  eight  years.8  He  was  originally  named  Peter,  and 
was  a  good  deal  more  saintly  before  than  after  he  attained  to 
his  dignity.  He  willingly  promoted  great  scholars  ;  he  hoped 
for  a  long  life,  but  suddenly  fell  from  a  chamber  which  he  had 
built  at  Viterbo  and  died. 

1  Joan,  second  daughter,  afterwards  married  Sir  Ralph  de  Monthermer. 

2  Margaret,  third  daughter. 

3  Eleanor,  eldest  daughter,  married  1st  King  Alphonso  of  Aragon. 

4  Elizabeth,  the  fifth  daughter.  5  Mary,  fourth  daughter. 
6A.D.  1276.  7For  36  days  only. 

8  This  ought  to  read  ;  John  XX.  or  XXI.  was  Pope  for  eight  months,  not 
years.  There  were  four  Popes  elected  successively  in  1276,  one  of  whom,  Vice- 
dominus,  not  mentioned  by  Gray,  died  next  day.  The  unsaintly  character  of 
John  XX.  or  XXI.,  commented  on  by  Gray,  consisted  in  nothing  more  than  a 
love  of  learning. 


The  <  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray    335 

After  which  John  II.  [sic],  John  III.  was  Pope  for  three  years.1 
After  which  John,  Nicholas  was  Pope,2  who  ordained    Robert 
de  Kilwardby  as  Cardinal,  and  Friar  John  de  Peckham,  of  the     Ms 
Order  of  Minorites  and  Master  of  Divinity  as  Archbishop  of  fo.  204? 
Canterbury.     After  which  Nicholas  III.,  Honorius  IV.  was  Pope 
for  seven   years.3     He  changed   the  costume  of  the  Carmelite 
Friars,  which  hitherto  had  been  pale* 

After  which  Honorius  IV.,  Nicholas  IV.  was  pope  for  six 
years.5  He  was  of  the  Order  of  Minorite  Friars  ;  he 
declared6  the  rule  of  the  Minorite  Friars.  In  his  time  there 
befel  in  England,  on  the  eve  of  Saint  Margaret,7  such  a  storm 
of  winter  thunder  as  destroyed  the  crops,  whence  came  such 
a  time  of  dearness  as  lasted  almost  throughout  the  life  of  Edward 
the  First  after  the  Conquest.  At  this  time  the  taxation  of  the 
churches  was  changed  to  a  higher  rate.  Celestine  V.  was  pope 
for  three  years  after  Nicholas.8  This  Celestine  was  a  poor  hermit 
in  the  desert  near  Rome,  simple  in  manner,  neither  learned, 
nor  wise,  nor  distinguished.  A  certain  cardinal,  who  desired  to 
govern  the  Court,  or  to  become  pope,  yet  feared  that  the 
College  would  not  elect  him,  made  a  pretence,  and,  after  the 
death  of  the  said  Pope  Nicholas,  told  his  brother  cardinals 
at  the  election  to  the  Papacy,  that  a  voice  had  come  to  him 
three  times  in  a  vision  that  they  should  elect  as  pope  this 
simple  hermit,  whose  promise  he  had  that  he  would  do  nothing 
without  him.  The  others,  believing  this  to  be  the  inspiration 
of  God,  elected  him  [the  hermit]  as  pope  ;  who  knew  not  how 
to  conduct  his  estate,  whereby  the  Court  fell  into  great  confusion, 
and  they  themselves  also.9 

The  aforesaid  cardinal,  who  was  afterwards  named  Boniface, 
allowed  him  to  play  the  fool,  and  would  not  interfere  [to  main- 
tain] good  government,  until  affairs  were  in  such  a  mess  that 

1  An  error  :  Nicholas  III.  succeeded  John  XX.  or  XXI. 

2  1277-1288. 

8  1285-88.  Gray  reckons  him  as  Pope  during  the  papacy  of  the  French 
Martin  IV.,  1280-85. 

4  Meaning  obscure.      The  Carmelites,  or  White  Friars,  always  were  distin- 
guished by  white  robes.     Pale  is  also  an  old  term  for  'cloth.' 

5  1 288-1 292.  6Declara. 

7  igth  July,  old  style,  equal  to  3oth  July,  new  style. 

8  The  see  was  vacant  two  years  and  three  months  after  the  death  of  Nicholas 
in   1292. 

^ Et  ly  meismes  ensaule  :  misprinted  ensaule  in  Maltland  Club  Edit.— ensemble 


336  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,  Bart. 

they  were  past  mending,  and  then  he  advised  him  [Celestine] 
and  compelled  him  to  resign  the  dignity  in  his  favour,  under- 
taking to  provide  for  his  honourable  maintenance,  to  which  he 
consented.  The  College  [also]  consented  in  their  folly ;  elected 
the  other  and  called  him  Boniface  ;x  who,  from  the  moment  he 
entered  into  his  dignity,  took  no  care  for  Celestine,  but  allowed 
him  to  return  to  his  former  condition,  to  his  wretched  hermit- 
age. Which  Celestine,  as  soon  as  he  perceived  that  he  had 
been  cheated,  prophesied  of  Boniface  his  successor :  '  Thou 
earnest  in  like  a  fox :  thou  shalt  reign  like  a  lion,  and  die 
like  a  dog.' 

Which  thing   came   to   pass,    for   the    said   Boniface  reigned 

arrogantly  ;    deposed  cardinals  of  the  most  powerful  house  in 

Rome,  the   family   of  Colonna,   and   vehemently   opposed    the 

King  of  France.      Wherefore,    allying   themselves,    they   seized 

MS>     the  said  pope  and  led  him  out  of  Rome,  with  his  face  turned 

fo.  205  to  his  horse's  tail,  to  a  castle  in  the  neighbourhood,  where  he 

perished  of  hunger.2 

After  which  Boniface,  Benedict  III.  of  the  Order  of  Preachers, 
was  pope  for  one  year,3  of  whom  a  certain  ribald  wit  said 
in  Latin  : 

'  A  re  nomen  habe — benedic,  benefac,  benedicte ; 
Aut  rem  perverte — maledic,  malefac,  maledicte.'4 

Antony  de  Beck,  Bishop  of  Durham,  was  constituted  Patriarch 
of  Jerusalem,  but  never  entered  upon  the  Patriarchy,  but  in- 
sisted upon  living  as  a  noble  in  his  own  country. 

Clement  V.  was  pope  after  Benedict  for  twelve  years.5  He 
became  enormously  rich  in  treasure,  purchased  extensive  lands, 
caused  great  castles  to  be  built,  and  removed  the  Court  from 
Rome  [to  Avignon].  In  his  time  the  Templars  were  dissolved. 
He  caused  certain  of  the  decretals,  of  which  he  himself  was 
the  author,  to  be  revoked,  which  John,  his  successor,  renewed. 

This  John  II.  [sic]  was  pope  after  Clement,  for  more  than  twenty 
years,6  and  was  a  great  scholar  in  Greek,  Hebrew,  and  Latin. 
He  caused  great  treasure  to  be  amassed,  and  waged  great  wars 

1  1294-1303. 

2  The  town's  people  rescued  him  after  three  days'  imprisonment,  but  he  died 
soon  after,   iith  October,   1303. 

3  Benedict  XL,  1303. 

4  Wrongly  printed  « malefacte '  in  Maltland  Club  Edit. 

5  1305-1314.  6John  XXII.,  1316-1334. 


The  c  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray  337 

in  Lombardy.  He  willingly  advanced  great  scholars  ;  he  con- 
demned pluralities  ;  he  reserved  for  his  Camera  the  first 
fruits  after  the  death  of  the  prelates  ;  he  instituted  the  matins 
of  the  Cross.  He  lived  throughout  the  time  of  King  Edward 
the  Second  after  the  Conquest,  and,  after  him,  during  the  time 
of  his  son,  Edward  III. 

At  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Edward  the  First  after  the 
Conquest,  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Edward  II., 
Henry,  Count  of  Luxembourg,  was  King  of  Germany  and 
Emperor,1  who  was  valiant  and  chivalrous,  and  proved  himself 
worthy  of  the  dignity  of  his  three  crowns.  He  bestowed  the 
realm  of  Bohemia  upon  his  son  John,  with  the  King's  daughter  ; 
which  John  conquered  the  said  realm  and  took  the  city  of 
Prague  by  assault  from  those  who  claimed  the  right  by  the  other 
male  line. 

The  said  Emperor  Henry  chivalrously  undertook  to  regain 
the  rights  of  the  empire  in  Tuscany  and  Lombardy  ;  wherefore, 
while  he  lay  before  Brescia,2  he  was  poisoned  in  receiving  the 
body  of  God  by  his  confessor,  a  Jacobin,  who  was  hired  by 
the  Guelfs,  who  were  in  dire  terror  of  his  [Henry's]  prowess. 
His  physicians,  who  well  perceived  what  had  happened,  would 
have  saved  him,  but  he  would  not  cast  up  his  Creator,  saying 
that  for  fear  of  death  he  would  never  part  with  the  body  of 
God. 

After  his  death  there  was  great  dispute  about  the  election  to 
the  empire.  The  Duke  of  Austria  had  the  votes  of  some  of 
the  electors  ;  Louis,  Duke  of  Bavaria,  on  the  other  hand,  had  Ms. 
the  votes  of  the  rest  of  the  electors,  by  reason  of  which  dispute  fo  205* 
the  aforesaid  seigneurs  fought  with  [all]  their  force  in  Swabia. 
The  Bavarian  won  the  victory  by  the  aid  of  John,  King  of 
Bohemia.  The  said  Bavarian  assumed  the  dignity  of  emperor, 
and  received  his  three  crowns  ;  but  the  Pope  and  the  Court 
of  Rome  were  opposed  to  him  ;  wherefore,  at  his  coronation  in 
Rome,  the  senators  and  those  of  the  College  who  dwelt  at  the 
time  about  the  church  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  agreed  to  elect 
a  new  pope,  a  cordelier,  who  had  the  name  of  Nicholas,  alleging 
as  reasons  for  this  that  the  Court,  which  by  ancient  canonical 
constitution  ought  to  have  been  at  Rome,  was  [then]  at 
Avignon. 

This  Nicholas  did  not  persevere  long  in  his  office,  but,  as 
soon  as  the  aforesaid  emperor  had  returned  to  Bavaria,  put 

1  I  308-1 3 1 3.  2  At  Buonconvento,  24th  Aug.,    1313. 

Y 


338    The  c  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray 

himself  at  the  mercy  of  Pope  John,  who  at  that  time  dwelt 
at  Avignon.  Wherefore  the  Court  of  Rome  never  accepted  the 
said  Bavarian  as  emperor,  who  lived  all  his  days  under  interdict. 
He  lived  a  good  while,  but  did  little  in  deeds  of  arms  to  be 
recounted.  He  was  very  skilful  with  his  hands.  He  bestowed 
the  Mark  of  Brandenburg  upon  his  eldest  son,  as  the  right 
of  the  empire  is  that  such  lordships  are  at  the  disposal  of 
the  emperor  in  default  of  heir  male.  To  this  same  [lord]  of 
Brandenburg  he  gave  the  duchy  of  Carentane  and  the  count- 
ship  of  Tyrol,  with  the  daughter  and  heiress  of  the  duke.  He 
gave  to  his  younger  son,  whom  he  had  by  the  eldest  daughter 
of  William,  Count  of  Hainaw,  the  earldoms  of  Zeeland,  Holland 
and  Hainaw.  Another  of  his  sons,  le  Romer,  by  the  same 
wife,  he  caused  to  marry  the  daughter  and  heiress  of  the  King 
of  Cracow.  He  lived  very  long  in  the  time  of  King  Edward 
of  England,  the  Third  after  the  Conquest,  as  will  be  afterwards 
recorded. 

(To  be  continued.) 


The    Ruthven    of   Freeland    Barony. 

IX     THE   RETURN  OF    1740! 

THOSE  who  have  carefully  studied  the  preceding  section 
would,  I  think,  admit  that  I  was  absolved  from  the 
necessity  of  replying  any  further  to  Mr.  Stevenson.  I  may, 
however,  point  out  briefly,  that  as  to  the  return  of  1740,  his 
tactics  are  much  the  same.  Enveloping  in  a  cloud  of  dust 
the  fact  that  he  cannot  disprove  my  assertions,  he  ends  by 
announcing  my  '  defeat.' 

Let  us  see,  Mr.  Stevenson  asks,  what  can  be  urged  against 
the  authority  of  this  Return,  which,  by  the  way,  he  has  to 
admit  '•was  in  fact,  though  not  in  form  the  Roll  of  1707,  with  some 
additions,  some  omissions,  and  some  qualifying  observations,' 
the  Lords  of  Session  having  J  deleted  only  those  titles  of  the 
extinction  of  which  they  had  legal  evidence'  (p.  22).  Mr. 
Stevenson  replies : 

Mr.  Round's  argument,  which  comes  first  in  logical  order,  is  the  formal 
objection  that  the  Report  has  '  no  judicial  or  official  authority.' 

Here  we  have  Mr.  Stevenson  again  trying  to  foist  on  to 
me  a  statement  which  was  not  mine,  but,  as  we  discover 
on  his  next  page,  Lord  Crawford's.  I  cited  with  exact  references 
the  following  passages  from  Lord  Crawford's  Earldom  of  Mar: 

.  .  .   '  The  report  possesses  no  judicial  character  (II.   27). 

/  have  shown  that  the  report  of  the  Court  of  Session  in  1 740  was 
the  work  merely  of  one  man,  and  has  no  judicial  or  even  official 
authority'  (II.  94). 

This  is  strong  and  definite  enough,  and  I  cannot  wonder 
that  Mr.  Stevenson  does  not  like  it.  Half  a  dozen  pages 
are  devoted  to  arguing  that  Lord  Crawford  was  guilty  of 
'  inadvertency  and  misconception,'  that  he  c  wrote  hastily,'  and 
so  forth,  in  the  midst  of  which  we  read  as  usual  or  *  Mr. 
Round's  next  statement  that  the  report  was  the  work  of  one 

1  See  Scottish  Historical  Review,  vol.  iii.  p.   194. 


340  J.   H.   Round 

man,'  a  statement  which  I  nowhere  make,  and  which  is  merely- 
found  in  the  quotation  from  Lord  Crawford's  work. 

And  at  the  end  of  it  all  what  do  we  find  ?  That  my 
above  quotation  from  Lord  Crawford  is  perfectly  accurate — 
which  is  all  that  concerns  me. 

And  now  as  to  Riddell.  I  stated  in  my  original  article, 
that  '  Riddell  had  been  reluctantly  compelled  to  admit  that  it 
contains  "inadvertencies  and  misconceptions."'  Why  'reluctantly,' 
Mr.  Stevenson  enquires  twice  over  with  affected  surprise  ? 
Well,  I  need  hardly  observe  that  anyone  who  is  familiar 
with  Riddell's  volumes  knows  how  fiercely  he  maintained  the 
authority  of  the  Lords  of  Session  as  { the  natural  Forum  in 
such  matters'  (p.  646),  so  that  he  was  not  likely  to  disparage 
their  Report  if  he  could  help  it. 

Mr.  Stevenson  says  that  he  cannot  find  the  words  inad- 
vertencies and  misconceptions,'  and  unfortunately  I  did  not 
give  the  page  reference  for  them.  They  occur  where  we 
should  expect  them  as  preceding  his  important  paragraphs 
headed  : 

Roll  since  the  Union  inaccurate,  and  not  properly  adjusted. 
Prejudicial   consequences    from    this,   and    want   of  form    in    Scottish    Peers 
instructing  their  right  of  succession. 

No  proper  remedy  enforced,  or  proper  Peerage  Roll  made. 

For  Mr.  Stevenson  these  headings  can  hardly  be  pleasant 
reading. 

I  will  now  quote  from  Riddell's  remarks: 

The  House  of  Peers  .  .  .  ordered  a  reprint  of  the  Report  of  the  Lords  of 
Session  in  1740  .  .  .  which,  with  some  good  remarks,  contains  inadvertencies 
and  misconceptions,  etc.,  etc. 

There  was,  it  must  be  admitted,  great  necessity  for  these  steps.  .  .  .  The 
Roll  of  the  Scottish  Peers  adopted  since  the  Union  being  inaccurate  and  carelessly 
adjusted.  .  .  . 

Owing  therefore  to  all  titles,  with  the  sole  exception  of  those  forfeited,  being 
retained  in  the  existing,  or  what  is  styled  the  Union  Roll,  whether  assumed  or 
extinct,  although  it  has  been  altered  and  augmented  by  the  insertion  of  others 
under  the  authority  of  the  Lords,  successfully  claimed  since  the  Union, — the 
unrevised  and  exceptionable  state  and  condition  of  that  Roll,  and  want  of  a  peremptory 
form  and  due  establishment  of  Peerage  rights,  upon  the  demise  of  a  Peer  and 
accession  of  his  heir, — while  farther  still,  the  preceding  measures  of  the  House 
of  Lords  have  proved  //remedial, — it  has  been  practicable  for  anyone,  though 
a  mere  stranger,  to  answer  and  vote,  under  some  vacant  dignity,  at  Peerage 
Elections  (pp.  643-5). 

I  hope  that  if  Mr.  Stevenson  should  attempt  to  dispose  of 
these  assertions,  so  fatal  to  his  whole  argument,  he  will  at 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland   Barony        341 

least    refrain    from    describing  them    as    *  Mr.     Round's    state- 
ments.' 

And  I  may  add  that  the  view  that  there  was  no  proper 
adjustment  or  revision  of  the  Union  Roll  in  1740  would 
appear  to  be  confirmed  by  the  statement  of  Lyon  (Mr. 
Burnett)  to  the  Lords'  Committee  in  1882  that  'there  was 
no  readjustment  of  the  Union  Roll'  on  that  occasion. 


X     THE    CONDUCT   OF   THE    FAMILY 

Before  dealing  with  the  subject  thus  headed  by  Mr.  Stevenson, 
I  would  repeat  a  passage  in  my  original  paper  to  which  he  does 
not  allude  : 

I  must  not  close  this  essay  without  emphatically  observing  that  it  is  not 
intended  to  cast  the  least  blame,  or  to  make  any  unfavourable  reflection  whatever 
on  the  conduct  of  the  descendants  of  those  by  whom  the  honours  were 
assumed  (p.  186). 

Having  said  this  much,  on  which  I  there  further  insisted, 
I  will  now  address  myself  to  the  point  on  which  Mr.  Maitland 
Thomson  decides  emphatically  against  me  : 

The  accusation  of  mala  fides,  founded  on  the  recorded  action  of  the  early 
holders  of  the  title,  is  here  thoroughly  investigated  and  triumphantly  refuted. 
Rightly  or  wrongly,  Baroness  Jean  and  Baroness  Isabel  assumed  the  title  without 
hesitancy  and  used  it  without  vacillation.  Against  the  former  there  is  nothing 
but  the  phraseology  of  her  Testament  Dative,  for  which  she  clearly  could  not 
be  responsible  (p.  106). 

Again  I  call  a  halt.  I  am  absolutely  certain  that  Mr.  Mait- 
land Thomson  is  anxious  to  be  strictly  fair  ;  but  he  has  been 
here  not  unnaturally  misled  by  accepting  as  fact  Mr.  Stevenson's 
triumphant  assertion.  The  latter  writer  does  indeed  assert 
that  '  of  the  lady's  vacillations,  so  extremely  difficult  to  prove, 
only  one  of  Mr.  Round's  proofs,  the  third,  remains,'  namely, 
her  Testament  Dative.  But  if  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson  will 
look  again  at  Mr.  Stevenson's  treatise,  he  will  find  that  my 
critic  is  totally  unable  to  deny  the  accuracy  of  my  first,  namely 
that,  twenty  years  after  her  brother's  death, — 

'  as  if,'  says  Riddell,  '  apprehensive  of  the  scrutiny  of  the  Bench,  she,  in  her 
petition  to  the  Court  of  Session,  on  the  4th  of  November,  1721,  for  recording 
the  entail,  is  only  modestly  styled  Mrs.  Jean  Ruthven'  (p  168). 

So  writes  Riddell.  Is  his  statement  correct  or  not  ?  Mr. 
Stevenson  has  to  admit  that  //  is.  He  tries,  indeed,  to  explain 
it  away,  but  the  fact  that  he  cannot  decide  which  explanation 
to  adopt  is  eloquent  enough  of  the  weakness  of  his  case.  The 


342  J.   H.   Round 

fact  remains  that  this  l  Baroness,'  who,  in  the  words  of  Mr. 
Maitland  Thomson,  had  'assumed  the  title  without  hesitancy 
and  used  it  without  vacillation,'  nevertheless,  in  so  formal  a 
document  as  her  petition  to  the  Court  of  Session  twenty  years 
after  her  alleged  succession  to  the  title,  *  is  only  modestly  styled 
Mrs.  Jean  Ruthven'  The  suggestion  that  on  this  occasion 
*  her  law-agents  were  probably  different '  [!]  can  only  be  described 
as  desperate. 

Having  insisted  on  this  amazing,  and  to  Riddell  significant 
fact,  I  hasten  to  add  that  Mr.  Stevenson  is  quite  successful 
in  other  corrections  of  my  case  here,  and  is  welcome  to  his 
exultation  thereat.  He  has  shown  firstly  that  Baroness  Jean 
could  not  be  responsible  for  her  description  as  *  Mrs.  Jean 
Ruthven  in  her  Testament  Dative,'  as  I  had  erroneously  supposed  ; 
secondly,  that  she  is  not  described,  in  a  deed  of  assignation  of 
1721,  as  'said  Jean  Ruthven,'  as  alleged  by  me;  thirdly,  that 
so  far  from  waiting  'some  twenty  years  before  she  assumed  the 
title,  (as  Riddell  and  I  supposed),  she  is  styled  on  the  contrary 
'Jean,  Lady  Ruthven,'  loth  Dec.,  1702. 

The  second  of  these  corrections  reveals  an  error  of  which, 
I  venture  to  hope,  few  would  expect  me  to  be  guilty,  for  Mr. 
Stevenson  tells  us  that  the  words  are  *  said  defunct^  who  is 
styled  elsewhere  in  the  record  '  Jean,  Lady  Ruthven.'  The 
explanation — I  can  only  give  it  as  a  warning  to  others — is  that 
these  extracts  were  made  by  Mr.  Foster's  professional  searcher 
and  supplied  to  me  through  Mr.  Foster.  It  is,  I  suppose,  the 
only  case  in  which  I  have  ever  relied  on  the  usually  employed 
record-agent. 

To  the  Testament  Dative  I  shall  have  to  recur.  As  to  the 
third  and  remaining  point,  we  can  now  at  last,  thanks  to  Mr. 
Stevenson,  put  together  the  facts  as  to  Jean's  use  of  the  tide. 
David,  Lord  Ruthven,  died,  Mr.  Stevenson  tells  us  (p.  57) 
in  April,  1701.  His  sister  and  heir  of  entail,  Jean — 

(1)  'is  styled   Jean,  Lady   Ruthven'  in  a  notarial  instrument 
of  sasine  and  a  bond,   loth  Dec.,   1702  (p.   57); 

(2)  is  made  executor  dative  to  her  brother,   4th  Jan.,    1703 
(sic)  '  under  the  title  of  "  Mrs.   Jean  Ruthven  "  '  (p.  60)  ; 

(3)  '  styles  herself    Jean,    Lady   Ruthven    in  a  discharge   of 
an  annual  rent,  I2th  Nov.,  1709   (p.  57)  ;  is  also  so  styled   in 
an  instrument  of  sasine,  26th  Jan.,  1712  (sic)  ;   is  also  so  styled 
when  served  heir  to  her  brother  in  the  Sheriff  Court  of  Perth, 
9th  Sept.,   1721   (p.  58); 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony       343 

(4)  petitions  the  Court  of  Session,  4th  Nov.,  1721  (i.e.  after 
being  so  served)  as  Mrs.  Jean  Ruthven. 

This  is  how  she  '  used '  the  title  '  without  vacillation,'  in  Mr. 
Maitland  Thomson's  words. 

The  most  important  evidence  in  favour  of  Jean's  right  is,  I 
gather,  her  service  ;  for  Mr.  Stevenson  is  good  enough  to  say 
of  me  that 

The  suggestion  is  ridiculous  that  a  person  in  "Scotland  might  assume  what 
designation  he  chose  in  such  a  process  whether  he  was  entitled  to  it  in  law  or 
courte|y  or  in  neither.  The  proceedings,  unless  in  a  competition  of  heirs,  were 
ex  pane,  but  they  were  conducted  publicly  and  formally,  and  the  members  of 
the  jury  were  by  statute  personally  liable  for  their  error. 

Surely  Mr.  Stevenson  cannot  be  ignorant  that  twelve  years  later 
George  Durie  of  Grange,  whose  assumption  of  the  Rutherford 
title  and  voting  in  right  of  it  (1733)  he  does  not  attempt  to 
defend,  was  served  '  heir  of  line,  entail,  and  of  provision '  of 
Andrew,  Earl  of  Teviot,  as  '  George,  Lord  Rutherford,  ist  Nov., 
I733>1  in  spite  of  the  fierce  contest  for  that  title.  Surely  he 
knows  that  the  Colville  of  Ochiltree  claimant,  denounced  on 
all  hands,  obtained  in  1784  a  retour  finding  that  he  was  first 
cousin  and  heir-male  of  Robert,  the  third  Lord  Colville  of 
Ochiltree,  although  such  finding  was  afterwards  proved,  in  1788, 
to  have  been  wholly  without  foundation.2  Need  I  adduce 
further  instances  ? 

So  much  for  this  vaunted  evidence  and  for  my  *  ridiculous  ' 
attempt  to  minimise  it. 

Jean  was  succeeded  in  the  family  estates,  under  her  brother's 
entail,  by  her  nephew,  Sir  William  Cunyngham,  in  April,  1722. 
As  to  him  there  is  no  question.  It  is  admitted  that — as  was 
stated  in  my  original  article — he,  '  though  now  both  heir  of 
line  and  of  tailzie,  made  no  attempt  to  assume  the  title*  (p.  169). 
Mr.  Stevenson  writes  that  he 

succeeded  his  aunt  Jean  Ruthven  in  April,  1722,  under  the  entail  of  his 
uncle  David,  and  assumed  the  surname  of  Ruthven.  Whether  he  succeeded  to 
the  peerage  as  well  is  not  known?  He  certainly  did  not  assume  the  title 
(P-  4). 

To  this  we  may  now  add  that  he  gave  up  his  aunt's  testament 
dative  as  that,  not  of  '  Jean,  Lady  Ruthven,'  but  of  '  Mrs. 
Jean  Ruthven.' 

To  account  for  the   facts  Mr.    Maitland   Thomson    suggests 

1  Riddell,  o/>.  cit.  p.  902. 

2  Robertson's  Peerage  Proceedings,  pp.  459  et  seq. 

3  The  italics  are  mine. 


344  J«   H.   Round 

a  theory  which  I  shall  discuss,  but  for  the  present  I  will  only- 
note  Mr.  Stevenson's  admission  here  that  it  was  possible  to 
succeed  and  assume  the  surname  of  Ruthven  under  the  entail 
without  succeeding  to  the  peerage. 

Beyond  the  fact  that  Sir  William  only  survived  his  succession 
six  months,  I  cannot  find  any  explanation  vouchsafed  of  his 
failure  to  assume  the  title,  which  was  promptly  assumed  by 
his  immediate  predecessor  and  successor.1  Mr.  Stevenson 
writes : 

Sir  William  Cunynghame  succeeded  in  April,  1722,  to  the  entailed  estates^ 
According  to  the  unknown  terms  of  the  patent  he  did  or  did  not  succeed  to 
the  title  and  honour  at  the  same  time.  But  Mr.  Round  assumes  (i)  that 
if  the  title  existed  it  was  Sir  William's  .  .  . 

How  unwarranted  the  first  of  Mr.  Round's  assumptions  is,  I  have  already 
shown  (p.  63). 

He  has  not  even  attempted  to  show  anything  of  the  kind. 
The  defenders  of  this  assumption  have  all  been  agreed  that, 
whatever  the  limitation  was  in  the  patent,  Sir  William  must 
have  inherited  under  it,  for  he  was  heir  of  line  as  well  as  heir 
of  tailzie. 

Mr.  Stevenson  asserts  that  I  '  must  at  any  rate  have  been 
aware  of  the  case  of  Somerville '  among  '  more  notable  omissions 
to  assume  honours.'  Surely  he  cannot  be  ignorant  that  the 
failure  to  assume  that  title  was  due  to  a  doubt  whether  it  should 
descend  to  the  heir  male  or  the  heirs  of  line,  and  that  when 
this  doubt  was  removed  by  a  single  person  becoming  heir  in 
both  capacities,  he  successfully  claimed  the  peerage.  And  thus 
this  instance  tells  against,  rather  than  for,  Mr.  Stevenson. 

With  regard  to  Sir  William's  successor  in  the  entailed  estates,, 
Isobel,  wife  of  Colonel  James  Johnston,  she,  as  Lady  Ruthven, 
gave  up  the  will  of  her  predecessor  as  that  of  '  Sir  William 
Ruthven  alias  Cunyngham.'  I  desire  to  draw  special  attention 
to  what  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson  asserts  of  the  two  '  Baronesses ' : 

Rightly  or  wrongly,  Baroness  Jean  and  Baroness  Isobel  assumed  the  title 
without  hesitancy,  and  used  it  without  vacillation.  Against  the  former  there 
is  nothing  but  the  phraseology  of  her  Testament  Dative,  for  which  she  clearly 
could  not  be  responsible;  against  the  former  [?  latter]  only  a  series  of 
unverified  quotations,  which  proved  to  be  misquotations,  of  the  Commissariat 
Records  (p.  106). 

Mr.   Maitland  Thomson,    who    bases    on    this   a    verdict    here 

1  His  aunt,  Mr.  Stevenson  insists,  had  assumed  the  title  many  years  before 
she  was  served  heir  to  her  uncle  in  the  Ruthven  estates. 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony       345 

against  me,  is  (as  I  have  already  said)  anxious,  I  am  sure,  to 
be  fair  ;  but  we  have  seen  how  he  was  misled  by  Mr.  Stevenson's 
song  of  triumph  into  supposing  that  Baroness  Jean's  petition 
to  the  Court  of  Session  as  '  Mrs.  Jean  Ruthven '  had  been 
somehow  got  rid  of,  although  Mr.  Stevenson  could  not,  as  a 
fact,  deny  this  evidence. 

We  now  find  that  he  has  been  similarly  misled  by  Mr. 
Stevenson's  boast  that  the  case,  so  far  as  Isobel  is  concerned, 

*  has,   in   its    turn,  broken    down    at    the    touch.'     For,    among 
my  '  misquotations  '  from  the  Commissariot  Records,  I  alleged 
that  *  more  than  three  years '  after  assuming  the  title  '  she  gave 
up    under    the    humble   style    of    "  Mrs.    Isabel  Ruthven "    the 
"additional  inventory  of  her  aunt"'  (p.   169).     Is  this  the  fact 
or  not  ?     Mr.  Stevenson  has  to  admit  that   //  is,  although   the 
fact  is  smothered  in  his    attempts  at  explaining   it  (pp.    67-8). 
'  It  may  have  been,'  is  one  of  these,  *  that  the  Ruthven  family 
lawyers  were  old-fashioned.'     Is  that  why  they  would  not  risk 
styling  their  employer  a  Peeress  ? 

*  Of  James,  Lord  Ruthven,'  Isabel's  son  and  heir,  I  may  repeat, 
from  my  original  article,  that  he  gave  up  his  aunt's  Testament 
Dative  (see  my  quotation  there  from  the  Commissariot  Records), 

*  not  as  James,  Lord  Ruthven,  but  as  "  James  Ruthven  of  Ruthven, 
Esquire,"  and  was  served  heir  (in  special)  to  his  uncle1  David 
three  months  later  (9th  Dec.,    1732)  under    the  same    humble 
designation'    (p.    170).     As    he    cannot    deny  these  facts,    Mr. 
Stevenson  boldly  writes : 

It    will    be    observed    that    where,    rightly    or    wrongly,    he    preserves    his 

*  humble  designation '    of  James    Ruthven    of  Ruthven    in  his  appointment  as 
executor  on  his  mother's  estate,  and  in  his  service  as  heir-special    to  his  grand 
uncle  David,  he   is   but  following  a  general  custom  of  former  members  of  his 
family  (p.  69). 

'  Former  members  of  his  family  ! '  Why,  his  mother  had  given 
up  her  predecessor's  Testament  Dative  under  the  peerage 
style  of  '  Lady  Ruthven,'  and  her  aunt  Jean  had  been  served 
heir  in  special  to  her  brother  David  as  '  Lady  Ruthven  '  only 
twelve  years  before  James  was  served  heir  to  him  as  a  plain 
Esquire  !  Nay,  Mr.  Stevenson  rebuked  my  ignorance  for 
not  attaching  sufficient  importance  to  the  formal  recognition  by 
that  service  of  Jean's  right  to  the  title.  And  yet  he  dwells  at 
great  length  (pp.  69-71)  on  the  learning  and  the  special  know- 

1  This  is  a  slip  of  mine  for  £m*/-uncle,  as  my  chart  pedigree  shows. 


346  J.  H.   Round 

ledge  of  the  jurors  responsible  for  the  service  of  James  (Johnston) 
Ruthven  as  a  plain  commoner. 

Need  I  pursue  his  contradictions  further  ? 


XI    WHAT  WAS  THE   LIMITATION? 

In  spite  of  his  assumed  confidence,  in  spite  of  his  peans  of 
triumph,  we  find  that  Mr.  Stevenson,  from  the  very  outset, 
is  conscious  of  the  fatal  flaw  in  the  hopeless  case  he  has 
espoused.  Again  and  again  have  I  challenged  my  opponents 
to  agree  upon  any  conceivable  limitation  consistent  with  the 
known  facts,  if  the  Ruthven  assumption  has  been  valid.  This, 
surely,  is  the  first  step,  the  least  we  have  a  right  to  expect.  If, 
as  they  insist,  there  is  no  evidence  as  to  what  the  limitation  was, 
the  whole  range  of  possible  limitations  known  to  the  peerage  law 
of  Scotland  is  at  their  disposal  to  select  from  ;  they  have  only  to 
choose  the  one  which  suits  them  best. 

And  yet  so  keen  is  their  consciousness  that  no  conceivable 
limitation  can  be  made  to  serve  their  purpose,  that  nothing 
can  induce  them  to  adopt  one. 

Mr.  Stevenson  must  be  well  aware  of  the  stress  I  lay  upon 
this  point,  for  on  it  in  my  original  article  (1884)  I  insisted 
in  italic  type  and  at  exceptional  length.  Indeed,  my  difficulty  is, 
as  I  explained  at  the  outset,  that  though  my  argument  remains 
unanswered,  I  cannot  expect  that  this  Review  will  reprint  it  in 
extenso. 

The  earliest  attempt  to  justify  the  assumption  was  that  of 
Douglas  (1764),  who,  after  observing  that  *  James  .  .  .  had 
voted  as  a  peer  at  several  elections,'  cautiously  guards  himself 
by  the  saving  clause  : 

'  If  (tie)  the  honours  were  to  the  heirs  general  of  the  patentee's  body,  this 
lord's  title  to  the  peerage  is  indisputable.' 

Yes,  but  if  the  honours  were  so  limited,  then  their  assumption  by 
Baroness  Jean,  who  was  not  such  heir  general,  was  unwarranted, 
or,  if  my  critics  insist  upon  the  term,  *  fraudulent'1  Nevertheless, 
this  guarded  suggestion — of  which  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson 
writes : 

'Douglas,  our  still  unsuperseded  standard  authority,  .  .  .  expresses  himself 
with  a  reserve  perhaps  not  less  significant  than  the  denunciations  of  the  free 
lances — '  * 

'developed    into   a   comfortable,    though   absolutely   unfounded 

1The  word  is  not  mine.  *&•#/.  Hist.  Rev.  iii.   104. 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland   Barony       347 

hypothesis.'1  There  lies  before  me  Burke's  Peerage  for  1823, 
which  thus  carefully  states  the  ground  on  which  the  tide  was 
borne  : 

*  The  patent  containing  the  precise  specification  of  the  honours  of  the  house  of 
Ruthven  was   unfortunately  consumed  with    the  mansion  of  Freeland  on  the 
1 5th  March,  1750  ;  but  it  is  understood,  and  so  acted  upon,  that  the  reversion 
was  to  heirs  male  and  female  of  the  patentee's  body'  (p.  660). 

This,  surely,  is  definite  enough.  It  would  be  really  interesting 
to  know  what  Mr.  Stevenson  makes  of  this  statement,  which 
must  have  received  the  sanction  of  the  family.  For  he  knows 
that  this  view  of  the  patent  had  not  been  *  so  acted  upon ' ;  he 
knows  that,  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson,  '  Baroness 
Jean  .  .  .  assumed  the  title  without  hesitancy '  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  heir  general ;  and  indeed  he  himself  insists  upon  the  fact. 
How  will  he  escape  from  the  horns  of  his  dilemma  ?  Will  he 
suggest  that  the  family  themselves  had  never  heard  of  *  Baroness 
Jean,'  their  own  predecessor  not  only  in  the  title,  but  also  in  the 
family  estate  ? 

It  is  quite  possible  that  he  may.  For  he  is  indignant  at  my 
suggestion  that  her  most  inconvenient  existence  was  suppressed 
in  order  to  present  a  consistent  theory  of  the  assumption. 
Suppressed,  however,  it  certainly  was,  not  only  in  the  work  of 
Douglas,  who,  in  Riddell's  words,  'very  blameably  represents 
things  in  such  a  manner  as  to  lead  anyone  to  believe  that,  upon 
the  death  of  David  in  1701,  Isabel  had  succeeded  as  heir-general' 
(p.  Ho),2  but  again  in  Wood's  Douglas?  and  finally  in  Burke's 
Peerage.  In  this  last  publication  Baroness  Jean  (and,  of  course, 
Sir  William  Cunyngham)  continued  to  be  comfortably  ignored 
down  to  1883  inclusive,  in  which  year  we  were  still  informed 
that  *  David,  2nd  baron,  .  .  .  died  without  issue  in  1701,  when 
the  barony  devolved  upon  his  niece,  the  Hon.  Isabella  Ruthven, 
as  ist  Baroness.'  Mr.  Stevenson,  who  attaches  so  much 
importance  to  the  sanction  given  by  time,  should  note  the 
persistence  of  this  version  for  some  hundred  and  twenty  years,  and 
the  eventual  acceptance  as  undoubted  fact  of  what  was  at  first  but 
a  tentative  guess.  The  parallel  is  instructive. 

But  the  pleasantly  consistent  tale  was  now  rudely  shattered, 
for  by  this  time  Mr.  Joseph  Foster  had  unearthed  '  Baroness 

1  P.    1 70  of  my  article. 

-  The    words    are    *  Isabel     Baroness    Ruthven,    who    succeeded     her    uncle 
David.' 

3 'Supposed  to  be  to  heirs-general,  as  an  heir-general  iucceeded  in  1701* 
(II.  686). 


348  J.   H.   Round 

Jean,'  to  say  nothing  of  Sir  William  Cunyngham.  A  totally 
different  story  had  now  to  be  presented  to  the  public,  and  in 
1884  a  rapidly  evolved  new  version  made  its  appearance  in 
Burke.  We  thenceforth  read  of  the  2nd  lord  that 

Dying  unmarried,  1701,  he  was  succeeded  by  his  youngest  sister  Jean,  who 
as  Baroness  Ruthven  made  up  her  titles  to  the  estates,  and  whose  right  to  the 
peerage  was  unchallenged  in  her  lifetime.  She  d.  unm.  1722,  and  the  next 
holder  of  the  title  was  her  niece,  Isabel,  Baroness  Ruthven. 

Overboard  went  the  standing  assertion  that  the  family  had 
*  acted  upon '  the  understanding  that  the  limitation  was  to  heirs 
of  line  ;  and  what  is  the  understanding  now  ?  What  does  the 
family  assert  ?  What  do  their  champions  believe  ?  No  one  can 
tell  us  ;  no  one  knows. 

All  that  is  certain  is  that  the  defence  has  now  been  forced 
to  abandon  its  own  avowed  position  and  has  not  dared  to 
adopt  definitely  any  other  in  its  place.  To  establish  this  we 
have  only  to  compare  the  definite  assertion  as  to  the  terms 
of  the  patent  which  was  formerly  made  in  Burke  with 
that  which  has  replaced  it  in  that  publication  since  the  sudden 
change  of  front  in  1883-4.  We  now  read  of  the  patent  of 
creation  that 

'It  is  said  to  have  perished  I4th  March,  1750,  when  Freeland  House  was 
burned.  Collateral  proofs1  exist  that  heirs-female  were  not  excluded  [!]  and 
there  are  grounds  for  surmising  that  a  power  of  nomination  in  some  shape  was  conferred 
in  it.' 

I  can  but  quote  from  my  original  article  (1884)  the  com- 
ment on  this  mist  of  words : 

'  Now,  what  does  all  this  mean  ?  Simply  that  the  defenders  of  the  assump- 
tion find  that  no  one  limitation  will  serve  their  turn,  and  that  they  are 
compelled  to  uphold  the  two  alternately,  just  as  suits  their  purpose,'  (p.  176). 

For,  observe,  the  question  must  be  faced ;  was  Baroness 
Jean  entitled  to  the  dignity  she  assumed  ?  or  was  she  not  ? 
Yes  or  no  ?  *  Burke/  it  is  true,  now  asserts  definitely  enough, 
it  seems,  that  she  '  s.  her  brother  in  the  title,'  which  implies 
that  it  was  limited  to  heirs  of  tailzie  not  to  heirs  of  line. 
But  immediately  afterwards  we  read  of  her  niece  Isabel : 

'  to  whom  (as  being  heir  of  line  as  well  as  of  nomination  or  entail)  any 
doubts  suggested  regarding  her  aunt's  status  have  no  application.' 

But  we  catch  the  acrobat  in  the  act  of  vaulting  from  steed 
to  steed.  If  the  assumption  by  -Baroness  Jean  as  heir  *  of 
nomination '  was  valid,  what  need  had  Isabel  to  be  heir  of  line 

1  These  proofs,  a  footnote  explains,  are  simply  the  retention  of  the  title  of 
the  Union  Roll,  the  votes  in  respect  of  it,  etc. 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony       349 

as  well  ?  And  if  Isabel's  right  depended  on  her  being  '  heir 
of  line,'  Baroness  Jean  assumed  the  title  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  heir  of  line  without  any  ground  whatever.  For  Mr. 
Maitland  Thomson's  suggestion  will  not  avail  here  ;  whatever 
view  she  may  have  taken  of  the  terms  of  the  patent  she  must 
at  least  have  known  that  she  was  not  the  heir  of  line. 

The  importance  I  attach  to  the  version  in  '  Burke '  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  it  is  the  most  authoritative,  as  it  must  have 
been  submitted  to  the  family.  It  is  also  an  ex  pane  statement 
making  out  for  the  defence  the  best  case  it  can.  And  what 
does  it  admit  ?  Why,  that  if  Jean's  right  was  doubtful,  Isabel's 
at  least  was  clear.  Jean's  right  doubtful  ?  Why,  if  the 
argument  means  anything,  it  means  that  she  had  no  right  at 
all.  And  yet  Mr.  Stevenson  is  wild  with  indignation  at  my 
daring  to  hold  such  a  view. 

And  note  further  that  the  first  of  Burke's  '  collateral 
proofs  .  .  .  that  heirs-female  were  not  excluded,'  is  the  reten- 
tion of  the  title  on  the  Union  Roll,  although  at  the  very 
time  of  its  compilation  the  title  was  assumed  by  one  who 
was  not  the  heir-female  (by  which  vague  term  is  meant  the 
heir  of  line),  and  who,  indeed,  excluded  such  heir  ! 

And,  further ;  how  does  the  fact  that  c  Baroness  Isabel ' 
was  heir  of  line  as  well  as  of  entail  make  her  right  clear  even 
if  her  aunt's  was  doubtful  ?  There  is  no  more  evidence  that 
the  dignity  was  limited  to  heirs  of  line  than  there  is  for  the 
*  surmise '  that  a  power  of  nomination  *  in  some  shape '  had  been 
conferred.  The  <  collateral  proofs,'  as  they  are  quaintly  styled 
in  '  Burke,'  resolve  themselves,  we  find,  into  recognitions  of 
the  dignity's  existence.  But,  as  Mr.  Stevenson  insists,  Jean's 
right  to  it  was  recognised ;  Jean  was  summoned  to  the 
crowning  of  the  king.  And  yet  she  was  not  the  heir  of  line. 
If  such  recognition  does  not  avail,  as  'Burke'  implies  that 
it  does  not,  to  prove  her  undoubted  right,  how  can  it  con- 
stitute such  proof  in  the  case  of  Isabel  ?  And  what  other 
proof  is  there  ? 

The  truth  is,  that  there  is  one  theory,  and  one  alone,  on 
which  the  assumption  of  this  title  can  be  consistently  justi- 
fied. But  it  involves,  unluckily,  not  only  the  abandonment 
but  the  absolute  repudiation  of  that  understanding  upon  which 
we  were  assured  the  family  had  acted  when  assuming  it. 
For  this  theory — which,  indeed,  does  but  raise  other  difficulties 
— is  that  the  dignity  was  limited,  not  to  the  heirs  of  line 


35° 


J.   H.   Round 


but  to  those  who  should  inherit  the  Freeland  estate.  On 
that  hypothesis  *  Baroness  Jean '  and  all  her  successors  in 
its  possession  were  entitled  to  the  peerage  dignity. 

Why,  then,  is  this  hypothesis  not  boldly  adopted  ?  Why  does 
c  Burke '  lean  to  an  heirs  of  line  limitation  ?  Why  did  the 
paper  in  the  Journal  of  Jurisprudence?  on  which,  as  I  showed, 
his  new  ground  was  based,  similarly  hedge  and  trim  P1  Why 
did  my  opponents  begin  by  proclaiming  that  '  the  title  was 
evidently  destined  to  pass  along  with  the  estates^  and  did  so,' 
only  to  contradict  themselves  by  adding  subsequently  : 

'  Supposing  that  the  right  of  Jean,  Lady  Ruthven,  was  questionable,  no 
such  doubt  rests  on  the  succession  after  her  death,  as  all  the  subsequent  holders 
were  heirs  of  line  of  the  original  guarantee '  ? 2 

'  Nay,  which  is  more  and  most  of  all,'3  why  does  Mr. 
Stevenson  himself  from  the  very  outset  of  his  case,4  care- 
fully abstain  from  adopting  even  a  definite  hypothesis  as  to 
what  the  limitation  was  ?  Let  those  who  wish  to  learn  what 
view  he. really  holds  turn  to  his  guarded  expressions  on  pp. 
54-5.  His  one  anxiety  seems  to  be  to  avoid  telling  them 
what  it  is. 

'Isobel  and  her  successors  may  have5  taken  up  the  title  as  heirs 
of  line  of  the  patentee  ;  but  even  though  Douglas  "  admitted  " 
it,  that  was  not  the  only  possible  limitation  by  which  the  title 
reached  them.  The  Scots  law  ...  is  familiar  with  cases  of 
honours  limited  to  heirs  of  entail,  and  there  is  no  proof  that 
entails  were  absent  in  this  case;  but  something  to  the  contrary. 
There  was  a  deed  of  nomination6  of  heirs  of  entail  of  the 
hereditary  lands  of  the  family.7  The  line  of  that  entail  coincides 

1  It  is  from  collateral  evidence  only  that  we  can  gather  what  its  terms  were. 
.  .  .     But  was  it  simply  limited  to  heirs  of  line,  or  did  it  contain,  like  a  good 
many[!]    other    Scottish    patents    about    its    date,    a    power    to    the    patentee, 
perhaps   to    his    son    also[!  !],    to    select    an    heir  ?     Or    was    there    an    express 
limitation   to   the  heir  or  class  of  heirs  on  whom  Lord  Ruthven  [/'.£.  the  first 
Lord]  should  entail  his  estates  ?     Be  that  as  it  may,  etc.,  etc. — Journal  of  Juris- 
prudence and  Scottish  Law  Magazine,  March,   1883. 

2  See  p.    1 76  of  my  original  article. 

3  From  Lord  Chief  Justice  Crewe'«  judgment  in  the  Earldom  of  Oxford  case. 
* '  I    propose  to  set  forth    in    outline    the  history  of  the    assumption  of  the 

peerage,  first  by  the  male  line,  and  thereafter  by  the  female  line,  or  a  line 
of  heirs  of  entail,  which  ever  it  may  turn  out  to  have  been''  (p.  i). 

5  The  italics  in  this  and  the  preceding  quotation  are  mine. 

6  But  not  by  the  patentee  (J.  H.  R.). 

7  But  only  of  the  lands  (J.   H.   R.). 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland   Barony       351 

to  some  extent  certainly,  and  in  its  whole  extent  possibly  with 
the  line  which  the  peerage  has  followed.  .  .  .  Either  of  these 
alternatives  may  have  been  in  accordance  with  the  facts.  I  state 
them  merely  to  show  that  it  is  not  possible  to  demand  that  the 
title,  if  not  merely  to  heirs-male,  shall  be  held  to  be  to  heirs- 
female  merely,  any  more  than  to  say  that  on  failure  of  the 
last  heir-male  a  title  which  is  eventually  to  heirs,  goes  neces- 
sarily to  the  eldest  daughter  of  the  grantee.  ...  It  is  thus 
impossible  for  us  in  the  present  state  of  our  information  to 
attribute  to  any  of  the  heirs  about  to  be  named,  the  precise 
theory  according  to  which  he  held  himself  to  inherit  the  title.' 

And  thus,  whether  consciously  or  not,  Mr.  Stevenson  knocks 
on  the  head  the  whole  case  which,  we  have  seen,  had  been 
constructed  for  the  defence  ! 

The  family,  we  were  expressly  told,  had  '  acted  upon '  the 
understanding  that  the  title  was  limited  to  heirs  of  line.  Then, 
on  the  opening  of  the  cupboard  doors,  and  the  appearance  of 
'  Baroness  Jean,'  we  were  told,  as  we  are  told  still,  that  whether 
her  assumption  was  rightful  or  not,  the  right  of  Isabel  and 
her  successors  is  clear,  because  they  are  the  heirs  of  line.  And 
now  comes  Mr.  Stevenson  insisting  that,  on  the  contrary,  we 
have  no  right  to  say  that  the  dignity  was  limited  to  heirs  of  line, 
or  that  Isabel  and  her  successors  assumed  it  upon  that  ground. 
What  and  whom  are  we  to  believe  ? 

In  the  midst  of  all  this  contradiction,  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson 
comes  forward  to  offer  a  solution  of  his  own.  Others  may 
shrink  persistently  from  committing  themselves  to  anything ; 
he,  at  least,  is  not  afraid. 

The  '  hypothesis '  he  adopts  is  this  : 

It  has  already  been  observed  that  the  assumers  of  the  title  were  each  of  them, 
at  the  time  they  took  it,  heirs  of  entail  in  possession.  The  conclusion  to  be 
drawn  is  tolerably  certain, — the  family  belief  was  that  the  title  was  to  go  with 
the  lands  ;  in  other  words,  that  it  was  destined  to  the  heirs  of  entail.1 

Unfortunately,  as  I  have  shown,  the  family  has  throughout 
sanctioned,  by  its  appearance  in  '  Burke,'  the  view  that  their 
rights  depended  on  their  being  heirs  of  line. 

But  that  is  not  the  main  difficulty  involved  in  the  above 
hypothesis.  If  I  may  say  so,  with  all  respect,  it  does  not 
seem  to  have  occurred  to  its  distinguished  author  that  my 
opponents  would  eagerly  have  advanced  so  simple  a  theory  if 
they  could  have  ventured  to  do  so.  It  is  because  they  knew 

1  Scottish  Historical  Review,  iii.   106. 


352  J.   H.   Round 


too  much  of  the  peerage  law  of  Scotland  that  they  have  carefully 
refrained  from  doing  so.  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson  oddly 
observes  : 

Mr.  Round  has  a  dictum  of  Riddell's  to  produce — a  limitation  to  heirs  of  entail 
could  only  refer  to  entails  executed  before  the  death  of  the  patentee. 

*  A  dictum  of  Riddell's ' !  Why,  it  never  occurred  to  him 
that  anyone  could  be  ignorant  of  the  fact,  or  suppose  the 
contrary.  There  happens  to  be  in  the  group  of  creations  to 
which  the  Ruthven  patent  belongs,  one  which  contains  such 
a  power  of  nomination  as  it  is  surmised,  we  are  told,  may  have 
been  contained  in  that  patent.  It  is  the  creation  of  the  earldom 
of  Balcarres,1  with  limitation  to  the  patentee  *  ejusque  heredibus 
masculis  talliae  et  provisionis  in  ejus  infeofamentis  expressis  seu 
exprimendis.'  No  one,  I  presume,  will  suggest  that  by  'ejus' 
is  meant  the  son  or  any  other  descendant  of  the  patentee,  or 
that  it  can  mean  anyone  but  the  patentee  himself. 

The  entail  of  the  estates  executed  by  David,  the  second 
lord,  is  exactly  parallel  in  its  provisions  with  others  in  the 
case  of  which  it  was  known  that  no  peerage  dignity  would  pass 
with  the  estates,  and  it  is  because  my  critics  are  aware  that 
the  House  of  Lords  would  not  dream  of  accepting  it  as 
conveying  the  Honours  that  they  have  so  carefully  abstained 
from  resting  their  case  upon  it,  however  tempting  an  escape  it 
might  offer  them  if  only  they  could  do  so. 

At  the  end,  as  at  the  beginning,  of  his  treatise,  Mr.  Stevenson 
is  careful  to  avoid  adopting  any  conceivable  limitation;  on  the 
last  as  on  the  first  page  we  find  this  admission :  '  It  has  not 
been  any  part  of  my  undertaking  to  show  what  the  terms 
of  the  unknown  patent  were '  (p.  76).  Just  so ;  for,  as  I  write 
in  my  original  paper: 

here  is  the  gist  of  the  whole  matter.  Even  if  we  conceded  to  the  apolo- 
gists of  this  assumption  carte  blanche  to  construct  for  themselves  an  imaginary 
limitation  to  suit  their  requirements,  it  is  not  in  their  power  to  construct  any  single 
hypothesis  that  shall  be  consistent  with  the  known  facts. 

...  So  inconsistent  with  itself  was  this  assumption,  so  hopeless  the  case  for 
its  defence,  that  /'//  champions  cannot,  dare  not  suggest  any  one  limitation  that  would 
justify  it.  In  vain  we  challenge  them  to  take  their  stand  on  any  imaginary 
limitation  they  may  prefer,  that  we  may  know  what  we  have  to  deal  with. 
They  dare  not  (pp.  175-6). 

It  was  so  in  1883  ;  it  is  so  in  1906.  Shall  we  with  'Burke' 
and  the  Journal  of  Jurisprudence,  rather  jettison  Baroness  Jean 
than  abandon  a  limitation  to  heirs  of  line  ?  Or  shall  we 

a9th  Jan.,   1650-1. 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony        353 

rather,  with  Mr.  Stevenson,  jettison  an  heirs-of-line  limitation 
than  abandon  the  right  of  Baroness  Jean  ?  Let  them  settle 
it  among  themselves.  Perhaps  in  another  twenty  years  they 
may  be  able  to  do  so.  Then  it  will  be  time  to  consider 
their  case;  at  present  they  have  none. 

I  will  here  only  add  that,  as  to  the  coronation  summons, 
I  have  now  ascertained  that  not  only  was  Robert  Mackgill 
summoned  to  the  coronation  of  George  II.  as  Viscount 
Oxenford,  but  also  *  Jean  Lady  Baroness  of  Newark,'  who 
had  wrongfully  assumed  that  title.  Brodie,  as  Lyon,  returned 
the  list  of  peers  and  peeresses  to  the  Earl  Marshal  'accord- 
ing to  the  best  information  he  could  gett,'  but  apparently  he 
could  not  ascertain  even  Lady  Ruthven's  name,  for  she  is 
only  returned  as  * Rutheen  Ldy  Rutheen.' 

J.  H.  ROUND. 


\Mr.  J.  H,  Stevenson  was  anxious  that  we  should  insert  in  the 
present  Number  of  the  '  Scottish  Historical  Review^  a  reply  to  Mr. 
Round ;  but  arrangements  previously  made  rendered  it  unavoidable 
that  Mr.  Stevenson's  paper  be  held  over  until  July. 

Ed.  S.  H.  R.] 


Reviews  of  Books 

GREGORY  THE  GREAT  :  His  PLACE  IN  HISTORY  AND  THOUGHT.  By 
F.  Homes  Dudden,  B.D.,  Fellow  of  Lincoln  College,  Oxford.  With 
frontispiece.  2  vols.  8vo.  Vol.  I.  pp.  xviii,  476  ;  Vol.  II.  pp.  viii, 
474.  London  :  Longmans,  Green  &  Co.  1905.  305.  nett. 

THESE  two  handsome  and  portly  volumes  form  very  much  more  than 
a  mere  biographical  sketch  of  the  illustrious  pontiff,  doctor,  and  theologian, 
of  whom  they  treat.  Had  the  author  called  his  work  a  history  of  the  life 
and  times  of  St.  Gregory,  the  title  would  not  have  been  misapplied.  And 
Gregory  was  so  much  the  most  interesting  and  most  important  personage 
of  his  time,  he  stands  out  so  dominating  a  figure  in  the  political,  social,  and 
religious  movements  of  his  age,  that  a  detailed  history  of  his  life  and  work 
cannot  fail  to  be,  as  Mr.  Dudden's  indeed  is,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a 
history  of  the  latter  half  of  the  sixth  century.  That  there  is  room  and 
need  for  such  a  work,  more  especially  for  English  students  of  ecclesiastical 
history,  does  not  admit  of  doubt  ;  for  nothing  is  more  remarkable  than  the 
neglect  with  which  this  period  has  been  treated  by  nearly  all  recent 
English  writers  on  theology  and  ecclesiastical  history,  who  have,  as  a  rule 
occupied  themselves  entirely  either  with  the  early  councils  or  the  Refor- 
mation, and  seem  to  have  passed  over  the  intervening  thousand  years  or  so 
as  hardly  worth  their  notice. 

Mr.  Dudden,  who  is  a  fellow  of  Lincoln  College,  Oxford,  would 
appear  (though  he  does  not  tell  us  so  in  so  many  words)  to  have  been 
attracted  towards  his  task  of  writing  St.  Gregory's  life  by  the  fact  that 
unpublished  materials  for  such  a  life  by  a  former  fellow  of  the  same 
college  (Mr.  T.  H.  Halcombe)  are  preserved  in  the  college  library,  and 
were  at  his  disposal  for  his  present  work.  But  it  is  clear  that  he  has  made 
use  also  of  the  best  authorities,  ancient  and  modern,  at  first  hand,  and  with 
such  good  effect  that  these  volumes  really  do  present  to  the  reader  not  only 
the  best  and  fullest  biography  ever  written,  certainly  in  English,  of 
Gregory,  but  also  a  very  complete  storehouse  on  the  Gregorian  age.  The 
author  anticipates  unfavourable  comment  on  the  length  of  his  volumes, 
which  extend  to  nearly  a  thousand  pages  of  type  ;  and  in  truth  the  minute 
and  detailed  description  of  places,  especially  the  streets,  temples,  and  public 
buildings  of  Rome,  as  they  existed  in  the  sixth  century,  does  tend,  perhaps, 
somewhat  to  weary  the  reader,  and  undoubtedly  delays  the  action  of  the 
story  of  St.  Gregory's  life.  Mr.  Dudden  defends  himself  in  this  regard  by 
saying  that  he  did  not  wish  to  presume  too  much  on  the  knowledge  of  his 
readers ;  but  it  might  perhaps  be  said  that  he  presumes  a  little  too  much  on 
their  ignorance,  and  of  course  there  are  many  accessible  sources  from 

354 


Dudden :    Gregory  the  Great  355 

which  intelligent  students  of  the  early  middle  ages  can,  and  do,  derive 
a  sufficiently  accurate  knowledge  of  the  external  aspect  of  Rome  as  it  then 
was.  Nevertheless  Mr.  Dudden's  picture  of  the  Rome  of  St.  Gregory  is 
in  itself  well  and  graphically  drawn,  and  we  do  not  recollect  anywhere  a 
more  vivid  description  than  he  gives  us  of  that  wonderful  period,  when  the 
Eternal  City  was  in  the  very  throes  of  transition  from  its  old  glory  as  the 
capital  of  a  world-wide  empire  to  the  new  glory  of  being  the  capital  of  the 
Universal  Church  ;  when  from  being  the  city  of  the  Caesars  it  was 
becoming,  as  it  was  to  remain  for  thirteen  centuries,  the  city  of  the  Popes. 

As  to  the  author's  presentment  of  the  great  pontiff  and  doctor,  it  is 
certainly  a  striking,  and  we  should  say,  on  the  whole,  a  true  and  a  life-like 
one.  The  first  two  books  of  the  work  are  taken  up  with  the  actual  history 
of  the  saint,  and  with  a  general  survey  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived,  while 
the  third  book  is  devoted  to  a  detailed  examination  of  Gregory  as  a 
theologian.  The  author  justly  claims  for  this  latter  portion  that  it  is 
really  the  first  systematic  attempt  which  has  been  made  by  an  English 
writer  to  set  forth  the  dogmatic  utterances  of  the  fourth  doctor  of  the 
\Vestern  Church.  No  one  probably  would  maintain  that  St.  Gregory 
was,  as  a  theologian  pure  and  simple,  the  greatest  of  the  four  ;  that  he 
accomplished  anything  like  the  work  done  by  Jerome,  or  that  he  was  the 
founder  of  a  great  school  of  thought  like  Augustine.  Yet  his  place  in  the 
history  of  Christian  and  Catholic  theology  is  fully  as  important  as  theirs. 
He  stands  at  the  parting  of  the  ways  between  the  patristic  and  the 
medieval  church.  He  is  the  pioneer,  so  to  speak,  of  the  Scholastics  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  the  link  which  unites  the  dogmatic  theology  of  the  Fathers 
with  the  Scholastic  speculations  of  later  times.  He  sums  up  in  himself  the 
doctrinal  development  of  Western  Christianity,  and  in  his  teaching  is  con- 
tained, explicitly  or  implicitly,  the  whole  Catholic  system  of  succeeding 
centuries  down  to  our  own.  If  there  is  one  fact  which  stands  out  clearly 
in  Mr.  Dudden's  pages,  it  is  that  the  creed  of  the  Roman  Church,  as  it  is 
taught  and  held  to-day,  exists,  implied  or  expressed,  in  the  teaching  of  St. 
Gregory,  as  clearly  as  the  supremacy  and  authority  of  the  Roman  Pontiff 
exist  in  the  claims  which  he  put  forward  and  constantly  maintained  on 
behalf  of  the  Roman  See.  It  has  been  well  said  that  the  c  Appeal  to  the 
first  Six  Centuries,'  which  an  Anglican  Dean  has  proposed  as  a  panacea  to 
heal  the  dissensions,  and  reconcile  the  deep  divergencies,  of  his  distracted 
Church,  seems  absolutely  amazing  to  anyone  who  knows  what  the  chief 
Bishop  of  Christendom  really  did  teach  and  believe  and  practise  during  the 
latter  part  of  that  period. 

Mr.  Dudden  does  full  justice  to  Gregory's  extraordinarily  versatile  genius, 
and  to  the  many-sidedness  of  his  character  which  enabled  him  to  put  forth 
his  energies  in  so  many  directions,  and  to  play  so  many  parts,  in  the  com- 
manding position  in  which  he  found  himself  during  the  greater  part  of  his 
life.  Our  author  draws  an  elaborate  contrast  between  the  shrewd  financier, 
the  excellent  man  of  business,  the  wise  and  prudent  administrator  of  the 
patrimony  of  St.  Peter  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  the  recluse 
scholar  and  scribe,  tracing  out  the  mystical  sense  of  obscure  passages  of 
scripture,  and  laboriously  compiling  the  fascinating  series  of  pious  stories 


356  Dudden:    Gregory  the  Great 

known  as  the  '  Diologues.'  One  is  glad  to  see  that  Mr.  Dudden  admits, 
practically  without  question,  the  authenticity  of  a  collection  of  writings 
which  charmed  and  fascinated  the  world  for  centuries,  and  endeared 
St.  Gregory's  name  to  countless  generations  of  readers  ;  but  it  is,  perhaps, 
permissible  to  point  out  that  his  view  that  the  whole  of  these  naYve 
narratives  of  visions,  prophecies,  and  miracles  are  a  mere  olla  podrida 
of  unsupported  legend,  collected  by  a  man  with  '  no  capacity  of  either 
weighing  or  testing  evidence,'  is  hardly  compatible  with  his  estimate 
elsewhere  of  St.  Gregory  as  a  critic  and  a  scholar.  Turning  to  another 
point,  it  is  too  much,  perhaps,  to  expect  that  the  non-Catholic  biographer 
of  a  Catholic  Pope  should  take  the  trouble  to  ascertain  exactly  what 
Catholics  believe  to  be  the  meaning,  province,  and  scope  of  papal  in- 
fallibility. Had  Mr.  Dudden  studied,  for  example,  the  Catholic  penny 
catechism  as  to  this  dogma,  we  should  not  find  him  triumphantly  asserting 
that  because  Columban  declined  to  give  up  at  Gregory's  bidding  the  Celtic 
usage  of  celebrating  Easter,  therefore  he  *  certainly  knew  nothing  of  the 
doctrine  of  papal  infallibility.'  We  take  leave  to  assure  Mr.  Dudden  that 
in  supposing  papal  infallibility  to  have  any  earthly  connection  with  this 
question,  he  errs  as  fundamentally  as,  if  less  grotesquely  than,  the  man 
who  supposed  that  an  infallible  Pope  had,  or  claimed,  the  power  of  predict- 
ing the  winner  of  the  Derby  the  year  after  next. 

Mr.  Dudden  expressly  disclaims  the  view  which  has  been  put  forward 
by  shallow  and  superficial  students  of  Gregory's  life  and  character,  that  in 
embracing  the  ecclesiastical  state  he  was  moved  only  or  even  mainly  by 
ambition.  It  is  evidently,  however,  our  author's  belief  that  the  future 
Pope's  choice  of  career  was  strongly  influenced  by  the  belief  that  the 
Church  offered  the  likeliest  field  for  the  exercise  of  his  talents.  Mr. 
Dudden,  however,  seems  to  forget  that  if  that  had  really  been  Gregory's 
chief  motive,  of  which  there  is  no  evidence,  he  would  certainly  have 
elected  to  become  a  secular  priest,  an  ecclesiastic  living  and  working  in  the 
world,  rather  than  a  humble  monk  bound  by  the  vows  of  religion,  and 
leading  an  obscure  and  hidden  life  in  his  monastery  on  the  Caelian  hill. 
Gregory's  genuine  reluctance  (graphically  depicted  in  these  pages)  to 
accept  the  burden  of  the  Pontificate,  on  the  death  of  Pope  Pelagius  sixteen 
years  later,  proved  how  little  ambition,  even  in  the  nobler  sense  of  the 
word,  had  had  to  do  with  his  original  determination. 

The  foregoing  criticisms  on  certain  points  of  view  which  present 
themselves  in  Mr.  Dudden's  pages  do  not  preclude  the  conclusion,  which 
no  impartial  critic  can  withold,  that  his  study  of  one  of  the  greatest  figures 
in  the  history  of  Christendom  is  worthy  of  its  subject,  and  a  really  valuable 
contribution  to  ecclesiastical  biography.  If  in  certain  respects  the  author 
may  have  to  some  extent  misunderstood  the  motives,  or  failed  to  do  justice 
to  the  character,  of  his  hero,  it  is  assuredly  not  from  want  of  appreciation 
of  the  transcendent  qualities  which  distinguished  him.  The  perusal  of  these 
interesting  volumes  can  only  strengthen  and  confirm  the  reader  in  the 
truth  of  Mr.  Dudden's  closing  estimate ;  and  with  him  we  may  all 
*  gratefully  reverence  the  name  of  Gregory,  as  that  not  only  of  a  great 
man,  but  also  of  a  great  saint.'  D.  O.  HUNTER-BLAIR,  O.S.B. 


Slater:    How  to  Collect  Books          357 

How  TO  COLLECT  BOOKS.     By  J.  Herbert   Slater.     Pp.  xii,    205.     Post 
8vo.     London  :  George  Bell  &  Sons.     1905.     6s.  net. 

FOR  the  past  eighteen  years  book-collectors  have  been  indebted  to  Mr. 
Slater  for  his  admirable  and  useful  Book  Prices  Current.  It  was  only 
natural  that  they  should  expect  from  his  pen  a  serviceable  work  on 
book-collecting.  This  expectation  has  not  been  realised.  A  really  good 
book  on  this  subject  has  yet  to  be  written. 

It  is  only  fair  to  say  that  criticism  is  disarmed  to  some  extent,  for 
the  author  in  his  preface  writes :  <  All  that  can  be  done  within  the 
limits  of  a  single  volume,  dealing  as  this  does  with  a  variety  of  subjects,  is 
to  touch  the  fringe  of  each.'  It  is  rather  hard  to  say  why  some  of 
the  subjects  of  which  he  has  touched  the  fringe  have  been  introduced 
at  all  in  such  a  work. 

Mr.  Slater  begins  his  book  with  '  Hints  to  beginners,'  dealing  with 
generalities,  most  of  which  he  repeats  later  on.  This  is  followed  by 
*  some  practical  hints,'  in  which  the  author  should  have  warned  the 
beginner  that  old  books  of  folio  size  were  invariably  gathered  to  form 
quires  of  4,  6,  8,  or  more  leaves.  The  statement  ( that  there  must 
necessarily  be  between  each  "  signature  "...  two  leaves  ...  in  every 
folio'  is  certainly  not  in  accordance  with  facts.  One  would  naturally 
have  looked  for  guidance  in  collating  books  <  without  any  marks '  by 
the  quires,  such  as  Mr.  E.  Gordon  Duff  gives  in  his  Early  Printed 
Books,  pp.  208-210,  but  possibly  Mr.  Slater  considered  this  method 
too  advanced  for  the  class  of  reader  for  whom  he  writes.  His  directions 
for  removing  stains  by  means  of  oxalide  acid  and  chloride  of  lime  should 
be  carefully  avoided  by  all  who  have  any  respect  for  an  old  book  and 
desire  its  preservation. 

Manuscripts,  block-books,  incunabula,  such  as  the  Mazarin  Bible, 
Pfister's  Bible,  the  Psalter  of  1457,  the  earliest  books  from  the  presses 
of  Sweynheym  and  Parnartz,  Caxton,  and  the  Schoolmaster  of  St. 
Albans,  and  metal  and  ivory  bindings,  all  these  have  space  allotted 
to  them  which  might  have  been  more  profitably  employed  in  an  ele- 
mentary work  on  book-collecting.  Little  can  be  said  in  commendation 
of  this  section  of  the  book.  It  contains  statements  which  one  hoped 
would  not  again  appear  in  a  bibliographical  work.  Take,  for  example, 
the  following  :  '  There  is  a  great  question  whether  a  press  was  not 
established  at  Oxford  in  1468.'  This  date  is  indefensible  on  Mr.  Slater's 
own  showing.  In  a  previous  chapter  he  informs  us  that  printed 
signatures  were  first  used  in  printed  books  by  Antonius  Zarotus,  in  Milan, 
about  the  year  1470.  This  assertion  is  probably  based  on  the  will-o'-the- 
wisp  Terence  of  March  13,  1470,  which  has  never  been  examined 
by  any  competent  bibliographer,  and  is  believed  to  be  a  copy  of  the 
edition  of  March  13,  1481,  in  which  the  last  two  numerals  of  the 
date  xi  have  been  erased.  But  allowing  the  second  date  which  he 
names  for  the  introduction  of  printed  signatures,  viz.  1472,  it  is  strange 
that  he  did  not  warn  his  readers  that  the  Oxford  'Exposicio  sancti 
Hieronimi  in  simbolum  apostolorum '  has  printed  signatures,  and  that, 


358          Slater:    How  to  Collect  Books 

as  Mr.  Gordon  Duff  remarks,  <  copies  of  this  book  have  been  found 
bound  up  in  the  original  binding  with  books  of  1478.' 

The  chapter  on  '  Great  Collectors '  deals  chiefly  with  French  private 
libraries  of  a  by-gone  age.  No  mention  is  made  of  the  Due  d'Aumale, 
whose  magnificent  collection  is  now  at  the  service  of  scholars.  English 
collectors  do  not  include  the  name  of  the  Earl  of  Crawford.  Although 
reduced  by  ten  days'  sale  in  1887  and  four  days'  sale  in  1889,  not  to 
speak  of  the  sale  of  the  manuscripts  at  a  later  date,  the  Earl  of  Crawford's 
is  believed  to  be  still  the  largest  private  library  in  England. 

In  the  two  concluding  chapters  Mr.  Slater  is  on  ground  with  which 
he  is  more  familiar.  That  on  l  Auction  Sales '  contains  some  sound 
advice,  and  a  useful  list  of  the  greatest  book  sales  since  the  beginning 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  The  chapter  on  *  Early  Editions  and  Strange 
Books'  deals  with  classes  of  books  more  likely  to  find  their  way  into 
the  library  of  the  young  collector  than  manuscripts,  block-books,  Mazarin 
Bibles,  and  bindings  in  the  '  Byzantine  style.'  J.  P.  EDMOND. 

THE  AGE  OF  TRANSITION.  By  F.  J.  Snell,  M.A.  2  vols.  1400- 
1450.  Vol.  i,  THE  POETS  ;  Vol.  2,  THE  DRAMATISTS  AND  PROSE 
WRITERS.  Vol.  i,  pp.  vi,  226  ;  Vol.  2,  pp.  xxix,  167.  Cr.  8vo. 
London  :  George  Bell  &  Sons.  1905.  33.  6d.  nett  each. 

IT  is  not  perhaps  the  function  of  histories  of  literature  to  inspire  their 
readers,  their  office  is  to  create  respect  for  its  dimensions  and  its  wilderness 
of  detail.  Certainly  Mr.  Snell's  volumes  cannot  be  accurately  described 
as  *  the  adventures  of  a  soul  among  masterpieces.'  Nor  though  he  moves 
through  an  age  of  mighty  preparations  does  he  permit  himself  to  think 
of  it  as  anywhere  an  age  of  achievements.  Mr.  Snell  denies  himself 
the  transports  of  the  discoverer  ;  we  have  from  him  no  revised  judgments 
nor  any  exhilarating  panegyrics  on  men  hitherto  but  meagrely  appreciated. 
He  tells  his  story  with  sobriety,  and  at  least  we  owe  him  gratitude  for 
the  absence  of  any  strained  or  affected  estimates.  And  if  we  say  that 
he  has  carried  through  his  task  in  a  workmanlike  fashion,  that  may  be 
the  sentence  he  anticipated  and  most  of  all  desired.  He  writes  of  an 
interregnum,  a  period  when  there  was  no  king  in  Israel,  between  the  reigns 
of  Chaucer  and  of  Spenser,  and  argues  that  it  was  not  an  age  of  poetical 
excitement.  Adapting  Cicero,  he  tells  us  inter  arma  silent  musae,  'and 
if  we  use  the  term  arma  in  the  widest  sense,  so  as  to  include  every 
variety  of  conflict,  not  only  military  and  material,  but  intellectual  and 
spiritual,  the  adaptation  of  Cicero's  saying  is  eminently  applicable  to 
long  years  of  profound  outer  and  inner  revolution.'  There  is  here  no 
imposing  array  of  literary  figures,  but  we  would  willingly  have  welcomed  a 
note  of  enthusiasm  at  the  mention  of  Wyclif,  or  Caxton,  or  Malory. 
We  think  Mr.  Snell's  book  would  have  reached  a  higher  kind  of  success 
had  he  suppressed  insignificant  facts  and  persons  and  dwelt  at  length  upon 
significant  things  :  for  a  book  which  includes  among  its  subjects  the 
origins  of  the  Romantic  drama,  the  early  Reformation  movement  and  its 
leaders,  Renaissance  influences  upon  English  literature,  and  the  Golden 


Snell:    The  Age  of  Transition  359 

Age  of  Scottish  Poetry,  must  not  be  set  down  as  traversing  barren 
country.  Such  books  as  this  cannot  serve  general  readers,  for  these  decline 
to  be  choked  with  names  and  dates  ;  they  cannot  serve  the  advanced 
student,  for  the  information  conveyed  is  insufficient  for  his  needs  ;  theirs 
seems  to  be  the  lot  of  an  undistinguished  and  precarious  existence  in 
the  suburbs  of  learning,  where  they  receive  occasional  visitors  from  the 
middle  classes.  What,  for  example,  can  a  serious  enquirer  glean  from  a 
chapter  on  '  Ballads  and  Songs '  which  gives  no  hint  of  a  theory  of 
communal  authorship,  no  reference  to  such  authorities  as  Professor  Child, 
no  discussion  of  origins,  no  mention  of  the  metrical  characteristics  of 
primitive  poetry  ?  The  world  of  scholarship  is  wide,  and  many  are  the 
necessities  of  the  student :  far  be  it  from  us  to  write  down  Mr.  Snell's 
work  as  superfluous.  Within  the  compass  permitted  him  he  has  done 
most  of  what  could  be  done,  but  we  suspect  that  he  would  have  been 
vastly  happier  had  he  written  con  amore.  A  man  may  profit  in  discipline 
from  such  a  task  as  he  has  here  performed,  but  he  cannot  tell  us 
that  he  enjoyed  it,  and  we  will  not  believe  that  it  represents  him  or 
his  powers.  We  wish  for  him  a  broader  canvas,  and  we  promise  him 
a  heartier  appreciation  of  an  essay  projected  on  a  nobler  scale. 

W.  MACNEILE  DIXON. 


THREE  CHRONICLES  OF  LONDON,  1189-1509.  Edited  from  the  Cotton 
MSS.  by  C.  L.  Kingsford.  Pp.  xlviii,  368.  8vo.  Oxford  :  Clarendon 
Press.  1905.  i  os.  6d.  nett. 

THE  publication  of  three  hitherto  unprinted  versions  of  the  English 
chronicles,  which  were  being  compiled  for  the  use  of  London  citizens 
in  the  fifteenth  century  and  later,  is  a  welcome  addition  to  historical 
knowledge.  What  are  commonly  called  *  London '  chronicles  are  those 
which  head  the  entry  of  the  annals  of  each  year  with  the  names  of  the 
chief  municipal  officers  elected  for  that  year,  with  the  names  of  the  London 
Mayor  and  Sheriffs.  For  want  of  a  better  criterion,  this  may  be  taken 
to  divide  the  '  London '  chronicles  from  those  other  continuations  of  the 
*  Brut '  series  (such,  for  instance,  as  that  published  by  Mr.  J.  S.  Davies 
for  the  Camden  Society),  which  in  other  respects  resemble  the  series 
edited  by  Mr.  Kingsford.  The  printing  of  the  present  group  of  London 
chronicles  is  a  step  forward  to  the  analysis  of  the  sources  used  by  Fabian 
and  his  successors ;  and  the  chronicles  are  valuable  in  themselves  for  their 
many  life-like  touches  of  description,  adding  new  material  to  the  narrative, 
the  main  features  of  which  may  be  sufficiently  familiar.  We  have  been 
too  long  content  with  uncritical  reproductions  of  the  texts  of  Fabian, 
Hall,  and  Grafton,  though  Nicolas  and  Tyrrell  in  their  Chronicle  of  London 
(1827),  and  Gairdner  in  the  London  Chronicles,  which  he  issued  for  the 
Camden  Society,  pointed  the  way  to  more  knowledge.  The  texts  which 
Mr.  Kingsford  has  edited  with  every  care,  with  glossary,  notes,  and  an 
elaborate  and  useful  index,  are  even  more  serviceable  than  these  fore- 
runners. Similar  to  them  in  scope  and  method,  they  are  often  independent 
sources  of  considerable  interest,  sometimes  for  the  history  of  London  ia 


360    Kingsford :    Three  Chronicles  of  London 

particular,  sometimes  for  the  general  history  of  England.  The  Scottish 
materials  are  inconsiderable.  A  Londoner's  feelings  towards  the  Earl 
of  Angus  and  his  countrymen  (1516)  find  vent  in  the  entry,  'The  said 
yerle,  lyke  unto  the  nature  of  his  cuntre,  went  howme  agen  into  Schot- 
land,  talcyng  no  love.'  Scottish  disaster  on  different  occasions  called  forth 
the  comment : 

*  In  the  croke  of  the  mone  went  they  thedirward, 
And  in  the  wilde  wanyng  went  thei  homeward.' 

A  few  outbursts  of  versification  in  the  chronicle  are  obscured  by  being 
printed  as  prose. 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  Dr.  Erie's  researches  into  the  sources  of  the 
English  versions  of  the  Brut  will  carry  the  enquiry  begun  by  Mr. 
Kingsford  a  stage  further  in  tracking  the  sources  of  the  portions  of 
chronicle  which  these  London  writers  have  in  common.  It  is  unfortunate 
that  the  interesting  London  chronicle  now  at  Trinity  College,  Dublin, 
very  similar  in  quality  but  different  in  detail  as  regards  the  reign  of  Henry 
VI.,  has  not  been  included  side  by  side  with  these  Cottonian  MSS.  ; 
probably  a  good  deal  more  MS.  material  awaits  examination  before  we 
can  know  all  that  there  is  to  know  of  the  London  school  of  chronicle. 
A  version  of  part  of  the  dnnales  Londonenses,  which  Stubbs  printed  from 
a  modern  transcript,  reposes  in  the  Corpus  Christi  College  Library, 
Cambridge,  and  deserves  at  least  collation  with  the  printed  text  A  small 
selection  of  entries  in  these  Annales  forms  part  of  the  common  groundwork 
used  in  all  the  fifteenth  century  chronicles  to  fill  up  the  annals  of  times 
long  past :  the  writer's  interest  is  concentrated  on  the  times  with  which 
he  was  contemporary,  and  what  he  palms  off  as  an  epitome  of  the 
historical  facts  of  earlier  ages  is  for  the  most  part  an  absurd  list  of  useless 
memoranda. 

Students  of  language  will  find  here  much  of  value.  The  verses  of 
Lydgate  written  for  the  pageant  in  1432  are  carefully  re-edited  by 
Mr.  Kingsford  from  these  texts  :  he  has  omitted  to  notice  that  besides 
Nicolas's  text,  we  have  the  version  in  Chop.  civ.  edited  by  Halliwell 
for  the  Percy  Society.  MARY  BATESON. 

THE  MATRICULATION  ROLL  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  ST.  ANDREWS,  1747- 
1897.  Edited,  with  Introduction  and  Index,  by  James  Maitland 
Anderson,  Librarian  to  the  University.  Pp.  Ixxxix,  455.  Dy.  8vo. 
Edinburgh  :  Blackwood  &  Sons,  1905.  i8s.  nett. 

IT  is  gratifying  to  see  that  the  oldest  of  our  Scottish  universities  has  at  last 
made  a  beginning  in  the  way  of  publishing  its  matriculation  rolls.  The 
present  volume  deals  with  the  latest  of  the  three  periods  into  which  the 
history  of  the  University  can  be  divided.  It  embraces  the  years  from 
1747,  the  date  at  which  the  two  ancient  colleges  of  St.  Salvator  and 
St.  Leonard  were  united,  till  the  final  incorporation  of  an  entirely  new 
one  in  1897.  Mr.  Anderson  in  his  introduction  takes  up  the  story  of 
the  University  in  1747,  and  tells  it  with  admirable  succinctness  down  to 
modern  times.  There  is  much  interesting  information  in  it :  it  will 


Anderson:    Matriculation  Roll  361 

surprise  many,  for  instance,  to  learn  that  while  the  election  of  a  Rector 
was  formally  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  students  by  the  Universities  Act 
of  1858,  they  actually  did  elect  an  'extraneous'  rector  in  that  very  year 
before  the  passing  of  the  Act,  and  the  election  was  held  to  be  valid  not- 
withstanding that  two  previous  attempts,  one  so  early  as  1825  when  Sir 
Walter  Scott  was  elected,  had  ended  in  failure,  the  Senatus  holding  that 
only  four  persons  were  eligible  to  be  nominated  for  the  office,  viz.,  the 
Principals  of  the  United  College  and  St.  Mary's,  the  Professor  of  Divinity 
and  the  Professor  of  Church  History.  The  story  of  the  uniting  of  the 
two  colleges  of  St.  Salvator  and  St.  Leonard  forms  interesting  reading.  The 
University  could  not  at  the  time  really  afford  to  keep  up  the  two  colleges, 
but  it  is  curious  that  when  it  became  necessary  to  decide  which  of  the 
two  was  to  be  the  home  of  the  United  College,  the  choice  fell  upon  St. 
Salvator,  the  most  ruinous  and  dilapidated.  Up  to  1829  about  £5500 
were  expended  on  the  buildings  and  repair  of  the  College,  but  even  then 
its  condition  was  far  from  satisfactory.  The  immediately  succeeding  years 
were  spent  in  struggling  with  the  Government  for  money  to  secure  better 
accommodation,  and  it  was  not  till  1851  that,  partly  by  Government 
grants  and  partly  by  private  effort,  the  present  buildings  of  the  College 
were  ultimately  completed.  St.  Mary's  College  underwent  very  much  the 
same  experience  so  far  as  building  was  concerned  :  it  was  in  a  miserable 
state  in  1827,  but  re-building  and  improvements  have  gone  on  from  that 
date  till  1890. 

The  matriculation  roll  itself  is  of  much  interest ;  and  it  is  evident  that 
the  editor  has  spent  a  great  deal  of  time  and  care  in  analysing  it.  Down 
to  1829  the  method  of  matriculation  was  that  noblemen's  sons  matriculated 
first  as  Primers  ;  then  followed  Secondars  or  gentlemen-commoners ;  and 
to  these  succeeded  the  Ternars  or  ordinary  folks  :  in  more  ancient  days 
(though  there  is  one  example  of  it  in  this  volume)  the  Luminator  of  a 
class  matriculated  last :  his  duty  was  to  furnish  fire  and  light  to  his  class 
in  return  for  certain  perquisites  and  privileges.  The  attempts  of  the 
students,  who  entered  their  own  names  in  the  roll,  to  give  not  only  their 
names  but  the  places  of  their  origin  in  Latin,  are  sometimes  productive  of 
curious  results.  Perthensis  and  Fifensis  are  easy  enough,  but  when  it 
became  necessary  to  latinize  Lanarkshire,  the  Isle  of  Skye  and  Boulogne, 
the  invention  of  the  ingenuous  youth  failed  them. 

While  welcoming  this  volume  with  all  cordiality,  it  is  a  pity  that  the 
University  did  not  put  its  best  foot  foremost  and  give  us  the  earliest  and 
not  the  latest  rolls  first.  Gwendolen  Jones  or  Catherine  Robertson  may  be 
most  excellent  girls,  and  may  perhaps  make  a  name  for  themselves  in 
future,  but  in  the  meantime  one's  interest  in  them  is  but  faint,  and  the 
fact  that  they  or  similar  young  women  (for  these  actual  names  do  not 
occur)  matriculated  in  St.  Andrews  in  the  year  1896  is  one  the  announce- 
ment of  which  could  be  waited  for  indefinitely  with  equanimity.  Again, 
it  is  a  pity  that  some  attempt  was  not  made  to  identify  a  few  at  least  out 
of  the  many  names  which  occur  in  these  lists.  Of  course  to  have  dealt 
with  even  the  majority  would  have  cost  more  time  and  labour  than  it  was 
possible  to  bestow  on  such  a  task.  But  in  many  instances  a  note  could 


362  Anderson :    Matriculation  Roll 

easily  have  been  supplied  which  would  have  been  of  the  utmost  service  to 
future  generations  of  investigators.  For  instance,  it  would  have  been 
simple  to  have  added  a  note  to  the  name  of  '  Robertus  Herbert  Story,' 
who  was  a  student  in  St.  Mary's  in  1857,  to  the  effect  that  that  name 
now  represents  the  Principal  of  the  University  of  Glasgow.  In  the  same 
year  too  and  at  the  same  College,  the  name  '  Edwardus  Caird '  appears  : 
future  inquirers  would  like  to  know  if  this  was  the  Master  of  Balliol :  as 
a  matter  of  fact  we  believe  it  was,  but  the  information  that  he  studied 
theology  at  St.  Andrews  may  be  looked  for  in  vain  in  any  modern  book 
of  reference.  So  few  Peers'  sons  occur  within  the  period  embraced  by 
this  volume  that  it  might  have  been  worth  identifying  the  *  Doune,'  who 
matriculated  in  1753,  with  the  person  who  afterwards  had  a  long  and 
honourable  career  as  Francis,  eighth  Earl  of  Moray.  A  few  references 
like  those  suggested  would  have  given  additional  value  to  the  book.  It 
should  not,  however,  be  taken  leave  of  in  anything  but  words  of  praise, 
and  the  old  University  is  to  be  congratulated  on  the  first  step  towards  the 
completion  of  so  important  an  undertaking,  and  the  editor  for  the  careful 
and  accurate  manner  in  which  he  has  carried  it  out. 

J.  BALFOUR  PAUL. 

A  HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND,  IN  six  VOLUMES  :  General  Editor,  C.  W.  C. 
Oman,  M.A.  Vol  ii.  ENGLAND  UNDER  THE  NORMANS  AND  AN- 
GEVINS,  1066-1272.  By  H.  W.  C.  Davis,  Fellow  and  Tutor  of 
Balliol  College,  Oxford.  With  n  maps.  Pp.  xxii,  578.  London: 
Methuen  and  Co.,  1905.  ios.  6d.  nett. 

THIS  book  is  the  second  of  a  series  of  six  volumes  on  the  History  of 
England  edited  by  Professor  Oman,  and  intended  to  meet  a  demand  for  a 
standard  history  which  will  occupy  a  place  between  the  dry  annals  of  the 
school  manual  on  the  one  hand  and  the  laborious  monographs  of  specialists 
on  the  other.  With  the  vast  accumulation  of  historical  materials  brought 
to  light  during  the  past  twenty  years,  it  is  almost  beyond  the  capacity 
of  a  single  student  to  assimilate  the  new  information  as  rapidly  as  it 
is  thrown  into  the  common  stock,  and  few  men  can  be  found  to  under- 
take a  complete  history  with  any  prospect  of  success.  In  order  that  the 
work  may  be  done  to  the  best  advantage,  the  history  of  the  nation  has 
been  divided  into  well-defined  periods  that  are  neither  too  long  to  be  dealt 
with  by  competent  scholars  nor  too  short  to  force  the  writer  into  a  dis- 
cussion of  uninteresting  and  unimportant  details.  As  the  volumes  will  be 
written  on  a  definite  plan,  there  will  be  uniformity  in  the  method  of 
treatment  throughout,  but  it  will  be  possible  for  each  contributor  to 
preserve  his  individuality  without  affecting  the  general  continuity  of  the 
narrative.  By  this  system  of  co-operation  the  best  results  may  be  obtained 
without  running  the  danger  of  making  the  history  a  mere  compilation  like 
an  encyclopaedia  or  a  collection  of  treatises  on  historical  subjects.  There 
is  little  doubt  that  there  is  ample  room  for  such  an  undertaking,  and  we 
shall  be  much  disappointed  if  the  present  attempt  to  fill  it  does  not  com- 
mand approval. 


Davis :    England  under  the  Normans     363 

The  section  assigned  to  Mr.  Davis  embraces  the  epoch  of  Norman  and 
Angevin,  1066-1272,  with  the  history  of  which  are  associated  the  names 
of  some  of  the  most  brilliant  specialists  that  England  has  ever  produced, 
historians  like  Bishop  Stubbs,  Mr.  Freeman,  Miss  Norgate,  Mr.  J.  R. 
Green,  Professor  Maitland,  Mr.  J.  H.  Round  and  Sir  James  Ramsay,  to 
whose  researches  the  author  very  properly  acknowledges  himself  under 
many  obligations.  It  is  a  period  of  sufficient  complexity  to  tax  the 
resources  of  the  most  skilful  scholar,  full  of  surprises  and  bristling  with 
problems  not  always  capable  of  convincing  exposition.  The  Norman 
Conquest  marks  the  commencement  of  a  new  era,  when  foreign  ideas, 
secular  and  ecclesiastical,  began  to  germinate  on  English  soil  and  to  mould 
English  politics.  Not  that  the  consequences  of  the  catastrophe  are  at  once 
visible  as  we  follow  the  course  of  events  from  year  to  year,  but  after  the 
lapse  of  time,  when  we  look  back  on  the  progress  of  national  development, 
we  begin  to  see  that  under  the  new  conditions  the  nation  has  been  in  a 
state  of  transition  in  which  the  native  element  is  gradually  becoming  ab- 
sorbed in  the  upward  trend  of  French  traditions  and  influences.  It  is  not, 
however,  the  ethnical  question  alone  that  appears  as  the  most  conspicuous 
feature  of  the  national  movement.  Other  forces  were  at  work  to  weld 
together  the  loose  aggregation  of  kingdoms  and  peoples  and  to  give  stability 
to  England  as  a  homogeneous  state.  Not  the  least  of  these  was  the  idea  of 
kingship  which  the  Normans  had  established  from  the  Tweed  to  the 
Channel.  The  unification  of  sovereign  power  in  the  person  of  the  King, 
which  disputed  successions  could  not  impair,  was  one  of  the  distinctive 
elements  instrumental  in  consolidating  the  promiscuous  aspirations  which 
governed  the  acts  of  the  conquerors  and  the  conquered.  Around  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  kingship  the  keenest  controversies  were  waged.  The 
introduction  of  feudalism,  the  King  as  the  source  of  tenure  and  the  fountain 
of  justice,  the  relation  of  the  English  Crown  to  the  English  Church,  the 
vacillation  of  the  Bishops  between  national  and  catholic  ideals,  the  struggles 
of  the  commonalty  to  share  in  the  responsibilities  of  government,  difficulties 
like  these  were  often  in  evidence  as  the  national  genius  for  self-government 
was  slowly  crystallising  into  definite  shape.  The  period  with  which  this 
volume  deals  closes  appropriately  with  the  death  of  Henry  III.,  for  by  that 
time  many  of  the  domestic  troubles  in  Church  and  State  had  been  provision- 
ally settled. 

It  must  be  said  in  justice  to  Mr.  Davis  that  he  has  spared  no  pains  to 
make  his  narrative  both  interesting  and  trustworthy.  He  has  brought  to 
the  task  the  results  of  wide  reading  and  accurate  scholarship.  A  slight 
acquaintance  with  the  book  will  convince  the  student,  whether  he  agrees 
with  the  author's  conclusions  or  not,  that  he  is  in  contact  with  a  writer 
who  has  kept  himself  abreast  of  the  latest  theories  on  obscure  points  of 
medieval  history  and  who  is  capable  of  handling  them  with  an  independent 
and  discriminating  judgment.  It  is  pleasing  to  notice  that  he  does  not 
confine  himself  wholly  to  such  high  themes  as  national  events  and  national 
development.  He  often  turns  aside  from  the  discussion  of  the  larger  issues 
and  wanders  along  the  banks  of  the  smaller  tributaries  which  feed  the  main 
stream.  To  many  persons  these  minor  but  important  studies  will  prove  of 


364     Davis :    England  under  the  Normans 

special  value.  When  one  mentions  such  subjects  as  the  reforms  of  Henry 
II.  in  matters  of  finance,  taxation,  the  Jews,  the  reorganisation  of  the  Curia 
Regis,  the  forests,  the  towns,  local  justice,  itinerant  justice,  juries,  feudal 
jurisdictions  and  inquests  of  sheriffs  at  one  period,  and  the  condition  of  the 
masses  of  the  people,  intellectual  revival,  English  scholars,  lawyers,  centres 
of  learning,  and  the  monastic  movement  at  another,  there  can  be  little 
complaint  on  the  score  of  scope  and  variety.  In  all  the  departments  of  art, 
literature,  or  social  life,  Mr.  Davis  traces  the  same  manifestations  of 
progress  which  he  points  out  in  the  political  and  ecclesiastical  development 
of  the  nation  as  a  whole.  It  is  perhaps  in  this  abundance  of  detail  that 
the  critic  will  find  the  greatest  occasion  for  cavil.  But  it  cannot  be  too 
often  insisted  on  that  the  author  of  a  book,  which  covers  a  wide  field  and 
demands  broad  treatment,  challenges  and  deserves  liberal  consideration. 

With  every  disposition  to  act  on  this  maxim,  it  must  be  confessed  that 
there  is  one  section  of  'England  under  the  Normans  and  Angevins' 
which  will  cause  the  student  of  northern  history  some  disappointment. 
Too  little  attention  has  been  given  to  the  Scottish  borderland.  The 
omission  cannot  be  excused  on  the  ground  of  irrelevancy.  The  familiar 
commonplaces  of  international  relations  at  certain  periods  have  been 
expounded  with  adequate  fulness.  On  the  other  hand,  we  look  in  vain  for 
some  account  of  the  part  borne  by  the  Border  districts  in  the  history  of 
the  nation,  or  for  illumination  of  the  peculiar  institutions  which  to  a  large 
extent  withstood  the  advance  of  feudalism  during  the  epoch  under  review. 
There  are  discussions  on  the  Marches  of  Wales,  the  affairs  of  Gascony, 
and  the  conquest  of  Ireland,  but  we  get  no  guidance  on  Border  tenure, 
Border  law,  Border  courts,  the  exemption  of  the  Border  baronage  from 
foreign  service  in  the  national  host,  the  freedom  from  scutage  of  cornage 
tenants,  and  other  peculiarities  characteristic  of  northern  history.  At  one 
time  the  lawyers  of  Westminster  disowned  all  knowledge  of  the  leges 
marchiarum,  but  a  similar  unconsciousness  of  northern  characteristics 
admits  of  no  defence  at  the  present  day. 

With  this  reservation,  apart  from  minor  details,  we  have  nothing  but 
admiration  for  Mr.  Davis's  performance.  His  style  is  scholarly  and 
attractive,  often  eloquent,  never  dull.  Some  of  his  idiosyncracies  are 
harmless,  for  example,  when  he  insists  on  the  quaint  orthography  of 
<  complection '  and  '  connection,'  but  '  ascendancy '  (p.  1 7)  must  be  a 
slip.  The  bibliography  at  the  end  of  the  book  is  useful,  the  index  is 
good  and  the  maps  indispensable.  It  must  also  be  said  to  the  credit  of  the 
publishers  that  the  turn  out  of  the  volume  is  everything  that  could  be 
desired. 

JAMES  WILSON. 

THE  CAMBRIDGE  MODERN  HISTORY.  Vol.  viii.  The  French  Revolu- 
tion. Pp.  xxviii,  875.  Ry.  8vo.  Cambridge :  University  Press. 
1904.  1 6s.  nett. 

IN  point  of  definite  years,  this   volume  may  be    said  to  cover  the  very 
small  period,  1774-1800,  from  the  accession  of  Louis  XVI.  to  the  Coup 


The  Cambridge  Modern  History        365 

d'etat  of  Brumaire  which  abolished  the  Directory.  But  the  necessary 
preliminary  chapters  take  us  a  long  way  back.  The  philosophical  bases 
•of  the  revolutionary  movement  are  dealt  with  in  a  masterly  article  by 
Mr.  P.  F.  Willert,  who  shows  that  l  the  negative  and  destructive  part ' 
of  the  eighteenth  century  doctrine  was  to  be  found  in  existence  at  least 
a  century  before  the  French  Revolution  broke  out,  while  t  the  positive 
conceptions  of  popular  sovereignty  and  natural  rights '  were  in  their 
origin  older  still.  This  volume  is  the  most  thorough  study  of  the 
whole  revolutionary  movement  which  we  have  in  the  English  language. 
It  is  a  distinct  advantage  to  its  unity  that  the  services  of  a  comparatively 
small  number  of  writers  have  been  called  into  requisition.  Twenty-five 
chapters  have  been  distributed  among  thirteen  authors.  Professor 
Montague,  of  University  College,  London,  after  a  useful  resume  of 
the  French  Government  of  the  Ancien  Regime •,  narrates  the  history  of 
France  in  four  more  chapters,  down  to  the  Constitution  of  1791.  Mr. 
J.  R.  Moreton  Macdonald  of  Largie,  in  four  carefully-written  sections, 
carries  on  the  story  to  the  end  of  the  Convention,  and  picks  his  way 
with  considerable  skill  through  the  confusing  and  contradictory  detail  of 
those  terrible  four  years.  It  is  by  no  means  always  easy  to  follow  the 
precise  march  of  events,  and  there  is  a  tendency  to  give  too  many  names 
of  comparatively  unimportant  people,  but  the  material  is  intractable,  and 
at  times  every  moment  had  its  importance.  The  French  History  in 
this  volume  is  concluded  by  a  singularly  brilliant  article  by  Mr.  H.  A.  L. 
Fisher  on  Brumaire.  His  character  sketch  of  Sieyes  with  an  intelligence 
"*  narrow,  intermittent  and  original,'  and  the  summary  of  the  results  of 
Bonaparte's  act  are  written  with  a  sense  of  style  which  is  not  found  in 
many  pages  of  this  or  any  other  historical  work  of  recent  date.  An 
interesting  chapter  on  French  Law  in  the  Age  of  the  Revolution  is 
contributed  by  Professor  Paul  Viollet  of  the  Ecole  des  Chartes.  The 
review  of  the  financial  situation,  both  before  and  during  the  Revolution, 
has  been  entrusted  to  the  capable  pen  of  Mr.  Henry  Higgs  of  the 
Treasury.  British  Foreign  policy  before  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolutionary 
War  falls  to  Mr.  Oscar  Browning.  Professor  Lodge,  with  his  accus- 
tomed lucidity,  deals  with  the  Eastern  Question  generally,  and  Poland 
in  particular — a  chapter  of  even  more  importance  in  the  development 
of  the  revolutionary  force.  Mr.  Dunn  Pattison,  like  Mr.  Moreton  Mac- 
donald a  young  writer,  takes  the  thankless  task  of  sketching  the  early 
Revolutionary  War.  With  the  advent  of  Napoleon,  the  services  of  Dr. 
J.  H.  Rose  are  not  unnaturally  called  into  requisition.  Mr.  H.  W. 
Wilson  very  appropriately  deals  with  the  Naval  aspects  of  the  war,  which 
Admiral  Mahan  has  emphasised  in  his  books,  and  last,  but  certainly  in 
interest  not  least,  comes  a  chapter  by  Mr.  G.  P.  Gooch,  who  uses  to 
the  utmost  the  few  pages  at  his  disposal  for  drawing  out  the  effect  of 
the  French  Revolution  on  contemporary  thought  and  literature.  It  will 
be  a  real  boon  to  many  students  here,  as  elsewhere  in  these  volumes,  to 
see  foreign  and  British  developments  treated  side  by  side.  The  British 
public  is  not,  it  must  be  confessed,  interested  in  any  foreign  history 
except  of  the  most  recent  period.  Hence  the  history  of  our  own  land 


366        The  Cambridge  Modern  History 

is  apt  to  assume  a  disproportionate  importance  in  our  minds.  It  is  in- 
structive to  number  the  pages  assigned  to  British  history  in  Universal 
Histories  written  in  foreign  tongues.  One  great  value  of  this  Cambridge 
History  consists  in  its  careful  allotment  of  space  to  countries  and  subjects, 
with  some  reference  to  their  respective  importance  in  the  larger  history 
of  the  civilised  world. 

DUDLEY  J.  MEDLEY. 

KELTIC  RESEARCHES  :  STUDIES  IN  THE  HISTORY  AND  DISTRIBUTION  OF 
THE  ANCIENT  GOIDELIC  LANGUAGE  AND  PEOPLES.  By  E.  W.  B. 
Nicholson,  M.A.,  Bodley's  Librarian,  Oxford.  Pp.  xx,  212. 
London :  Henry  Frowde.  1904.  2 is. 

MR.  NICHOLSON  is  already  known  to  Celtic  scholars  as  the  author  of 
The  Vernacular  Inscriptions  of  the  Ancient  Kingdom  of  Alban  (1896),  and 
a  gossipy  book  on  Golspie  and  its  folklore.  In  the  former  work  he 
tried  to  read  the  riddle  of  the  so-called  Pictish  inscriptions,  with  the 
help  of  a  modern  Gaelic  grammar  and  dictionary,  and  with  a  result 
that  astonished,  if  it  did  not  amuse,  Celtic  scholars.  Since  then,  however, 
Mr.  Nicholson  has  been  pursuing  the  study  of  Pictish  on  a  wider  scale 
over  the  area  of  Gaul  and  the  British  Isles,  and  his  results — some  of 
which  have  appeared  in  the  form  of  articles  in  the  Athenaeum  and 
elsewhere — are  given  in  the  present  volume.  Mr.  Nicholson  writes  with 
an  engaging  candour,  which  greatly  disarms  criticism.  Thus  his  great 
study  on  the  *  Sequanian  Language '  only  cost  him  a  fortnight  for  the  first 
draft :  he  had  only  seen  his  materials — the  Calendar  of  Coligny  practi- 
cally— sixteen  days  before  the  article  was  finished.  The  larger  half  of 
the  work  discusses  the  Celtic  ethnology  of  northern  Gaul  and  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland  ;  the  other  half  is  composed  of  appendices,  dealing 
mainly  with  the  language  of  the  Coligny  Calendar,  discovered  in  1897,. 
and  of  the  Rom  Tablet,  discovered  ten  years  earlier,  but  deciphered  only 
in  1898.  The  languages  of  the  Gaulish  tribes  known  as  the  Pictavi  or 
Pictones  and  the  Sequani  thus  form  the  main  portion  of  the  appendices. 
Mr.  Nicholson's  great  discovery  is  that  Indo-European  initial  p  was 
preserved  in  these  and  some  British  languages,  and  this  is  the  main 
contention  of  his  book.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  Mr.  Nicholson  here 
runs  counter  to  the  leading  canon  of  Celtic  philology — that  Indo-Euro- 
pean />,  initial  at  least,  was  lost  entirely.  The  claim  of  a  Celtic  language 
to  be  such  has  been  usually  tested  by  this  rule.  Thus  Latin  pater 
appears  in  Gaelic  as  athair,  which  stands  for  a  Celtic  ater.  Hitherto 
Cellists  smiled  at  Mr.  Nicholson's  attempts,  and  felt  no  inclination  to 
take  him  seriously.  Lately,  however,  Prof.  Rhys  astonished  the  Celtic 
world  by  accepting  Mr.  Nicholson's  views  on  the  p  question,  at  least 
as  far  as  the  Continental  Celts  are  concerned  (see  Celtae  and  Galli,  a 
paper  read  before  the  British  Academy,  May  1905).  The  three  words 
in  the  Coligny  Calendar  showing  p  are  Petiux,  Pogdedortonin,  and 
Prinnos.  The  last  Prof.  Rhys  refers  to  the  Indo-European  stem  pernay 
Irish  renim,  I  sell,  and  considers  it  to  mean  « market ' ;  but  there  is 


Nicholson :    Keltic  Researches  367 

an  equally  good  Celtic  and  Indo-European  root  kren,  or  cren,  of  like 
meaning,  Welsh  prynnu,  buy.  No  doubt  Prof.  Rhys  rejects  this,  because 
it  would  make  the  Calendar  a  Brittonic  document,  whereas  he  main- 
tains, as  does  Mr.  Nicholson,  that  the  language  of  the  Calendar  is 
early  Gadelic.  The  month  name  Equos,  'Horse'  (compare  Gaelic 
Gearran,  the  four  weeks  from  I5th  March  to  I5th  April),  shows  Celtic 
qu,  which  in  Gadelic  becomes  c,  in  Brittonic  p.  In  fact,  Equos  does 
not  necessarily  imply  a  Gadelic  tongue  ;  it  can  be  explained  as  a  survival. 
The  word  Petiux  is  allowed  by  Prof.  Rhys  to  be  the  Pictish  pet ;  but 
the  po  of  the  third  word  is  regarded  as  the  preposition  po,  from.  Irish 
and  Gaelic  ua  or  o  is  from  au,  as  in  Latin,  au-fero ;  whence  does 
the  Professor  get  the  po  r  Besides,  might  it  not  be  the  prep,  cos,  co,  Welsh 
pw  or  bw  ?  The  Rom  Tablet  shows  more  words  in  />,  especially  com- 
priatOy  which  looks  as  if  it  were  from  the  Indo-European  root  pri,  love. 
Both  Prof.  Rhys  and  Mr.  Nicholson  agree  on  this.  The  word-  pura  seems 
borrowed,  but  surely  we  do  not  require  to  revolutionise  Celtic  philology  for 
two  or  three  />'s  on  a  tablet  which  presents  so  much  difficulty  in  decipher- 
ment. The  translations  offered  by  our  two  authors  differ  toto  caelo  ;  but 
this  is  not  to  be  wondered  at.  The  whole  matter  is  as  yet  pure  guess  work, 
dear  to  the  heart  of  a  solar  mythologist,  but  scarcely  yet  worth  serious 
consideration  from  the  science  of  philology.  What  is  most  needed  in 
regard  to  these  inscriptions,  be  they  insular  or  continental  Pictish,  is  time 
and  patience.  One  is  sorry  to  see  our  authors  bring  forward  again 
Dr.  Marcellus'  (circ.  400)  Bordeaux  Charms ;  but  the  word  prosag  (come 
forth)  is  too  tempting  to  a  believer  in  the  possibility  of  Indo-European  p 
surviving  in  Celtic  to  leave  it  in  its  deserved  obscurity.  It  is  also  surely 
bad  phonetics  to  compare  Gaulish  ciallo:  with  Irish  ciall ;  does  the  month 
name  Giamon  convey  no  lesson  ? 

Mr.  Nicholson's  ethnological  results  are  briefly  these  :  the  Belgae  were 
a  ^-preserving  Gadelic  people  ;  they  overran  Britain  and  formed  the  Fir- 
bolg  colony  of  Ireland.  The  other  two  leading  Irish  tribes  were  the 
Fir  Galeon  or  Irish  Picts,  and  the  Fir  Domnan  or  Dumnonii  or  Devonians. 
They  all  spoke  early  Gaelic.  The  Scots  do  not  appear  on  the  map  at  all, 
and  are  only  incidentally  mentioned  as  coming  from  Spain  !  Where  the 
Cymry,  or  predecessors  of  the  modern  Welsh  come  in,  one  hardly  knows. 
Both  Cymry  and  Scots — in  real  fact  the  leading  tribal  names — appear  to 
have  no  place  in  Mr.  Nicholson's  scheme.  He  agrees  with  Skene  in 
wiping  out  the  Dalriad  Scots  in  741  ;  he  forgets  Aed  Finn  (747-777),  his 
laws  and  victories  ;  and  the  ultimate  name  of  the  combined  nation — Scot 
and  Scotland — receives  no  explanation  save  that  the  Highlanders  do  not 
call  themselves  Scots,  but  Albanaich.  In  this  Mr.  Nicholson  is  mistaken, 
the  Highlanders  call  themselves  still — as  they  always  did — Gaidheil.  Like 
Skene,  he  does  not  believe  in  the  old  Gaelic  Annals,  where  the  Picts  are 
represented  as  being  overthrown  by  the  Scots.  But  really  a  study  of  these 
same  Annals  and  of  the  verification  of  them  by  subsequent  facts  ought  to 
convince  Mr.  Nicholson  that  a  huge  error  has  been  committed  by  Pinkerton 
and  Skene  in  rejecting  them.  Modern  Celtic  scholars  are  very  conservative 
on  this  and  other  points  in  regard  to  the  Annals,  which  were  treated  very 


368  Nicholson :    Keltic  Researches 

cavalierly  by  Skene  whenever  they  did  not  agree  with  his  theories.  He 
treated  the  various  clan  histories  and  genealogies  in  a  similar  fashion  with 
consequent  confusion. 

Mr.  Nicholson's  numerous  derivations  invite  criticism,  but  only  one  or 
two  can  be  noticed.  On  the  idea  that  Pictish  preserved  Indo-European  p, 
he  conjoins  Pictish  pett  (the  Coligny  petiux}y  farm,  with  Gaelic  ait,  place  ! 
This  last  he  finds  in  many  Pictish  inscriptions.  Now  curiously  ait  is  never 
used  in  any  Gaelic  place  name.  This  may  be  news  to  the  non-Gaelic 
etymologist  of  place  names.  The  Pictish  inscriptions  anyway  were  no 
doubt  the  work  of  the  South  Ireland  clergy  introduced  into  Pictland  over 
the  Easter  question.  Ogam  inscriptions  were  invented  in  South  Ireland, 
and  spread  thence  to  Cornwall,  Wales,  and  Pictland.  The  name  Argyle 
comes  from  old  Gaelic  Airer  or  Oirer  Gaidheal,  the  '  Coastland  of  the 
Gael,'  and  surely  the  Latin  Ergadia  is  a  *  ghost '  name  founded  thereon. 
Mr.  Nicholson  does  not  require  to  derive  it  from  airghe or  dirigh,  a  shieling; 
the  initial  vowels  will  not  suit.  Still  less  does  Airchartdan  (Urquhart)  come 
from  the  same  word.  The  initial  air  is  the  preposition,  which  is  common 
in  the  place  names  of  the  district  (Ur-ray,  Ur-chany,  Er-cles,  etc.).  The 
river  Duglas  means  '  black  stream  (dub-glais).'  Kenneth  is  not  a  Pictish 
name  ;  a  glance  at  the  index  of  (say)  the  Four  Masters  would  dispel  this 
notion.  The  book  bristles  with  doubtful  and  wrong  etymologies ;  the  work 
is  full  of  perversities  as  well.  Why  should  the  author  derive  the  name  of 
the  heretic  Pelagius  from  Indo-European  pel,  fill,  when  his  name  is  a 
Graeco-Roman  adjective  translating  a  Celtic  Morgan,  '  Sea-born '  ? 
Palladius  is  a  similar  word  doing  duty  for  Sucat,  '  warlike,'  St.  Patrick's 
first  name.  The  Gaulish  and  early  Celtic  Church  was  closely  connected 
with  the  Eastern  Church. 

ALEXANDER  MACBAIN. 


THE  RECORDS  OF  THE  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  JUSTICIARY  COURT,  EDIN- 
BURGH, 1661-1678.  Edited  with  an  introduction  and  notes  from 
a  manuscript  by  W.  G.  Scott  MoncrieflF,  F.S.H.,  Advocate.  Vol.  i., 
1661-1669.  Pp.  xxxiii,  34.9.  Edinburgh:  Printed  at  the  University 
Press  for  the  Scottish  Historical  Society,  1905. 

THE  title  is  somewhat  misleading,  because  this  is  not  an  official  record 
but  is  a  copy  of  minutes  with  comments  by  an  anonymous  writer  in  the 
year  1683  (p.  105).  It  is  obvious  that  he  was  a  lawyer  who  was 
present  at,  at  least,  some  of  the  trials,  and  who  was  especially  interested 
in  the  procedure,  he  criticised  the  forms  of  the  judgments  rather  than 
their  merits  ;  he  showed  little  sympathy  for  suffering,  and  no  indignation 
at  cruelty. 

In  an  admirable  introduction  the  editor,  Mr.  Scott  Moncrieff,  has  drawn 
attention  to  all  that  is  valuable  and  noteworthy  in  the  volume. 

These  criminal  trials  during  the  eight  years  from  1 66 1  to  1669  are  for 
the  most  part  for  common  crimes,  murders,  assaults,  thefts,  and  forgeries  ; 
as  a  rule,  which  were  committed  with  more  cruelty  and  more  openly  than 
in  modern  days.  There  are  many  charges  which  are  no  longer  tried, 


Proceedings  of  the  Justiciary  Court      369 

witchcraft,  adultery,  usury,  '  depraving  the  law  and  traducing  the  govern- 
ment of  Scotland,'  etc.  The  crimes,  the  rank  of  the  persons  accused, 
the  procedure,  the  acquittals,  convictions,  and  punishments,  all  show  that 
in  the  first  years  of  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  Scotland  was  in  a  wretched 
state  of  lawlessness  and  misgovernment. 

We  read  of  a  mob  in  Edinburgh  in  1664  which  had  to  be  dispersed 
by  soldiers  from  the  Castle,  for  which  only  one  man  was  arrested, 
and  the  prosecution  was  dropped  for  want  of  witnesses.  In  1665 
MacDonald  of  Keppoch  and  his  brother  were  killed,  and  so  powerless 
were  the  ordinary  courts  that  a  Commission  of  fire  and  sword  was 
granted  to  Sir  James  Macdonald  of  Slate,  against  the  murderers  and 
their  associates,  '  by  virtue  whereof  he  killed  and  destroyed  many, 
and  besieged  others  in  a  house,  and  having  forced  them  out  by  firing, 
he  cut  off  their  heads  and  presented  them  to  the  Privy  Council  to 
be  set  in  public  places.' 

The  Highlands  were  almost  beyond  the  reach  of  law.  Sixty  oxen 
and  seventeen  cows  belonging  to  Lyon  of  Muiresk  were  carried  off  by 
Patrick  Roy  Macgregor  and  others,  who  murdered  and  robbed,  and 
exacted  blackmail.  The  writer  says  <  this  Patrick  Roy  Macgregor 
was  a  most  notorious  and  villainous  person,  but  of  a  most  courageous 
and  resolute  mind.  He  was  a  little  thick  short  man,  red  haired,  and 
from  thence  called  Roy  Roy.  He  had  red  eyes  like  a  hawk,  and  a 
fierce  countenance  which  was  remarked  by  every  person.  He  endured 
the  torture  of  the  boots,  in  the  Privy  Council,  with  great  obstinacy, 
and  suffered  many  strokes  at  the  cutting  of  his  hands,  with  wonderful 
patience,  to  the  great  admiration  of  the  spectators,  the  executioner 
having  done  his  duty  so  ill  that  next  day  he  was  deposed  for  it.' 
In  1668  the  Earl  of  Caithness  and  his  friends  to  the  number 
of  six  or  seven  hundred  men  harried  the  Shire  of  Sutherland,  but 
actions  by  and  against  the  Earl  of  Sutherland  were  compromised  and 
withdrawn  (pp.  255,  295).  The  most  interesting  trials  in  this  volume 
are  those  of  the  unfortunate  Covenanters,  who  after  the  fight  at 
Rullion  Green  were  taken  prisoners.  Notwithstanding  the  quarter 
granted  to  them  on  the  field,  forty-one  men  were  brought  to  trial 
within  a  month,  and  on  their  own  confession  (extorted,  in  at  least  some 
cases,  by  torture)  were  found  guilty.  Ten  were  hanged  in  Edinburgh 
on  the  yth  December,  1666,  six  on  the  I4th,  and  nine  on  the  22nd, 
and  in  the  same  month,  four  were  hanged  in  Glasgow,  and  twelve  in 
Ayr  and  Dumfries.  In  the  following  August  there  was  a  mock  trial  of 
nearly  sixty  absent  men,  who  were  found  guilty  of  taking  part  in  the 
rising,  and  were  sentenced  to  be  hanged  whenever  they  were  found, 
and  all  their  property  was  confiscated. 

In  many  of  the  trials  the  pleadings  and  arguments  of  counsel  are 
of  great  length.  A  long  libel  was  read,  then  answers  for  the  defence, 
then  the  Lord  Advocate  replies,  the  accused's  Counsel  '  duplys,'  the 
Lord  Advocate  '  tryplys,'  the  Counsel  l  quadruplys,'  the  Lord  Advocate 
4  quintuplys,'  and  the  Counsel  '  sextuplys '  (pp.  315,  318).  Many  of 
these  arguments  are  foolish.  Mr.  Birnie,  afterwards  Lord  Saline,  had 


3/o     Proceedings  of  the  Justiciary  Court 

a  great  practice  in  those  days.  In  a  trial  for  witchcraft  he  argued  : 
'  It  is  an  undoubted  ground  of  law  in  the  subject  of  witches  that  in 
commutationibus  et  translationibus  semper  lucratur  Demon,  and  therefore  the 
Demon  does  never  loose  a  disease  from  one,  but  by  transmitting  it  as 
from  a  person  more  significant,  as  from  an  elder  to  a  younger,  and 
from  a  beast  to  a  man,  whereas  this  lybelt  bears  the  disease  to  have 
been  translated  from  Katherine  Wardlaw  to  the  catt'  (p.  12).  If  it 
were  not  for  the  horrible  ending  when  women  were  strangled  and  burned, 
one  would  think  the  accusation  and  the  defence  to  be  fantastic  nonsense. 

The  writer  says  of  one  trial,  'there  is  nothing  remarkable  in  this 
process,  for  the  libel  is  upon  the  common  ground  of  compact  with 
the  Devil,  renouncing  of  Baptism,  keeping  meetings  with  the  Devil, 
and  accepting  his  mark '  (p.  4).  A  woman  who  was  sentenced  to 
death  is  said  to  have  *  conversed  with  the  Devil,  and  received  a  six- 
pence from  him,  the  Devil  saying  how  God  had  given  her  that,  and 
had  asked  her  how  the  minister  was '  (p.  9). 

For  one  poor  gentleman  pity  may  be  felt.  Four  men  of  rank,  the 
eldest  son  of  the  Earl  of  Dalhousie,  Douglas  of  Spott,  Sir  James  Hume 
of  Eccles,  and  Mr.  William  Douglas,  son  of  the  Laird  of  Whittingham, 
quarrelled  over  their  cups  at  John  Brown's,  Vintner  in  Leith.  They 
repaired  to  the  Black  Rocks  on  Leith  Sands  and  fought  with  swords. 
William  Douglas  mortally  wounded  Sir  James  Hume  ;  he  did  his  best 
for  the  dying  man,  and  asked  his  pardon  ;  he  and  Douglas  of  Spott 
were  arrested  and  imprisoned.  Spott  escaped  from  Edinburgh  Castle. 
He  never  returned  to  Scotland.  He  sold  his  estate  and  became  a 
Captain  in  the  Scots  regiment  in  France.  Mr.  William  Douglas  was 
less  fortunate.  He  had  *  almost  escaped  from  the  Tolbooth,  having 
cut  the  stenchers  of  the  window  with  aqua  fortis,  being  ready  to  go 
away,  he  was  taken.' 

He  was  beheaded,  but  before  he  suffered  '  he  took  the  sole  guilt 
upon  him.' 

ARCH.  C.  LAWRIE. 


VESTERLANDENES  INDFLYDELSE  PAA  NORDBOERNES  OG  S^RLIG  NORD- 
MJENDENES  YDRE  KuLTUR,  LfiVES^T  OG  SAMFUNDSFORHOLD  I 
VIKINGETIDEN.  Af  Alexander  Bugge.  403  pp.  Christiania,  1905. 

FOR  a  lengthened  period  it  was  a  recognised  principle  among  students 
of  the  history  and  antiquities  of  the  North  to  regard  the  Northern 
mythology,  literature,  and  culture  generally  as  of  native  origin  and 
growth — as  Carlyle  has  it,  'kindled  in  the  great  dark  vortex  of  the 
Norse  mind,'  and  gradually  developed  therefrom,  on  their  own  lines,  in 
warfare,  freedom,  religion,  and  literature.  It  was  on  this  assumption 
that  the  learned  treatises  of  Munch,  Steenstrup,  and  other  Norse  scholars 
were  produced,  notably  the  great  work  of  Worsaae,  jfn  Account  of  the 
Danes  and  Norwegians  in  England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland,  published  in 
1852.  Similarly,  we  in  the  British  isles  have  regarded  Runic  inscrip- 


Vesterlandenes  Indflydelse  paa  Nordboernes  371 

tions,  Viking  swords,  and  other  relics  of  the  Norsemen,  from  time  to 
time  brought  to  light,  as  evidents  of  the  far-reaching  influence  of  their 
power  and  civilisation  in  our  own  area  ;  while  place-names  and  racial 
characteristics  among  ourselves  and  elsewhere  have  been  recognised  as 
testifying  to  the  same  effect. 

But  the  learned  world,  so  far  as  interested  in  Northern  studies  and 
resting  complacently  on  this  assumption,  received  a  rude  shock  when 
in  1 88 1  Dr.  Sophus  Bugge  of  Christiania  published  his  Studier  over 
de  nordiske  Gude-  og  Heltesagns  Oprindelse  (first  series).  In  this  work 
Professor  Bugge  propounded  the  theory  that,  whatever  the  earlier  stages 
of  the  Norse  mythology  may  have  been,  it  was  to  a  large  extent  rein- 
forced by  accretions  and  imitations  from  Classical  and  Christian  lore 
acquired  by  Viking  adventurers  and  Norse  traders  of  the  ninth  and  tenth 
centuries  in  their  intercourse  with  Western  peoples  in  England,  Ireland, 
and  France,  the  fragments  so  gathered  being  afterwards  gradually  elabor- 
ated in  their  colonies  in  Orkney,  Shetland,  the  Faroe  Isles,  and  Iceland  ; 
while  their  manners  of  life  and  civilisation  generally  were  effectively 
moulded  in  all  departments  by  influences  from  the  same  quarter.  This 
view  was  naturally  not  appreciated  from  the  native  and  patriotic  point 
of  view,  and  it  was  at  once  vigorously  combated  by,  among  others,  the 
late  Professor  George  Stephens  of  Copenhagen,  who  devoted  eight 
public  lectures  in  the  University  of  that  city  to  its  condemnation. 

From  that  time  to  the  present  opinions  among  Northern  scholars 
have  varied,  some  acquiescing  in  the  new  theory,  others  abiding  by  the 
traditional  view.  But  the  whole  question  is  now  summed  up  in  an 
elaborate  enquiry  by  Professor  Alexander  Bugge,  the  son  of  the  promul- 
gator  of  the  new  theory,  in  the  important  volume  which  is  the  subject 
of  this  notice.  In  his  Preface  (Forord]  the  author  explains  the  origin 
of  the  book,  namely,  that  it  is  a  response  to  an  enquiry  propounded 
at  a  meeting  of  the  Scientific  Society  of  Christiania  on  3rd  May,  1900, 
as  to  how  far  the  external  culture  of  the  people  of  the  North,  and 
especially  of  the  Norwegians,  and  their  modes  of  life  and  social  economy, 
have  been  influenced  from  Western  countries  ?  A  committee  of  learned 
Professors  sat  to  adjudicate  upon  the  communications  received  in  reply, 
and  by  them  the  Fridtjof  Nansen  prize  was  awarded  to  Professor  Bugge, 
the  result  of  whose  laborious  investigation  is  before  us. 

The  author  disclaims  philological  or  archaeological  skill  in  dealing 
with  his  subject,  but  there  is  abundant  evidence  throughout  of  wide 
acquaintance  with  French  and  German  authorities  and  with  the  ancient 
Celtic  remains  of  Ireland  which  bear  upon  the  times  and  the  events 
in  question,  as  well  as  with  the  extensive  field  of  Icelandic  literature 
which  must  ever  remain  the  groundwork  of  such  investigations. 

After  a  long  and  learned  introduction,  the  author,  in  working  out 
the  argument,  treats  the  enquiry  under  the  following  and  other  subsidiary 
heads,  in  all  of  which  it  may  be  said,  in  a  word,  that  the  alleged 
moulding  influences  of  the  West  upon  the  life  and  culture  of  ancient 
Scandinavia  are  very  fully  explained  and  enforced. 

I.  Government. — The  sovereign  power,  embracing  under  this  head  the 


372  Vesterlan denes  Indflydelse  paa  Nordboernes 

royal  bodyguard,  the  external  symbols  of  sovereignty,  the  state  under 
King  Harald  Haarfagr,  with  his  revenue  regulations  and  administration 
generally ;  all  described  as  having  been  based  upon  the  model  of 
Charlemagne. 

2.  Apparel^  Ornaments,  Furniture,  and  Domestic  arrangements. — These 
are  all  considered  to  have  been  imitations  of  the  Prankish   and   Anglo- 
Saxon.     When  the  Vikings  went  out  they  were  not  barbarians,  but  had 
their  own  special  characteristics  and  a  tolerably  high  culture.     Many  of 
them   became  nominally   Christians,   but  while    professing    to    believe   in 
Christ  they  invoked  the  aid  of  Thor  for  safety  at  sea  and  success  in  fight. 
They  went  out  clad  in  their  Wadmal  (coarse  native  woollen  cloth)  and  in 
garments  of  skin,   but  they   came   back    in   rich   and   variegated   apparel, 
with  the  decorous  manners  of  men  of  the  West,  while  their  inner  culture 
received  a  marked  development  at  the  same  time.     Their  views  became 
wider,  their  contemplation  of  life  deeper. 

3.  Commerce,  Shipbuilding,  Shipping,  Laying  out  of  Towns. — Great  results 
came  in  these  departments  from  the  residence  of  Danes  in  London  and 
their  privileges  there  from  the  time  of  Knut  (Canute)  the  Great,  a  steady 
commercial  intercourse  being  kept  up  between  England  and  the  Scandi- 
navian countries.     The  anchor,  previously  unknown,  was   then  adopted 
by  the  Norsemen,  and  other  improvements  made.     Towns  were  also  laid 
out  by  them,  not  only  at  home  in  Norway  but  also  in  England. 

4.  Warfare,  Weapons,  Accoutrements,  Organisation  and  Equipment  of  the 
Army,  Military    Tactics,   the   Construction   and   Siege    of  Fortresses. — The 
Norsemen   had  no  cavalry  until  they  adopted   that  arm   in    imitation   of 
the  French,  from  whom  also  the  art  of  building  castles  and  fortresses  was 
derived.     The  so-called  'Viking'  sword  is  attributed  to  a  Frankish  origin. 
Their  buildings  were  all  in  rectangular  form.1 

5.  Agriculture  and  Grazings. — Turnip,  cabbage,   and   other  vegetables 
introduced.     The    Orcadians   and    Shetlanders   were    taught    by    'Torf 
Einar  to  use  turf  (peats),  but  the  people  of  Norway  always  used  wood  for 
fuel.     He  must  therefore  have  learned  this  from  Ireland,  for  it  is  an  old 
Gaelic  custom. 

6.  Coinage,    Weights,   and   Measures. — The    impulse    for    minting   was 
derived  from  the  West,  but  the  first  coins  struck  in  Ireland  were  by  the 
Norsemen,  and   they  were   the    first  who  carried   on   trade   to  any  con- 
siderable extent  between  Ireland  and  foreign  countries. 

7.  Art. — The  Sculptured  Stones  of  Gotland,  Sweden,  Denmark,  and 
Norway   are    described,   with    numerous    illustrations,    exhibiting   a  close 
resemblance  to   Celtic  and   Anglo-Saxon   monuments  of  the  same  class, 
though  possessing  a  distinctly  Norse  feeling  at  the  same  time. 

8.  The  Norse  Settlements  in  the  Faroe  Isles  and  Iceland  in  their  relation 
to  Western  and  especially  to  Celtic  culture. — Here  the  first  settlers,  though 
of  Norse  origin,  are  presumed  to  have  come  mainly  from   the   previous 
settlements  in  the  British  isles,  a  view  which  has  been  accepted  also  by 

1  There  is  no  hint  here  of  any  knowledge  in  Denmark,  Norway,  or  Sweden 
of  the  building  of  round  structures  like  the  '  Brochs '  of  Orkney,  Shetland,  and 
Scotland  (the  Duns  of  Pictland),  as  some  writers  have  vainly  supposed. 


Vesterlandenes  Indflydelse  paa  Nordboernes  373 

Munch,  by  Sars,  and  by  Finn  Jonsson.  Many  personal  names  are  clearly 
Celtic,  e.g.  Donaldur,  Donach,  Gilli  the  Lawman,  Ketil,  Kolman,  Konall, 
Kormak,  Njall,  etc.,  while  such  place-names  as  Dungansvik,  Dungansnes 
(Duncan's  wick,  ness),  Patriksfjordr,  Brjanslaekr,  etc.,  tell  unmistakably 
the  same  tale  :  the  Irish  monks  being  commemorated  in  Papey,  Paplyli, 
Paparjordr,  etc. 

After  the  foregoing  survey  of  the  main  aspects  of  the  life  and  civilisa- 
tion of  the  Norsemen,  the  detailed  illustrations  of  which  we  have  been 
able  only  to  glance  at,  the  book  is  concluded  by  an  important  Postscript 
{Efterskrift\  in  which  the  whole  is  summed  up  in  a  resum£  of  the 
argument  which  has  been  indicated  under  our  abstract  of  the  different 
heads.  The  author  observes  that  in  Norway  itself  the  impression  of 
Western  influences  was  naturally  slow  and  not  so  deep,  many  of  the  home- 
dwellers  living  well  into  the  middle  ages  very  much  as  they  did  in  the 
Viking  time.  It  was  upon  the  men  who  had  travelled  and  mixed  with 
Anglo-Saxon,  French,  and  Irish  men  that  the  foreign  culture  and  manners 
made  an  impress  which  in  the  course  of  time  resolved  itself  into  the 
characteristic  type  of  Northern  civilisation  as  it  is  historically  understood. 
But  it  was  in  Orkney  and  Shetland,  according  to  the  author,  that  the 
influences  of  the  West  went  deepest,  so  that  these  islands  'could  be 
called  the  Cyprus  and  Crete  of  Northern  culture,'  a  flattering  unction 
never  previously  applied  to  them. 

While  Professor  Bugge  accentuates  so  pointedly  the  influences  of  the 
West,  he  does  not,  however,  do  so  without  some  reservations.  On 
certain  points  he  is  not  without  doubts,  and  some  of  his  conclusions  he 
acknowledges  to  have  since  modified.  Notwithstanding  all  that  had  been 
advanced  in  favour  of  the  new  view,  he  still  claims  that  much  that  is 
best  among  the  Norsemen  had  its  roots  in  the  home  ground  ;  that  in 
shipbuilding  and  seamanship  they  themselves  taught  other  nations,  that 
by  their  example  they  gave  an  impulse  to  aspirations  for  law,  freedom, 
social  independence,  in  the  foreign  countries  with  which  they  came  in 
contact  ;  in  short,  that  the  foundations  of  life,  spirit,  and  manners  in  the 
North  were  essentially  Norse, — which  is  to  a  considerable  extent  what 
is  contended  for  by  his  opponents. 

In  view  of  these  admissions  by  the  accomplished  exponent  of  Western 
influences,  some  of  his  conclusions  may  possibly  be  regarded  as  open  to 
question.  It  might  be  denied,  for  instance,  that  the  Irish  or  other  Celts 
had  mythological  stories  in  any  way  closely  akin  to  those  of  the  Norsemen. 
Runes,  which  Professor  Bugge  is  inclined  to  treat  as  an  adaptation  from 
the  Roman  alphabet,  are  regarded  by  some  as  having  had  their  origin 
far  back  in  the  ages  before  the  Norsemen  came  in  contact  with  Roman 
civilisation  from  the  West,  dating  rather  from  the  time  when  traders 
from  the  Grecian  colonies  in  Scythia  introduced  their  wares,  with  some- 
what of  their  culture,  among  the  Goths  of  Gotland  and  of  Scandinavia. 
It  may  also  be  permissible  to  suppose  that  the  northern  mythology, 
in  its  earlier  forms,  may  have  been  current  for  centuries  prior  not  only 
to  the  Viking  age  of  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries,  but  also  to  the 
beginning  of  the  'Wanderings'  of  the  Northmen,  which  Professor  Bugge 


374  Vesterlandenes  Indflydelse  paa  Nordboernes 

with  good  reason  would  assign  to  the  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth  centuries. 
These  myths  are  not  likely  to  have  had  their  origin  in  other  lands  and, 
after  transplantation,  to  have  grown  to  maturity  in  so  short  a  space 
of  time  in  Scandinavia.  Certain  it  is  that  with  the  increase  of  intercourse 
between  nations  the  influences  of  civilisation  act  and  react,  and  it  would 
indeed  have  been  strange  if,  in  the  stirring  periods  of  the  Norsemen's 
*  Wanderings '  and  of  the  Viking  age,  the  Scandinavian  peninsula  should 
not  have  been  responsive  to  the  strong  currents  of  Western  influence 
which  were  then  everywhere  encountered. 

But  while  opinions  may  vary  as  to  the  wide  and  comprehensive  scope 
of  the  author's  conclusions,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  importance 
of  the  great  series  of  facts  bearing  upon  the  subject  which  he  has  so 
laboriously  accumulated,  and  which  he  has  expounded  with  so  much 
care  and  skill.  The  book  must  remain  a  monumental  contribution  to 
our  knowledge  of  the  development  of  civilisation  in  the  north  in  an 
interesting  and  imperfectly  understood  period  of  European  history. 

It  may  be  remarked,  in  conclusion,  that  the  book  is  written  in  what 
professes  to  be  modern  Norse,  or  Norwegian,  a  kind  of  phonetic  variation 
of  the  standard  Dano- Norwegian  hitherto  commonly  in  use  as  the  written 
language  in  both  countries.  As  familiar  examples  may  be  cited  'Far' 
for  fader  (father),  *mor'  for  moder  (mother),  'ha'  for  have  (to  have), 
'  gi '  for  give  (to  give),  '  blir '  for  b liver  (becomes),  '  tusen  '  for  tusind 
(thousand),  and  so  on.  Now,  this  may  have  the  merit  of  being  an 
approximation  to  the  local  pronunciation,  and  it  may  be  supposed  to 
have  some  flavour  of  a  distinct  national  tongue  ;  but  it  is  not  beautiful, 
and  if  largely  persisted  in  it  can  scarcely  fail  prejudicially  to  affect  the 
etymological  significance  of  the  language. 

GILBERT  GOUDIE. 

A  HISTORY  OF  ENGLISH  POETRY.  By  W.  J.  Courthope,  C.B.,  M.A., 
D.Litt.,  LL.D.,  late  Professor  of  Poetry  in  the  University  of  Oxford. 
Vol.  V.  pp.  xxviii,  464.  8vo.  London  :  Macmillan  &  Co.  Ltd., 
1905.  IDS.  nett. 

MR.  COURTHOPE  makes  steady  progress  with  his  History  of  English  Poetry. 
Twelve  months  ago  we  reviewed  the  third  and  fourth  volumes.  In  this  fifth 
volume,  which  deals  with  the  eighteenth  century,  we  have  the  mature  and 
unified  treatment  of  a  period  of  literature,  on  which  the  author  has  long 
been  a  recognised  authority.  We  do  not  think  that  Mr.  Courthope's 
method  of  regarding  poetry  as  the  imaginative  expression  of  the  national  life 
has  ever  appeared  to  better  advantage.  Perhaps  its  greatest  merit  is  that  it 
emphasises  the  continuity  of  our  literature,  and  disproves  any  sudden 
revolution  in  taste.  If  the  volume  shows  anything,  it  shows  the  error 
of  the  old  opinion  that,  'after  the  Restoration,  England  naturalised 
French  principles  of  art  and  criticism.'  Another  merit  of  the  method  is 
that  it  attends  to  contemporary  reputation.  Accordingly,  we  find  that  such 
men  as  Granville,  Walsh,  and  Pomfret  are  treated  at  greater  length  than 
in  any  other  account  of  eighteenth-century  literature,  and  we  are  more 


Paul:   A  History  of  Modern  England    375 

struck  than  we  should  have  been  with  the  novelty  of  the  special  chapters  on 
the  translations  of  the  Classics,  religious  lyrical  poetry,  and  the  poetical 
drama  from  Southerne  to  Brooke. 

D.  NICHOL  SMITH. 

A  HISTORY  OF  MODERN  ENGLAND.  By  Herbert  Paul.  In  five  volumes. 
Vol.  IV.  pp.  vi,  411.  8vo.  London  :  Macmillan  &  Co.  Ltd.,  1905. 
8s.  6d.  nett. 

THE  first  three  volumes  of  Mr.  Paul's  history,  which  give  an  account  of 
the  period  from  1846  to  1875,  have  already  been  reviewed  in  these  pages 
(S.H.R.,  vol.  ii.  p.  445).  The  fourth,  now  published,  tells  the  story  of 
the  next  ten  years  with  the  same  vigour  and  brilliance  which  were  exhibited 
in  its  predecessors.  These  ten  years  include  political  events  of  peculiar 
interest  at  the  present  time,  when  the  Christian  Powers  are  once  more 
intervening  in  Turkey,  and  with  perhaps  as  little  success,  in  behalf  of  a 
subject  Province,  and  the  question  of  Home  Rule  for  Ireland  is  again  rising 
above  the  political  horizon  at  home.  In  this  volume  the  narrative  is 
resumed  at  what  Mr.  Paul  calls  *  The  Storm  in  the  East,'  marked  by  the 
agitation  in  this  country  over  the  '  Bulgarian  Atrocities,'  and  culminating 
in  the  Russian  invasion  of  Turkey  in  1876.  It  is  continued  to  the  fall  of 
Mr.  Gladstone's  government  in  1885,  <a  critical  year  in  the  history  of 
England.' 

As  the  history  reaches  times  within  recent  memory  its  interest  increases, 
and  a  sense  of  the  author's  force  and  skill,  his  wide  knowledge  and  his  firm 
grasp,  grows  upon  his  readers.  He  is  still  a  partisan,  but  not  a  blind  one, 
and  he  reads  his  own  party  many  a  candid  and  salutary  lesson. 

This  volume,  like  the  others,  is  provided  with  an  admirable  index. 

ANDREW  MARSHALL. 

THE  ITINERARY  IN  WALES  OF  JOHN  LELAND  IN  OR  ABOUT  THE  YEARS 
1536-1539.  Extracted  from  his  MSS.  Arranged  and  edited  by 
Lucy  Toulmin  Smith.  Pp.  xi,  152.  Small  4to.  London:  George 
Bell  &  Sons,  1906.  los.  6d.  nett. 

As  a  man  of  learning  and  of  indefatigable  industry  in  the  collection  of 
information  and  notes  during  his  six  years'  travels  in  England  and  Wales, 
John  Leland,  the  earliest  of  our  antiquaries  (1506-1522),  has  always  held 
weight.  There  are  few  topographers,  indeed,  who  have  not  consulted 
his  pages  or  felt  the  impetus  given  by  his  patriotic  labours.  The  material 
of  the  present  volume  was  printed  by  Thomas  Hearne  so  long  ago  as 
1774,  but  it  was  worth  presenting  in  its  present  form,  furnished  out,  as 
it  now  is,  with  editorial  notes,  appendices,  a  map,  and  a  good  index. 
Leland's  journeyings  were  made  in  stirring  times,  when  the  dissolution 
of  the  monasteries  was  in  progress,  and  the  Welsh  and  English  territorial 
divisions  were  being  rearranged  and  reconstructed.  It  was  in  1535-3° 
that  the  important  Act  '  for  lawes  and  justice  to  be  ministered  in  Wales 
in  like  fourme  as  it  is  in  England '  was  passed — the  Act,  in  short,  by 


376  Little:   The  Far  East 

which  the  Principality  was  united  to  England  ;  and  in  these  records  of 
the  antiquary's  (Miss  Toulmin  Smith  must  not  say  *  antiquarian's ')  travels 
the  new  order  of  things  is  constantly  being  reflected.  It  is  this  which 
gives  the  book  its  chief  value.  The  editor  explains  that  the  sequence 
of  notes  and  narrative  is  so  broken  in  the  original  MS.  that  she  has  '  pieced 
together  what  appear  the  personal  and  quite  possible  lines  of  travel.'  The 
result  is  that  we  have  Leland's  material  in  a  very  much  more  satisfactory 
form  than  he  left  it.  ;  CUTHBERT  HADDEN. 

THE   FAR   EAST.      By    Archibald    Little.      Pp.  vii,    334.      Large  8vo. 
Oxford,  at  the  Clarendon  Press,  1905.     Price  js.  6d.  nett. 

THIS  is  one  of  the  excellent  series  of  books  on  l  The  Regions  of  the 
World,'  edited  by  Mr.  H.  J.  MacKinder.  The  author  informs  us  in 
his  preface  that  not  being  a  geographer  or  geologist  by  profession,  he 
undertook  the  task  with  much  diffidence  ;  that  he  did  so  in  the  hope 
that  his  long  personal  acquaintance  with  most  of  the  countries  described, 
would  make  amends  for  the  lack  of  expert  knowledge,  and  that  the 
power  acquired  by  a  life-long  residence  in  the  East,  of  imparting  a  *  local 
atmosphere'  to  his  descriptions  would  atone  for  deficiencies  which  he  is 
the  first  to  recognise.  He  further  explains  that  the  book  was  written 
at  a  distance  from  the  great  literary  centres,  and  thus  it  therefore  lacks 
some  of  the  wealth  of  detail  and  plethora  of  accurate  information  that 
distinguished  the  other  volumes  in  the  series. 

These  statements  somewhat  disarm  criticism.  While  it  is  evident 
that  the  book  is  somewhat  deficient  in  scientific  method  and  arrangement, 
it  contains  a  vast  amount  of  information,  much  of  which  has  been 
derived  from  the  author's  observation  during  a  long  residence  in  China, 
and  his  extended  travels  in  the  neighbouring  countries.  Mr.  Little  is 
well  known  as  a  writer  on  China,  and  as  he  is  now  one  of  the  oldest 
foreign  residents,  he  has  had  ample  opportunities  for  the  collection  of 
information,  and  time  for  the  formation  of  opinions.  These  latter,  in 
some  cases,  are  occasionally  tinged  with  the  results  of  his  own  environments 
and  experience,  like  those  of  many  others  engaged  in  commerce  in  China. 
The  introductory  chapters  are  the  most  generally  interesting,  and  give 
an  account  of  what  is  included  under  the  name  of  the  Far  East. 
Naturally,  the  chapters  on  China  proper  are  the  most  complete,  and  they 
contain  a  great  deal  of  useful  information,  not  only  on  the  physical 
conditions  of  the  country,  but  also  incidentally  on  other  matters  affecting 
the  future  of  industry  and  commerce.  Those  on  the  dependencies,  Man- 
churia, Mongolia,  Turkestan,  and  Tibet,  and  on  the  whilom  dependencies, 
Indo-China  and  Corea,  and  the  buffer-state  of  Siam,  are  reliable  accounts 
of  these  countries,  chiefly  compiled  from  well-known  authorities.  Regard- 
ing Mongolia,  he  says  that  when  by  means  of  railways  it  has  been 
brought  into  contact  with  the  Western  world,  and  its  resources  have 
been  developed,  it  will  be  found  that  there  is  more  in  it  than  the  desert 
of  Gobi.  It  and  Manchuria  are  destined  to  become  important  industrial 
and  commercial  countries.  The  mineral  sources  of  Corea  appear  to  be 


Michel  de  PHospital  and  his  Policy     377 

fully  as  great,  in  proportion  to  her  size,  as  are  those  of  the  neighbouring 
mainland,  and  probably  greater  than  those  of  volcanic  Japan.  If  Mr. 
Little  had  availed  himself  of  the  information  contained  in  the  new 
German  edition  of  Dr.  Rein's  book  on  Japan  (which  has  not  yet  been 
translated  into  English),  he  could  have  brought  the  part  on  the  Island 
Empire  more  up-to-date.  The  book  was  written  before  the  outbreak 
of  the  war  between  Japan  and  Russia,  and  the  results  of  this  have  modi- 
fied some  of  the  conclusions  arrived  at.  Mr.  Little  hopes  that  his  work 
may  serve  as  a  modest  introduction  to  a  more  complete  study  of  the 
countries  of  the  Far  East,  and  as  such,  we  have  no  hesitation  in  recom- 

mendinS  *'  HENRY  DYER. 

MICHEL    DE    L'HOSPITAL    AND  His    POLICY.      By    A.    E.   Shaw,  M.A. 
London  :  Frowde,  1905. 

GET  ouvrage  sera  lu  avec  fruit  par  ceux  qui  s'inteVessent  a  1'histoire 
politique,  religieuse  et  me'me  Iitt6raire  du  XVIe.  siecle.  La  figure  de 
1'illustre  chancelier  de  France  est  difficile  a  saisir.  Cette  etude  en  precise 
nettement  et  definitivement  les  traits.  La  vie  et  1'ceuvre  de  Michel 
de  1'Hospital  s'y  trouve  habilement  et  methodiquement  reconstitute.  On 
sent  que  1'auteur  aime  son  sujet,  le  peintre  son  modele,  et  les  nombreuses 
indications  bibliographiques,  si  utiles  aux  chercheurs,  demontrent  que 
Mr.  Shaw  a  puis£  aux  meilleures  sources. 

L'epoque  frivole  et  tumultueuse  oil  veint  1'Hospital  rend  son  caractere 
encore  plus  sympathique  et  il  y  a  lieu  de  feliciter  sans  reserve  Mr.  Shaw 
d'avoir  evoqu£  cette  belle  figure  qui  non  seulement  commande  le  respect 
et  1'admiration,  mais  encore  '  demands  affectionate  regards.'  Les  £rudits 
trouveront  avec  plaisir  un  *  Appendix '  qui  met  en  lumiere  des  faits 
importants.  ETIENNE  DUPONT. 

OLD   MAPS   AND   MAP   MAKERS  OF  SCOTLAND.     By  John   E.  Shearer. 
Pp.  vi,  86.     Cr.  410.     Stirling:   R.  S.  Shearer  &  Son,   1905. 

MR.  SHEARER'S  chosen  task  of  republishing  old  maps  of  Scotland  has 
found  interesting  variant  in  the  issue  of  this  attractive  quarto  sketch  of 
the  progress  of  cartography  as  applied  to  Scotland.  Brief  biographical 
notes  on  the  map  makers,  from  Strabo  downward,  and  bibliographic 
data  of  the  maps,  are  unpretentiously  compiled,  and  convey  a  great  deal 
of  widely  gathered  information.  The  interest  is  heightened  not  a  little 
by  effective  renderings  in  fac-simile  of  such  beautiful  maps  as  those  of 
Ortelius  published  in  1570,  Darfeville  in  1583,  and  Gordon  of  Straloch 
in  1653. 

CHURCH  PROPERTY.  The  Benefice  Lectures.  By  Thomas  Burns, 
F.R.S.E.,  F.S.A.  (Scot).  Pp.  xv,  275.  410.  Edinburgh  :  George  A. 
Morton,  1905.  6s.  nett. 

THESE  lectures,  to  which  the  Rev.  Dr.  Macgregor,  D.D.,  contributes  a 
very  eulogistic  preface,  were  delivered  for  the  benefit  of  intrants  to  the 


378  Burns:    Church  Property 

ministry  in  the  four  Scottish  Universities.  They  are  divided  into  *  Church 
Records,'  'The  Benefice/  and  '  Sacramental  Vessels  and  Church  Furniture.' 
The  first  is  the  most  interesting  to  the  historian  as  the  author  recounts  how 
the  Scottish  Church  has  become  dispossessed  of  many  of  its  MSS.  *  Outed  ' 
incumbents  removed  many  of  the  parish  records  during  ecclesiastical 
changes.  The  Restoration  Parliament  deliberately  burned  others ;  the 
earliest  Records  of  the  General  Assembly  from  1560,  after  being  muti- 
lated by  Archbishop  Adamson,  were  removed  to  London  from  the  Bass 
and  finally  lost  on  the  way  north  by  shipwreck.  Other  duplicates  were 
transferred  by  Bishop  Archibald  Campbell,  whose  'craze'  took  the  form  of 
'collecting  rare  books,'  to  Zion  College,  and  were  eventually  destroyed 
by  fire  in  1834.  The  author  urges  more  care  to  be  taken  of  the  MSS.  and 
all  church  property  in  the  future,  and  gives  what  is  exceedingly  valuable, 
a  detailed  list  of  the  Scottish  Church  Records  which  still  are  known  to 

exist.  A    T-   P 

A.  F.  S. 

There  is  an  excess  of  disputation  on  method  in  inaugural  lectures 
on  history.  The  professors — a  plague  on  their  conflict  of  schools  ! — 
prolong  debate  about  how  they  are  best  to  teach.  Mr.  Oman,  Chichele 
Professor  of  Modern  History,  in  his  Inaugural  Lecture  on  the  Study  of 
History  (Clarendon  Press,  1906,  pp.  30,  is.  nett)  is  the  latest  con- 
tributor to  the  discussion  of  the  true  province  of  history  in  the  University 
curriculum.  Is  it  to  educate  the  plain  man,  or  is  it  also  to  equip  the 
*  researcher '  ?  Sketching  the  introductory  professorial  deliverances  of 
Stubbs,  Freeman,  Froude,  and  York-Powell,  and  treating  Acton  as  a 
somewhat  painful  illustration  of  unfocussed  studies,  Professor  Oman 
replies  to  Professor  Firth's  plea  for  historical  teaching  of  history  (see 
S.H.R.  vol.  ii.  p.  339)  by  the  contention  that  the  University  is  a 
place  much  more  of  education  than  of  research,  seeing  that  so  small 
a  percentage  of  graduates  can  ever  be  destined  to  take  up  the  burden 
of  original  research.  A  warm  advocate  of  discovery  as  essential  to  real 
effort  in  history,  Professor  Oman  urges  the  necessity  of  definiteness 
of  studies,  the  importance  of  modern  languages  as  compulsory  subjects, 
and  the  wisdom  of  not  waiting  until  the  eleventh  hour  in  putting 
forth  a  thesis  of  new  conclusions.  The  risks  of  contradiction  and 
qualification  are  as  inevitable  at  the  end  of  the  day  as  at  noon. 
Timidity  and  diffidence  at  times  deprive  us  of  good  work.  '  Know- 
ledge not  committed  to  paper  is  knowledge  lost.'  Mr.  Oman  raises 
a  shrewd  question  when  he  asks  why  we  have  no  real  history  of 
medieval  Scotland. 

We  have  received  from  Mr.  C.  Poyntz  Stewart  a  reprint  from  The 
Genealogist,  of  his  critical  essay,  The  Red  and  White  Book  of  Menzies :  a 
review  (Exeter:  Pollard  &  Co.,  1906.  Pp.  20.  is.).  Of  course 
Scottish  antiquaries  have  known  that  the  foolish  Red  and  White  Book 
was  beneath  serious  attention.  Mr.  Poyntz  Stewart's  detailed  scarification 
and  exposure  of  its  ignorance  and  ineptitude  will,  notwithstanding,  be 
useful. 


Current   Literature  379 

Messrs.  A.  &  C.  Black  have  added  to  their  *  Who's  who  ? '  Series 
The  Writers'  and  Artists'  Year  Book,  1906,  a  Directory  for  Writers, 
Artists,  and  Photographers  (88  pages.  Crown,  8vo.  cloth,  is.  nett). 
This  little  volume  contains  lists  of  Papers  and  Magazines  and  many 
details  of  British  and  American  Publishers,  and  other  information 
which  may  be  of  interest  to  writers  or  artists.  The  usefulness  of 
*  Who's  who '  is  already  so  widely  known  that  this  supplement  to 
the  series  will  be  welcomed. 

A  History  of  the  Tron  Church  and  Congregation  is  promised  for  the 
autumn  by  the  Rev.  D.  Butler.  It  is  to  contain  much  biographical  and 
topographical  information  about  old  Edinburgh  from  record  sources,  in- 
cluding interesting  seat-lists  of  the  church  under  Cromwell  in  1650  and 
Prince  Charlie  in  1745. 

In  the  English  Historical  Review  (Jan.)  there  is  discussed  once  more 
the  alleged  notarial  'Will'  of  James  V.  Mr.  Morland  Simpson,  who 
maintains  that  it  was  no  *  forgery,'  misconstrues  the  well-known  docquet 
Schir  Henry  Balfour  instrument  that  was  never  notar,  reading  the  last 
word  as  a  reference  to  the  instrument.  That  it  refers  to  the  man  is 
self-evident.  It  seems  pertinent  to  ask  the  disputants  here,  Mr.  Lang, 
Prof.  Hay  Fleming,  and  Mr.  Simpson,  if  Balfour  really  was  an  apostolic 
Notary  as  he  styled  himself. 

Magazines  old  and  new  come  regularly  to  us  from  home  and  foreign  parts. 
Among  foreign  periodicals  we  note  in  the  Revue  Historique  (Jan.-Feb.) 
an  essay  on  the  ordeal  in  Greece.  The  Archiv  fur  das  Stadium  der 
neueren  Sprachen  (December)  contains  a  text  edited  with  collations  from 
twenty -nine  manuscripts  and  incunabula  of  the  Disticha  Catonis  para- 
phrased in  English  by  Benedict  Burgh.  The  Annales  de  F  Est  et  du  Nord 
(Berger-Levrault,  Nancy)  is  a  new  quarterly  of  Belgic  history  with, 
notably,  burghal  and  battle  studies.  Its  first  year's  work  is  both  learned 
and  attractive.  Another  new  quarterly  promising  good  service  within 
our  own  seas  is  Northern  Notes  and  Queries  (Dodds,  Quayside,  New- 
castle), the  columns  of  which  open  with  a  historical  note  on  'Clerical 
Celibacy  in  Carlisle  Diocese,'  by  Rev.  James  Wilson.  In  the  American 
Historical  Review  Dr.  H.  C.  Lea  has  a  study  of  Italian  mysticism  as 
exhibited  in  the  career  and  condemnation  of  Miguel  de  Molinos  (1630-96). 
The  Revue  des  Etudes  Historiques  (Nov.-Dec.)  has  a  lively  and  curious 
article  on  the  dance  in  fifteenth  to  eighteenth  century  Italy,  including  the 
gaillarde,  the  branle,  and  the  giga. 

Only  a  general  acknowledgment  is  possible  for  The  Iowa  Journal, 
Kritische  Blaetter,  Review  of  Reviews,  etc.,  and  numerous  smaller 
periodicals  on  local  antiquities,  etc.,  such  as  The  Rutland  Magazine, 
Berks,  Bucks  and  Oxon  Archaeological  Journal,  Scottish  Notes  and  Queries. 
The  Reliquary  (Jan.)  has  pictures  of  the  East  Wemyss  caves  and  a  survey 
of  recent  Roman  research  spade-work. 


Queries 

A  DISPUTED  PASSAGE  IN  KNOX'S  HISTORY.  Knox  is  not 
usually  an  obscure  writer,  but  the  following  passage  (History,  i.  0,2) 
has  caused  searchings  of  heart.  I  give  it  with  the  interpolation  of 
Calderwood,  and  with  the  marginal  note  of  David  Buchanan  (1644), 
both  printed  in  italics.  Knox  writes:  'This  finissed,'  (the  Cardinal's 
doings  with  the  dying  James  V.,)  'the  Cardinall  posted  to  the  Quene, 
laitly  befoir  delivered,  as  said  is.  At  the  first  sight  of  the  Cardinall,  sche 
said,  "  Welcome,  my  lord ;  is  nott  the  King  dead  ? "  What  moved  hir 
so  to  conjecture,  diverse  men  ar  of  diverse  judgementis.  Many  whisper 
that  of  old  his  parte  was  in  the  pott,  and  that  the  suspition  thairof  caused 
him  to  be  inhibite  the  Quenis  company.  .  .  .'  Here  Calderwood,  who 
has  been  transcribing  Knox,  interpolates,  '  //  was  reported  that  he  was 
disquieted  with  some  unkindly  medicine?  David  Buchanan  (Knox's  History, 
p.  34,  1644)  has  not  Calderwood's  interpolation,  of  course,  but  adds  a 
marginal  note  of  his  own  :  '  Others  stick  not  to  say  that  the  King  was 
hastened  away  by  a  potion? 

Knox's  own  narrative  runs  on  from  '  inhibite  the  Quenis  company ' 
thus,  '  Howsoever  it  was  befoir,  it  is  plane  that  after  me  Kingis  death, 
and  during  the  Cardinallis  lyif,  whosoever  guydit  the  Court  he  got  his 
secreat  besynes  sped  of  that  gratiouse  Lady,  eyther  by  day  or  by  nycht.' 

The  question  arises,  who  is  the  subject  of  the  sentence  beginning  '  Many 
whisper  that  of  old  his  part  was  in  the  pott.  .  .  .'  I  have  never  had 
any  doubt  that  the  subject  is  the  King.  The  Queen  says :  '  Is  not  the  King 
dead  ? '  Knox's  next  sentence  reports  suspicions  as  to  how  the  Queen 
could  come  'so  to  conjecture'  as  to  the  King's  death.  For  three  or 
four  days  the  King  had  been  very  near  death,  and  the  guess,  whether 
made  or  not,  was  natural.  Knox's  next  sentence  begins  :  '  Many  whisper 
that  of  old  his  part  was  in  the  pott,'  that  the  King's  part,  death,  was 
in  the  pot, — so  I  read  it,  and  'whisper'  that  this  suspicion  'caused  him 
to  be  inhibite  the  Quenis  company.'  This  is  mere  tattle.  If  the 
whisperers  thought  that  the  King  was  too  little  with  the  Queen,  they 
would  say  that  he  was  '  inhibite ' — by  his  doctor,  perhaps. 

That  Calderwood  understood  the  passage  as  I  do,  I  gather  from  his 
interpolation,  immediately  following,  'causit  him  to  be  inhibite  the 
Quenis  company,' — '  it  was  reported  that  he '  (the  same  subject)  '  was 
disquieted  by  some  unkindly  medicine.'  Had  Calderwood  understood 
that  not  the  King,  but  some  one  else,  had  his  'part  in  the  pott,'  and 
was  'inhibite  the  Quenis  company,'  he  ought  to  have  written:  'It  was 
reported  that  the  King  was  disquieted  with  some  unkindly  medicine.' 

380 


Queries  381 

I  take  David  Buchanan  to  have  also  read  the  passage  as  I  do,  because, 
as  I  read  it,  Knox  asserted  that  many  whispered  that  the  King's  part 
*of  old  was  in  the  pot,'  that  is,  there  was  a  design  of  long  standing  to 
poison  the  King.  Buchanan,  I  think,  in  his  note,  means  that  others  go 
even  further  than  Knox's  whisperers,  *  others  stick  not  to  say  that  the 
King  was  hastened  away  by  a  potion.'  There  was  not  only  an  old 
design  to  poison  the  King,  *  others  say,'  but  it  was  actually  carried  out, 
and,  as  usual,  there  were  murmurs  to  that  absurd  effect. 

Knox  then  goes  on :  *  Howsoever  it  was  befoir,'  that  is,  as  I  read  it, 
whether  the  Cardinal  and  the  Queen  were,  before  James's  death,  in 
such  close  relations  that  they  conspired  to  poison  him  ; — or,  if  you  please, 
whatever  their  relations  were  before — after  the  King's  death,  the  Queen 
was  the  Cardinal's  mistress.  For  that,  of  course,  is  the  insinuation  under 

*  the  Cardinall  got  his  secreat  besyness  sped  of  that  gratiouse  Lady,  eyther 
by  day  or  by  nycht.' 

Before  I  became  aware  of  the  interpolation  of  Calderwood,  and  the 
marginal  note  of  David  Buchanan,  I  had  supposed,  and  stated  in  my 
History  of  Scotland  (1902)  and  my  John  Knox  and  the  Reformation,  that 
Knox  reported  rumours  of  a  design,  between  the  Cardinal  and  the  Queen, 
to  poison  the  King.  After  reading  Calderwood  and  Buchanan,  I  believe 
firmly  that  they  interpreted  the  Reformer's  words  as  I  do.  But  it  has 
been  objected  that  the  person  whose  *  part  was  of  old  in  the  pot,'  and 
who  was  '  inhibite,'  or  suspected  to  have  been  *  inhibite  the  Quenis 
company '  is — Cardinal  Beaton.  What  the  phrase,  *  part  in  the  pot,' 
may  mean,  on  that  showing,  is,  I  guess,  that  the  Cardinal  was,  of  old, 
the  Queen's  lover.  It  would  be  interesting  to  learn  whether  any  other 
example  of  the  use  of  '  the  pot '  in  that  sense  occurs.  That  James  was 
rumoured  to  be  jealous  of  the  Cardinal  is  certain  (Sadley  reports  the  tattle 
among  others).  Such  rumours  are  always  current  about  kings  and  queens. 
That  the  Cardinal  would  be  supposed  to  be  *  inhibite  the  Quenis 
company,'  if  he  chanced  seldom  to  be  in  it,  (which  nobody  proves),  is 
also  certain,  given  human  nature,  especially  in  Scotland  at  that  period. 
That  the  sentence  beginning  *  Howsoever  it  was  befoir '  makes  perfectly 
good  sense,  if  the  Cardinal  is  the  subject  suspected  of  having  been  *  inhibite 
the  Quenis  company,'  is  also  obvious.  But  I  do  not  see  that  it  makes 
worse  sense  if  the  passage  is  understood  as  I  understand  it ;  while  if  the 
King  could  '  inhibit '  the  Cardinal :  the  King's  medical  and  other  advisers, 
if  suspicious,  (and  many  of  them,  like  Michael  Durham,  were  suspicious, 
being  Protestants),  could  'inhibit'  the  King. 

If  Calderwood  did   not   agree   with   me,   he   understood   the  subject  of 

*  Is  not  the  King  dead  r '  to  be,  of  course,  the  King.     The  '  he '  in  the 
very   next  sentence,   Calderwood   understood  to    be    the    Cardinal.     The 

*  he '   in   his  own  interpolated  sentence   which   follows    '  it    was    reported 
that    he    was    disquieted    with   unkindly    medicine,'    Calderwood,    on    this 
showing,   meant    to  go    back   to  the  King  again  \     This  appears  to  me 
to  be  an   impossible  hypothesis.     Again,  if  Buchanan  did  not  understand 
that  'the  part  in  the  pot'  was  poison,  meant  for  the  King,  why  should  he 
note  that  '  others,  stick  not  to  say '  that  the  King  was  actually  poisoned  ? 


382  Queries 


If  I  am  wrong,  I  can  plead  that  the  Reformer  expressed  his  insinuation 
with  appropriate  obscurity.  If  I  am  right,  he  is  only  adding  old  'whispers' 
of  others  about  a  design  of  murder,  to  his  own  often  repeated  broad  hint 
at  adultery  on  the  part  of  Mary  of  Guise,  l  that  noble  lady,'  as  George 
Buchanan  calls  her.  ANDR£W 


LAST  DAYS  OF  JAMES  V.  After  writing  the  last  note  it 
occurred  to  me  to  find  out  how  James  V.  passed  the  fortnight  between 
the  defeat  of  Solway  Moss  (November  24)  and  his  arrival  at  Falkland  to 
die  there  (December  6-7).  Not  one  of  our  historians,  I  think,  mentions 
that  James,  out  of  this  fortnight,  passed  nearly  a  week  with  his  Queen 
at  Linlithgow.  Knox  says  nothing  of  that,  but  mentions  a  visit  by 
James  to  one  of  his  mistresses,  '  houres  '  is  the  Reformer's  word. 

From  entries  in  the  MS.  Liber  Emptorum  and  Treasurer's  Accounts, 
and  in  the  Register  of  the  Great  Sealy  I  find  that  James  was  — 

Nov.  24.     At  Lochmaben. 

Nov.  25-26.     At  Peebles. 

Nov.  26-30.     At  Edinburgh. 

Nov.  29.     He  received  a  letter  from  the  Queen  at  Linlithgow. 

Nov.  30.     He  went  to  Linlithgow  to  the  Queen. 

Nov.  30  —  Dec.  5.     He  was  at  Linlithgow. 

Dec.  6-7.     He  appears  to  have  been  at  Linlithgow  (uncertain). 

Dec.  7.     He  took  to  his  bed  at  Falkland.     '  Aegrotat."1 

He  died  at  midnight  on  Dec.   14,  or  Dec.   15. 
The  Liber  Emptorum  gives  each  date  on  different  pages. 

ANDREW  LANG. 

ST.  GILES  AND  CHILDREN.  When  describing  Pont-Audemer 
in  Normandy,  Mrs.  Katharine  S.  Macquoid  in  her  Through  Normandy 
(p.  303)  says  :  c  We  had  been  told  that  there  was  to  be  a  special  service  for 
children  on  thefe'te  of  St.  Gilles,  and  that  all  timid  children  were  brought  to 
church  by  their  mothers  on  this  day  to  cure  them  of  fear  of  being  left  in  the 
dark.  Very  early  indeed,  even  before  we  went  out,  we  saw  a  mother  carrying 
a  smartly  dressed  child  to  church  ;  but  by  ten  o'clock  the  children's  service 
was  over,  and  only  a  few  of  the  little  ones  stayed  for  la  grande  messe.' 
Husenbeth  in  his  Emblems  of  Saints  (pp.  356-7)  assigns  as  the  patrons  of  chil- 
dren St.  Nicholas  and  St.  Ursula,  and  as  the  patron  of  infants  St.  Verem 
In  Baring-  Gould's  Lives  of  the  Saints  there  is  nothing  to  connect  her  wit 
infants  ;  but  what  is  of  interest  is  the  fact  that  her  day  in  the  Calendar  is 
ist  September  —  the  festival  of  St.  Giles.  The  hind  is  a  familiar  attribute 
of  the  latter  saint  in  allusion  to  its  having  sought  refuge  at  his  side  when 
pursued  by  hunters.  In  her  Sacred  and  Legendary  Art  (vol.  ii.  p.  769) 
Mrs.  Jamieson  says  :  '  He  (St.  Giles)  was  the  patron  saint  of  the  woodland, 
of  lepers,  beggars,  cripples  ;  and  of  those  struck  by  some  sudden  misery, 
and  driven  into  solitude  like  the  wounded  hart  or  hind.'  Is  there  any 
incident  in  the  saint's  history  connecting  him  with  children  ? 

1  8  Colinton  Road,  Edinburgh.  J.  M,  MACKINLAY. 


Communications  and  Replies 

THE  ANDREAS  AND  ST.  ANDREW.  The  article  on  this 
subject  in  the  Scottish  Antiquary  for  January,  1906,  contains  much  that 
is  interesting.  But  it  is  distressing  to  see  the  unhappy  misstatements 
as  to  the  connexion  of  Andreas  with  the  Fata  Apostolorum,  owing  to 
the  repetition  of  the  old  misleading  guesses  upon  this  subject. 

The  writer  has  obviously  never  seen  my  article  at  p.  408  of  An  English 
Miscellany^  Oxford,  1901.  I  there  show  that  these  poems  have  never 
yet,  to  this  day,  been  printed  as  they  exist  in  the  Vercelli  MS. ;  but  rather, 
on  the  contrary,  all  kinds  of  fictions  have  been  published  by  the  editors, 
who  wholly  ignore  the  true  division  of  the  poem  (for  it  is  all  one  poem 
in  the  MS.)  into  fits  or  cantos.  It  was  possible  for  them  to  do  so  in 
former  days,  because  the  MS.  was  so  inaccessible.  But  the  beautiful 
facsimile  of  this  Vercelli  MS.,  issued  by  Wulker  in  1894,  renders  a 
repetition  of  the  old  fictions  deplorable. 

Every  possible  mystification  has  been  perpetrated.  The  poem  (though 
it  ends  with  FINIT,  followed  by  a  blank  quarter  of  a  page)  has  been 
cut  into  two  parts,  each  of  which  has  been  called  by  an  inappropriate 
name.  There  is  no  such  poem  as  Andreas,  if  we  are  to  judge  by  its 
actual  contents.  There  is  no  title  in  the  MS.,  but  the  author  him- 
self (who  presumably  knew  his  own  intention)  announces,  in  11.  2-1 1, 
that  his  subject  is  The  Twelve  Apostles.  Having  said  this,  he  first  singles 
out,  not  St.  Andrew,  but  St.  Matthew,  as  his  principal  subject  ;  and 
St.  Andrew  is  afterwards  introduced  incidentally,  because  it  was  he 
who  came  to  the  rescue  of  St.  Matthew  when  he  got  into  trouble. 
The  fact  that  St.  Andrew's  adventures  on  this  occasion  are  treated  of 
at  great  length  does  not  alter  the  fact  that  St.  Matthew  is  first  con- 
sidered. The  poem  consists  of  1 6  fits  or  cantos.  The  subject  (says 
the  author)  is  The  Twelve  Apostles  (as  above).  The  first  15  fits  give, 
at  great  length,  the  story  of  St.  Matthew,  and  his  rescue  by  St.  Andrew. 
In  the  1 6th,  the  author  reverts  to  the  theme  he  had  at  first  announced  ; 
but,  finding  that  the  whole  story  would  be  too  long,  accounts  for  the 
rest  of  the  Apostles  by  merely  mentioning  their  ultimate  fates. 

The  facts  which  have  been  misrepresented  are  these: 

I.  The  poem  is  divided  into  1 6  cantos;  these  are  not  numbered,  but 
are  distinguished  by  capital  letters  at  the  beginning,  and  by  the  occurrence 
of  a  space  of  one  line  only  between  them. 

But  Thorpe  shows  this  in  a  most  meagre  way,  by  using  just  a  short 
line,  about  a  third  of  an  inch  long.  And  when  he  comes  to  the  1 6th 
canto,  or  epilogue,  instead  of  marking  the  end  of  the  i$th  canto  as  usual, 

383 


384  The  Andreas  and  St.  Andrew 

he  draws  a  double  line,  ends  the  page,  and  starts  a  new  page,  with  the 
heading  :  '  The  Fates  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  a  Fragment ' ;  and  makes 
it  a  fragment  (!)  sure  enough,  by  calmly  ignoring  the  last  page  of  the 
MS.  on  account  of  its  dirty  state,  though  most  of  it  is  clearly  legible. 

2.  Next  Grein,  who  never  saw  the  MS.,  divides  the  poem  into  twelve 
cantos,  out  of  his  own  head,  wrongly  ;  separates  the  last  canto  from  the 
rest,    wrongly  ;  and    actually   places  it  at    the  beginning !      That  is  how 
the  epilogue  came  to  be  separated  from  the  rest  still  more  effectually  than 
before,  viz.  by  sheer  force. 

3.  Kemble  omits  the  epilogue  altogether. 

4.  Baskerville   divides  the  poem  (i.e.    15  fits  of  it)  into  29  fits  ;  all  out 
of  his  own  head,  and  all  in  the  wrong  places. 

5.  Because  Thorpe  omitted  the  last  27  lines,  Grein  omits  them  also. 

6.  Professor    Napier    printed    the   last   27    lines  in    the    Zeitschrift  fur 
deutsches  Altertum^  vol.    xxxiii.      But  he   is    not  our  only   witness ;    for 
Sievers  discusses  them  in  Anglia,  vol.    xiii.     And   again,   Wiilker  (inde- 
pendently)   prints   them    so   as   to  show  exactly  how  much  is  legible,  at 
p.  viii  of  the  Introduction  to  his  Facsimile  of  the  MS.     The  statement 
that  *  Professor    Napier   came   upon    a  set  of  lines  containing  the  runes 
of  the  name  of  Cynewulf '   is  due  to  a  complete  misapprehension  ;  for 
every  one  who  consults  the  MS.  will  see  that  no  one  can  miss  the  lines 
in  question.      They  are  simply   the  very  lines  which    Thorpe  so  coolly 
ignored  !     And  to  say  that  there  is  doubt  as  to  the  incorporation  in  the 
Fates  of  these  runic  lines  is  a  direct  ignoring  of  the  MS.  itself.     Even 
in  the   parts   that   are  legible  any  one  can  see  the  runes  u  and  L  ;  and 
Professor   Walker    could     read    the    statement   that   <F   thaer    on    ende 
standath,'  i.e.  that  '  F  stands  at  the  end  thereof,'  which  is  true  for  Cyne- 
wulf, surely.     We  need  not  all  shut  our  eyes  in  order  to  support  need- 
less paradoxes. 

I  cannot  give  all  my  arguments  all  over  again.  My  former  article 
occupied  thirteen  pages,  tightly  packed,  for  the  most  part,  with  solid 
facts  that  cannot  be  ignored.  Briefly,  even  the  facsimile  of  the  MS., 
which  ought  to  be  accessible,  fully  proves  that  the  poem  wrongly  called 
The  Fates  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  poem  wrongly  called  Andreas  instead  of 
The  Twelve  Apostles.  It  is  a  mere  epilogue,  never  even  to  this  day 
printed  in  full ;  and  it  contains  the  letters  F,  w,  u,  L  (i.e.  WULF,  for  we  are 
told  that  F  comes  last),  followed  by  CYN.  The  scribe  seems  to  have 
omitted  the  line  involving  E  ;  but  we  have  in  any  case,  the  letters 
CYNWULF  (F  is  at  the  end)  ;  and  it  is  mere  perversity  to  ignore  this, 
and  to  pretend  that  there  is  no  evidence  ! 

But  all  experience  shows  that  when  a  matter  has  been  misunderstood 
to  such  an  extent  as  this  unlucky  poem  has  been,  preconceived  ideas 
are  sure  to  arise  against  which  the  direct  testimony  of  a  manuscript 
is  powerless.  I  do  not  write  to  convince  others,  but  rather  to  point  out  a 
method  whereby  they  may  convince  themselves.  If  Thorpe  had  printed 
the  poem  in  full^  all  subsequent  trouble  might  have  been  saved.  And 
he  never  ought  to  have  cut  away  the  epilogue  from  the  rest,  in  contradic- 
tion of  the  evidence.  WALTER  W.  SKEAT. 


Kirk  Session  Records,    1640-9          385 

THE  SCOTTISH  CHURCH  MILITANT  OF  1640-3.  That 
the  great  national  uprising  against  the  Crown  which  took  place  in  Scot- 
land in  1639,  was  indirectly  due  to  the  Church,  is  a  matter  of  notoriety  ; 
the  direct  part  played  by  Kirk  Sessions  in  the  struggle,  in  regard  to  the 
enrolment  of  forces  and  supply  of  their  necessary  equipment,  is  not  so 
well  known. 

A  few  references  to  the  matter  are  found  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Kirk 
Session  of  St.  Cuthbert's,  Edinburgh — probably  the  most  perfect  series  of 
parish  records  now  extant — which  throw  some  light  on  the  subject. 

The  first  notice  appears  in  the  minute  of  the  meeting  of  2nd  July, 
1640,  in  the  shape  of  a  memorandum  for  pulpit  use  on  the  following 
Sunday.  It  runs  thus  : 

*  To  admonish  the  people  to  be  at  the  Sands  in  Leith  on  Monday  at 
five  hours  in  the  morning  the  cheist  men  in  the  paroch  to  be  at  the 
Committee  on  Monday  at  ane  efternone.' 

This  evidently  refers  to  the  gathering  of  forces  for  the  approaching 
invasion  of  England,  and  the  muster  at  Dunglass,  where,  by  the  middle 
of  the  month,  Leslie  found  himself  at  the  head  of  a  force  of  20,000  foot 
and  2000  horse.  Conscription  in  this  high-handed  fashion  was  a  dis- 
agreeable novelty,  and  even  though  the  injunction  came  from  the  pulpit, 
apparently  no  attention  was  paid  to  it,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  next 
reference  to  military  matters  appearing. 

July  23.  *  The  haill  heritors  to  be  at  the  Committee  on  Fryday  24th 
July  and  in  special,  Mr.  Samuel  Johnston  and  James  Duncan.  Captain 
Inglis  appeared  before  the  Session  and  showed  ane  warrand  fra  the  Com- 
mittee for  taking  up  the  names  and  desirit  ye  ministers  to  choose  with  him 
quilk  they  promised,  the  number  in  this  paroch  extending  to  sixty-five  men.' 

In  the  minute  of  the  next  meeting  the  following  entry  is  interpolated 
in  an  irregular  fashion  :  '  Durie  his  discharge  of  the  voluntarie  contra- 
butione  resaved  ye  24th  July  1640,  fra  Mr.  William  Arthur  and  Mr. 
James  Reid  ministers  at  the  West  Church,  and  Mr.  Neper  thesaurer  the 
soum  of  acht  hundreth  threescore  nyne  punds  fifteine,  and  that  for  the 
voluntar  contributione  of  the  paroch  of  St.  Cuthberts — sindit  wt  his  hand 
foresaid.' 

Mr.  Arthur  was  a  man  of  some  note  in  the  Church.  With  his  col- 
league, Mr.  Dickson,  he  gave  offence  in  1619  to  the  Episcopal  party 
in  power  at  the  time,  by  their  refusal  to  comply  with  the  Royal  command 
that  in  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  the  elements  should  be  dis- 
pensed to  the  communicants  only  when  in  a  kneeling  posture.  Dickson 
was  specially  obnoxious — his  wife's  sister,  it  may  be  mentioned,  was  Mrs. 
Mein  or  Mean,  who,  according  to  Woodrow,  played  the  part  popularly 
ascribed  to  Jenny  Geddes — and  he  was  ordered  to  enter  himself  in  ward 
in  Dumbarton  Castle  ;  but  Arthur,  owing  to  his  friendship  with  some 
of  the  bishops,  was  more  leniently  treated.  At  this  time  (1640)  he  was 
an  old  man,  having  been  inducted  to  the  parish  in  1607.  Mr.  Neper 
was  William  Neper  or  Napier  of  Wrichtishouses.1  The  voluntary  con- 

1  The  demolition  of  this  picturesque  old  mansion,  to  make  room  for  Gillespie's 
Hospital,  Wilson  much  regrets  in  his  Memorials  of  Edinburgh. 

2  B 


386          Kirk  Session  Records,    1640-9 

tribution,  if  gauged  by  the  difficulty  the  Kirk  Session  had  in  raising  smaller 
sums  for  the  maintenance  of  the  church  fabric,  was  a  liberal  one,  but 
nevertheless,  it  suggests,  in  a  striking  manner,  the  extreme  poverty  of 
the  country.  According  to  douce  Davy  Deans  :  c  In  those  days  folk  did 
see  men  deliver  up  their  siller  to  the  State's  use  as  if  it  had  been  as  muckle 
sclate  stanes,'  but  yet  the  contribution  actually  amounted  to  only  £72  los. 
sterling.  Three  years  later,  when  money  was  being  raised  in  England 
for  the  purpose  of  putting  down  the  Irish  Rebellion  and  relieving  the 
afflicted  Protestants,  John  Hampden's  individual  subscription  was  ;£iooo. 

*  1641.  Sept.  10.   Memorandum  to  remember  in  the  Sermone  the  happie 
success  of  the  Arms  at  Newcastle.' 

This  refers  to  the  capture  of  Newcastle  by  Alexander  Leslie  on  the 
3<Dth  August. 

'  Sept.  2.  Memorandum  that  a  solemn  feast  for  praising  god  be  keipit 
on  Tuesday  the  Jth  September  for  the  happie  and  safe  returne  of  our 
armie  from  England.' 

On  25th  August  Leslie  had  re-crossed  the  Tweed.  It  was  imme- 
diately before  this — on  the  I4th  of  the  same  month — that  Charles  entered 
Edinburgh,  in  the  vain  hope  of  winning  the  affections  of  his  northern 
subjects. 

In  the  end  of  1643  the  Scottish  Estates  resolved  to  join  the  forces  of 
the  Parliament  in  their  revolt  against  the  Crown,  and  dispatched  the  army 
which  played  such  an  important  part  at  Marston  Moor  and  other  places. 
The  following  entries  with  regard  to  this  second  expedition  occur  : 

'1643.  Sept.  7.  Memorandum — that  all  the  noblemen,  heritors,  and 
freeholders  meitt  on  Tuesday  next  in  the  Parliament  House,  to  reccave 
orders  for  taking  up  of  the  fencible  men  in  the  paroch.' 

<  Sept.  14.  Innerleith,  Coattes,  Brouchton,  Deane,  and  the  ministers 
to  go  through  the  paroche  to  tak  up  the  names  of  the  fencible  men  within 
the  paroche  according  to  the  book  of  examination  as  the  Committee  has 
ordained.' 

*  Sept.   2 1 .    To   advertise    the    heritors   gentilmen    to   be   on    Fryday 
next  at  the  Committee  and  everie  Tuesday  following  during  the  sitting 
of  yr  off.' 

cDec.  28.  Ane  general  faste  appoynted  to  be  keipit  on  Sunday  cam  8 
dayes  and  the  Wednesday  following.'1 

'  1 644.  Jany.  18.  No  Sessioun  keiped  the  preceeding  Thursday  in 
respect  the  presbitrie  did  meit  concerning  sundrie  necessarie  affaires  for 
furthering  the  present  expeditioune  for  England.' 

'  Jany.  25.  The  Committee  of  the  schyre  desires  two  gentilmen  of  the 
paroche  to  attend  everie  Monday  the  Committee  for  the  public  affaires.' 

'  Novr.  21.  Richard  Hendersone  be  ordinance  of  the  Sessione  gave  in  to 
James  Riddell,  Collector  for  the  soldiers  clothes,  two  hundreth  fiftie  merk 
twelf  shillings  and  of  clothes  23  pair  hose,  23  pair  shone.' 

Though  not  quite  germane  to  the  subject,  it  is  perhaps  worth  while 
noting,  as  showing  the  domineering  way  in  which  the  regnant  faction 

1  This  was  in  view  of  the  approaching  departure  of  the  Scottish  Army,  which, 
on  the  1 9th  of  January,  for  the  second  time  crossed  the  Tweed. 


Kirk  Session  Records,    1640-9          387 

in  the  Church  then  acted,  that  after  the  defeat  of  the  Scottish  Army 
under  the  command  of  the  Duke  of  Hamilton  at  Preston,  all  those  of 
the  parish  who  had  taken  part  in  it,  were  called  to  account.  This 
expedition  was  styled  *  The  Unlawful  Engagement,'  and  several  references 
to  it  occur  in  the  minutes.  Sir  William  Nisbet  of  Dean,  a  leading  heritor, 
was  one  of  the  officers  in  command,  and  apparently  quite  a  large  con- 
tingent from  St.  Cuthbert's  had  marched  under  him. 

The  first  notice  regarding  this  is  in  reference  to  a  William  Wilsone, 
who  had  given  in  his  name  to  the  session  clerk  in  order  that  the  pro- 
clamation of  the  banns  of  his  intended  marriage  might  be  made  :  but 
he  was  one  of  the  offenders,  and  before  the  proclamation  of  banns  was 
allowed,  his  brother  had  to  become  his  surety  under  a  penalty  of  forty 
pounds  that  the  said  William  would  satisfy  the  Church  for  being  a  party 
to  '  the  engagement.'  This  seems  a  very  shabby  way  of  getting  at  a 
man,  but  not  many  of  those  who  fought  at  Preston  were  in  Wilson's 
position,  and  in  order  to  reach  the  rank  and  file  of  those  who  had 
disobeyed  their  injunctions,  the  Church  apparently  had  recourse  to  a 
very  ingenious  plan.  The  following  entries  would  lead  us  to  infer  that 
a  resolution  was  passed,  that  in  the  then  critical  position  of  affairs,  it 
was  desirable  that  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  should  be  again 
sworn  to  and  subscribed.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  this  was  the 
result  of  any  general  ordinance  by  the  Church  ;  indeed,  there  was  no 
specific  reason  for  such  action,  for  it  had  been  generally  sworn  to  and 
subscribed  at  the  time — August  1643 — of  its  being  passed,  and  regulations 
were  then  issued  as  to  those  who  must  sign  it  in  the  future.  Peterkin 
says  nothing  on  the  subject,  and  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  it  was  the 
action  merely  of  individual  presbyteries ;  unfortunately,  the  records  of 
the  Presbytery  of  Edinburgh  are  no  longer  in  existence,  so  that  the 
matter  cannot  certainly  be  determined  ;  but  by  whomsoever  devised,  the 
measure  was  one  potent  for  the  purpose  in  view.  To  those  who  re- 
fused to  sign  it  in  1643,  no  mercy  was  shown,  their  goods  might  be 
confiscated  for  public  use,  and  they  themselves  banished  from  the  king- 
dom ;  the  spirit  of  the  Church  was  now  even  more  rampant.  For 
residents  in  Rome  it  is  a  dangerous  thing  to  quarrel  with  the  Pope — 
there  were  many  Popes  in  Scotland  then — and  practically  all  who  had 
offended  were  willing  to  sign.  But  a  question  arose,  Could  such  as  were 
under  the  Church's  censure  be  allowed  to  take  part  in  such  a  solemnity 
without,  in  the  first  place,  acknowledging  their  fault,  and  undergoing  a 
public  rebuke  ;  and,  if  they  declined  to  submit  to  this  humiliation,  was  it 
not  tantamount  to  refusing  to  subscribe  ?  The  entries  which  refer  to 
the  matter  are  as  follows  : 

4  1648.  Nov.  14.  The  present  day  being  the  fasting  day  before  the 
subscryving  and  renewing  of  the  Leag  and  Covenant  the  names  of  them 
that  had  beine  in  the  Unlawful  Engagement  quho  upon  their  repentance 
was  received  follows.'  Here  are  appended  no  fewer  that  50  names, 
beginning  with  those  of  l  William  Neper,  Robert  Thomsone,  etc.' 

< 1649.  June  10.  James  Somervell  and  Hew  M'Lene  for  being  in  the 
Unlawful  Engagement  under  the  Duke  of  Hamilton  professed  their  sorrow 


388  The  Campbell  Arms 

therefor,  disclaimed  the  lawfulness  thereof,  and  were  rescaved  and  therefor 
admitted  to  the  subscryving  of  the  Covenant.' 

'Oct.  1 8.  Intimation  to  be  made  the  next  Sabbath  that  all  these 
quho  are  refused  the  Church  benefits,  etc.,  for  being  in  the  Ingage- 
ment  that  they  address  themselves  to  the  presbitrie  and  offer  satisfactione 
afterwards,  otherwaiwes  the  censures  of  the  Church  to  passe  against 
them.' 

It  would  appear  from  the  way  in  which  the  matter  drags  on,  that 
although  the  most  of  those  who  had  offended  saw  fit  to  make  their 
submission  at  once,  others  stood  out  until  forced  by  pressure  of  circum- 
stances to  bow  the  knee.  One  of  the  last  to  do  this  was  Sir  William 
Nisbet  of  Dean,  who  had  been  the  leader  ;  he  seems  to  have  made  his 
peace  in  1650.  After  this  date  nothing  more  is  heard  of  the  matter. 
Four  months  later  the  battle  of  Dunbar  was  fought,  when  the  reign  of 
priestcraft  may  be  said  to  have  come  to  an  end. 

GEORGE  LORIMER. 

Durisdeer,  Gillsland  Road,  Edinburgh. 

THE  CAMPBELL  ARMS.  In  his  article  on  The  Scottish  Peerage, 
in  the  number  of  this  Review  for  October  1904,  Mr.  J.  H.  Stevenson 
puts  the  question  (vol.  ii.  p.  13):  'If  the  Campbells  are  Normans,  are 
their  well-known  arms — gyronny  of  eight — anything  other  than  the  four 
limbs  and  four  spaces  of  a  cross,  such  as  a  Norman  might  have  drawn  ? ' 
The  objectons  to  this  are  :  (i)  If  a  cross  was  meant,  it  might  as  well  have 
been  drawn  ;  for  it  would  have  been  easier  to  draw  a  cross  than  eight 
gyrons ;  and  (2)  Among  the  eight  gyrons  it  would  be  impossible  to  tell 
which  was  the  cross  and  which  the  field.  Indeed  the  first  thing  to  be 
remarked  about  the  arms  is  that  they  consist  entirely  of  field,  and  that 
the  arrangement  of  this  field  is  of  great  beauty,  presenting  now  four  black 
gyrons  on  a  gold  ground,  now  four  gold  gyrons  on  a  black.  The  beauty 
of  this  arrangement  may  have  occurred  to  Menestrier,  who,  in  giving  the 
similar  arms  of  Berenger, — parti,  tranche,  taille,  coupe, — adds  qui  est  bien 
rang/  (UUsage  des  Armoiries  1673,  p.  50)  showing  that  he  considered 
them  an  example  of  armoiries  parlantes.  May  not  a  similar  allusion  to  the 
bearer's  name  be  found  in  the  arms  of  the  surname  Campbell  ?  No  doubt 
the  most  approved  derivation  of  that  surname  is  from  cam  beul,  making  it 
signify  wry  mouth  ;  but  its  resemblance  to  campum  helium  must  have  been 
early  recognised  ;  just  as  Beauchamp,  the  surname  of  the  earlier  Earls  of 
Warwick,  was  rendered  by  de  Bella  Campo ;  and  as  the  title  of  Montrose 
was  translated  Montis  rosarum,  although  derived  from  the  lands  of  Mun- 
ross,  a  Celtic  name  of  totally  different  meaning.  The  analogy  in  this 
latter  case  is  carried  a  step  further  ;  for  the  arms  of  the  Duke  of  Montrose 
have  in  the  second  and  third  quarters,  argent,  three  roses  gules,  in  fanciful 
allusion  to  the  title.  The  surname  Campbell  would  thus  come  to  have 
the  meaning  of  fair  field,  which  could  not  be  more  appropriately  expressed 
in  heraldry  than  by  gyronny  of  eight  or  and  sable. 

GEO.  WILL.  CAMPBELL. 

The  Spinney,  Coundon. 


Adder's  Head  and  Peacock's  Tail       389 

ADDER'S  HEAD  AND  PEACOCK'S  TAIL.  In  answer  to 
Dr.  J.  A.  H.  Murray's  note  on  this  point  in  the  S.H.R.  of  January, 
I  give  the  line  which  contains  the  simile  : 

Le  ceann  nathrach  bidh  (bithidh]  earbull  pencaig  air. 

The  word  nathair  here  used  does  not  specifically  distinguish  the  adder  from 
others  of  the  serpent  order,  but  is  used  indiscriminately  to  indicate  both 
snake  and  viper,  and  of  the  former  several  varieties  are  common  in  the 
Highlands.  In  the  west  coast  of  Ross-shire  the  adder  is  known  as 
nathair-nimhe  (nimh  =  poison)  and  although  that  compound  word  does  not 
appear  in  the  Gaelic-English  Dictionaries  of  MacLeod  and  Dewar,  Mac- 
Alpine,  or  MacEachen,  the  translators  of  the  Bible  have  it  in  Gen.  xlix.  17, 
Bithidh  Dan  '«  a  nathair  air  an  rod^  '«  a  nathair-nimhe  air  an  t-slighe ;  = 
'  Dan  shall  be  a  serpent  in  the  way,  and  an  adder  in  the  path.' 

MacKenzie's  English-Gaelic  Dictionary  has  the  following  equivalents  : 

Adder  =  Aithir ;  Beithir. 

Snake  =  Righinn;  Nathair-shuairc.     (suairc  =  m\\d.) 

Viper  =  Nathair-nimhe ;  Baobh. 

MacLeod  and  Dewar  also  render  Nathair-nimhe  and  Baobh  as  viper.  In 
the  West  Lowlands  the  local  pronunciation  of  adder  is  (phonetically) 
eth-air. 

In  Jamieson's  Scottish  Dictionary  there  are  several  examples  of  early 
references  to  the  peacock  under  the  Scottish  equivalents  of  Pown  and 
Pownie,  evident  corruptions  of  the  Latin,  pavo,  or  the  French,  paon. 
Jamieson  quotes  a  passage  from  Gawain  Douglas's  'Virgil's  ^Eneid.'  A  stately 
dance  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  called  the  '  Pavane,'  apparently  derived 
from  the  name  of  the  peacock.  A  curious  passage  in  the  unpublished  MSS. 
of  Zachary  Boyd,  now  in  Glasgow  University  Library,  enumerates  the 
dances  which  the  Daughter  of  Herodias  purposed  performing  before  Herod. 
Among  these  are  *  the  Pavane,'  '  the  Drunken  Dance,'  and  '  Stravetespy.' 
Possibly  this  passage  is  the  last  in  which  the  pavane  is  mentioned,  and  the 

first  to  allude  to  the  strathspey. 

A.  H.  MILLAR. 

THE  FIRST  HIGHLAND  REGIMENT.  (S.H.R.  vol.  iii.  p.  29, 
n.  8.)  With  reference  to  the  statement  in  the  note  that  'the  estate  [of 
Barbreck,  Craignish]  passed  to  the  Duke  of  Argyll  in  1732,'  the  following 
facts  may  be  of  interest : 

In  1662  heavy  fines  were  imposed  upon  those  gentlemen,  who  had  made 
themselves  obnoxious  to  the  Government  by  taking  up  the  Presbyterian 
cause,  and  Donald  Campbell  of  Barbreck  was  called  upon  to  pay  for  his 
indemnity  the  sum  of  £2666  35.  The  estate  was  thus  permanently 
impoverished.  Debts  increased  upon  the  family,  until  1732,  when  the 
creditors  interfered,  and  tried  to  sell  part  of  the  estate.  John,  1st  Duke 
of  Argyll,  however,  as  Feudal  Superior,  claimed  his  ancient  rights  over  the 
property,  and  asserted  that  the  Charter  'secures  to  the  Feudal  Superior 
against  creditors.'  And  he  contended  that,  in  consequence  of  the  attempt 
of  Archd.  Campbell  of  Barbreck,  the  proprietor,  to  sell  a  portion  for 


39°  The  S  win  ton  Charters 

payment  of  his  debts,  the  estate  reverted  to  himself.  The  Court  of  Session 
decided  several  times  against  the  Duke,  but  the  House  of  Lords  (after  the 
interlocutor  of  the  Court  of  Session  had  been  twice  adhered  to)  finally 
decided  in  his  favour.  On  the  loth  May,  1732,  it  passed  into  his  hands, 
until  1754,  when  it  was  bought  from  the  Duke  by  Capt.  Archd.  Campbell, 
aide-de-camp  to  General  Bland,  Commander-in-Chief  in  Scotland.  Capt. 
Archd.  Campbell  was  a  nephew  to  the  late  proprietor,  and  it  seems  probable 
that  the  Duke's  main  reason  for  asserting  his  claim  was  to  preserve  the 
estate  to  the  family.  (See  a  pamphlet  by  Frederick  William  Campbell  of 
Barbreck,  containing  an  account  of  his  family,  printed  at  Ipswich  in  1830.) 

In  1767  Capt.  Archd.  Campbell  sold  Barbreck  to  Major-General  John 
Campbell  of  Ballimore,  whose  father  was  the  second  son  of  Alexander 
Campbell,  sixth  of  Lochnell.  This  Major-General  John  Campbell 
commanded  Eraser's  Highlanders  at  Quebec  in  1759.  And  in  a  letter 
referring  to  this  action,  General  Duncan  Campbell  of  Lochnell  says,  '  He 
went  into  the  action  a  junior  Major,  and  he  came  out  of  it  commanding 
the  regiment.' 

Major-General  John  Campbell  subsequently  raised  the  old  74th,  or 
Argyllshire  regiment,  the  men  being  drawn  chiefly  from  Lochnell  and 
Barbreck.  The  present  proprietor  of  Barbreck — James  A.  Campbell  of 
Achanduin  and  Barbreck — is  the  General's  direct  representative. 

W.   H.  MACLEOD. 

SIR  ARCHIBALD  LAWRIE  AND  THE  SWINTON 
CHARTERS.  Last  July  I  was  permitted  (S.H.R.  vol.  ii.  p.  475)  to 
reply  to  Sir  Archibald's  condemnation,  in  his  Early  Scottish  Charters  prior 
to  1153,  of  King  David's  charters  of  Swinton  to  his  knight  Hernulf,  and 
I  am  loath  to  trouble  you  again  on  the  subject.  But  I  think  it  right  to 
put  on  record  in  the  pages  of  the  Scottish  Historical  Review  that  I  have 
since  printed,  in  the  Athenaum  of  February  3rd,  a  lengthy  note  in  which 
Doctors  Warner  and  Kenyon  and  Mr.  Ellis  of  the  Manuscript  Depart- 
ment of  the  British  Museum,  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson  of  the  Scottish 
Historical  Department  in  Edinburgh,  and  Canon  Greenwell  of  Durham, 
writing  as  experts  and  from  their  different  points  of  view,  allowed  me  to 
quote  them  severally  as  having  carefully  examined  the  original  documents 
and  as  having  no  doubt  of  their  authenticity. 

GEORGE  S.  C.  SWINTON. 

MABON.  In  reference  to  the  observations  of  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell 
as  to  the  residence  of  '  Mabon '  or  *  Maben '  (S.H.R.  vol.  iii.  p.  243), 
it  is  perhaps  not  generally  known  that  there  is  a  small  hill  in  the  Parish 
of  Dolphinton  in  the  Upper  Ward  of  Lanarkshire  called  Carmaben, 
which  was,  in  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century,  the  seat  of  the 
Browns  of  Carmaben,  afterwards  known  as  the  Browns  of  Dolphinton. 
I  have  been  informed  by  the  tenant  of  the  ground  that  in  ploughing 
the  land  traces  of  the  foundations  of  an  early  building  on  the  summit 
of  the  hill  were  quite  apparent.  Is  this  not  more  likely  to  have  been 
the  residence  of  Mabon  than  the  other  place  suggested  ? 

233  St.  Andrew  Square,  Edinburgh.  RICHARD  BROWN. 


JAMES,    MARQUIS    OF    HAMILTON. 
1589  1624. 


Notes  and  Comments 


JAMES  VI.  and  I.  in  1621  witnessed,  at  Burley-on-the-Hill,  the  Masque  of 
the  Metamorphosed  Gipsies,  written  in  honour  of  the  Court  by 
Ben  Jonson.  The  outline  and  bearings  of  this  topical  and 
rather  third-rate  piece  are  interestingly  shown  by  Mr.  Vere 
Hodge  in  the  October  number  of  The  Rutland  Magazine 
(Oakham  :  G.  Phillips).  Among  the  characters  is  James,  Marquis 
of  Hamilton  (born  1589,  died  1624),  whose  likeness,  painted  by 
Van  Somers,  was  engraved  for  Lodge's  Portraits.  Mr.  Phillips  has  kindly 
allowed  us  the  use  of  his  reproduction.  In  the  Masque,  the  Marquis  has 
his  fortune  told  by  one  of  the  gipsies,  who  reads  his  palm  : 

Only  your  hand,  sir  !  and  welcome  to  Court  ! 

Here  is  a  man  both  for  earnest  and  sport 

You  were  lately  employ'd, 

And  your  master  has  joy'd 

To  have  such  in  his  train, 

So  well  can  sustain 

His  person  abroad, 

And  not  shrink  for  the  load. 

The  allusion  apparently  is  to  the  diplomatic  success  of  the  Marquis  as  the 
King's  Commissioner  at  the  Scots  Parliament  of  1621,  when  delicate 
business  over  the  Articles  of  Perth  was  on  the  carpet.  The  portrait 
confirms  contemporary  accounts,  that  he  was  a  goodly  gentleman. 

ON     loth    February,     1306,    Robert    the    Bruce,    after    the   slaying   of 
Sir   John    Corny  n    at   the   Grey  friars'    Church    of    Dumfries, 
mounted   Corny  n's  charger,   rode    to   the   castle    of  Dumfries       /  en 

and    took   it.      And    thus,  according  to   the  chronicler  Hem-       jf 

.  •  i  •  i  Bruce. 

mgburgn,    riruce     began    the    campaign    which    was     to    be 

maintained  through  many  an  adverse  fate  until  the  independence  of 
the  kingdom  of  Scotland  was  established.  There  was,  therefore,  good 
ground  for  celebrating  so  important  a  sexcentenary  anniversary  by 
the  function  at  Dumfries  on  loth  February,  1906,  when  a  memorial 
foundation  stone  was  laid  at  Castledykes,  on  the  Nith,  a  little  below 
the  town,  within  the  moated  enclosure  which,  in  1306,  was  the 
castle  of  Dumfries.  The  memorial  stone  is  suitably  inscribed  with 
reference  to  the  capture  of  the  castle,  as  the  inauguration  of  a 
fresh  and  finally  successful  effort  towards  the  liberation  of  the  country. 


392 


Notes  and  Comments 


There  were  eloquent  speeches  fitting  the  occasion  by  Mr.  William 
Murray  of  Murraythwaite,  and  Provost  Glover  of  Dumfries,  and  in 
the  evening  Sir  George  Douglas  delivered  a  stirring  patriotic  oration. 

WE  would  draw  the  attention  of  those  of  our  readers  interested  in  the 
Separation  separation  of  Church  and  State  in  France  to  a  short  pamphlet, 
of  Church  Apres  la  Separation^  suivi  du  Texte  de  la  Lot  concernant  la 
and  State  Separation  des  Eglises  et  de  /' '  Etat,  par  le  Comte  d'Haussonville 
In  France.  (Perrin  et  Cie.  Paris.  Pp.  92.  Prix  O'5o),  published  in 
January  last.  M.  d'Haussonville  approaches  the  subject  from  the  liberal  lay 
Catholic  point  of  view,  but  the  special  value  of  his  brochure  consists  in  the 
light  it  throws  on  the  possibilities  for  working  of  the  new  act,  particularly 
on  the  significance  and  probable  constitution  of  the  Associations  Cultuelles^ 
to  which  the  law  proposes  to  entrust  the  administering  of  the  goods  of 
the  churches  and  the  providing  for  all  necessary  expenses.  M.  d'Haus- 
sonville's  paper  is  followed  by  the  text  of  the  law. 


IN    his   excellent   presidential   address   to    the   Royal    Historical    Society, 
whjch  appears  in  the  last  number  of  the   Transactions  of  that 
Transactions   Society,  Dr.  Prothero,  on  retiring  from  the  office  of  President, 
of    e     oya     (jraws   attention    to    the   comparatively  narrow   scope   of  the 
is  oncai       papers    published    in    its    Transactions.       He    points   out    that 
during  the  four  years  of  his  office  only  two  out  of  twenty- 
four  papers  are  on  foreign  subjects,  and  only  two  or  three  more  *  while 
primarily  concerned  with  English  affairs,  have  touched  Continental  history. 
Nearly  half  the  papers — eleven  out  of  twenty-four — have  dealt  with  the 
medieval    period.      There    have    been   only    two   on    the    history   of  the 
nineteenth   century.     There   have  been  no  papers  on   Greek  or  Roman 
history,  none,  in  fact,  on  any  period  before  the  Norman  Conquest.' 

The  present  volume  bears  out  these  remarks.  All  its  papers  deal  with 
medieval  or  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  century  history,  and  none  is  devoted 
to  Continental  history  as  such.  Mr.  Mason's  interesting  'Beginnings 
of  the  Cistercian  Order'  can  hardly  be  strictly  classed  under  foreign 
history,  since  its  subject  is  one  which  influenced  English  medieval  life 
and  thought  in  common  with  those  of  other  Catholic  countries,  while 
Miss  Edith  Routh's  careful  study  on  the  English  occupation  of  Tangier 
(1661-1683),  only  touches  on  Continental  history  in  connection  with 
that  of  England.  Irish,  Welsh,  and  Scotch  history  are  untouched.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  title  of  the  Society  to  preclude  a  wider  scope,  and 
its  Fellows  are  therefore  free  to  avail  themselves  of  their  ex-President's 
suggestions,  and  thus  increase  the  interest  of  the  good  work  done  by 
their  Society. 


The 

Scottish   Historical   Review 

VOL.  III.,  No.  12  JULY  1906 

The  Connexion  between  Scotland  and  Man 

OF  the  four  countries  adjacent  to  the  Isle  of  Man  Scotland 
is  nearest,  and  has  had  perhaps  the  most  intimate  connexion 
with  it.     So  close,  indeed,  is  Nolbin  (Alban),  as  the  Manxmen 
call  it,   that  its  Galloway  coast  is  visible  from   Man  on  every 
clear  day  throughout  the  year. 

Before  dwelling  upon  such  instances  of  this  connexion  as 
are  known  to  history,  we  will  briefly  indicate  how  nearly  the 
dlbanach1  and  the  Manninagh  are  allied  in  race  and  language. 
By  the  beginning  of  our  era  the  pre-Aryan  peoples  in  Man 
had  probably  been  partly  displaced  by  a  Belgic  race,  called 
Mevanian,  which  has  given  its  name  to  the  island.2  This  race, 
which  was  Goidelic,  also  settled  in  the  Isles  and  on  both  sides 
of  the  Forth  estuary,3  as  well  as  in  parts  of  Wales  and  Ireland. 
Nor  is  it  unlikely  that  the  Picts  (also,  we  believe,  of  Goidelic 
origin)4  settled  in  Man.5  Both  Man  and  Scotland  had,  before 
the  fifth  century,  received  colonists  from  the  kindred  race  of 
the  Irish  Scotif  and,  finally,  between  the  ninth  and  eleventh 

1  i.e.  the  native  of  the  Western  isles  and  west  and  north  coasts  of  Scotland. 
The  native  of  the  Lothians  is  as  alien  to  the  Manxman  as  the  native  of  Kent 
or  Sussex. 

2 '  A  people  whose  name  stem  is  MgnSp-,  Mfinap-,  or  Manap- '  (Keltic 
Researches,  E.  W.  B.  Nicholson,  p.  13).  The  Isle  of  Man  was  called  Mona 
by  Caesar,  Mevania  by  Orosius,  and  Monapia  by  Pliny. 

3  The  country  called  Manaw  Guotodin  in  old  Welsh  literature. 

4  We  agree  in  this  view,  so   ably  set    forth  by  Mr.  Nicholson    in  his  Keltic 
Researches. 

5  For    traces    of  the    Picts  in  Man,  see    History  of  the  Isle  of  Man    (A.  W. 
Moore),  pp.  35-6. 

Q'4  Scottorum  gentibus  habitur"1  (Orosius,  I.  ii.  §  82,  Trubner's  Ed.). 

S.H.R.    VOL.    III.  2  C 


394  Arthur  W.   Moore 

centuries  Man  and  the  Scottish  islands,  with  parts  of  the  north 
and  west  coasts  of  Scotland,  were  conquered  and  occupied  by 
the  Scandinavians. 

As  regards  language  we  have  evidence  which  tends  to  show 
that,  in  the  seventh  century,  the  language  spoken  in  Man  was 
substantially  identical  with  the  Gaelic  of  Ireland,  though  at 
the  present  day  it  more  nearly  resembles  the  Gaelic  of  Scotland. 
There  are  more  individual  words  in  Manx  like  Scottish  than 
Irish  Gaelic,  and  Manx  and  Scottish  Gaelic  have  practically  the 
same  method  of  forming  plurals.1  Though  Manx  local  names 
are  more  distinctively  Irish  than  Scottish  Gaelic,  and  Manxmen 
have  more  surnames  of  Irish  than  of  Scottish  Gaelic  origin, 
there  are  numerous  Manx  surnames  of  distinctively  Scottish 
Gaelic  origin.2 

The  earliest  point  of  contact  between  Man  and  Scotland  of 
which  we  have  evidence — not  the  evidence  of  written  records, 
but  that  of  existing  names  and  traditions — was  in  connexion 
with  the  Celtic  Church.  At  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  a 
British  saint,  Ninian,  built  a  church,  called  Candida  Casa,  at 
Whithorne,  on  the  western  shore  of  Wigton  Bay,  which  is 
within  25  miles  of  Man.  May  we  not  assume  that  this  saint, 
whose  name  probably  survives  in  the  primitive  keeills  of  Keeil- 
Lingan  and  Cabbal  Llngan  in  Man,  or  some  of  his  disciples, 
landed  on  our  shores  ? 3 

Then  we  come  to  St.  Columba,  who  has  left  not  only  his 
own  name,  but  that  of  his  followers — St.  Ronan,  St.  Adamnan, 
and  St.  Moluoc — to  some  of  our  ancient  churches.  But  even 
more  significant  of  his  influence  are  the  facts  that  his  name  has 
been  given  to  a  feast  of  the  Manx  Church,  and  that  it  occurs 
in  a  well-known  *  charm.'  His  feast  day  (originally  on  the  9th 
of  June,  but,  after  the  change  of  the  calendar,  on  the  2 1  st)  was 
called  Tn  Eaill  Columb  Killey,  « The  feast  of  Columb  of  the 

1  Rh^s,  Manx  Phonology,  pp.   164-5.     (In  Manx  Society's  volume  xxxiii.) 

2  (a)  As    names    of    purely    Gaelic    origin  :    Callister    (M'Alister),    Shimmin 
(M'Symon),    Knickell    (M'Neacail,    MacNicol),    Fargher    (Farquhar),    Kaighan 
(MacEachan),      Quarry      (MacQuairie),     Cannell      (MacWhannell),     Quinney 
(M'Whinnie),  Quay  and  Kay  (MacKay),  Cowan  (M'Owan),  Bridson  (M'Bride), 
Mylrea  (M'Gilrea).      (6)  Names    of   Scandio-Gaelic    origin  :    Castell  (Gaskell), 
Corkhill  (MacTorquil,  MacCorquodale),  Corlett  (M'Leod),  Cowley  (MacAulay), 
Crennell  (MacRanald).     (See  Manx  Names,  by  A.  W.  Moore.) 

3  We  have  a  thirteenth  century  church  dedicated  to  St.  Trinian  (a  corruption 
of  Ninian)  which  formerly  belonged  to  the  Priory  of  St.  Ninian  at  Whithorne, 
whose  priors  were  barons  of  Man.     (See  Manx  Names,  A.  W.  Moore,  p.  142.) 


Connexion  between  Scotland  and  Man     395 

Church,'  and  to  this  day  the  Manx  fishermen  speak  of  the 
stormy  weather  which  was  expected  about  the  9th  of  June  as 
Ny  gaalyn  yn  Eat//  Columb  Killey,  'the  gales  of  the  feast  of 
Columb  of  the  Church.'  The  «  charm,'  which  is  directed  against 
the  fairies,  is  as  follows: 

Shee  Yee  as  shee  ghooinney 

Shee  Tee  er  Columb-Killey, 

Er  dagh  uinniag,  er  dagh  ghorrys, 

Er  dagh  howl  goa'ill  stlagh  yn  re-hollys, 

Er  klare  corneillyn  y  Me, 

Er  y  vodyl  ta  mee  Ihie, 

As  shee  Tee  orrym-pene. 

'  Peace  of  God  and  peace  of  man, 
Peace  of  God  on  Columb-Killey, 
On  each  window  and  each  door, 
On  every  hole  admitting  moonlight, 
On  the  four  corners  of  the  house, 
On  the  place  of  my  rest, 
And  peace  of  God  on  myself.' 

It  was  in  795  that  the  Irish  and  Welsh  annalists  record 
the  first  appearance x  of  the  Scandinavian  vikings  in  the  Irish 
Sea  ;  and  the  Scottish  Isles,  as  well  as  part  of  the  mainland 
of  Scotland,  no  doubt  received  their  unwelcome  attentions  at 
the  same  period. 

Before  further  discussing  the  proceedings  of  the  Scandinavians2 
in  the  western  seas,  let  us  make  clear3  what  kingdoms  and 
peoples  they  came  in  contact  with  in  Scotland.  They  were  (i) 
The  Pictish  kingdom  of  Alban,  which  included  all  the  country 
north  of  the  Forth,  with,  presumably,  the  Orkneys,  Shetlands, 
Hebrides,  and  the  other  islands  north  of  Ardnamurchan  Point ; 
(2)  The  Scottish  kingdom  of  Dalriada,  including  Argyllshire, 
Kintyre,  and  some  of  the  adjacent  islands ;  (3)  The  British 
kingdom  of  Strathclyde,  extending  from  the  Clyde  to  Morecambe 
Bay.  About  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century  the  Scandinavians 
settled  in  the  Shetlands  and  Orkneys,  which  they  called  the 

1  Though  Mr.  W.   C.  Mackenzie  (Hist,  of  Outer   Hebrides,  pp.   xxxiv-xxxv) 
conjectures  that  the  Hebrides  were  overrun  by  Scandinavian  pirates  at  a  period 
long  anterior  to  the  eighth  century. 

2  We  include  under  this  term  both    Danes    and    Norwegians.     It  is  difficult 
to  discriminate  between  these  two  kindred  races,  but,  judging  by  surnames  and 
place-names,  the  latter  were  predominant  in  the  western  seas. 

3  We  use  the  name   Scotland  as  a  matter  of  convenience,  but  it  should   be 
borne   in   mind    that    this   name  was   not    applied    to   the  whole    kingdom    till 
after  the  battle  of  Largs  in   1263. 


396  Arthur  W.   Moore 

Nor*&r-eyjar,  Nordreys  or  North  Isles,  and  in  the  Western 
Scottish  islands  and  Man,  which  they  called  the  Suftr-eyjar, 
Sudreys  or  South  Isles.1  They  also  had  settlements  in  Suther- 
landshire  (to  them  the  southern  land),  in  Caithness,  and  on 
the  west  coast  as  far  south  as  Ardnamurchan  Point,  also  in 
Galloway,  on  the  east  coast  of  Ireland  and  the  west  coast  of 
Cumberland.  \ 

The  first  settler  of  importance  was  Olaf  the  White,  who  in 
852  conquered  Dublin  and  the  Sudreys,  and  harried  the  main- 
land of  Scotland.2  The  next  was  Ketill  Finn,  whom  the  Irish 
annalists  speak  of  as  a  ruler  of  the  Sudreys.  But  emigration 
to  the  Sudreys  did  not  take  place  to  any  great  extent  till  after 
the  battle  of  Hafursfjord,  fought  about  883,  in  which  Harald 
Haarfager  conquered  the  petty  kings  of  Norway,  and  made 
himself  sole  sovereign  of  the  country.  His  rule  was  oppressive 
to  the  Vikings,  whom  he  deprived  of  their  octal,  or  freehold 
right  to  the  land  and  reduced  to  the  position  of  military  tenants. 
Many  of  them,  rather  than  submit,  emigrated,  as  we  have 
already  shown.  In  the  islands  and  Galloway  they  formed  a 
ruling  class,  which  gradually  amalgamated  with  the  native 
inhabitants  to  such  an  extent  that  the  mixed  race  was  called, 
Gallgaidhely  Galgael  ;  or  Stranger  Gaels,  by  their  Irish  and 
Scottish  neighbours.  Harald  soon  followed  his  revolted  subjects 
and  conquered  the  Nordreys  and  Sudreys.3  For  a  brief  period 
both  these  groups  of  islands  remained  under  his  rule,  or  that 
of  his  viceroys,  and  then,  till  the  middle  of  the  tenth  century,4 
Man,  if  not  the  other  Sudreys,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 

1  The  terms  NofSr-eyjar  and  Suftr-ey/ar  had  not,  however,  always  the  same 
significance.  Let  us  quote  Worsaae  :  '  By  degrees  they  [the  Vikings]  settled 
themselves  on  all  the  islands  along  the  west  coast,  from  Lewis  to  Man,  which 
they  called  under  one  name,  "  Suftreyjar,"  or  the  southern  islands,  from  their 
situation  with  regard  to  the  Orkney  and  Shetland  Isles.  Sometimes,  however, 
they  did  not  reckon  Man  among  them,  and  then  divided  the  rest  of  the  islands 
into  two  groups,  in  such  a  manner  that  not  only  the  islands  to  the  south 
of  Mull  were  called  "  Suftreyjar"  whilst  Mull  itself  and  the  islands  to  the 
north  obtain  the  name  of  "  Noffirey/ar"  ' — (The  Danes  and  Northmen,  pp.  266-7.) 
Suftrey/ar  has  taken  in  modern  times  the  form  of  Sodor. 

-  Landnamaboc  (Vigfusson's  translation),  p.  76.     Annals  of  Ulster. 

3  Landnamabtc,   p.    26. 

4  We  may  note  that   by  the  cession   of  Cumbria  by   Eadmund  to  Malcolm 
in  980,  Man  had   Scottish   territory  to  the  east  as  well   as  to  the  north   for  a 
century. 


Connexion  between  Scotland  and  Man     397 

Scandinavian  rulers  of  Dublin  and  Limerick,1  while  the  Nordreys 
remained  under  the  suzerainty  of  Norway.  In  these  latter 
islands  and  Caithness  a  dynasty  was  formed  by  Turf  Einar, 
and,  at  the  end  of  the  ninth  century,  his  great-grandson,  Earl 
Sigurd,  added  Sutherland,  Ross,  Moray,  Argyll,  and  the  Sudreys. 
He  governed  the  Sudreys  through  a  tributary  earl,  called  Gilli 
in  the  Sagas,  who  resided  in  Colonsay.  Of  these  dominions  he 
only  retained  those  on  the  mainland  of  Scotland  for  about  seven 
years,  being  driven  out  of  them  by  the  Celtic  chieftains  of  the 
North  and  West  of  Scotland.  The  leader  of  these,  Malcolm, 
Maormar  of  Moray,  slew  Kenneth,  King  of  Scotland,  in  1004, 
and  succeeded  to  his  throne.  Sigurd,  no  doubt  with  a  view 
of  strengthening  his  position  in  his  remaining  dominions, 
entered  into  alliance  with  Malcolm  and  married  his  daughter. 
But,  nevertheless,  it  is  possible  that  his  authority  was 
weakened  in  the  Sudreys.  The  Irish  chroniclers  call  Ranald 
MacGodfrey,  who  died  in  1004,  King  of  the  Isles,  but  both 
he  and  his  successor  Suibne  may  have  been  subordinate  to 
Sigurd. 

After  1014,  when  Sigurd  was  killed  at  the  battle  of  Clontarf, 
to  which  he  had  come  with  his  islesmen  and  '  the  foreigners 
of  Manann,'  Suibne  was  probably  either  independent  or  under 
the  suzerainty  of  Dublin  till  his  death  in  1034.  Sigurd  was 
succeeded  by  his  son  Thorfinn,  who  was  presented  with  Caith- 
ness by  his  maternal  grandfather,  Malcolm,  and,  for  fifteen 
years,  he  seems  to  have  ruled  it  and  the  Orkneys  only.  But 
in  1029  Malcolm  died,  and  his  successor  on  the  Scottish  throne 
was  Malcolm  MacKenneth,  whose  father  the  first  Malcolm 
(of  Moray)  had  slain.  Malcolm  MacKenneth  was  a  southern 
Scot,  so  that  it  is  probable  the  northern  chieftains  preferred 
Thorfinn,  as  being  the  grandson  of  their  king,  to  him. 
This  theory  accounts  for  the  apparent  ease  with  which  Thor- 
finn annexed  the  greater  part  of  Malcolm's  kingdom.  According 
to  the  Orkneyinga  Saga  he  was  lord  not  only  over  the  Nordreys 
and  Sudreys  but  over  Dublin  and  no  less  than  nine  earldoms 
in  Scotland,  including  Galloway.  Some  years  before  his  death 
in  1064,  he  probably  had  to  yield  at  least  his  possessions  in 

1  Mr.  R.  L.  Breuner,  in  his  interesting  Notes  on  the  Norsemen  in  Argyllshire, 
states  that  '  the  first '  kings  of  the  Gall-Gael  or  *  Kings  of  Man  and  the  Isles,' 
were  .  .  .  direct  descendants  of  Ivan  Beinlaus,  the  son  of  Ragnar  Lodbrok, 
but  he  gives  no  authority  (Saga-Book  of  the  Viking  Club,  vol.  iii.  part  iii. 
P-  352)- 


398  Arthur  W.   Moore 

the  south  of  Scotland  to  Malcolm  Canmore,1  while  Man  fell 
under  the  rule  of  the  Dublin  Scandinavians.  It  may,  how- 
ever, be  safely  affirmed  that,  for  a  period  of  about  thirty  years, 
the  Norse  king  was  not  only  the  most  powerful  ruler  in  the 
western  seas  but  on  the  Scottish  mainland.  Fifteen  years 
later  he  was  followed  by  an  almost  equally  powerful  Norse 
ruler,  Godred  Crovan,  the  conqueror  of  Man  in  1079.  Godred, 
who  is  described  by  the  Chronicler  of  Rushen  Abbey,  as 
holding  the  Scots  in  such  subjection  that  no  one  who  built 
a  vessel  dared  to  insert  three  bolts,2  'also  subdued  Dublin 
and  a  great  part  of  Leinster.  Godred  died  in  1095  in  Islay, 
and  it  was  not  till  after  some  years  of  confusion,  during  which 
Magnus,3  king  of  Norway,  re-established  the  Norwegian 
suzerainty  over  both  Nordreys  and  Sudreys  for  a  brief  period, 
that  we  find  Godred's  youngest  son,  Olaf  (1113-1153)  as  ruler 
*  over  all  the  isles.' 4 

It  is  during  Olaf  s  reign  that,  according  to  the  contemporary 
evidence  of  the  chronicler,  William  of  Newburgh,  who  knew 
him  personally,  a  Manx  bishop,  named  Wimund,  had  an 
extraordinary  career  in  connexion  with  Scotland.  When 
Wimund  was  sent  in  1134,  with  other  monks,  to  occupy  the 
newly  founded  Abbey  of  Rushen  in  Man,  he  so  captivated 
the  people  by  his  intellect  and  eloquence  and  also  by  his 
suave  and  jovial  manners  that  he  was,  with  the  approval  of 
the  abbot  of  the  mother  abbey,  Furness,  recommended  by  King 
Olaf  to  Thurstan,  Archbishop  of  York,  for  consecration  as 
Bishop  of  Sodor  and  Man.  About  1142  he  announced  that 
he  was  the  heir  of  Angus,  Earl  of  Moray,  who  had  been 
killed  in  1130,  and,  assuming  the  name  of  Malcolm  MacHeth, 
he  laid  claim  to  that  earldom.  He  was  joined  by  Somerled 
of  Argyll,  who  gave  him  his  sister  in  marriage,  by  the  Earl 
of  Orkney  and  other  chiefs.  He  ravaged  south-western  Scot- 
land with  fire  and  sword,  and  compelled  King  David  I.  to 

1  Skene   (Celtic   Scotland,   vol.    ii.    p.    352),  says    that   after  Thorfinn's  death, 
the  Sudreys,  except  Man,  were  conquered  by  Malcolm,  but  he  gives  no  authority 
for  this  statement. 

2  Chronlcon  Manning  ({Manx  Society's  'Publications,  vol.  xxii.),  p.  53. 

3  The  stratagem  by  which  Magnus  got  possession  of  Kintyre  is  well  known. 
It  is  interesting  to  note,  as  showing  how  Man  was  valued,  that  the  Orkneyinga 
Saga,  in   relating  this  incident,  remarks  that  Kintyre  'is    better  than  the   best 
island  of  the  Sudreys,  except  Man.' 

*I6M.  p.  61. 


I! 


Connexion  between  Scotland  and  Man     399 

surrender  the  southern  portion  of  his  kingdom  to  him.  He 
then  proceeded  to  treat  his  subjects  with  such  severity  that 
they  betrayed  him  into  the  hands  of  the  royal  troops,  by 
whom  he  was  blinded  and  mutilated.  Confined  at  first  in  Rox- 
burgh Castle,  and  finally  in  Byland  Abbey,  he  died  about  1 1  So.1 

Mr.  Andrew  Lang,  who  follows  Robertson,  treats  this  account 
with  contempt,  merely  remarking :  *  Some  historians  regard 
this  clerk  of  Copmanhurst,  this  noisy  clerical  man-at-arms  and 
reiver,  as  identical  with  Malcolm,  son  of  Heth,  Earl  of  Moray. 
But  that  Malcolm  MacHeth  was  not  released  from  prison 
till  1157,  six  years  after  Wimund  was  blinded  and  lay  in  retreat 
at  Biland.' 2  We,  however,  see  no  reason  to  doubt  the  con- 
temporary chronicler. 

Olaf's  son,  Godred  II.  (1153-1187),  who  for  a  brief  period 
ruled  over  Dublin  as  well  as  over  the  Isles,  acted  tyrannically 
towards  some  of  his  chiefs  (principes)  in  the  Isles,  and  so  they 
determined  to  depose  him.3  One  of  these  chiefs,  Somerled, 
said  to  be  a  descendant  of  Suibne,  *  King  of  the  Isles,'  who 
was  Godred's  brother-in-law,  having  married  Olaf's  daughter, 
Ragnhild,  was  the  leader  in  this  revolt.  He  was  ruler  (regulus] 
of  Argyll  and  seems  to  have  held  the  islands  of  Bute,  Arran, 
and  Islay  under  Godred.4  In  1156  a  bloody  but  indecisive 
battle  took  place  between  Somerled  *nd  Godred,  who  agreed 
to  divide  the  kingdom  of  the  Isles  between  them,  Somerled's 
share  being  probably  Kintyre  and  the  islands  south  of  Ardna- 
murchan  Point.  By  this  curious  arrangement  an  independent 
sovereignty  was  interposed  between  the  two  parts  of  Godred's 
kingdom.  It  is,  therefore,  not  without  reason  that  the  writer 
of  the  Chronicle  of  Man  exclaims  :  *  Thus  was  the  kingdom 
of  the  Isles  ruined  from  the  time  that  the  sons  of  Somerled 
got  possession  of  it.' 5  Two  years  later  Somerled  again  attacked 
Godred  and  took  possession  of  Man,  which  he  seems  to  have 
ruled  through  a  sheriff  (yicecomes) 8  till  1 1 64,  when,  on  his 

1  Hist,  Rerum  Anglicee,  lib.  i.  cap.  xxiv. 

2  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  127.  3  Chronicon  Mannlte,  p.  69. 
4Skene  (The  Highlanders  of  Scotland.     Ed.    by  MacBain,   p.   200),  states  that 

King  David  *  conquered  the  islands  of  Man,  Arran,  and  Bute  from  the  Nor- 
wegians'  in  1035  (?  1135),  but  gives  no  proof  of  this.  David  threatened  Man  in 
1152  but  certainly  did  not  conquer  it,  and  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that 
all  the  isles  were  subject  to  Olaf  and,  after  him,  to  Godred.  The  Chronicle 
of  Man  (p.  61),  states  distinctly  that  'no  man  ventured  to  disturb  the  Kingdom 
of  the  Isles  during  Olaf's  time. 

5  Chronicon  Mannia,  p.  67.  6  Ibid,  p.  75. 


400  Arthur  W.   Moore 

defeat  and  death  at  Renfrew,  it  again  came  into  Godred's 
hands.  Twenty  years  later  Somerled's  descendants,  apart  from 
their  possessions  on  the  mainland,  ruled  over  Coll,  Skye,  Tyree, 
Long  Island,  and  Bute  only,  so  that  it  appears  that  Godred 
had  re-conquered  some  of  the  islands  of  which  he  had  been 
deprived  in  1156. 

The  mention  of  a  vice-comes  in  Man,  in  U83,1  seems  to  point 
to  Godred  having  his  head-quarters  in  one  of  the  other  islands. 
He  died,  however,  in  Man,  and  was  buried  in  lona.  He  was 
succeeded  by  his  son  Reginald  I.  (1187-1226),  who  was  a  war- 
like, and,  during  the  first  part  of  his  reign,  a  powerful  ruler. 
In  1198  we  find  King  William  of  Scotland  asking  for  his  help 
against  Harald,  the  Nordreian  earl,  and  promising  him  the  earl- 
dom of  Caithness  provided  that  he  would  drive  Harald  out  of 
it.  He  succeeded  in  doing  so,  but  was  soon  ousted  by  Harald. 
Nevertheless,  Reginald  and  William  continued  to  be  allies. 
Reginald  had  placed  his  brother  Olaf  in  charge  of  the  island 
of  Lewis,  but  Olaf  was  discontented  with  it,  and,  about  the  year 
1208,  he  demanded  additional  islands  for  his  support.  Reginald's 
reply  was  to  order  him  to  be  seized  and  carried  in  chains  to 
William,  who  kept  him  in  prison  till  just  before  his  death  in 
1214,  when  Olaf  was  restored  to  Lewis.  Olaf  then  married 
Christina,  daughter  of  Ferquhard  Mac-in-Tagart,  Earl  of  Ross, 
and  in  1223  he  was  in  alliance  with  Pall,  the  Viscount  of  Skye, 
whose  '  power  and  energy,'  says  the  Chronicle  of  Man,  t  were 
felt  throughout  the  whole  kingdom  of  the  Isles.' 2  It  is  possible 
that  Pall  ruled  Skye  as  a  subordinate  of  Olaf's  father-in-law. 
According  to  Robertson,  Ferquhard  and  his  descendants,  at  this 
time,  or  a  little  later,  held  both  Skye  and  the  Nordreys  by 
grant  from  the  Scottish  kings,  and  were  inveterate  opponents 
of  the  Manx  and  Somerledian  '  Kings  of  the  Isles,'  who  held 
the  Sudreys  as  fiefs  from  Norway.3  It  is  at  least  clear  that  Olaf 
was  in  league  with  the  opponents  of  his  brother  Reginald  in  that 
region.  In  1224  he  compelled  Reginald  to  divide  the  kingdom 
of  the  Isles  with  him,  and  in  1226  he  became  sole  ruler  of  that 
kingdom.  For  two  years  only  did  he  enjoy  his  dominions  in 
peace. 

At  the  end  of  that  period  troubles  again  arose  with  Reginald, 
and,  during  his  absence  from  Man,  probably  for  the  purpose  of 
fighting  against  his  brother,  Reginald,  accompanied  by  Alan  of 
Galloway,  and  Thomas,  Earl  of  Atholl,  took  possession  of  Man. 

1  Chronicon  Mannitf,  p.  79.         2  P.  87.         3  Vol.  i.  p.  239  ;  vol.  ii.  3,  23,  100. 


Connexion  between  Scotland  and   Man    401 

It  was  Alan  alone,  however,  who  seems  to  have  benefited  by 
this  conquest,  as  we  are  told  that  he  left  '  bailiffs  in  Man  to 
pay  over  to  him  the  proceeds  of  the  taxes  upon  the  country.'1 
But  Olaf  speedily  returned  and  drove  out  the  bailiffs.  Thence- 
forward, except  for  a  brief  interval  in  1230,  when  Godred  Don, 
Reginald's  son,  occupied  all  the  islands  save  Man,  he  reigned 
undisturbed  till  his  death  in  1237.  Harald  (1237-1248),  his 
son,  succeeded  him,  and,  according  to  the  Chronicle  of  Man, 
'  established  the  most  solid  peace  with  the  Kings  of  England 
and  Scotland,  and  was  united  to  them  by  friendly  alliance.'2 
He  was  evidently  a  potentate  of  some  consequence.  But,  never- 
theless, it  was  in  his  days  that  the  shadow  of  a  rule  that  was 
to  be  very  much  more  effective  than  that  of  the  distant  suzerain 
in  Norway,  which  had  long  been  almost  nominal,  began  to  fall 
over  the  kingdom  of  the  Isles.  Scotland  had  gradually  been 
becoming  stronger,  and  its  ambitious  king,  Alexander  II.,  deter- 
mined to  tolerate  no  longer  the  independence  of  the  islands 
adjacent  to  its  western  coast. 

With  this  view  he  attempted  to  acquire  the  islands  from 
Norway  by  purchase,  but  Hakon,  the  Norwegian  King,  refused 
to  sell.  This  attempt  was  renewed  later,  but,  before  referring 
to  it,  we  will  continue  our  account  of  the  Sudreyan  kingdom. 
Harald  died  in  1248,  and  in  1250  Magnus,  his  brother,  who 
became  king  in  1252,  went  to  Man  in  company  with  'John, 
son  of  Dugald '  (presumably  the  ruler  of  the  Somerledian  Isles) 
to  claim  his  inheritance  there.  The  account  in  the  Chronicle 
of  Man  gives  an  amusing  glimpse  of  the  jealousy  that  evidently 
existed  between  the  two  '  kingdoms  of  the  Isles '  :  '  John,  son  of 
Dugald,  sent  messengers  to  the  people  of  Man  to  say,  "Thus 
and  thus  does  John,  King  of  the  Isles,  command  you."  When 
the  Manxmen  heard  John  styled  King  of  the  Isles,  they  became 
indignant,  and  refused  to  hear  anything  further  from  the  mes- 
sengers.'3 A  battle  ensued,  in  which  Magnus  and  his  ally  were 
defeated  and  driven  from  Man.  Nevertheless,  when  Magnus 
appeared  in  Man  two  years  later,  '  all  received  him  with  great 
joy  and  appointed  him  king.'  In  1254  Hakon  appointed  him 
'king  over  all  the  Islands  held  by  his  predecessors.'4 

In  1261  Alexander  III.  of  Scotland  sent  two  envoys  to 
Norway  to  negotiate  for  the  cession  of  the  isles,  but  their  efforts 
led  to  no  result.  He  therefore  initiated  hostilities  which  ter- 
minated in  the  complete  defeat  of  the  Norwegian  fleet  at  Largs 

1  Chronlcon  Mann'ue,  p    91.  2  Ibid.  p.  99.  3  P.    107.  4  P.   109. 


402  Arthur  W.   Moore 

in  1263.  Magnus,  who  had  fought  on  the  Norwegian  side,  was 
compelled  to  surrender  all  the  islands  over  which  he  had  ruled, 
except  Man,  for  which  he  did  homage,  and  undertook  feudal 
service  with  ten  'pirate1  galleys,  five  of  them  with  four-and- 
twenty  oars,  and  five  of  them  with  twelve.'2  It  has  been  sug- 
gested that  this  '  tenure  of  Man  by  galley  service  may  well  have 
been  the  basis  of  a  marine  policy,  the  continued  maintenance  of 
which  is  attested  by  more  than  one  of  Robert  Bruce's  West 
Coast  Charters,  having  reddenda  of  ship  service,  sometimes  with 
26  or  even  40  oars.'3 

Two  years  later  Magnus  died,  and  in  1266  the  King  of 
Norway,  in  consideration  of  the  sum  of  4000  marks,  ceded  the 
Sudreys,  including  Man,  to  Scotland.  We  have  seen  then  that, 
during  this  second  period  of  nearly  200  years,  Man  continued 
to  be  closely  connected  with  most  of  the  Scottish  Isles.  It 
was  connected  with  them  not  only  through  its  civil  rulers,  but 
through  its  ecclesiastical  rulers,  and  the  ecclesiastical  connexion 
of  Man  and  Scotland  was  to  continue  long  after  the  civil 
connexion  had  ceased  to  exist.  It  is  with  this  ecclesiastical 
connexion  that  we  now  propose  to  deal. 

It  was  probably  not  before  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh 
century  that  the  Scandio-Celtic  population  of  the  Isles  received 
Christianity.  The  name  of  a  bishop,  Roolwer,  is  not  recorded 
till  towards  the  end  of  the  same  century.  It  must  be  inferred 
from  his  title  not  that  he  ruled  over  a  see  in  the  modern  sense, 
but  that  he  was  an  ambulatory  bishop,  attached  to  the  king's 
court,  while  his  assistants  were  probably  monks  without  any 
fixed  abode.  The  visitations  of  the  bishop  would  probably  be 
limited  by  the  often  varying  extent  of  dominions  of  the  king. 
There  is  no  record  of  the  existence  of  a  regular  diocese  before 
1 1 54.  In  that  year  was  founded  the  diocese  of  Sodor,4  with 
Nidaros,  or  Drontheim,  as  its  metropolitan  see,  which,  as  already 
stated,  included  the  Hebrides,  all  the  smaller  western  islands  of 
Scotland,  and  Man.  This  diocese  was  formed  before  the  division 
of  the  kingdom  of  the  Isles,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose 

1  The  word  '  pirate '  did  not  then  bear  its  modern  meaning. 

2  For  dun  Annals,  ch.   56. 

3  Annals  of  the  Sokvay,  George  Neilson,  pp.  41-2.     See  p.  405. 

4  The  modern   name  of  the  bishopric  of  '  Sodor  and    Man '   seems    to   have 
arisen  from  the  mistake  of  a  legal  draughtsman  early  in  the  seventeenth  century 
who  was  unaware  of  the    meaning  of  Sodor.     Till   that    time   the  bishops    of 
Man  had  invariably  signed  Sodor. 


Connexion  between  Scotland  and  Man      403 

that  the  division  of  the  kingdom  was  followed  by  the  division 
of  the  diocese,  which,  indeed,  continued  to  exist  till  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fifteenth  century.  As  proofs  of  this,  it  may  be 
mentioned  (i)  that  in  1349  copies  of  a  letter  of  Pope 
Clement  VI.  to  William,  the  Sodor  bishop-elect,  were  sent  to 
the  archbishop  of  Nidaros,  to  the  '  noble  Robert  Steward,  styled 
Seneschal  of  Scotland,  Lord  of  the  Isle  of  Bute,  in  the  Sodor 
diocese,'  and  to  'our  beloved  son,  the  noble  John  Macdonald,1 
Lord  of  Isla,  in  the  Sodor  diocese '  ; 2  (2)  that  Pope  Urban  V., 
writing  to  this  same  William  in  1367,  spoke  of  a  Nobilis  mulieris 
Marine  de  Insulis  .  .  .  tu#  diocesis,  who  was  a  daughter  of  the 
above-mentioned  John,  here  styled  'Lord  of  the  Isles';3  (3) 
that  in  1374  copies  of  a  letter  of  Pope  Gregory  XI.  to  John, 
bishop-elect  of  Sodor,  were  sent  to  '  the  illustrious  King  Robert 
of  Scotland,'  and  to  the  archbishop  of  Nidaros,  as  well  as  to 
'William,  King  of  Man '; 4  (4)  that  in  1392  the  same  bishop 
is  styled  Johannes  episcopus  Sodoremis  in  prouincia  Nidrosiensi ; 5 
and  (5)  that  a  MS.  codex  in  the  Vatican,  written  about  1400, 
contains  the  words  Sodorensis  in  Norwegia  et prouincia  Nidrosiensis, 
thus  showing  that  the  connexion  of  Sodor  with  Norway  still 
continued.6 

A  quaint  reminiscence  of  the  connexion  of  Man  with  Scotland, 
and  more  especially  with  the  Priory  of  Whithorne,7  is  the 
special  mention  of  the  Isle  of  Man  in  a  document  dated  1427, 
in  which  James  I.  of  Scotland  grants  £  leave  and  permission  to 
all  and  singular,  from  the  realm  of  England  and  the  Isle  of 
Man,  of  both  sexes,  who  wish  to  visit  the  church  of  the  Blessed 
Ninian,'  to  come  to  Candida  Casa  in  Galloway  { in  all  safety 
and  security,  and  so  to  return  to  their  own  parts  without  let 
or  hindrance.'  It  contains  what  appears  to  be  an  unnecessary 
proviso  that  the  pilgrims  from  the  Isle  of  Man  should  come  by 
sea.  It  provides  also  that  the  pilgrims,  whether  English  or 
Manx,  are  to  {come  and  return  by  the  same  ways,  and  behave 
as  pilgrims  in  each  place,  and  that  they  stay  not  within  the 
Scottish  border  more  than  fifteen  days  coming,  stopping,  and 
returning,  and  that  they  take  away  and  carry  any  memento  of 

1  A  descendant  of  Somerled's. 

^Vatican  Archives,   Manx  Society's  Publications,  vol.  xxii.  pp.   336-43. 

*lbid.  p.   378.  ^Ibld.  pp.  394-400. 

5  Afgifter  Fra' Norse  Kirkeprovins,  &c.  of  Dr.  Gustaf  Storm  (Christiania,  1897), 
p.   29. 

6  Cbronicon  Manniee,  p.   258.  7  See  p.   394. 


404  Arthur  W.   Moore 

the  aforesaid  church  openly  in  their  cloaks,'  and,  further,  that 
'  they  do  not  come  for  purposes  of  trade  or  other  cause,  and 
do  nothing  and  cause  nothing  to  be  attempted  prejudicial  to 
the  king,  or  his  laws,  or  the  realm  of  Scotland.' l  It  was  indeed 
amiable  for  the  Scots  to  tolerate  the  Manx  within  their 
borders  for  even  fifteen  days,  for,  five  years  earlier,  the  Manx 
had  passed  a  law  ordaining  that  'all  Scots  avoid  the  land  with 
the  next  vessels  that  goeth  into  Scotland,  upon  paine  of  forfeiture 
of  their  goods  and  their  bodys  to  prison.'2  The  probable 
explanation,  however,  is  that  King  James  had  never  heard  of 
the  law  in  question! 

Returning  to  secular  history,  we  find  that  the  direct  rule 
of  Scotland  over  Man,  which  began  in  1266,  was  not  firmly 
established  till  1275,  when  the  Manx  were  defeated  in  a  decisive 
battle  at  Ronaldsway,  near  Castletown.  With  the  death  of 
Alexander  in  1286,  and  the  accession  of  the  child  Margaret, 
who  was  then  in  Norway,  there  began  a  time  which  was 
probably  troublous  for  Man  as  well  as  for  Scotland.  Though 
there  is  no  mention  of  Edward  I.  of  England  having  directly 
interfered  in  the  affairs  of  Scotland  till  after  the  death  of 
Margaret  in  the  autumn  of  1290,  there  are  indications  that 
he  had  already  either  taken  possession  of  Man  or  was  fighting 
for  its  possession  as  early  as  1288,  when  we  learn  that  a 
certain  Adam,  son  of  Neso,  was  slain  in  that  island  in  his 
service.3  In  the  following  year  he  paid  the  expenses  of  the 
bishop  of  Man  to  Norway  and  back,  having  sent  him  th< 
on  an  embassy.4  Early  in  1290  he  was  certainly  in  possession 
of  it,e  and  in  1293  he  handed  it  over  to  Baliol,  reserving  his 
rights  as  lord  paramount.6  Baliol  entered  into  an  alliance 
with  Norway  and  France  in  1294,  and  revolted  against  his 
over-lord,  who,  on  his  subsequent  surrender,  doubtless  treatc 
Man  as  a  forfeited  fief.  It  remained  in  English  hands  till 


1  Reg.  Mag.  Sig.  Reg.  Scot.  Charter  No.   107. 

2  The  Statutes  of  the  Isle  of  Man,  vol.   i.    p.    20.      It   is    stated   that    the  lat 
Lord  Loch,  a  Scotsman,  and  one  of  the  most  distinguished  Governors  of  Man, 
was  on  one  occasion   rash  enough  to  declare  that  all  the  laws  in  the  Statute 
Book  were  equally  valid,  and  that  he  was  referred  to  the  law  we  have  quoted 
above  ! 

zRotuli  Scaccarli  Regnum  Scotorum,  vol.  i.  p.   35.  ^Ibid.  pp.  49-50. 

5  Calendar  of  Patent  Rolls,   \  8th  Ed.  I.  6  Rotuli  Scotia. 

7  For  detailed  account  of  the  period,  see  A  History  of  the  Isle  of  Man   (A. 
W.  Moore),  pp.   184-190. 


Connexion  between  Scotland  and  Man     405 

In  I3IO1  Edward  II.  issued  a  writ  in  which  he  enjoined  his 
sheriffs,  bailiffs,  and  faithful  subjects  in  the  counties  of  Chester, 
Lancaster,  Cumberland,  and  Westmoreland,  to  afford  assistance 
to  the  Seneschal  of  Man  against  Robert  Bruce,  who,  as  the  king 
had  heard,  intended  to  despatch  all  his  navy  to  the  Isle  of  Man 
*  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  it  and  establishing  a  retreat 
there.'2  But  Bruce  did  not  attack  Man  till  two  years  later, 
when,  according  to  the  Chronicle  of  Man,  'on  the  i8th  of  May, 
Lord  Robert,  King  of  Scotland,  put  in  at  Ramsey  with  a  large 
number  of  ships,  and  on  the  following  Sunday  went  to 
the  nunnery  at  Douglas,  where  he  spent  the  night,  and  on 
Monday  laid  siege  to  the  Castle  of  Rushen.'3  The  castle  was 
defended  against  him  by  one  of  King  Edward's  Scottish 
adherents,  called  in  the  Chronicle  Dungali  MacDowyle,  and  in 
the  Rotuli  Scotia  Duncan  Magdowall,  who  in  1306  was  referred 
to  as  Captain  of  the  Army  of  Galloway,4  and  it  held  out  '  until 
the  Tuesday  after  the  Feast  of  St.  Barnabas  the  Apostle,'  i.e. 
for  a  period  of  about  five  weeks.5 

On  the  2oth  of  December  in  the  same  year,  Bruce  granted 
the  island  to  Thomas  Randolf,  Earl  of  Moray,  in  free  regality 
(regalitatem},  retaining  only  the  patronage  of  the  bishopric.6 
Randolf  had  in  return  to  find  annually  '  six  ships  each  of  twenty- 
six  oars,'  and  to  pay  a  hundred  marks  of  sterling  at  Inver- 
ness. 7 

1  For  references  to  Dicon  of  Man  in  1303,  who  takes  messages  for  King 
Edward  I.  to  the  Earl  of  Carrick,  and  to  Lammal  of  Man  in  1306,  a  socius  of 
John  of  Argyll  (admiral  of  the  western  seas  of  England,  Wales,  Ireland,  and  the 
isles  of  Scotland),  who  was  ardently  acting  in  the  English  interest,  see  Bain's 
Calendars,  vol.  iv.  pp.  489,  481. 

^Rotuli  Scotite,  i.  96.  3  Chronicon  Mannice,  p.  ill. 

4  Bain's   Calendars,  vol.   iv.  p.  489. 

5  He  had  served  both  Edward  I.  and  II.  and  had  received  manors  in  England 
and  a  knighthood  for  his  services.     He  had  made  a  peel  or  fort  on  an  island 
in  the    Solway   Firth,  and   was  in    1311   constable  of  Dumfries  Castle,  which 
surrendered    to    Bruce    in    February,    1313.      For    information    about    him    see 
numerous  entries   in   vols.    iii.  and  iv.  of  the  Calendars  of  Documents  relating  to 
Scotland,  edited   by  Joseph  Bain  ;   Chronicle  of  Lanercost,  207  ;  Rotuli  Scotia?,  i.  625, 
626,  629  ;  Dumfries  and  Galloway,  by  Sir  H.  Maxwell,  pp    112,  114,  and  article 
in  Scottish  Antiquary,  January,  '97  (vol.  xi.  p.  104). 

6  When  Henry  IV.  granted  the  island  to  Sir  John  Stanley,  he  gave  him  the 
patronage  of  the  bishopric  also. 

7  Carta  Thomas  Randolphi  Comitis  Moravias  De  Insula  Mannias  (Add.  MSS.). 
This  mention  of  Inverness  as  the  place  of  payment  is  very  interesting,  because  it 
seems  to  indicate  that  the  government  of  the  isles  centred  in  that  town. 


406  Arthur  W.   Moore 

Notwithstanding  this  conquest,  and  the  victory  at  Bannock- 
burn,  it  is  the  English  who  seem  to  have  been  in  possession 
of  Man  in  die  autumn  of  1314,  as  Edward  II.,  on  the  28th 
of  September,  gave  a  safe  conduct  to  William  of  Galloway  and 
Adam  le  Mareschal,  who  were  going  to  that  island  on  the 
business  of  Henry  de  Beaumont.1 

This  re-conquest  of  Man  from  the  Scots  was  probably  the 
work  of  John  de  Ergadia,  or  de  Ergeyl,  i.e.  of  Argyll,  who  was 
Edward's  admiral  of  the  western  seas  of  England,  Wales, 
Ireland,  and  the  Isles  of  Scotland,2  as  in  February,  1315,  King 
Edward,  in  addition  to  a  grant  to  him  to  make  good  his  losses 
from  the  Scots,  ordered  a  further  amount  to  be  given  to  him 
for  the  support  of  his  men  keeping  the  Isle  of  Man,  from  which 
he  heard  he  had  recently  expelled  the  Scots  rebels.3 

In  a  further  document,  dated  a  few  days  later,  the  king  com- 
manded the  Justiciar  and  Treasurer  of  Scotland  to  cause  certain 
Scottish  rebels  recently  captured  by  John  of  Argyll's  men  and 
mariners  on  the  sea  coast  of  Scotland,  'at  present  secured  in 
the  Isle  of  Man/  to  be  taken  to  Ireland.4 

In  the  following  year  (1316)  a  certain  Donekan  Makoury, 
a  subordinate  of  John  of  Argyll's,  complained  that  he  had  served 
against  the  Scots  during  the  whole  year  in  Man,  and  that  he 
had  had  his  lands  destroyed  by  them.5  Evidently,  therefore, 
English  and  Scots  were  fighting  in  Man,6  but  who  was  left  in 
possession  is  uncertain.  Probably,  however,  it  was  the  English. 
For  we  find  that  in  July,  1317,  Edward  committed  the  island 
to  the  keeping  of  Sir  John  de  Athy,  whom  he  ordered  to  provide 
three  ships  and  a  sufficient  number  of  warlike  men  to  protect 
it  against  the  Scots.  Sir  John,  in  the  same  month,  captured 
a  Scottish  pirate  called  Thomas  Dun,  killing  all  his  men  except 
himself  and  his  cousin,  and  ascertained  from  him  that  the  Earl 
of  Moray  was  about  to  attack  the  island.7  Three  months  later, 
the  earl  was  about  to  set  out  for  Man,  but  there  is  no  account 
of  whether  he  arrived  there  or  not.  In  1318  there  was  a  truce 

1  Bain's   Calendars,  vol.  iii.   391.  zlbid.  vol.  iii.  479. 

*lbid.  vol.  iii.  420.  4  Ibid.  vol.   iii.  421. 

5  Ibid.  vol.  iii.   521. 

6  It  is  in  this  year,  according  to  the  Chronicle  of  Man  (p.  113),  that  the  Manx 
were  defeated,  and    the   island    sacked    by  a   body  of  malefactors  from  Ireland 
(de  Hibernia),  under  Richard  de  Mandeville.     The  Chronicle  calls  them  Hibernici, 
but  possibly  Irish  should  be  Scottish  (see  p.  407). 

7  Bain's  Calendars,  vol.  iii.  562. 


Connexion  between  Scotland  and  Man     407 

between  Scotland  and  England,  and  in  I328,1  when  the  inde- 
pendence of  Scotland  was  formally  acknowledged,  the  King  of 
England  gave  an  undertaking  not  to  assist  any  enemies  of  the 
Scots  to  dispossess  them  of  Man.  It  is  therefore  probable  that 
that  island  had  been  restored  to  Scotland  in  1318,  and  that  it 
had  remained  in  its  possession  since  then.  Some  confirmation 
of  this  is  given  by  the  fact  that  Thomas  Randolf,  who  is  styled 
*  Earl  of  Moray,  Lord  of  Annandale  and  Man,'  granted  a  safe 
conduct  to  go  there  in  1322.2 

In  1326  the  Prior  and  the  Canons  of  Candida  Casaz  (Whit- 
horne)  in  Galloway,  who  had  already  been  given  lands  in  Man 
by  Randolf,  also  received  from  him,  besides  churches  in 
Galloway  and  Kintyre,  the  church  of  *  S.  Brigide  in  Lair,' 4  i.e. 
of  S.  Bride  in  the  Ayre.5  In  1329  one  tenth  of  a  penny  on 
Manx  farm  rents,  which  amounted  to  £150,  was  paid  into 
the  Scottish  exchequer,6  and,  in  September  of  the  same  year, 
when  Richard  de  Mandeville,  with  a  multitude  of  Scottish 
felons,7  probably  disaffected  subjects  of  the  youthful  king  of 
Scotland,  attacked  Man,  Edward  III  sent  an  expedition  to  drive 
him  out.  He  may,  taking  advantage  of  Bruce's  death  in  this 
year,  and  the  accession  of  David,  a  child  of  seven  years  old, 
have  done  this  with  a  view  of  seizing  Man,  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  possible  that  he  was  simply  carrying  out  his  promise, 
Mandeville's  usurpation  being  dangerous  to  both  kingdoms.8 

*In  this  year  Bernard,  the  elect  bishop  of  Sodor  (a  Scotsman),  received  £100 
from  the  Scottish  king  for  the  expenses  of  his  election  (Rot.  Scacc.  Reg.  Scot.  vol.  i. 
p.  114). 

2  Bain's   Calendars,  iii.   746. 

3  See  p.   394. 

4  We  learn  this  from  a   confirmation  of  the  above  grant  given  in    1451   by 
James  II.  of  Scotland,  which  is  recorded  in  the  Registrant  Magn'i  Sigilli  Scotorum 
(Charter  No.  461).     The  grant  as  regards  lands  in   Man  was  then,  of  course, 
futile,  as  the  Prior  of  Whithorne  was  probably  deprived  of  the  monastery's  lands 
in  Man  in    1422.      Our  Statute  Book  in  that  year  (p.    21),  states  that  when 
the  barons  of  Man  were  summoned  to  do  fealty  to  Sir  John  Stanley,  the  Prior 
of  Whithorne,  who  was  one  of  them,  '  came  not,'  and  was  therefore  among  those 
who  were  'deemed  by  the  Deemsters,  that  they  should  come  in  their  proper 
persons  within  forty  days,  or  if  they  came  not,  then  to  lose  all  their  temporalities, 
to  be  ceised  into  the  Lord's  Hands  in  the  same  Court.' 

5  The  corruption  Lair  of  ny  Heyrey,  i.e.  '  of  the  Ayre,'  is  interesting.     We  find 
also  ly-ayre  or  le-ayre,  and  the  modern  name  of  an  adjacent  parish  is  Lezayre. 

6  Rot.  Scacc.  Reg.  Scot.  vol.  i.  p.  151. 

7  It  is  curious  that  he  should  lead  Irishmen  in   1316  and  Scotsmen  in   1329. 

8  2  Ed.   III.   Rotuli  Patentium  et  Clausarum  Cancellarice  Hibernice. 


408  Arthur  W.   Moore 

In  1331  the  clergy  of  the  Sodor  diocese  sent  a  contribution 
of  £60  to  the  King.1 

Two  years  later  war  broke  out  between  Scotland  and  England, 
and  Edward  took  possession  of  Man,  granting  it  to  Sir  William 
de  Montacute.2  But  Sir  William,  who  was  created  Earl  of 
Salisbury  in  1337,  seems  to  have  been  unwilling  or  unable  to 
protect  the  island  against  the  Scots,  who,  profiting  by  England 
having  become  involved  in  war  against  France  in  1336,  again 
threatened  it.  We  do  not  know  whether  they  conquered  it  or 
not.  Edward  speaks  of  the  bishop,  a  Scotsman,  as  being  his 
liegeman  in  I34O,3  but  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  he 
held  Man  in  that  year.  In  1342  'the  men  of  the  community 
of  the  Isle  of  Man '  paid  a  fine  of  three  hundred  marks  in 
order  to  '  enjoy  a  certain  sufferance  of  peace '  with  the  Scots 
for  a  period  of  one  year,  and,  in  the  same  year,  Edward  permitted 
1  honest  men '  of  the  Isle  to  treat  with  them  provided  that 
they  did  not  afford  them  assistance  with  arms  or  provisions.4 
This  state  of  affairs  must  necessarily  have  been  put  an  end  to 
by  the  battle  of  Neville's  Cross  in  1346,  and  thenceforth,  though 
the  Scots  had  by  no  means  given  up  the  idea  of  recovering 
Man,  they  never  again  made  any  formidable  attempt  to  enforce 
their  claim  to  its  possession. 

In  1359  the  Rotuli  Scaccarii  Regnum  Sco forum  contain  what 
appears  to  be  the  unnecessary  information  that  no  rent  was 
received  from  the  Isle  of  Man  in  that  year.6  We  may  mention 
that  in  the  Registrum  Magni  Sigilli  Regnum  Scotorum6  there  is 
a  curious  incomplete  document  in  which  it  is  stated  that  King 
Robert  of  Scotland  had  inspected  a  deed  in  which  George  de 
Dunbar,  Earl  of  March  and  Lord  of  Annandale  and  Man  agrees 
with  James  de  Douglas  that  he  should  marry  his  (George  de 
Dunbar's)  sister  Agnes  and  in  which  he  promises  them  one 
hundred  librates  (5000  acres)  of  land  in  the  Isle  of  Man,  when 
he  or  they  can  get  possession  of  it.  As  far  as  we  know,  how- 
ever, they  made  no  attempt  to  do  so.  But  though  Man  was 
never  again  to  fall  under  the  rule  of  Scotland,  the  ancient 
kingdom  of  which  it  had  once  formed  a  part  was  being  grad- 
ually absorbed  by  that  country. 

1  Rot.  Scacc.   Reg.    Scot.    vol.    i.    p.    396.      In   this  year   Friar  John   of  Mai 
received  an  annuity  from  King  David.     Ibid.  p.  358. 

2  Fadera,  7  Ed.  III. 

3  Close  Rolls,   14  Ed.  III.  p.   2,  m.  9.  4  Rotuli  Scotia. 

5 Vol.  i.  p.   570.  6Vol.  i.   1814,  p.   125. 


Connexion  between  Scotland  and  Man     409 

Caithness  was  added  to  the  dominions  of  the  Scottish  King 
some  time  in  the  fourteenth  century,  the  Orkneys  and  Shetlands 
were  part  of  the  dowry  of  Margaret,  daughter  of  Christian, 
King  of  Denmark,  when  she  married  James  III  in  1468,  and 
the  Western  Isles  were  finally  annexed  in  1493,  when  John, 
the  last  Lord  of  the  Isles,  was  deprived  of  his  title  and  estates.1 

ARTHUR  W.  MOORE. 

1I  have  to  thank  George  Neilson,  Esq.,  LL.D.,  for  advice  and  assistance 
in  the  preparation  of  this  article. 


The  Cardinal  and  the  King's  Will. 

I  fad  Oliver!     Is  Oliver  ta'en!     All  is  lost! ' 

This  refrain  came  less  often,  and  in  fainter  tones,  from 
the  lips  of  the  dying  King.  The  light  of  the  wind-shaken 
flambeaux  flared  on  the  walls,  hung  with  gold-hued  leather 
stamped  with  the  Thistle  of  Scotland,  and  the  Lilies  of  France. 
The  flames  danced  red  on  pale  faces  of  many  men  scattered 
through  the  chamber  of  death.  By  the  bedside  was  the 
doctor  of  medicine,  Michael  Durham,  an  austere  Puritan,  with 
his  aromatariuSj  or  apothecary,  behind  him ;  watching  the  wasted 
features,  and  wiping  with  an  essenced  kerchief  the  pale  dank  brow, 
of  the  unhappy  prince.  Further  back,  with  aspect  of  mourning, 
stood  but  four  or  five  of  the  great  nobles ;  in  a  corner  were 
huddled  in  whispered  converse,  three  priests ;  their  work  was 
done,  the  King  had  been  fortified  with  the  last  rites  of  the  Church. 

In  a  large  chair  by  the  fire  sat  a  man  in  scarlet,  his  face,  fair 
and  foxy,  now  bent  over  the  dance  of  lights  and  sparks  on  the 
hearth ;  now  suddenly  turned  on  the  dying  King,  in  the  shadow 
of  the  violet  velvet  curtains  of  the  Royal  bed.  Once  the  man 
mechanically  put  forth  his  hand  to  caress  a  great  deerhound, 
stretched  in  seeming  sleep  in  the  glow  of  the  fire ;  but  the  hound, 
with  a  low  growl,  flashed  his  white  teeth,  and  the  delicate  priestly 
hand  with  the  sapphire  ring  was  hastily  withdrawn. 

'  Fled  Oliver!     Is  my  standard  tint!     All  is  lost! ' 

The  refrain  came  fainter,  now,  and  broken  with  a  sob. 

The  man  in  scarlet  arose,  and  walked  stately  through  the  line 
of  nobles,  thrusting  aside  the  aromatarius,  while  the  surly 
physician  made  reluctant  way  for  him,  to  the  bedside.  With  a 
sudden  sweep  of  his  hand  he  drew  the  violet  velvet  curtains 
close  behind  him.  He  was  alone,  in  the  dusk,  with  the  dying 
King!  What  wrought  this  strange  masterful  priest?  There 
was  one  who  watched!  The  despised  aromatarius,  stooping  at 
the  bed-foot,  applied  his  eye  to  a  rat-gnawed  chink  in  the  curtain ; 
a  gap  left  undarned  by  the  heedless  chamberlain  of  Falkland. 


The  Cardinal  and  the  Kings  Will      411 

What  the  aromatarius  saw  was  this : 

The  man  clad  in  scarlet  took  from  his  breast  an  inkhorn,  a 
pen,  a  quire  of  paper.  Seizing  the  King's  dying  hand  in  his 
own,  he  dipped  the  quill  in  the  inkhorn,  and  applied  it  to  the 
paper.  The  strong  white  fingers  of  the  Cardinal,  above  the 
yellow  claw  of  the  Royal  moribund,  moved  for  a  moment's  space. 
Then,  drawing  from  his  breast  a  little  silver  phial,  the  Cardinal 
scattered  sand  over  the  wet  paper,  while  the  death-rattle  sobbed 
through  the  melancholy  chamber.  The  man  in  scarlet  replaced 
paper,  inkhorn,  pen,  and  phial,  in  his  vestment ;  with  a  wave  of 
his  hand  he  threw  back  the  curtains ;  the  nobles  reverently  knelt 
around  the  bed,  and  on  the  last  sob  of  the  King  followed  the 
Cardinal's  sonorous  Pax  cum  anima  sua,  echoed  by  the  priests' 
In  manus  tuas,  Domine! 

King  James  the  Fifth  had  gone  to  his  account ;  and  a  blank, 
signed  by  the  dead  man's  hand,  was  in  the  Cardinal's  keeping! 
'Twas  twelve  of  the  clock  at  night,  of  Friday,  December  15,  1542. 

The  local  colour,  whether  correct  or  not,  is  laid  on  pretty 
thick  in  this  impressive  passage.  You  will  find  the  essence  of  it, 
however,  in  all  our  histories.  Is  it  a  likely  story?  Could 
Cardinal  Beaton  expect  to  do  the  trick  described,  in  the  manner 
described,  or  in  any  other  manner,  without  instant  detection  ? 

The  story  is  given  more  briefly  in  the  only  known  evidence, 
(beyond  mere  gossip,)  for  the  tale ;  in  the  words  of  the  Earl  of 
Arran,  Governor  of  Scotland,  to  Master  Sadleyr,  representing 
Henry  VIII.  at  the  Court  of  Holyrood.  'The  Cardinal  did 
counterfeit  the  late  King's  testament ;  and  when  the  King  was 
even  almost  dead  he  took  his  hand  in  his  and  so  caused  him  to 
subscribe  a  blank  paper.'  l 

Arran  had  not  been  present  at  the  Royal  deathbed ;  he  named 
no  man  who  was  present  and  saw  the  doing  of  the  deed ;  he  did 
not  show  the  will ;  and  no  witness  pretends  to  have  seen  it  to  this 
day ;  he  had  been  on  ill  terms  with  the  Cardinal,  and  had  been 
vilifying  him,  for  four  months  before  he  told  his  myth  to  Sadleyr 
(April  12,  1543),  but  he  is  never  known  to  have  told  it  before,  in 
answer  to  the  questions  of  Henry  VIII.  Yet  our  historians, 
almost  to  a  man,  accept  this  unproved  and  improbable  legend  of 
what  Mr.  Froude  calls  f  an  impudent  forgery.'  c  It  has  been 
proved,'  writes  a  recent  and  careful  author,  *  that  Beaton  forged 

1  Sadleyr  to  Henry  VIII.,  Edinburgh,  April  12,  1543.  Sadleyr  Papers,  I.  138 
1809. 


412  Andrew  Lang 

an  instrument  according  to  which  he  would  have  been  the  first 
man  in  the  country.'  But  the  '  proof '  is  not  a  will  signed  by 
the  dead  or  dying  hand  of  King  James,  and,  whatever  it  may 
prove,  it  does  not  prove  either  forgery,  or  the  Cardinal's  use  of 
the  hand  of  the  dying  monarch.  Now  whether  the  Cardinal  was, 
or  was  not  a  forger,  makes  no  odds  to  any  mortal.  But  it  is 
important  that  history  should  not  take  things  for  granted  on  no 
evidence. 

We  must  first  show  in  what  state  of  things  the  will  was  forged, 
if  forged  it  ever  was.  In  1 542,  a  series  of  quarrels  and  misunder- 
standings between  Henry  VIII.  and  James  V.  had  led  to  war,  and 
many  of  the  Scottish  nobles,  both  Catholic  and  Protestant,  had 
been  taken  prisoners  by  the  English,  at  the  shameful  defeat  of 
Solway  Moss  (November  24).  The  country,  too,  was  divided 
within  itself.  The  great  House  of  Douglas  had  for  years  been 
in  well  deserved  exile,  pensioners  of  Henry  VIII. ;  the  Earl  of 
Angus  dwelling  in  England,  while  his  brother,  Sir  George,  made 
his  headquarters  at  Berwick,  having  his  spies  about  the  person  of 
King  James,  and  betraying  military  and  political  information  to 
Lord  Lisle,  the  English  warden  of  the  Border,  residing  at  Aln- 
wick.  In  Scotland,  the  Protestant  nobles,  in  England  the  many 
captive  nobles  of  both  faiths,  were  inclining  to  be  allies  of  Henry 
VIII.,  and  some  were  bitter  enemies  of  Cardinal  Beaton,  and  of 
the  Catholic  and  French  party,  while  Henry  was  asserting  the  old 
English  claim  to  absolute  sovereignty  over  Scotland.  In  these 
circumstances  the  defeat  of  Solway  Moss  broke  the  heart  of  James 
V.,  then  a  man  of  thirty.  The  King  died,  (as  Sir  George 
Douglas  heard  on  December  1 7,  from  a  confidential  Royal  servant, 
a  spy  of  his  own,)  at  midnight,  whether  on  December  14  or 
December  15  is  disputed.  The  later  date  is  the  more  probable. 

If  the  King  left  no  will,  nor  any  authentic  account  of  his  wishes 
concerning  the  Government  during  his  child's  minority,  all  would 
be  anarchy.  The  exiled  Douglases  under  Lord  Angus,  for  long 
pensioners  and  subjects  of  Henry  VIII.,  would  certainly  make  an 
effort  to  come  back ;  and  Henry  VIII.  would  send  back  his 
prisoners  on  parole,  sworn  to  return  to  captivity  if  they  did  not 
carry  out  his  schemes  for  seizing  the  Scottish  Crown,  the  baby 
Queen,  the  fortresses,  and  the  Cardinal.  In  these  circumstances  it 
was  most  desirable  to  have  a  Regent,  or  Regents,  to  carry  on  the 
government.  The  natural  choice  would  be  the  Earl  ofArran,who, 
failing  the  infant  Mary,  was  heir  to  the  Crown  of  Scotland.  But 
Arran  was  young,  about  twenty-four  years  of  age,  was  inexperi- 


The  Cardinal  and  the  King's  Will      413 

enced  in  affairs ;  was  called  (  a  simple  man,'  '  a  gentle  creature,' 
by  his  best  friends,  and  was  of  disputed  legitimacy,  while  members 
of  both  parties  described  him  as  false,  a  dissembler,  and  beyond 
belief  inconstant.  His  clan,  the  great  House  of  Hamilton, 
always  had  their  hopes  fixed  on  the  Crown,  and  were  regarded  as 
pre-eminently  brutal,  predacious,  and  unscrupulous,  even  in  these 
days  of  anarchy,  '  shrews  and  evil  men.'  2  Again,  Arran  was  very 
strongly  suspected  of  Protestant  opinions.  He  was  thus,  in  the 
eyes  of  Beaton  and  the  party  of  France  and  of  the  Church,  an 
evil  Regent,  if  in  sole  authority.  On  the  other  hand,  if  Beaton 
could  be  adjoined  to  Arran  in  the  Regency,  Arran  would  be  wax 
in  his  hands,  and  would  be  diverted  from  the  Protestant  and 
English  interest.  In  less  than  a  year  after  James's  death,  Beaton 
had  brought  matters  to  this  posture ; — Arran  as  puppet  Regent, 
Beaton  pulling  the  strings, — and  thus  the  Cardinal  actually 
defeated  the  ambitions  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  preserved  the 
national  independence  of  Scotland. 

Now  the  strange  thing  is  that  if,  on  the  death  of  James,  Beaton 
either  forged  a  Royal  will,  or  procured  fraudulently  a  notarial 
document  setting  forth  James's  last  wishes,  the  will  or  document 
placed  Arran  in  the  position  most  fatal  of  all  to  the  Cardinal's 
policy,  that  is,  Arran  would  be  left  out  in  the  cold,  with  every 
temptation  to  lend  the  weight  of  his  clan,  and  of  his  claim  as  heir 
apparent,  to  the  faction  of  England  and  of  Protestantism. 

It  is  obvious  that  nothing  could  suit  Beaton  worse.  Yet  the 
only  extant  document  in  the  case,  purporting  to  contain  the  last 
wishes  of  the  King,  does  exclude  Arran  absolutely  from  power. 
Beaton  did  not  take  action  on  this  document :  on  the  other  hand, 
Arran  was  at  once,  three  days  after  the  King's  death,  associated 
with  him  and  with  three  nobles  who  were  named  in  the  deed. 
Does  this  look  as  if  the  deed  were  a  fraudulent  paper  procured  by 
Beaton  ? 

Meanwhile,  had  James  left  any  will,  or  any  directions,  as  to 
the  Regency  ?  There  was  found,  some  twenty  years  ago,  among 
the  papers  of  the  Duke  of  Hamilton,  the  document  to  which  we 
have  referred,  a  formal  <  notarial  instrument '  in  Latin,  signed  by 
Henry  Balfour,  c  priest  in  the  Diocese  of  Dunkeld,  and  notary  by 
Apostolical  authority.'  3  Balfour  writes  that  he  was  present,  and 
made  record  of  (in  notam  sumpsi)  the  facts  which  he  chronicles. 

2 State  Papers,  Henry  VIII.,  Vol.  V.  Pt.  IV.  p.   239.     Lisle  to  Henry  VIII. 
Jan.  9,  1542-43. 

3  Published  in  Historical  MSS.  Commission's  Report,  XI.  Pt.  VI.  219-220. 


4i 4  Andrew  Lang 

Of  Balfour  we  only  know,  from  the  manuscript  of  the  Treasurer's 
Accounts,4  that  from  1536  to  1539  inclusive,  he  received  a  salary 
or  pension  from  the  King,  and  sums  of  money  to  distribute  among 
the  poor,  in  return  for  their  prayers  for  the  Royal  welfare. 
Balfour  writes  that,  about  the  seventh  hour  before  noon,  on 
December  14,  1542,  King  James,  weak  in  body  but  sound  in 
mind,  solemnly  nominated  four  tutors  for  his  infant  daughter,  and 
*  as  far  as  he  legally  may '  Governors  of  the  realm  during  her 
minority;  namely  Cardinal  Beaton,  the  King's  own  natural 
brother,  the  Earl  of  Murray,  (he  was  Lieutenant  General  of  the 
kingdom,)  and  the  Earls  of  Huntly  and  Argyll.  As  witnesses  are 
named  Balfour  himself;  Learmont  of  Dairsie,  Master  of  the 
Household ;  Kemp  of  Thomastown,  a  gentleman  of  the  bed- 
chamber ;  William  Kirkaldy,  younger  of  Grange ;  the  Court 
physician,  Dr.  Michael  Durham ;  three  or  four  priests,  the 
apothecary,  and  others,  in  all  twelve,  reckoning  Balfour.  Of 
these  Durham,  Learmont,  and  Kirkaldy  were  or  became  noted 
Protestants :  Kirkaldy  later,  during  the  murder  of  the  Cardinal, 
watched  the  postern  gate  of  St.  Andrews  Castle  to  prevent  his 
escape. 

Such  is  the  document,  without  seal,  or  signatures  of  witnesses, 
which  do  not  seem,  (though  it  is  not  certain)  to  have  been  indis- 
pensable. I  am  informed  on  good  authority  that  the  instrument 
is  *  a  genuine  document.'  It  is  endorsed,  in  another  and 
contemporary  hand,  '  Schir  Henry  Balfour  instrument  that  never 
was  notar,'  apparently  meaning  that  Balfour  was  not  a  notary. 
If  so  the  document  was  void,  but,  as  Mr.  Morland  Simpson  has 
remarked,5  *  had  the  witnesses  not  been  present,  as  alleged  in  tl 
document,  what  greater  folly  than  to  say  they  were  ?  '  Certainly 
the  Cardinal  must  have  supposed  that  Balfour  was  a  notary,  anc 
that  the  witnesses  would  bear  favourable  testimony,  otherwise 
would  not  have  *  taken  the  instrument,'  as  the  phrase  went.  We 
may  dismiss  the  hypothesis  that  the  deed  was  forged  by  Beaton's 
enemies  to  bring  him  into  discredit.  The  deed  is  not  a  will,  J 
not  signed  by  the  King,  and  is  not  a  forgery.  Of  this  notarij 
instrument  not  one  word  is  said  in  the  State  Papers  and  the 
correspondence  of  the  period.  We  first  catch  a  glimpse  of  it  in 
Book  I.  of  Knox's  History,  written,  but  not  published,  about 
1564-66,  more  than  twenty  years  after  the  events. 

What  occurred  next  ?     Long  before  dawn  of  December  18,  Sir 

4  General  Register  House,  Edinburgh,  MS. 

5 English  Historical  Review,  January,  1906,  p.  113. 


The  Cardinal  and  the  King's  Will     415 

George,  at  Berwick,  wrote  to  Lisle  that,  as  he  heard,  from  the 
King's  servant,  and  his  own  spy,  Simon  Penango,  who  had  ridden 
from  Falkland  on  December  17,  the  chief  men  of  Scotland  were 
convened  in  Edinburgh  to  choose  four  Governors,  Arran,  (not 
named  in  the  deed,)  Murray,  Argyll,  Huntly,  '  and  the  Cardinal 
to  be  Governor  of  the  Princess  and  chief  ruler  of  the  Council.' 
All  five,  Douglas  said,  were  cousins  or  brothers-in-law.  On 
December  21,  Lisle  wrote  to  the  English  Privy  Council,  that  as 
he  heard,  the  King  willed  before  his  death  that  the  Douglases 
might  come  home ;  and  that  the  Governors  should  be  Arran, 
Murray,  Argyll,  Huntly,  <  and  the  Cardinal  to  be  of  council  with 
them.'  On  December  24,  Lisle  writes  that  on  Tuesday, 
December  19,  the  Cardinal,  Arran,  Argyll,  Huntly,  and  Murray 
were  proclaimed  as  Governors,  in  Edinburgh.  They  have  spread 
abroad,  he  says,  the  story  that  the  King,  on  his  deathbed,  com- 
manded that  the  Douglases  should  be  restored,  if  they  would  *  do 
their  duty  to  their  natural  country,'  a  measure  highly  unwelcome, 
obviously,  to  the  Cardinal.6 

It  is  plain,  and  most  noteworthy,  that,  though  not  named  in 
Balfour's  notarial  instrument,  the  Earl  of  Arran,  on  December  1 9, 
was  proclaimed  Regent,  in  addition  to  the  Four  whom  alone  the 
document  does  name ;  and,  according  to  Lisle,  James  {  willed  this 
before  his  death,'  that  is,  James  included  Arran  in  the  list.  Thus, 
if  the  Regents  proclaimed  the  instrument  of  Balfour  as  their  title 
to  power,  they  had  falsified  it,  and  Arran  was  a  party  to  the 
proceeding.  If  they  did  not  proclaim  the  instrument,  or  any 
other  document  of  the  same  effect,  as  their  authorisation,  then 
they  had  no  authorisation  at  all. 

It  had  so  happened  that,  on  December  16,  Lisle  sent  a  priest 
with  a  letter  from  Henry  VIII.  to  be  given  into  the  hands  of 
James  only.  Finding  that  James  was  dead,  the  priest  gave  the 
letter  to  the  Scottish  Council,  about  December  19  or  20.  He 
was  told  to  wait,  and,  on  December  21,  received  a  written  reply 
from  the  Council.  Arran  bade  the  priest  tarry  till  he  could 
see  him  privately:  probably  on  December  2 1-23. 7  Arran  then 
gave  the  priest  the  following  '  credence '  or  verbal  message,  for 
Lisle :  ' Tell  him  that  the  Cardinal,  who  was  with  the  King 
at  his  departing,  and  in  whose  arms  he  died,  hath  told  to  the 
Council  many  things  in  the  King's  name  which  he '  (Arran) 

6  Hamilton  Papers,  I.  336,  340,  345,  346. 

7  Hamilton  Papers,  I.   345.     The  Council  of  Scotland  to  Henry  VIII.     The 
Council  wrote  to  Lisle  on  December  23.     Hamilton  Papers,  I.  350. 


4i 6  Andrew  Lang 

<  thinketh  is  all  lies  and  so  will  prove.'  c  We  have  also,5  writes 
Lisle  to  Henry  VIII.,  in  the  same  letter  (December  30), 
4  otherwise  been  informed  that  the  Earl  of  Arran  called  the 
Cardinal  "  false  churl,"  and  would  have  drawn  his  sword  at  him, 
saving  that  other  of  the  Council  went  between  them,  but  for 
what  cause  they  so  fell  out,  assuredly  yet  we  know  not.' 

We  do  not  know  the  date  of  this  event,  or  the  cause  of 
Arran's  anger,  or  what  tidings  of  the  King's  last  wishes,  given 
by  the  Cardinal,  Arran  thought  *  all  lies,'  and  'will  so  prove.' 
The  tidings  may  have  been  the  names  of  the  four  Regents,  and 
the  King's  desire  for  the  return  of  the  Douglases.  But,  if  so, 
Arran  said  nothing  to  the  priest  about  the  notarial  instrument, 
and  nothing  about  a  will  forged  by  the  Cardinal.  He  could 
not  speak  of  the  instrument,  if  he  took  his  own  appointment 
under  it — for  he  could  only  take  that  by  a  falsification  of  the 
instrument.  He  spoke  merely  of  verbal  messages,  orally 
delivered  by  the  Cardinal  to  the  Council. 

On  January  5,  1542-43,  Henry  VIII.,  having  read  Lisle's 
letter  of  December  30,  bade  him  write  a  private  letter  to  Arran, 
modelled  on  a  minute  which  he  enclosed,  c  whereby  you  shall 
provoke  him  to  speak,  and  of  his  answer  smell  the  better  now 
he  is  inclined.'  Lisle  did  write  to  Arran,  but  Arran  did  not 
answer  his  questions.  Before  receiving  Henry's  letter,  Lisle, 
on  January  5,  1542-43,  mentioned  the  Archbishop  of  Glasgow 
as  being  then  Chancellor  of  Scotland :  a  thing  to  be  noted.  On 
January  9,  Lisle,  reporting  what  seems  to  have  been  a  second 
visit  of  the  priest  to  Edinburgh,  just  before  Arran  was  made 
Governor  (Jan.  3,  1542-43),  says  that  the  Earl  c  bade  the  priest 
resort  not  to  the  Cardinal,  but  to  the  Chancellor,  the  Bishop  of 
Glasgow.'  8  Clearly  the  Archbishop  of  Glasgow,  Gawain  Dunbar, 
was  much  more  in  favour  with  Arran  than  the  Cardinal,  late  in 
December.  In  ten  or  eleven  days,  their  situations  were  reversed. 

On  January  5,  Lisle  had  written  about  one  Archibald  Douglas 
who  told  him  that,  when  King  James  c  had  no  perfect  reason,' 
the  Cardinal  asked  him  whether  he  would  choose  Arran,  Huntly, 
Argyll,  and  Murray  as  Regents,  (  whereunto  the  King  made  no 
answer,  albeit  the  Cardinal  reported  otherwise.'  9  Here  Beaton's 
name  is  not  among  those  of  the  Regents :  the  notarial  document, 
as  usual,  is  not  mentioned.  Meanwhile,  on  January  3,  Arran, 

8  State  Papers,  Henry  VIII.,  Vol.  V.    Part   IV.   p.   238.      Hamilton  Papers,  I. 
347-349- 

9  Hamilton  Papers,  I.  357. 


The  Cardinal  and  the  King's  Will      417 

at  a  meeting  in  Edinburgh,  begun  on  January  i,  had  been 
appointed  Governor  of  Scotland,  <  by  a  private  faction,'  says 
George  Buchanan,  writing  in  1571.  The  Hamiltons  and  the 
Protestants  imposed  him  on  the  country. 

Huntly,  it  would  seem,  did  not  attend  this  meeting,  though 
interested  as  being  one  of  the  five  Regents  of  December  19. 
We  learn  this  from  the  useful  priest :  he  was  told,  in  Edinburgh, 
by  Bruce,  a  retainer  of  Huntly,  that  he  thought  Huntly  '  would 
not  come  at  all,  saying  "  Whosoever  were  made  King  of  the 
South,  he  would  be  King  of  the  North,"  '— <  the  Cock  of  the 
North!'10 

Now  it  is  an  extraordinary  thing  that  Arran,  so  bitter  against 
the  Cardinal,  and  so  favourable  to  the  Archbishop  of  Glasgow, 
just  before  the  meeting  of  January  1-3  by  which  he  himself 
was  made  Governor,  immediately  after  his  own  appointment  to 
the  Governorship,  took  the  great  Seal  from  the  Archbishop  of 
Glasgow,  who  had  held  it  as  lately  as  January  5,  and  gave  the 
Chancellorship  to  the  detested  Cardinal!  This  great  promotion, 
at  the  expense  of  the  rival  Archbishop,  an  opponent  of  the 
Cardinal's  policy,  and  a  friend  of  peace  with  England,  was 
recorded  in  the  Manuscript  Register  of  the  Privy  Seal,1  on 
January  10.  The  fact  has  entirely  escaped  the  notice  of  our 
historians. 

Why  did  Arran,  fresh  in  supreme  power,  deprive  a  preferred 
and  blameless  prelate  of  the  highest  office,  and  confer  it  on  a 
man  whom  he  had  been  accusing  of  lying?  Lisle  put  this 
natural  question  to  Sir  George  Douglas,  on  February  i,  who 
replied  that  '  the  Cardinal  caused  the  Governor  to  take  the  seal 
from  the  Archbishop  of  Glasgow,  and  to  deliver  it  to  him.'  How 
could  the  Cardinal,  but  yesterday  deep  in  Arran's  bad  graces, 
cause  Arran  to  take  this  step?  From  the  dates  it  is  manifest 
that,  while  Arran  was  very  hostile  to  Beaton  just  before  the 
meeting  of  January  1-3,  which  made  him  Governor,  just  after 
that  meeting  he  was  at  Beaton's  beck  and  call.  Thus  it  seems 
probable  that  Arran's  appointment  as  Governor  was  the  result 
of  a  compromise,  of  a  game  in  which  Beaton  held  very  strong 
cards,  even  when  unsupported  by  '  the  King  of  the  North,' 
Huntly ;  while  Arran  held  no  card,  such  as  a  knowledge  of 
Beaton's  guilt,  which  could  enable  him  to  resist  the  Cardinal's 
demand  for  the  Chancellorship. 

10 State  Papers,  Henry  VIII.,  Vol.  VI.  Part  IV.  p.  238. 
1  General  Register  House,  Edinburgh, 


4i 8  Andrew  Lang 

But  Beaton's  happy  condition  did  not  last.  By  January  12, 
Sir  George  Douglas  had  crossed  the  Border,  going  in  advance 
of  his  brother,  the  powerful  Earl  of  Angus,  and  of  all  the  noble 
prisoners  on  parole,  who  were  sworn  to  put  the  Crown  of  Scotland 
on  the  head  of  Henry  VIII.,  as  he  himself  declares,2  and  to 
place  the  Cardinal  in  his  hands.  Henry  had  promised  to  back 
them  with  an  army  of  4000  horse :  but  these  wicked  Scots  did 
not  keep  faith.  On  January  14,  Douglas  met  Arran,  and  on 
January  1 5,  the  pair  plotted  '  to  lay  hands  upon  the  said  Cardinal, 
and  pluck  him  from  his  pomp,'  and  deliver  him  over  to  Henry. 
So  Douglas  told  Lisle,  on  January  20,  and  Lisle  writing  on 
January  2i,3  remarked,  'they  will  have  the  Cardinal  by  the 
back  within  this  ten  or  twelve  days.5 

They  were  even  better  than  their  word.  On  January  27,  as 
the  Cardinal  sat  with  the  Council  in  the  Hamilton  rooms  in 
Holyrood,  they  c  had  him  by  the  back,'  seized  him  by  force,  the 
Earl  of  Angus  leading,  and  shut  him  up  in  a  Douglas  house, 
Dalkeith,  then  the  Earl  of  Morton's  place. 

They  had  caught  a  Tartar,  for  not  a  priest  would  bury,  baptise, 
or  marry  throughout  broad  Scotland,  then  still  Catholic.  Angus 
told  Mary  of  Guise,  who  was  in  Holyrood,  and  was  alarmed 
by  the  noise  of  the  affray  at  the  Cardinal's  arrest,  that  he  *  was 
but  a  false  trumping  card,  that  should  answer  to  certain  points 
he  had  played.'  But  no  points  were  ever  *  laid  '  to  him,  though 
Henry  VIII.  (March  13)  heard  that  Sir  Thomas  Erskine,  who 
had  been  deprived  of  a  post  at  Court,  was  trying  to  buy  it  back 
by  hinting  that  he  could  tell  tales  of  the  Cardinal,  an  he  would.4 
No  charges  were  ever  made,  though  Parliament  met  on  March 
1 2 ;  in  the  Cardinal's  absence,  and  in  '  his  enemies'  day ' ;  and, 
on  March  30,  Henry  VIII.  wrote  to  Sadleyr,  who  represented 
him  at  Holyrood,  *  we  could  never  yet  hear  from  them  what 
special  things  they  had  to  lay  against  the  Cardinal  when  they 
took  him.'  5 

They  had  no  c  special  things  to  lay '  against  Beaton,  or, 
officially,  they  never  would  commit  themselves  to  anything 
special.  There  was  gossip  enough,  I  do  not  enter  on  the  tattle. 

Beaton  had  been  in  no  danger :  he  had  friends,  he  had  money, 
and  by  March  23  was  in  his  own  strong  castle  of  St.  Andrews. 
Arran  protested  to  Sadleyr  that  he  had  no  part  in  the  Cardinal's 
release.  He  swore  *  'sides  and  wounds ' ;  he  abounded  in 

2  Henry  C.  Dudley,  November  12,  1543.  3  Hamilton  Papers,  I.  387-392. 

4  Hamilton  Papers,  I.  466.  5  Hamilton  Papers,  I.  494. 


The  Cardinal  and  the  King's  Will      419 

blasphemous  oaths  to  prove  his  veracity, — and  he  went  on  to 
lie!  6  Sadleyr  asked  Arran,  on  April  12,  what  was  the  charge 
against  the  Cardinal?  He  had  been  told  by  Lord  Somerville, 
on  the  previous  day,  that  Arran  had  pardoned  the  Cardinal  for 
forging  the  King's  will.  Arran  denied  the  pardon,  and  said, 
that  c  the  principal  matter  whereon  the  Cardinal  was  taken '  was 
a  report  to  the  Scottish  Council,  in  a  letter  from  Lisle,  that  the 
Due  de  Guise  was  about  to  land  with  four  ships  of  war  in 
Scotland.7 

Arran's  story  was  false.  Douglas  and  Arran  had  decided  on 
January  15,  to  *  have  the  Cardinal  by  the  back,'  before  Lisle 
himself  knew  that  there  was  so  much  as  a  rumour  of  Guise's 
invasion.  Lisle  was  informed  about  Guise  by  a  letter  from  the 
English  Council,  written  on  January  19,  which  had  not  reached 
him  when  Sir  George  Douglas  told  him,  on  January  20,  of  the 
plot  devised  between  Arran  and  himself  to  seize  Beaton.8 

Arran,  having  fabled  on  this  point  to  Sadleyr,  went  on  to  say 
that  another  reason  for  arresting  Beaton  was  this  (which  we  have 
already  quoted),  '  He  did  counterfeit  the  late  King's  testament ; 
and,  when  the  King  was  even  almost  dead,  he  took  his  hand 
in  his  and  so  caused  him  to  subscribe  a  blank  paper,'  which,  we 
presume,  he  later  filled  up  to  his  liking.9  What  did  the  Cardinal 
put  down  under  James's  signature  ?  We  only  know  that,  thirteen 
days  after  Sadleyr's  letter  to  Henry,  (April  12)  that  prince  bade 
him  say  to  Arran,  c  Can  you  think  that  you  shall  continue 
Governor  when  the  adverse  party  that  would  have  made  them- 
selves by  a  forged  will  regents  with  you,  or  rather  excluded  you, 
shall  have  authority  .  .  .  ?  '  10 

It  would  appear  then,  if  we  may  combine  our  information, 
that  Beaton  is  accused  by  Arran  of  having  made  the  dying  hand 
of  James  sign  a  blank,  and  of  filling  up  the  blank  with  King 
James's  wish  that  '  the  adverse  party,'  Beaton,  Murray,  Argyll, 
and  Huntly,  shall  be  Regents,  Arran  being  omitted.  Of  course, 
if  this  was  true,  Beaton  must  have  produced  the  will  when  it 
would,  if  ever,  be  serviceable,  that  is,  on  the  King's  death.  If 

6  Sadleyr  Papers,  I.  136-142. 

7  I  have  no  evidence  that  there  was  any  ground  for  this  rumour  of  Guise's 
expedition.     It  may  conceivably  have  been  planned  when  the  news  of  the  death 
of  James  V.  reached  the  French  Court. 

8  Hamilton  Papers,  I.  384-391. 

9  Sadleyr's  State  Papers,  1809,  I.  138. 

10  Henry  to  Sadleyr,  April  25.     Hamilton  Papers,  I.  527. 


420  Andrew  Lang 

he  did,  Arran  reported  nothing  about  it  at  the  time,  and  if  forgery 
was  proved  against  Beaton,  how  could  Arran  possibly  make  him 
Chancellor  at  the  very  earliest  opportunity? 

What  is  the  value  of  Arran's  word,  and  of  Arran's  oaths  *  by 
God's  Sides,'  and  *  by  God's  wounds  '  ?  As  for  Arran's  veracity, 
two  lords  of  his  own  party,  Protestants,  Glencairn  and  Maxwell, 
told  Sadleyr  that  they  believed  Arran  had  been  lying  to  him 
on  another  matter.1  Lord  Fleming  told  Sadleyr  that  Arran  was 
{ the  greatest  dissembler  in  the  world.'  2  Such  was  their  estimate 
of  Arran's  veracity.  If  the  estimate  be  correct,  his  charge  against 
Beaton  is  most  assuredly  not  proved. 

What  was  the  effect  of  Arran's  tale  upon  Henry  VIII.  ? 
Within  three  months  (May  i  ?),  through  his  Privy  Council,  he 
bade  Sadleyr  offer  to  the  Cardinal  an  English  bishoprick,  if  he 
would  turn  his  coat!  3  Henry,  of  course,  may  have  meant  to 
deceive  Beaton,  that  is  another  question.  As  for  Arran,  after 
an  almost  incredible  series  of  shiftings  from  the  Protestant  to 
the  Catholic  camp,  and  back  again,  he  suddenly,  for  no  known 
reason,  rushed  into  Beaton's  arms,  and  remained  as  true  to  him 
as  it  was  in  his  nature  to  be  to  anything  or  anybody :  save  that 
he  was  honest  as  regards  the  infant  Queen. 

I  have  given  the  facts,  and  Arran's  stories. 

I  have  not  space  to  cite,  and  we  may  entirely  disregard,  the 
rumours  given  in  the  letters  of  Chapuys,  the  Imperial  Ambassa- 
dor, because  he  thought  he  knew  the  nature  of  the  charge  against 
Beaton,  while  Henry  VIII.,  till  after  April  12,  did  not  know.  The 
letters  of  Chapuys  merely  refract  rumours,  derived  from  the  letters 
of  the  Wardens  of  the  English  Border.  The  historians,  Knox, 
(writing  about  twenty  years  after  date)  and  Buchanan,  whose  works 
are  of  1571,  and  1582,  do  not  even  know  what  Regents  were  pro- 
claimed on  December  19,  1542  ;  they  vary  from  each  other  and 
they  are  both  wrong.  They  confuse  the  mythical  forged  will, 
signed  by  c  a  dead  man's  hand,'  with  the  extant  notarial  docu- 
ment.4 

Knox  tells  us,  and  nobody  else  does,  that  the  Regents  of 
December  1 9  ( took  remissions  for  their  usurpation,'  on  Monday, 
December  25,  1542.  As  they  alone  were  in  power,  who  could 

1  Sadleyr  to  Henry  VIII.,  July  28.     Hamilton  Papers,  I.  605,  606. 

2  Sadleyr  to  Henry  VIII.,  State  Papers,  I.  i  34. 

8  State  Papers,  Henry  VIII.,  Vol.  V.  Pt.  IV.  p.  284.    Cf.  Hamilton  Papers,  I.  653. 
4  Knox,  History,  I.  91-93.     Buchanan,  History  (1581).     Admonition  to  the  Trew 
Lordis  (1571). 


The  Cardinal  and  the  King's  Will      421 

give  them  « remissions '  ?  If,  blundering  as  usual,  Knox  means 
Monday,  January  i,  the  '  private  faction  '  which  then  chose  Arran 
as  Governor,  might  have  given  indemnities  to  the  Regents.  But, 
if  so,  they  would  be  valueless  till  ratified,  as  Arran's  appointment 
was  ratified,  in  the  Parliament  opened  on  March  12,  1542-43. 
The  records  of  that  Parliament  mention  no  such  remissions  :  they 
are  not  mentioned  in  the  Registers  of  the  Great  or  the  Privy  Seal. 
Thus  we  have  no  proof  of  any  forged  will,  and  absolutely  no 
official  mention,  even  in  diplomatic  letters,  of  Balfour's  instru- 
ment. 

To  end  with  my  own  impression ;  I  think  it  probable  that  the 
notarial  instrument  was  the  basis  of  a  compromise  between  Arran 
and  Beaton,  before  Arran  became  Governor  (January  1-3, 
1542-43^).  Arran  got  the  document,  it  is  now  in  the  muniment 
room  or  his  representative,  the  Duke  of  Hamilton ; — and  the 
Cardinal  caused  Arran  to  take  the  Seal  from  his  rival,  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Glasgow,  and  to  make  him  Chancellor  of  Scotland : 
though  Arran,  as  we  saw,  had  been  trusting  the  Archbishop  (to 
whom  he  restored  the  Great  Seal  in  March,  after  the  arrest  of 
Beaton,)  and  snubbing  and  vilifying  the  Cardinal.  In  these 
circumstances,  all  parties  were  careful  to  make  no  allusion  to  the 
notarial  document. 

If  there  were  a  compromise,  by  January  1-3,  1542-43,  what 
did  the  other  Regents  of  December  19  obtain?  On  January  9, 
1542-43,  Argyll  got  a  nineteen  years'  lease  of  the  lands  and 
lordship  of  Breadalbane,  with  other  douceurs.  On  January  21, 
Huntly  got  a  five  years'  lease  of  the  lands  and  lordship  of  the 
Braes  of  Mar,  &c. ;  and  leases  and  escheats  continued  to  fall  into 
the  laps  of  these  potentates.  (March  18.  March  29.  April  27. 
May  25).5 

It  may  be  urged,  against  my  hypothesis,  that  the  hold  over 
Arran  which  Beaton  possessed  was  a  threat  to  go  into  the  question 
of  his  legitimacy.  Had  Arran's  father's  divorce  from  his  first 
wife,  who  was  childless,  been  valid  ?  If  not,  Arran  was  not  heir 
apparent  to  the  Scottish  throne.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that 
this  was  not  Beaton's  hold  over  Arran,  in  December- January 
1542-43.  One  reason  is  that  Arran  could  not,  by  any  promotion 
or  gifts,  wrench  that  instrument  of  torture  from  the  Cardinal's 
hands,  whereas,  the  notarial  instrument  once  in  his  possession, 
he  was  safe  as  far  as  that  went.  The  other  screw,  the  possibly 
invalid  divorce,  Beaton  could  use  at  any  time ;  while,  by  a 

5  Register  Privy  Seal,  MS.     General  Register  House,  Edinburgh. 


422      The  Cardinal  and  the  King's  Will 

curious  coincidence,  the  Protestants  could  equally  bastardise 
Arran,  by  applying  what  Glencairn  called  '  the  law  of  God '  to 
his  case,  if  he  sided  with  their  opponents,  and  if  their  party  were 
successful.  In  short,  it  was  useless  to  pay  blackmail  to  the 
Cardinal,  without  depriving  the  Cardinal  of  his  means  of  extort- 
ing blackmail.  Of  the  screw  based  on  his  doubtful  legitimacy, 
Arran  could  deprive  neither  the  Cardinal  nor  the  Protestants. 
He  consequently  threw  the  weight  of  his  clan,  and  his  pretensions, 
alternately  into  the  scale  of  the  cause  that  appeared  likely  to 
triumph  on  each  occasion.  The  obscure  and  complicated  facts  as 
to  the  elder  Arran's  divorce  of  his  first  wife  are  likely  to  be 
elucidated  soon,  as  far  as  possible. 

ANDREW  LANG. 


The  <  Diary'  of  Sir  Thomas   Hope  (1633-45) 
Lord  Advocate  (1616-46) 

OF  all  contemporary  materials  for  historical  study  none  are 
more  valuable  than  those  *  human  documents,'  Diaries  and 
Letters.  The  Scottish  national  character  for  marked  individuality 
has  so  seldom  indulged  in  personal  revelation  of  opinion  and 
feeling  that  it  is  unwise  to  overlook  the  few  specimens  we  have. 
Such  neglect  seems  to  have  overtaken  the  *  Diary  '  of  Sir  Thomas 
Hope.  Published  more  than  sixty  years  ago  by  the  Bannatyne 
Club,  historical  writers  have  done  little  to  popularise  its  merits. 
The  editing  of  the  volume  gave  no  help  in  reading  between 
the  lines,  though  it  was  a  great  service  even  to  put  into  print  the 
very  small  and  obscure  writing  of  the  MS.,  still  preserved  at 
Pinkie  House  by  Sir  Alexander  Hope,  the  representative  of  the 
elder  branch  of  the  family  founded  by  Sir  Thomas.  At  first 
sight  but  a  series  of  short,  disconnected  entries,  the  '  Diary '  is 
found  to  throw  a  flood  of  light  on  the  public  events  of  what  was 
one  of  the  most  momentous  periods  of  British  history.  Besides, 
it  reveals  the  vie  intime  of  an  interesting  character,  his  social  and 
professional  life  in  Edinburgh  and  in  his  rural  retreat,  his  intel- 
lectual calibre,  and  his  attitude  to  contemporary  movements  in 
Church  and  State. 

The  {  Diary  '  is  not  only  a  private  confessional,  but  a  record  of 
daily  occurrences  as  affecting  not  only  a  public  man  but  a  citizen 
of  the  capital  and  a  country  gentleman.  In  regard  to  public 
events  there  is  the  reticence  to  be  expected.  But  the  expression 
of  personal  feeling  and  of  the  ties  of  family  relationship  is  of  the 
frankest.  In  this  last  respect  it  is,  for  its  time  and  country, 
unique.  We  have  no  such  picture  of  family  life  as  this  revelation 
of  the  grandson  of  an  exiled  Frenchman,  a  Des  Houblons  of 
Picardy,  assimilating  all  the  Calvinistic  sincerity  and  dourness  of 
a  time  and  country  in  which  these  qualities  were  so  conspicuous. 
It  is  possible,  in  a  limited  space,  to  exhibit  but  a  few  of  the 
features  of  the  work. 

423 


424      The  '  Diary '  of  Sir  Thomas  Hope 

As  King's  advocate  Sir  Thomas  was  in  a  position  to  see  every- 
thing, and  especially  events  that  seem  to  us  of  great  moment. 
Keen  as  all  his  compeers  were  in  business  and  the  watchful  study 
of  character  and  conduct,  shrewd  in  a  bargain  or  a  law  plea, 
sticklers  for  orthodoxy  in  so  far  as  prudently  and  privately  inter- 
preted, we  can  only  regret  that  neither  he  nor  any  other  of  his 
day  ever  dreamt  of  being  a  Pepys  or  a  Walpole.  Thus  in  the 
*  Diary '  Montrose  is,  c  about  8  of  nycht,  putt  in  the  Castell  be 
the  Committie,  June,  1641,'  without  a  word  of  comment.  Next 
month  there  is  the  off-hand  entry :  — '  Mr.  John  Stewart  beheidit 
at  the  Mercat  Croce  for  his  leyis  aganis  the  Erll  of  Ergyll.'  We 
have  more  about  the  King's  last  visit  and  Parliament  in  Scotland, 
when  he  was  so  hastily  called  away  by  the  rebellion  in  Ireland 
(1641),  but  this  we  owe  to  a  hot  point  of  privilege  between  the 
Advocate  and  another  officer  of  State.  The  Privy  Council  sat 
long  over  the  Royal  Proclamation  of  the  visit  '  till  efter  tuelff. 
Bot  the  knok  wes  holden  bak,  and  the  croce  clothit  with  tapestrie, 
quhilk  the  Prouest  and  Baillies  being  sent  for  could  not  find. 
But  I  causit  bring  als  monie  furth  off  my  hous,'  (in  the  Cowgate 
and  not  far  off)  '  vthorwais  it  wald  haif  bene  done  without 
couering.'  There  was  not  much  enthusiasm  in  the  Covenanting 
Town  Council  of  Edinburgh  over  the  visit. 

As  the  time  drew  nearer  there  were  other  difficulties,  the  Earl 
of  Winton  telling  the  Privy  Council  that  he  was  { inhabill  to 
ludge  the  King  at  Seytoun,'  near  Prestonpans  and  one  of  the 
finest  mansions  in  Scotland.  The  King  arrived  at  Halyruid  at 
last,  '  about  six  at  evin.'  Three  days  later  he  '  cam  to  the 
Parliament  in  coche,  about  10.'  It  was  held  in  the  new  Parlia- 
ment House,  in  the  hall  as  we  see  it  now.  The  huddled  up  close 
of  this  Parliament,  marking,  as  it  proved,  the  crisis  of  the  King's 
fate,  is  significantly  noted  in  brief :  — <  1 7  Nov.  The  Parliament 
raid.  18  Nov.  The  Kingis  Majestic  tuik  journey  to  Ingland.' 

The  stirring  events  of  1638  are  but  briefly  referred  to,  but 
there  was  natural  confusion  in  the  capital,  when  with  the  following 
spring  came  the  news  that  the  King  was  preparing  to  suppress 
the  Covenant  by  force  of  arms.  There  is  a  brave  *  wappenschaw- 
ing '  in  Edinburgh  at  which  the  College  of  Justice  musters  500, 
including  *  ane  number  of  the  auld  advocates  and  wryters.'  A 
few  days  before,  the  Castle  is  *  braschit  be  pittardis  and  takin  be 
the  nobilitie.'  Young  Sir  Thomas  commands  General  Leslie's 
bodyguard,  while  his  brother  and  brother-in-law,  Sir  Charles 
Erskine,  both  rode  out  under  the  Banner  of  the  Covenant.  Sir 


The  c  Diary '  of  Sir  Thomas  Hope     425 

Thomas  himself  could  hardly  be  a  combatant,  so  he  hands  over 
his  arms  to  his  sons :  — *  My  putrinell  or  carabin,  indentit  of 
rowat '  ( ?  Rouen)  c  work  ;  sword  and  pistolles  ;  long  carabin  of 
rowet  work  all  indentit '  (inlaid),  *  with  the  brace  iron  key  and 
gold  string ;  litill  rowat  carabin  of  mother-a-perll  stok,  to  be 
usit  quhen  I  haif  not  to  do  therwith,  but  to  be  readie  quhen  I 
call  for  it.'  While  at  his  house  of  Craighall  he  buys  in  Cupar, 
near  by,  two  pistols,  which  he  entrusts  to  his  man  there,  along  with 
the  *  calmes  key '  or  mould  for  bullets,  *  to  keip  and  dress  for  my 
use.3  There  is  also  the  anxious  stowing  away  of  valuables.  Sir 
Charles  Erskine  is  instructed  (  to  put  within  my  little  irne  kist 
his  coffer  with  jewellis.  All  thir,  with  the  meikill  irne  kist  and 
writts  being  therin,  ar  putt  in  the  laich  volt  cellar  for  eschewing 
of  fyre ;  and  committis  the  rest  to  the  Lord.'  Later  on  Lady 
Hope,  with  a  packet  of  letters,  crosses  over  from  Fife  '  to  close 
vp  the  voultis,  and  sand  the  vpmost  houssis  for  feir  of  grenades.' 
Meantime  the  King's  fleet  appears  in  the  Inchkeith  roads  and  his 
army  is  nearing  the  Border.  At  Foulden,  near  Berwick,  the 
Advocate  meets  his  Majesty  in  conference.  The  Estates  are 
thereafter  summoned,  a  peace  is  patched  up,  and  the  King  makes 
a  hasty  return  southwards  to  meet  still  more  serious  troubles. 

The  crisis  of  the  Parliamentary  struggle  came  in  1643,  when 
the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  finally  commits  the  whole 
Covenanting  strength  to  the  overthrow  of  the  King.  Sir  Thomas 
notes  the  momentous  *  subscryving  in  the  Eistmost  Kirk  of  St. 
Jells'  (13  Oct.).  Among  others  'Mr.  Merschell,  the  Inglische 
minister '  (the  Stephen  Marshall  of  Milton's  '  Smectymnuus '), 
'  spak,  being  sitting  with  the  Inglische  Commissioners  under  the 
reideris  dask ;  and  the  nobilmen  satt  foiranent  the  minister,  at 
the  syd  of  ane  tabill  covert  with  greyn ;  and  all  the  persones  of 
the  Committie  satt  at  the  tuo  endis  of  the  tabill,  in  a  traverse 
tabill  both  south  and  north.'  Sir  Thomas  tells  us  that  '  being 
thair  I  renewit  my  vow  to  adhere '  to  the  Covenant,  but  he 
wisely  stopped  short  at  that  part  which  required  him  '  to  mayntene 
the  privilegis  of  the  Parliament  of  Ingland,'  with  which  as  a 
subject  of  Scotland  he  had  nothing  to  do.  This  precisely 
involved  the  point  on  which  the  covenanting  parties  were  to 
split.  But  as  yet  all  are  on  the  full  tide  of  the  new  enthusiasm. 
With  the  new  year  the  f  old  crookbacked  soldier,'  General  Leslie, 
marches  south  with  that  Scotch  contingent  that  was  to  prove  the 
undoing  of  the  King: — (8  Jan.,  1644)  'General  Leslie  cam  to 
my  chamber  about  6  at  nycht  and  tuik  leave  of  me,  being  to 

2  E 


426  James  Colville 

begin  his  journey  to  Ingland  on  the  morow.'  With  him  went 
the  recruits  from  Sir  Thomas's  own  lands  : — c  This  day,  gevin  to 
the  soiours  of  Craighall,  quho  gois  vnder  Capt.  Moffet,  ilk  of 
them  thair  collorrs  J  (colours)  '  of  blue  and  yellow  silk  ribbins, 
quhilk  cost  4  merks.  To  them  to  drink  amang  them,  j  angell.' 
Of  the  terrible  doings  of  Montrose  in  harrying  the  land  for  King 
Charles  during  the  following  summer  the  '  Diary '  says  nothing, 
but  in  a  letter  to  Sir  Charles  Erskine  (7  Aug.,  1645)  he  is  told 
how  the  fiery  Royalist  swept  over  the  plain  of  Alloa  and  Dollar 
like  a  blight,  and,  as  a  matter  of  personal  interest  to  Sir  Charles, 
he  adds,  '  this  last  nycht  thay  wer  at  Alloway,  quhair  as  I  heir 
Montroiss  wes  resett  be  zour  brother '  (Earl  of  Mar),  c  quhilk  I 
will  not  believe.' 

It  is  the  Church  and  not  the  Law  that  connects  Sir  Thomas 
with  two  notable  contemporaries,  Johnston  of  Warristoun  and 
Alexander  Henderson,  joint  authors  of  the  National  Covenant. 
The  former  is  entered  as  a  name  and  nothing  more.  Henderson's 
historic  appearances  are  noted,  as  well  as  some  of  the  occasions 
when  he  was  heard  preaching,  but  without  a  single  indication  of 
the  impression  made  by  this  very  remarkable  man.  In  1642  he 
baptizes  a  grandchild  of  Sir  Thomas's,  one  of  the  witnesses  being 
Sir  William  Dick,  the  great  banker  who  financed  the  Covenanting 
resistance.  The  same  year  found  Sir  Thomas  at  his  l  place  of 
Cramond,  where  he  had  built  the  laird's  aisle  in  the  church. 
Here  (  Mr.  Alex.  Henrysoun,  ministrat  the  Communioun  for  x 
tables,  and  also  preichit  efternone.'  On  both  occasions  the 
memorandum,  palliatus,  is  added,  as  if  he  regarded  the  fact  of  the 
preacher  being  gowned  as  a  Prelatic  innovation.  He  elsewhere 
records  his  objection  to  Laud's  innovation,  kneeling  at  the  Sacra- 
ment, as  well  as  the  fact  that  that  prying  prelate  had  written  him 
a  letter  reprimanding  him  for  communicating  at  Pencaitland, 
doubtless  in  offensive  Low  Church  fashion.  Henderson's 
sermons  are  almost  the  only  ones  of  the  century  that  make 
tolerable  reading  to  a  modern,  so  that  it  is  unfortunate  we  do 
not  have,  from  so  shrewd  and  honest  a  layman,  some  estimate  of 
the  effect  on  this  occasion.  It  is  quite  characteristic,  however, 
to  note  only  that  Henderson  was  gowned,  perhaps  as  an 

1This  'Place'  is  better  known  as  Hopetoun.  Sir  Thomas's  son,  Sir  James, 
fell  heir  to  it  and  to  the  Leadhills  mines  through  a  marriage  that  his  shrewd  father 
negotiated  for  him.  His  grandson,  Charles,  was  first  Earl  of  Hopetoun  and 
ancestor  of  the  Marquis  of  Linlithgow.  Sir  James  sat  on  the  bench  (1649-61) 
as  Lord  Hopetoun. 


The  c  Diary '  of  Sir  Thomas  Hope      427 

expression  of  the  preacher's  dislike  to  the  growing  influence  of  the 
Brownists  or  Independents  who  were  soon  to  rob  the  old  Scots 
Church  service  of  much  of  its  beauty. 

The  nearest  church  to  the  Cowgate  house  was  the  Magdalen 
Chapel,  close  to  the  base  of  the  Free  Library,  but  it  is  mentioned 
once,  and  then  only  in  the  matter  of  the  baptism  of  a  grandchild, 
1  verie  waik,  and  I  desyrit  him  to  be  baptisit ;  quhilk  my  wyff 
excusit,  that  they  durst  not  tak  the  bairne  furth  in  the  cold  air.' 
The  compromise  was  the  Chapel,  but  4  my  wyff  wes  angrie  at  my 
greife/  As  a  State  official  Sir  Thomas  would  be  expected  always 
to  worship  in  the  East  Kirk  of  St.  Giles,  where  he  must  have 
been  a  steady  attender,  to  judge  by  this : — {  At  2  efternone  I  had 
a  heavy  brasche  of  the  colick,  quhilk  vexit  me  till  I  vomit  all, 
and  gatt  rest  in  my  bed  till  Sounday  in  the  morning,  at  quhilk  I 
wes  delyverit,  and  rose  to  the  preiching ;  for  quhilk  I  gif  God 
prais.'  Sometimes  a  fire  perturbed  the  congregation.  On  a 
Sunday  in  1639  Mr.  Alex.  Henrysoun  has  just  begun  the 
exhortation  prayer  when  there  was  a  fray  in  the  kirk,  due  to  the 
report  of  a  fire  in  a  house  c  on  the  north  syd  of  the  gait ;  quhair- 
upon  a  gritt  part  of  the  pepill,  with  the  Provest  and  Magistrates, 
ischit  furth ;  and  the  minister  stayit  till  thair  return,  be  the 
space  of  3  quartern  of  ane  hour.'  Altogether  the  clergy,  even 
the  leaders,  get  no  prominence  in  the  '  Diary,'  strengthening  the 
general  impression  one  must  form  that  the  momentous  rising  of 
1638  was  essentially  a  movement  of  the  barons,  deeply  roused 
by  the  King's  threatened  resumption  of  the  Crown  teinds  in  the 
hands  of  the  lay  patrons. 

Sir  Thomas  was  a  devout  man  both  in  public  and  private  accord- 
ing to  the  fashion  of  the  time.  We  have  no  note  of  long  wrest- 
lings in  private  prayer  such  as  Johnston  of  Warristoun  is  said  to 
have  indulged  in,  though  he  tells  us  once  of  being  so  engaged 
before  rising  in  the  morning,  when  he  is  answered  by  spiritual 
whisperings,  unheard,  he  adds,  by  his  wife.  To  that  gross  form  of 
superstition — witchcraft,  and  demoniacal  possession — there  is  no 
reference.  But  it  is  characteristic  of  that  *  closer  walk  with  God,' 
ever  present  to  the  Covenanter,  that  he  reads  a  divine  message 
in  all  his  spiritual  communings.  His  record  of  them  we  ought 
to  be  grateful  for,  since  it  brings  us  into  the  closest  personal 
touch  with  him. 

The  old-world  pride  of  family  is  revealed  in  the  estates 
purchased  as  well  as  in  the  numerous  references  to  the  doings  of 
the  children  and  all  the  tender  ties  formed  through  them.  In 


428  James  Colville 

this  there  is  some  compensation  for  the  absence  of  that  shrewd 
observation  of  men  and  things  which  was  scarce  possible  in  those 
days  of  caution,  reticence,  and  often  forced  religiosity.  Such 
references  are  all  the  more  valuable,  too,  because  we  have  scarce 
any  pictures  of  family  life  at  that  time.  The  sons — John, 
Thomas,  James,  and  Alexander,  the  scheming  for  their  worldly 
advancement,  the  girls,  and  their  husbands,  and  children — these 
all  figure  with  more  or  less  fulness  in  the  *  Diary  '  and  '  Letters.' 
Of  their  mother  there  are  few  direct  personal  notes,  a  revelation 
quite  in  keeping  with  the  conventional  expression  of  deep  feeling 
in  vogue.  She  is  always  simply  *  my  wyff.'  When  he  writes  of 
another's  wife  she  is  {  your  bedfellow.' 

The  third  son,  Alexander,  quite  in  keeping  with  old  custom, 
separated  himself  from  the  family  interests,  and  took  the  side  of 
King  Charles,  *  quhom,'  as  his  father  says,  *  he  idolit  as  his  god.' 
His  extravagance  seems  to  have  been  a  shock  to  his  old-fashioned 
parents.  The  story  of  it  is  worth  telling  as  an  exceptional 
revelation  of  deep  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  old  man.  In  1635 
Alexander  is  sent  to  follow  his  fortunes  at  Court,  there  to  push 
for  place,  as  so  many  young  Scots  nobles  had  been  doing  since  the 
Union.  The  persona  grata  who  introduced  him  was  entrusted  with 
fifty  gold  pieces  for  his  service.  What,  for  those  days,  were  large 
money  payments  had  too  often  to  follow  those  pieces,  generally 
through  friends  who  were  bound  for  Court,  such  as  the  Earl  of 
Mar,  Lord  Lorn  (the  great  Argyll).  Success  in  suing  came  at 
last,  and  in  significant  fashion : — <  (25  Oct.,  1636)  Letters  to  my 
sone  with  thanks  to  sundry  gentlemen  for  concerting  with  him  to 
agrie  with  Taverner  to  putt  off  the  Chancellar  from  Mungo 
Murray,  in  the  suit  of  the  place  of  carver,  for  quhilk  Mr. 
Alexander  is  to  pay  to  Taverner  ^150  sterling.'  To  sustain  the 
dignity  of  the  young  Scot,  c  at  this  tyme  one  Peter  Loch,  a 
footmen,  wes  sent  up  to  serve  my  sone,  to  quhom  was  gevin  fyve 
dollors,'  a  sum  ridiculously  out  of  keeping  with  his  master's 
spending,  which  seems  to  have  been  on  an  alarming  scale,  to  judge 
by  these  notes : — c  (14  Juni,  1637)  A  letter  from  my  wyff  to  Mr. 
Alexander,  forbidding  him  to  send  the  watche,  and  chyding  him 
for  his  spending ' ;  (28  July)  *  ressavit  letters  to  pay  to  Patrik 
Wod  ;£yo  sterling,  quhilk  he  had  borrowit  from  his  factor ' 
(agent),  '  to  the  quhilk  I  wrot  a  very  angrie  letter  and  his  mother 
another ' ;  Sir  Thomas  is  so  angry  that  the  letter  is  '  directit  to 
him  in  his  mother's  name,'  and  shortly  after  the  elder  brother, 
Thomas,  is  instructed  to  write,  c  because  I  wald  not  wrytt  myself.' 


The  '  Diary '  of  Sir  Thomas  Hope      429 

It  seems  that  Alexander  had  secured  a  pension  of  ^150  sterling 
as  His  Majesty's  Special  Carver. 

A  gift,  from  his  mother,  is  in  striking  contrast  to  her  son's 
costly  watch :  — c  Item,  one  from  his  mother  with  the  nott  of  the 
aittis,  peiss,  cheiss,  salmond,  and  hering  sent  to  him.'  In  1641 
we  have  a  deeply  pathetic  appeal  to  the  son  from  the  father 
himself :  — '  As  for  the  last  part  of  your  letter  concerning  yourself 
it  hes  gevin  so  deep  a  wound  to  my  hart  that  I  must  take  tyme 
to  gather  my  spirit.  The  Lord  pittie  me,  and  direct  yow  in  a 
more  prudent  way,  and  keep  yow  from  tempting  him  by  distrust 
and  diffidence  in  not  waiting  patientlie  for  a  releiff  of  your 
distresses  from  him,  and  in  crocing  the  wearie  hart  of  your  aged 
father,  and  bringing  his  gray  haires  to  the  grave  with  sorrow. 
Butt  of  this  at  greter  lenth  quhen  I  haif  digestit  in  some  mesur 
the  excess  of  my  present  greif.'  Imprudence  of  this  kind  was 
abhorrent  to  the  nature  or  the  Advocate,  who  ever  laboured  to 
fulfil  the  apostolic  injunction — '  not  slothful  in  business,  serving 
the  Lord.' 

It  is  pleasant  to  note  in  the  '  Diary  '  evidence  of  the  beginnings 
of  a  great  social  change.  Sir  Thomas  was  among  the  '  gentlemen 
of  the  long  robe '  who  invested  the  proceeds  of  the  *  dreepin' 
roasts '  that  came  to  them  professionally,  in  broad  lands,  thus 
leading  the  way  to  the  mansions  and  pleasaunces  that  in  time 
transformed  the  old,  forbidding  feudal  aspect  of  the  country. 
The  lands  of  Craighall  must  have  been  among  the  earliest  of 
the  Advocate's  purchases,  for  in  1631  we  learn  he  had  mortified 
100  merks  yearly  for  the  support  of  a  school  in  Ceres.  On  the 
east  end  of  the  church  may  still  be  seen  the  burial-place  of  the 
old  Crawford  Lindsays,  long  lords  of  the  soil.  There  reposes 
the  stern  Crawford  who  compelled  Queen  Mary  to  sign  her 
abdication.  For  a  century  and  more  the  old  house  has  been  in 
ruins,  but  the  Hopes  lived  there  till  about  the  Union  of  1707. 
It  stood  about  half  a  mile  from  Ceres,  <  upon  the  north  bank  of  a 
den,  planted  with  trees,  a  situation  beautifully  romantic.'  Thus 
writes  the  minister  in  the  Old  Statistical  Account.,  adding  that 
a  little  rocky  hill  shelters  on  the  north  from  which  the  place  got 
its  name.  This  clears  up  an  obscure  note  in  the  '  Diary.'  Now 
and  again  Sir  Thomas  enters  one  of  his  dreams  in  Latin.  Thus 
in  1641  he  dreams  of  being  caught  in  a  thick  mist  in  hortis 
petrocellanis,  as  if  it  were  '  in  the  gardens  of  parsley.'  But  he  is 
not  thinking  of  petro-selinum,  the  Latin  from  which  we  have 
f  parsley.'  He  is  really  translating  Craig  Hall  as  the  Cell  on 


430  James  Colville 

the  Rock  or  little  rocky  hill  of  the  Statistical  Account.  On  a 
later  occasion  he  enters  a  solemn  vow,  when  on  the  point  of 
setting  out  ad  Petrocellam,  his  own  pet  name  for  his  Favourite 
retreat.  In  his  youth  he  had  published  Latin  verses,  his  Carmen 
Secular  ey  but  his  active  life  allowed  only  of  a  playful  word-coinage 
or  a  dream  record  in  the  classic  tongue.  His  tastes  seem  not  to 
have  lain  in  gardening  or  improving,  but  he  takes  an  interest  in 
the  working  of  the  neighbouring  coal-pits. 

Two  of  his  frequent  journeys  from  Edinburgh  were  eventful. 
When  ordered  to  withdraw  to  Craighall  early  in  1640,  he  left 
Leith  within  ten  days  of  receipt  of  the  King's  letter,  and  '  in 
Bruntiland  a'  (one)  '  nicht,  cam  next  day  to  Craighall  about  12.' 
Considering  the  road  and  the  season  of  the  year  the  progress  was 
good.  The  Lowther  party  (1629)  had  an  unpleasant  experience 
on  this  road,  to  this  effect :  — '  The  river  of  Ore,  narrow  but  deep 
and  fierce;  we  rid  it  the  height  of  the  horse's  mane  and  the 
fierceness  of  it  turned  the  horse  off  its  feet.' 

A  few  years  later  his  son,  Sir  John,2  gets  '  seisin '  of  Craighall  as 
his  own,  but  Sir  Thomas  continues  his  visits  almost  to  the  end. 
The  summer  of  1644  was  mainly  spent  there.  The  leisure  now 
earned  seems  to  have  offered  the  chance  of  reading,  as  this 
hints :  — '  Sent  my  bookis  to  Craighall,  being  of  purpose  to  go 
thither  myself?'  (Ap.  1644).  Within  a  month  he  is  suddenly 
summoned  by  Sir  Charles  Erskine,  just  come  home  from  France  to 
find  that  his  mother,  the  Dowager  Countess  of  Mar,  *  had  takin  a 
deidlie  brasche '  in  the  house  in  the  Cowgate.  On  this  summons 
Sir  Thomas  made  the  journey  from  Craighall  through  Fife 
with  a  speed  that  was  worthy  of  the  railway  pace  of  pre-Forth 
Bridge  days.  '  Immediatlie  I  went  furth  of  Craighall,  about  8  in 
the  morning,  and  came  to  Bruntiland  about  xij  hours,  and  was  at 
Leyth  ane  quarter  efter  one.'  The  lady  died  in  Sir  Thomas's 
house  in  the  Cowgate,  and  was  buried  at  Alloa.  The  funeral 
was,  of  course,  a  great  event.  Says  Sir  Thomas,  { I  went  to 
Alloway  to  the  funeralls  off  the  Countes  of  Mar,  being  20  hors 
in  trayne,  quhair  my  charges  wer  ^96  ;  and  returnit  to  Craighall 
on  Setterday.'  In  those  ceremonious  days  the  c  suits  of  woe ' 
were  not  soon  parted  with.  *  This  day,'  says  the  *  Diary,'  (  my 
sone  Craighall  went  to  sermoun,  and  we  changit  our  mourning 
weidis  for  my  deir  dauchter,  Margaret,  and  no  sooner,  and  so  we 
wore  them  for  a  zeir  and  13  dayis.' 

Sir  Thomas  Hope  is  a  favourable  specimen  of  a  public  man  in 

2  Sir  John  was  raised  to  the  Bench  as  Lord  Craighall. 


The  '  Diary  '  of  Sir  Thomas  Hope      43 1 

his  day  and  generation.  In  regard  to  the  questions  that  moved 
men  in  religion  and  politics,  he  must  have  formed  his  own 
opinions,  but  in  his  pages  one  need  not  look  for  any  critical 
estimate  of  the  bearings  of  policy  or  of  practice.  The  notable 
men  he  meets — King  Charles,  Buckingham,  Prince  Rupert,  Laud, 
Montrose,  Warristoun,  Henderson — these  are  all  names  and  little 
more.  Nor  does  self-inquiry  go  further  than  an  almost  pagan 
study  of  portents  and  providences,  and  a  prayer  for  better  control 
of  faults  of  temper,  presumably  regarded  as  a  hindrance  to 
advancement.  The  most  favourable  aspects  he  presents  are  on 
the  side  of  the  domestic  affections,  notably  a  frank  simplicity 
of  character,  and  integrity  in  the  discharge  of  duty.  In  common 
with  the  most  intelligent  of  his  countrymen,  Drummond  excepted, 
he  is  untouched  by  the  glories  of  Elizabethan  literature.  Of  his 
own  education  or  of  that  of  his  sons  we  are  told  nothing.  He 
was  a  student  of  the  newly-founded  College  of  Edinburgh,  for 
he  notes  the  death  (1643)  °f  '  Good  Mr.  Adam  Colt,  my  regent ' 
or  College  tutor.  That  he  himself  went  abroad  for  study  to  fit 
him  for  public  life  is  unlikely,  though  Lowther's  observation 
(1629)  on  the  advocates  is  to  this  effect: — *  Most  of  them  have 
been  travellers,  and  studied  in  France.'  He  appreciates  this 
training  by  sending  his  sons  to  study  abroad,  and  even  advises 
Sir  Charles  Erskine,  when  on  a  visit  to  France,  to  stay  till  he 
*  get  a  grup  of  the  language.'  That  he  was  not  entirely  immersed 
in  affairs  is  witnessed  by  references  to  his  books,  by  the  free  use 
of  Latin  on  occasion,  and  by  the  presence  now  and  again  of  a 
Greek  or  a  Hebrew  phrase ;  but  he  never  goes  out  of  his  way  to 
speak,  otherwise  than  as  mere  matter-of-fact,  of  schoolmaster  or 
of  clergyman. 

The  intellectual  status  of  Sir  Thomas  is  to  be  estimated  entirely 
on  indirect  evidence,  such  as  has  been  already  presented.  There 
remains  the  consideration  of  his  reading  and  of  his  writings  as  a 
specimen  of  the  spoken  Scots  of  his  age.  The  fact  that  these 
are  quite  artless  and  undesigned  makes  them  specially  interesting. 

Bible-reading  was  regularly  carried  on  as  a  religious  exercise, 
but  the  numerous  vows  and  soul-questionings  are  not,  as  was 
usual  with  the  serious-minded,  accompanied  by  Biblical  quotation. 
Hebrew  he  read  :  — '  This  day  beguid  at  the  4  of  Nombers  in  the 
Hebrew  lectioun :  Lent  to  my  sone  Craighall  4  tomes  of  Hebrew 
Bibill  of  Rotus  Stephanus  characteris.'  A  few  words  in  Hebrew 
character  are  also  inserted.  Sometimes  an  entry  is  made  in  Latin. 
Thomas  a  Kempis  was  one  of  his  favourites.  The  only  other 


432  James  Colville 

allusion  to  books  is  this :  — *  Sent  a  letter  to  Erl  Ancrum,  to  caus 
prent  Franciscanis  Vllisemus  (Volusenus),  or  to  send  him  heir  to 
me  to  be  prentit,  because  Mr.  Robert  Balcanquell  wes  importuning 
me  to  haif  him  restorit,  as  ane  auld  monument  of  Scottis 
antiquity.'  The  Earl  was  himself  of  some  repute  at  the  English 
Court  as  a  poetaster.  This  Volusenus,  an  honest  Scottish  Wilson 
Latinised,  was  born  at  the  beginning  of  the  i6th  century  on  the 
banks  of  the  Lossie,  and  from  the  school  at  Elgin  proceeded  to 
Aberdeen  University,  later  on  to  be  known  as  tutor  in  Wolsey's 
household,  and  thereafter  as  professor  and  humanist  Scot  Abroad. 
It  is  hard  to  guess  the  point  of  interest  Sir  Thomas  found  in  his 
writings,  but  he  was  well  known  to  George  Buchanan,  and  has 
three  of  his  poems  in  the  Delitiae  Poetarum,  that  anthology  of 
Scottish  scholarship  in  Latin  verse,  in  which  Sir  Thomas  himself 
was  represented.  One  would  have  preferred  to  see  him  show  a 
little  interest  in  what  Andro  Hart  was  issuing,  say,  in  1629, 
under  his  very  eye,  from  his  shop  on  the  High  Street,  almost 
opposite  the  Cross.  He  may  have  rubbed  shoulders  with 
Drummond  of  Hawthornden  when  he  chanced  to  come  into 
town  to  see  Hart  about  what  he  was  doing  for  him  that  year, 
or  with  Montgomery,  busy  sending  forth  through  Hart  his 
Cherry  and  Slae.  But  the  time  had  not  yet  come,  least  of  all 
to  even  an  intelligent  Scot,  for  that  wider  outlook  and  keener 
observation  of  men  and  things,  of  Nature  and  art.  The  open 
book  which  he  had  ever  to  watch  was  the  crooked  path  of  his 
own  fortunes.  Outside  of  that  the  one  literary  influence  most 
powerfully  present  would  be  his  Bible,  and  there  he  found  the 
highest  authority  for  his  study  of  dreams,  portents,  and  mystic 
communings. 

In  these  writings  of  Sir  Thomas  we  have,  to  the  life,  the 
language  and  style  of  an  educated  gentleman  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  There  is  no  forced  pathos,  and  still  less  is  there  an 
approach  to  humour,  but  occasionally  we  have,  in  a  proverbial 
form,  specimens  of  that  peculiarly  antique  combination  of 
worldly  wisdom  and  graphic  phrasing.  To  put  a  bone  in  the 
foot  of  an  adversary  is  his  equivalent  to  our  putting  a  spoke  in 
his  wheel.  His  professional  experience  of  the  part  played  by 
property  in  estranging  parties  comes  out  in  this: — '  Meum  and 
tuum,  quhilk  spillis  the  sport  in  all  playis.'  In  the  case  of  a 
laird  with  whom  the  Earl  of  Annandale,  his  client,  has  the  usual 
*  pley  '  over  '  widsettis '  (mortgages),  he  advises  '  to  latt  him  byt 
on  the  brydell,  and  I  sail  terrifie  him  with  putting  the  minut  in 


The  c  Diary'  of  Sir  Thomas  Hope      433 

registers  and  charging  him  to  extend  and  fulfill  the  samyn  vnder 
the  payne  thairin  conteynit,  quhilk  is  ;£  10,000  Stirling.'  Though 
he  lived  in  an  age  at  once  of  plain-speaking  and  coarseness  along- 
side of  lip-piety  there  is  no  trace  with  him  of  any  of  these. 
When  face  to  face  with  his  enemies — and  he  had  them — he  is 
clear,  firm,  and  dignified.  With  two  agents  of  the  King's 
unpopular  policy,  Traquair  and  Hamilton,  he  has  warm  moments. 
His  replies  compare  favourably  with  Traquair's  rough  rejoinder : 
*  The  Commissioner,  without  any  occasioun  offerit  be  me,  brak 
out  violentlie  in  thir  speiches,  eftir  I  had  ressonit  the  point 
exactlie  for  his  Majestic :  "  Be  God,  this  man  cares  not  quhat  he 
speaks."  ' 

Devotional  writing,  which  formed  the  bulk  of  the  literature 
of  the  century,  is  so  much  under  the  influence  of  English  as  to 
very  imperfectly  preserve  the  speech  of  the  day ;  for  the  Scot, 
in  virtue  of  nearness  to  England  and  his  own  pronounced 
individuality,  was  always  bi-lingual.  But  the  diction  and  pro- 
nunciation of  Sir  Thomas  are  genuinely  national.  This  is 
illustrated  by  the  following  phrases,  culled  at  random  :  — {  Maryit 
on  (for  to) :  the  debtis  auchtand  (owing,  the  Northern  pres. 
part.) :  quhilk  ar  thir  (which  are  these) :  6  scheit  of  paper :  your 
tutor  his  letter :  deirer  to  hir  nor  (than)  hirself :  I  think  or  (ere) 
now  you  haif  them :  is  better  acquaint  (old  part,  in  -ed  dropped 
after  a  dental)  :  I  wreit  (past  tense)  my  ansuer  to  the  haill  douttis 
contenit  (past  part.  Northern) :  the  saids  landis  (plural  adj.  and 
plur.  in  -is)  :  vpon  the  other  morne  (morning) :  but  this  man  be 
provin  (unless  this  must  be  proved) :  betuix  and  the  tent  of  this 
moneth  (between  now  and  the  tenth) :  we  haif  mett  att  divers 
tymes  with  the  Erll  and  findis  him  verie  willing '  (good  example 
of  the  Northern  verb  plural  in  -s  throughout).  His  diction 
shows  something  of  the  foreign  influences  that  affected  Scottish 
speech.  To  his  academic  and  professional  training  we  owe  these  : 
keip  peax  (Lat.  pax,  peace),  quaeres  (queries),  he  may  distresse 
his  mother  (distrain),  a  peice  of  festinatioun  (Lat.  festinare, 
apropos  of  asking  a  judgeship  for  his  son  at  twenty-one),  I  intend 
to  superceid  (Lat.  supersedere,  put  off)  the  ending  (issue),  thocht 
he  be  accomptit  ane  young  man.'  Though  his  grandfather  was 
a  born  Frenchman,  his  diction  does  not  show  any  exceptional 
familiarity  with  the  language.  The  following  recall  their  foreign 
origin: — *  Abillzeamentsis  (habiliments),  the  valour  (Fr.  valeur) 
of  the  tithes,  it  sail  haif  ane  essay  (essai),  I  sail  travell  to  draw 
them  to  thair  tryall,  oblissis  and  oblischement,  it  is  bruttit  that 


434  James  Colville 

Capitane  Cokburne  is  deid '  (bruit).  Very  few  words  occur  that 
require  glossing  through  lapse  of  time.  Examples  are :  — 
4  Trubill  or  fascherie ;  warit  (expended)  ;  bruikit  (enjoyed) ;  hold 
zow  be  your  maik  (match  or  equal) ;  thir  fyve  or  sax  oulkis 
(weeks — now  only  in  Aberdeenshire) ;  if  my  Lord  sail  scar  (feel 
afraid)  at  this ;  letter  to  Mr.  Alexander  to  chaip  (buy)  ane  jowell 
and  to  send  me  word  of  the  number  and  bignes  of  the  diamondis.' 
Through  the  close  connection  of  Scotland  with  Holland  come  two 
words  of  much  interest.  Sir  Thomas  refers  to  a  document 
'  quhilk  I  patt  in  my  blak  cabinet  in  the  midmost  of  the  two 
blak  schotells '  (Ger.  Schiissel,  drawer,  flat  dish)  '  quhilk  ar  in  the 
middes  thairof .'  In  the  *  Wedderburn  Book '  (Scott.  His.  Soc.), 
of  the  same  age,  we  find :  — *  Ane  aiken  freiz  pres  with  schottles 
of  aik  thairin.'  The  Boer  War  made  us  familiar  with  the  word, 
schil-pat,  the  name  in  South  Africa  for  the  land  tortoise.  The 

*  Diary  '  shows  that  Sir  Thomas  knew  it.     (1638)  '  Ressavit  from 
my  sone  my  rod  with  the  King's  portrait  on  the  hed  of  it,  of 
porcupine  penne '  (quill)  '  or  of  the  schell  poddokis '  (puddock). 
Sir  Thomas's  observation  is  not  clear  here.     His  remark  must 
apply,  not  to  the  walking-stick  so  much  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
setting  of  the  portrait.     Among  the  ominous  accidents  he  loves 
to  record  there  is  a  clear  reference  to  such  a  '  rod  ' :  — *  The  rod 
I  walk  with  wes  brokin  in  peices  and  nothing  left  of  it  but  the 
siluer  head.'     His   speech   shows  the  same  confusion   between 

*  rod  '  and  '  road  '  as  in  modern  dialect : — *  21  Maij,  1639,  This 
day  General  Leslie,  Erl  Rothess,  and  Lord  Lyndsay  tuik  journey 
to  the  bound  rod.'     The  expression  '  the  bound  rod,'  here  is 
one  of  the  many  obscurities  of  the  *  Diary.'     I  found  a  solution 
in  the  Muses'  Welcome  to  James  I.  on  his  visit  to  Scotland  in 
i6iy.3     One  of  the  pieces  there  extols  the  King  as  uniting,  under 
one  crown,  the  two  sides  of  the  '  bound  rod,'  evidently  an  expres- 
sion for  the  boundary  between  Scotland  and  the  c  auld  enemy.' 

In  the  absence  of  an  established  norm  for  spelling,  whether 
regulated  by  printing  or  by  teaching  in  grammar  school  and 

3  In  the  great  hall  of  the  Place  or  Abbey  of  Paisley,  Sir  James  Sempill  of 
Beltrees  greeted  the  King  in  the  Oration  recited  by  his  son,  '  a  prettie  boy  of 
nine,'  thus  : — as  the  result  of  the  Union  '  one  beame  shall  launce  alike  on  both 
sides  of  our  bound  rod  and  our  Phoebus  (James  I.)  no  more  need  to  streach 
out  his  armes  on  both  sides  of  it,  devyding  as  it  were  his  Royall  body  for 
embracing  at  once  two  devided  Ladyes ' — i.e.  Clytia  (Scotland)  and  Leucothoe 
(England).  The  expression  is  slightly  different  in  Spalding's  Troubles  : — 

*  Felt  Marischall  Leslie  is  makeing  great  preparation  to  the  Boullrode '  (March, 
1640). 


The  c  Diary '  of  Sir  Thomas  Hope      435 

college,  at  that  time  entirely  conducted  through  Latin,  it  is  fair 
to  regard  the  form  the  words  assume  as  indicative  of  pronuncia- 
tion. Spelling  under  such  conditions  can  only  be  phonetic.  In 
this  regard  the  spelling  of  Sir  Thomas  much  more  truly 
reproduces  the  tones  of  his  voice  than  any  modern  writing  could. 
His  spelling  is  perfectly  consistent,  and  supplies  most  instructive 
information  in  regard  to  the  development  of  the  mother  tongue. 
In  his  speech  the  *  quhilk  and  quho,'  c  the  ane,'  and  the  <  ze '  (ye) 
still  hold  their  own,  but  the  last  only  in  a  very  homely  letter. 
The  first  did  not  survive  his  own  age.  Its  initial  qu  was 
originally  a  useful  mark  to  emphasize  the  strong  Gothic  guttural, 
hw,  still  surviving  in  Scotch  pronunciation,  the  elimination  of 
which  is  a  loss  to  modern  English,  so  that  <  which  '  and  *  witch ' 
sound  alike.  The  omission  of  <  1,'  so  persistent  now,  and  in  effect 
analogous  to  the  English  vocalising  of  *  r,'  did  not  prevail  at  this 
time,  witness  '  sould,  wuld,  coll  (dock,  cut  short,  now  cowe),  call ' 
(drive,  now  cawe)  as  in  the  judicial  torture  known  as  *  calling  the 
boots.'  Abbreviated  words  are  frequent :  — Secretar,  necessar, 
ordinar,  lenth,  strenthening,  chamerlane  (chawmer,  chalmer, 
chamber).  Some  of  them  seem  due  to  slovenly  pronunciation,  as 
solice  (solicit),  proportis  (purports),  escapes  (escapades),  entres 
(interest).  The  German  nasal,  still  common  in  dialect,  is  shown 
in  sing-ell  (single),  angell  (angel,  a  coin).  A  strong  guttural  is 
heard  in  aneugh  (enough),  '  the  laichest '  (lowest)  c  pryce.'  A 
hardened  sound  appears,  again,  in  sik  (such),  besek  (beseech) ; 
off  for  c  of,'  behove  (behoof) ;  and  s  hard  in  becaus,  hous  and 
houssis,  pleass,  coussing.  The  vowel  sounds  are  more  uncertain. 
The  following  may  be  grouped  under  the  vowels  in  their  usual 
order : — spak,  brak,  latt  (let) — a  ;  hes,  wes,  eftir,  glaid  (gled),  haif 
(have),  sait  (set,  noun),  bay  (be  or  by),  the  last  post — shut  e  ;  breist, 
freind,  freir  (friar),  signifeit  (signified) — open  e  ;  thift,  widsettis, 
liklie,  wreit  (writ  and  wrote),  greit  (great) — shut  i ;  nott  (note) — 
shut  o  ;  sone  (Ger.  Sohn,  son),  one  (one) — open  o  ;  bund  (bound) 
— shut  u  ;  soume  (sum),  jowell  (jewel) — open  u  ;  saull  (soul), 
yow  (you,  still  in  Border  dialect),  awin,  awne  (own) — diphthongs. 
Proper  names  must  have  been  written  purely  phonetically,  and 
are  interesting  in  preserving  local  colour.  Sir  Thomas  uses 
these: — Airthour  (Arthur),  Areskin,  Erskine  (place-name, 
Aitrik-stane),  Fotherance  (Fotheringham),  Vauss  (de  Vaux,  now 
Vans  in  Wigton),  Bruntiland,  Ripont  (Ripon),  Carraill  (Crail  as 
in  old  spelling),  Mononday,  Setterday,  Mertimes,  quhill  (untill) 
the  28  Merche. 


436      The  c  Diary '  of  Sir  Thomas  Hope 

These  observations,  of  a  more  or  less  philological  character, 
ought  to  commend  themselves  as  a  side-light  on  historical  study. 
Much  learning  has  been  expended  on  the  verse  remains  of  the 
Scottish  vernacular,  but  little  attention  has  been  given  to  its 
prose,  as  preserved  to  us  in  diaries  and  familiar  letters.  The 
abundant  religious  literature,  if  it  can  be  called  so,  of  the 
seventeenth  century  is  substantially  English  in  diction,  and 
therefore  of  little  use  on  its  language  side.  But  we  may  be  sure 
that  men  like  Sir  Thomas  Hope  put  down  in  their  diaries  exactly 
the  language  used  by  them  in  daily  intercourse  with  those  of  their 
own  class.  The  record,  being  still  unaffected  by  conventional 
printing,  preserves  the  very  tones  of  voice  and  the  characteristic 
diction  of  the  time.  It  so  happens  that,  whereas  the  old  vernacular 
verse  diction  has  not  lived  in  colloquial  intercourse,  such  speech 
as  we  have  in  the  '  Diary  '  was  till  quite  recently  that  of  old- 
fashioned,  homely  Lowland  folk. 

JAMES  COLVILLE. 


The  Early  History  of  the  Scots  Darien 
Company 

INVESTIGATION   BY  THE   ENGLISH   PARLIAMENT* 

THE  investigation,  made  first  by  the  Lords  and  then  by  the 
Commons,  is  important  not  only  because  of  its  effect  on 
the  character  of  the  Company,  but  also  for  the  stimulus  it  gave  to 
Parliamentary  interest  in  the  great  London  trading  companies. 

The  origin  of  the  investigation  is  obscure.  Various  rumours 
were  current  at  the  time,  which  were  set  forth  in  a  small  flyer 
entitled,  Caveto  Cavetote,  dated  at  c  the  Admiralty  Coffee-House 
at  Charing  Cross,  the  I4th  of  December,  1695.' l  Some  said 
the  investigation  was  instigated  by  parties  whose  idea  was  the 
benefit  of  English  rather  than  the  confusion  of  Scots  trade,  and 
who  hoped  to  profit  by  arousing  national  jealousy  over  an  act 
which  they  claimed  gave  Edinburgh  the  opportunity  to  surpass 
London  as  an  entrepot.  Others  said  the  investigation  was  started 
by  Jacobites  in  order  to  embarrass  the  government  and  discoun- 
tenance the  King.  Still  others  that  the  main  instigator  was  a 
Scotsman,  a  disappointed  politician  who  hoped  to  curry  favour 
with  the  English  by  traitorously  attempting  to  wreck  his  coun- 
try's new  enterprise.  All  of  these  causes  may  have  had  a  share 
in  the  matter.  Yet  if  one  may  judge  by  the  character  which  the 
investigation  took,  it  seems  most  probable  that  the  merchants  of 
London  thought  they  saw  here  a  chance  to  gain  larger  privileges 
by  making  Parliament  believe  that  the  welfare  of  the  country 
was  seriously  imperilled. 

Parliament  met  during  the  last  week  of  November.  On 
December  2nd,  the  first  day  of  real  business,  the  House  of  Lords 
resolved  to  consider  the  Act.2  Accordingly,  on  the  3rd,  the  Act 

*  See  Scottish  Historical  Review,  vol.  iii.  pp.  210  and  316,  for  the  earlier 
stages  of  the  History  of  the  Scots  Darien  Company. 

1  The  only  known  copy  is  in  the  Library  of  Congress. 

2  Jour.  Ho.  Lds.,  xv.  602. 

437 


43  8  Hiram  Bingham 

was  read  amid  considerable  excitement.  After  a  long  debate, 
it  was  decided  to  ask  the  East  India  Company,  and  the  private 
traders  to  show  wherein  the  Act  was  prejudicial  to  the  trade  of 
England,  and  to  give  an  account  of  the  inconveniences  that  might 
arise  from  it.  The  Commissioners  of  Customs  were  also 
instructed  to  show  how  the  Act  would  injure  English  trade.3 
The  East  India  Company  showed  remarkable  haste  in  complying 
with  the  request  for  information,  for  on  the  very  day  that  the 
order  passed  the  Lords  they  appointed  a  committee  to  prepare  a 
reply.4  They  probably  had  excellent  reasons  for  supposing  that 
such  a  requisition  was  to  be  made. 

On  the  4th,  nothing  daunted  by  the  attitude  of  the  Lords — it 
is  barely  possible  that  they  had  not  heard  that  their  charter  was 
being  attacked — the  directors  of  the  Scots  Company  held  a 
meeting,  and  considered  sending  ships  to  the  East  Indies.5 

On  the  5th  the  Lords  heard  the  opinions  of  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Customs,  and  of  the  private  traders.  Memorials 
were  presented  by  the  East  India  Company  and  the  African 
Company.6  The  latter  laid  stress  on  the  great  expense  of  carry- 
ing on  their  trade,  and  the  necessity  for  larger  privileges.  By 
the  Scots  Act  the  African  trade  would  be  lost  to  England,  for  the 
Scots  could  trade  cheaper,  their  goods  being  free  from  customs 
duties,  and  they  had  the  right  to  make  reprisals,  both  of  which 
advantages  were  denied  to  the  English. 

The  memorial  of  the  East  India  Company  declared  that  owing 
to  the  duties  and  restrictions  that  had  been  imposed  upon  them 
in  England  they  could  not  compete  with  such  an  unhampered 
Company  as  this  of  the  Scots.  They  also  referred  to  the  power 
to  make  reprisals,  to  the  advantage  accruing  to  the  Scots  Com- 
pany from  a  joint  stock,  and  to  the  privilege  of  being  able  to 
exclude  interlopers,  all  of  which  had  been  refused  them.  Atten- 
tion was  called  to  the  great  advantage  of  having  its  ships  and 
goods  free  from  all  manner  of  legal  restrictions,  taxes,  and  cus- 
toms. This  alone  would  make  Scotland  the  entrepot  for  all  East 
India  commodities.  They  pointed  out  the  danger  of  goods 
being  smuggled  across  the  border  into  England,  besides  the  great 
encouragement  offered  Englishmen  to  join  the  Company  and 
thus  be  free  from  the  heavy  duties  and  other  inconveniences 

3  Ho.  ofLds.  MSS.,  ii.  3  ;  Narcissus  Luttrell,  Brief  Historical  Relation,  iii.  557. 

4  MS.  Minutes  of  the  East  India  Co.,  Court  Book  No.  37,  folio  418. 

5  Vid.  supra,  p.  323. 

6  Jour.  Ho.  La's.,  xv.  605  ;  Ho.  of  Ids.  MSS.,  ii.  3  and  13  to  15. 


Early  History  of  Scots  Darien  Company     439 

imposed  by  a  too  careful  government.  Their  statements  were 
substantiated  by  the  large  sums  which  had  already  been  subscribed 
in  London  towards  the  new  Company.  Even  some  of  their  own 
members  had  been  tempted  to  invest  because  of  the  great  advan- 
tages offered.  In  conclusion  they  declared  that  a  careful 
comparison  of  European  acts  establishing  commercial  companies 
showed  the  Scots  to  have  privileges  equal  to,  or  greater  than, 
those  of  any  other  Company.7 

The  private  merchants  in  like  manner  maintained  that  the 
Act  would  be  prejudicial  to  England  unless  more  liberal  terms 
were  granted  to  the  English  traders.  Apparently  the  merchants 
were  successful  in  using  the  Act  as  a  lever  to  secure  favourable 
Parliamentary  action,  for  on  the  next  day  the  Lords  ordered  that 
all  the  trading  companies  in  London  lay  before  the  House  an 
account  of  their  losses  during  the  past  year.8 

On  December  6th  the  directors  had  their  last  meeting  in 
London,  for  seven  of  the  directors  were  summoned  to  the  bar  of 
the  House,  and  the  Lords  went  into  an  elaborate  investigation  of 
the  affairs  of  the  Company.  The  directors  were  asked  why  they 
had  incorporated  themselves  in  a  company  likely  to  be  prejudicial 
to  England.  They  answered,  innocently  enough,  that  they  had 
not  thought  it  would  be  prejudicial  to  England,  nor  supposed  it  a 
crime  to  be  incorporated  in  Scotland.  Upon  being  asked  for  a 
list  of  the  subscribers  to  the  Company,  they  declared  that  after 
the  subscription  book  was  closed,  it  had  been  given  to  the 
directors  from  Scotland,  whose  names  they  furnished  with  those 
of  the  new  directors.  These  were  now  ordered  to  appear,  the 
Scots  to  bring  with  them  the  subscription  book.  Later  in  the 
day  Paterson,  being  called  in  and  examined,  stated  that  he  had 
been  solicited  in  May  to  give  an  opinion  for  an  act,  that  from 
this  opinion  the  Act  was  drawn,  but  he  did  not  know  what 
measures  were  used  to  secure  its  passage.  The  Lords  suspected 
the  use  of  English  money,  but  could  find  no  trace  of  it.9 

Meantime  the  canny  Scots  had  sent  off  the  subscription  book 
post  haste  to  Scotland.  When  called  before  the  Lords  and  asked 
for  it,  they  stated  that  they  did  not  know  until  Wednesday  that 
it  was  wanted,  and  had  sent  it  away  on  Tuesday.  Then  Roderick 
Mackenzie,  the  secretary,  was  called  in,  but  he  also  declared  that 
he  knew  nothing  of  the  whereabouts  of  the  book.  It  was  all 

iHo.  of  Us.  MSS.,  ii.  14. 

8  Jour.  Ho.  Lets.,  xv.  606. 

gJour.  Ho.  Us.,  xv.  608  ;  Ho.  of  Us.  MSS.,  ii.  4,  5. 


440  Hiram  Bingham 

most  annoying.  One  of  the  delegates  from  Scotland  was  again 
asked  when  he  had  had  the  book  last.  He  answered  that  he  had 
parted  with  it  on  Friday,  when  he  had  given  it  to  his  man  who 
was  now  on  his  way  to  Scotland.10 

On  the  1 2th  the  Lords  heard  the  Commissioners  of  Customs, 
who  observed  that  the  Act  must  necessarily  have  a  fatal  influence 
upon  the  trade,  navigation,  and  revenue  of  England.11  If  it 
could  not  be  repealed,  legal  encouragement  ought  to  be  given  to 
the  English  traders.  They  advised  also  that  Englishmen  be 
discouraged,  under  severe  penalties,  from  having  anything  to  do 
with  the  Company.  They  said  the  English  navigation  acts 
ought  to  protect  the  merchants  from  encroachments,  but  it  might 
be  necessary  for  the  governors  of  the  American  plantations  to 
be  £  awakened  on  this  occasion  to  put  the  aforesaid  laws  into 
vigorous  execution.'  Moreover,  a  certain  number  of  vessels  of 
competent  force  ought  to  be  appointed  to  cruise  on  the  coasts  of 
America  and  elsewhere,  with  instructions  to  seize,  and  bring  in 
as  prizes,  all  such  ships  as  might  be  found  trading  in  contempt  of 
the  aforesaid  laws.12  As  recently  as  October  i6th,  Edward 
Randolph  had  submitted  to  them  an  account  of  the  plantation 
trade,  in  which  he  spoke  of  there  being  already  considerable  illicit 
trade  with  Scotland.13  This  would,  doubtless,  increase  under 
the  Act,  unless  special  measures  were  taken  to  check  it. 

Following  the  Commissioners  of  Customs,  came  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  East  India  Company  with  another  paper  urging 
that  the  best  way  to  prevent  inconveniences  to  English  trade  was 
to  establish  their  company  by  an  Act  of  Parliament,  which  should 
grant  such  privileges  and  immunities  as  were  necessary.  In 
opposition  to  this  request  for  a  monopoly,  came  Mr.  Gardner,  a 
private  merchant,  who  suggested  that  trade  be  made  more  open 
instead  of  less  so.  He  also  urged  that  the  duty  on  East  India 
goods  be  refunded  on  exportation,  that  no  persons  residing  in 
England  or  Ireland  be  allowed  to  be  concerned  in  the  Scots 
Company,  that  all  Scots  ships  putting  into  any  English  port  be 
heavily  mulcted  before  being  allowed  to  sail,  and  that  the  Scots 
receive  no  relief  or  assistance  from  any  of  the  English  colonies. 
This  last  suggestion  was  destined  to  be  secretly  adopted  by  the 
Government,  and  to  have  dire  consequences  for  the  unfortunate 
10  Ho.  of  Ids.  MSS.,  ii.  6,  15,  17  ;  Jour.  Ho.  Ids.,  xv.  610. 
uHo.ofLds.MSS.,n.  17. 

12  Ho.  ofUs.MSS.,\\.  17. 

13  State  Papers  Colonial,  America  and  West  Indies,  xv.  71. 


Early   History  of  Scots  Darien  Company    441 

colony  at  Darien.  The  Royal  African  Company  also  presented 
another  paper  in  which  they  urged  the  granting  of  larger  privi- 
leges by  the  English  Parliament.  They  too  conceived  that  the 
only  way  to  prevent  great  mischiefs  was  to  establish  a  company 
with  exclusive  rights,  i.e.  a  monopoly.14  The  Lords  did  not  at 
present  take  the  hint  about  granting  the  English  traders  larger 
privileges.  Instead  they  voted  to  present  an  address  to  the  King, 
representing  to  him  '  the  great  prejudice,  inconveniences,  and 
mischiefs '  the  Act  might  bring  to  the  trade  of  England.15 

By  a  curious  coincidence — or  was  it  something  more — on  this 
very  day  the  Commons  resolved  that  for  the  more  effectual  pre- 
servation of  English  trade,  a  f  council  of  trade '  ought  to  be 
established  by  Act  of  Parliament.16  This  was  known  later  as  the 
Board  of  Trade.  It  is  impossible  to  prove  any  connection 
between  the  investigation  into  the  inconveniences  arising  from 
the  Scots  Act,  and  the  establishment  of  the  famous  Board  of 
Trade.  But  one  cannot  help  feeling  that  the  great  interest  which 
the  Scots  Company  aroused  in  matters  relating  to  trade  was  a 
considerable  factor  in  the  Board's  establishment  just  at  this 
time.17 

On  the  next  day,  the  i3th  December,  the  Address  was  con- 
sidered and  agreed  to,  and  a  message  sent  to  the  Commons 
desiring  their  concurrence.183  In  the  manuscript  minutes  of  the 
House  of  Lords  for  this  date  there  is  this  entry :  '  Moved  that 
a  day  may  be  appointed  to  receive  what  may  be  proposed  in  order 
to  have  union  between  England  and  Scotland.' 18  Already  clear- 
headed men  saw  that  the  only  real  remedy  for  the  inconveniences 
arising  from  the  Act  was  a  union  of  the  two  realms,  but  in  the 
present  excited  condition  of  the  Lords  such  a  suggestion  was  not 
likely  to  meet  with  any  consideration.  The  entry  was  cancelled. 

On  December  i4th  the  Address  was  considered  in  the  Com- 
mons, and  agreed  to  without  discussion.  It  is  rather  curious 
that  hitherto  they  had  taken  no  formal  notice  of  the  Scots  Com- 
pany. It  might  have  been  supposed  that  they  would  have  been 
the  first  to  take  cognizance  of  this  danger  to  English  trade.19 

14  Ho.  of  Us.  MSS.,  ii.  17  to  19.  ™  Jour.  Ho.  Ids.,  xv.  610. 

"-16  Jour.  Ho.  Com.,  xi.  359  ;  Narcissus  Luttrell,  Brief  Historical  Relation,  iii.  560, 
563- 

17  Leopold  von  Ranke,  Hist,  of  England,  v.  104. 

180  Ho.  of  Us.  MSS.,  ii.  6;  Jour.  Ho.  Us.,  xv.  6n. 

18  Ho.  of  Us.  MSS.,  ii.  6. 

19  Jour.  Ho.  Com.,  xi.  361  to  363  ;  Jour.  Ho.  Us.,  xv.  613. 

2F 


442  Hiram  Bingham 

However  on  the  i6th  the  Lords  were  notified  that  the  Commons 
agreed  to  the  Address.  On  the  lyth,  between  three  and  four 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  the  Lords  and  Commons  went  in  a 
body  to  present  it  to  the  King  at  Kensington.20 

Their  Address  represented  that  by  the  Act  Scotland  would  be 
made  a  free  port  for  East  Indian  commodities,  and  would  take 
England's  place  in  supplying  Europe.  London  trade  and 
English  revenue  would  both  be  undermined  by  the  smuggling 
in  of  cheap  goods  across  the  border.  Trade  in  American  com- 
modities also  would  be  lost.  It  was  pointed  out  that  the  naval 
power  of  England  had  been  promised  to  support  the  Company 
and  make  reprisals.  They  feared  this  might  lead  even  to  the 
destruction  of  English  commerce. 

The  King's  reply  was  dignified  and  satisfactory :  1 1  have  been 
ill-served  in  Scotland,  but  I  hope  some  remedies  may  be  found 
to  prevent  the  inconveniences  which  may  arise  from  this  Act.'  21 
It  was  undoubtedly  true  that  the  King  had  known  nothing  of  the 
Act  until  some  time  after  it  had  been  touched  with  the  sceptre  by 
his  Commissioner  and  had  become  law.  As  only  two  weeks  had 
elapsed  between  the  time  when  the  Act  was  first  presented  to  the 
Scots  Parliament  and  the  date  when  it  became  law,  there  was  small 
chance  that  the  King,  then  on  the  Continent  conducting  the  war 
against  the  French,  could  have  heard  of  it.  He  had  particularly 
instructed  his  Commissioner,  when  directing  him  to  promote 
trade,  to  forward  any  act  that  might  be  passed  for  this  purpose, 
before  giving  it  the  royal  assent.22 

This  had  not  been  done  in  the  case  of  the  Company's  Act.  Nc 
wonder  the  King  felt  that  he  had  been  c  ill-served.'  The  reply, 
however,  was  sufficiently  oracular  to  be  taken  in  more  than  01 
way.  The  Lords  believed  that  traitorous  English  gold  had  be< 
used  to  secure  the  passage  of  the  Act.  So  the  Scots  were  willing 
enough  to  believe  that  William  thought  so  too,  and  referred  to 
bribery  when  he  said  *  ill-served.'  23 

Soon  after  his  attention  had  been  called  to  the  Act,  the  King 
turned  out  both  of  his  Secretaries  of  State  for  Scotland.24  Th( 

20  Jour.  Ho.  Lets.,  xv.  615;  Jour.  Ho.  Com.,  xi.   364,   365;  Narcissus  Luttrell, 
Brief  Historical  Relation,  iii.  562. 

21  Jour.  Ho.  Ids.,  xv.  615.  22  Acts  Par/.  Scot.,  IX.  App.  p.  126,  Note. 
23  An  Enquiry  into  the  Causes  of  the  Miscarriage  of  the  Scots  Colony  at  Darien. 

Glasgow,  1700,  pp.  14-15. 

24 Narcissus    Luttrell,   Brief  Historical  Relation,   iii.    567;    iv.    i,   5,    12,   17 
Burnett,  History  of  His  Own  Times,  ii.  162. 


Early  History  of  Scots  Darien  Company    443 

were  sacrificed  to  English  jealousy.  The  King's  Lord  High 
Commissioner,  the  Marquis  of  Tweeddale,  who  had  touched  the 
Act  with  the  sceptre,  thus  giving  it  the  King's  approval  and  the 
force  of  law,  was  also  turned  out.25  The  effect  of  this  policy 
was  to  stir  up  the  Jacobites  to  renewed  activity.  They  were 
given  an  opportunity  to  embarrass  King  William,  which  they  were 
not  slow  to  make  use  of.  It  was  to  be  their  aim  from  now  on  to 
secure  the  success  of  this  Company,  which  was  sure  to  be  a  thorn 
in  the  side  of  their  unloved  monarch. 

But  to  return  to  the  Parliamentary  investigation ;  for  the 
Lords  did  not  stop  with  the  address,  but  continued  their 
hearings.  The  West  India  merchants  presented  a  paper  in  which 
they  stated  that  they  did  not  believe  the  Scots  Act  would  affect 
them  at  present.  As  remedies  they  suggested  freedom  of  trade, 
or  that  if  the  Scots  did  make  any  settlement  in  the  West  Indies, 
the  English  duties  be  entirely  repaid  upon  export.  The  Lee- 
ward Island  merchants  offered  as  their  opinion,  in  addition  to 
suggestions  already  proposed,  that  by  encouraging  the  trade  to 
India  greater  quantities  of  goods  would  be  imported,  which 
would  so  reduce  prices  as  to  discourage  the  Scots  from  seeking 
that  trade.26  Apparently  they  had  no  idea  that  the  Scots  would 
one  day  be  sending  an  expedition  to  their  part  of  the  world.  In 
fact  their  influence  was  entirely  lent  to  the  cause  of  the  London 
East  India  merchants,  who  were  doubtless  responsible  for  having 
their  memorial  printed  with  a  few  slight  alterations,  under  the 
title :  '  Some  Remedies  to  Prevent  the  Mischiefs  from  the  late 
Act  of  Parliament  made  in  Scotland,  in  relation  to  the  East-India 
trade.'  (London?  169 5.)  27 

The  Levant  Company's  memorial  contained  no  new  sugges- 
tions, but  reinforced  the  others  in  proposing  the  prohibition  of 
English  subjects  joining  with  the  Scots  and  the  encouragement 
of  English  trade  in  those  parts  of  the  world  to  which  the  Act  had 
particular  relation,  i.e.  Africa  and  the  Indies,  East  and  West.28 

On  the  2oth  of  December  the  House  of  Lords  took  up  the 
while  matter  in  extenso.  After  reading  all  the  various  memorials, 
definite  proposals  were  considered  looking  toward  the  following 
objects :  the  prohibition  of  Englishmen  joining  the  Scots ;  the 
establishment  of  the  East  India  Company  by  act  of  Parliament ; 
25 MS.  State  Papers  Scotland,  W.  B.,  xvi.  280,  281. 

26  Ho.  of  Ids.  MSS.,  ii.  20. 

27  The  only  known  copy  is  in  the  British  Museum. 

o.  of  Ids.  MSS.,  ii.  21. 


444  Hiram  Bingham 

the  special  taxation  of  Scots  ships  entering  English  ports ;  and 
the  enforcement  of  the  navigation  acts  in  the  American  planta- 
tions.29 It  was  decided  to  proceed  with  a  first  draft  of  bills  for 
carrying  out  these  propositions,  but  interest  in  them  flagged  and 
none  of  them  were  passed.30  So  far  as  the  Lords  were  concerned, 
the  nine  days'  wonder  was  over,  and  their  attention  was  now 
centred  on  quite  another  subject,  the  state  of  the  coin.  The 
hope  of  the  East  India  Company  that  the  interest  aroused  by  the 
Scots  Act  might  redound  to  their  peculiar  advantage  was  not 
destined  to  be  fulfilled ;  although  it  was  ordered  together  with 
other  merchants  to  offer  the  Lords  suggestions  for  an  act  for  a 
chartered  company.  They  replied  by  pointing  out  that  the  late 
act  passed  in  Scotland  left  nothing  to  be  desired  as  a  model ;  they 
could  not  suggest  a  better  precedent.31  Both  Lords  and  Com- 
mons seemed  to  favour  establishing  the  East  India  Company 
by  Act  of  Parliament  as  a  means  of  defeating  the  efforts  of  the 
Scots.  But  towards  the  end  of  the  session  the  matter  was  deferred 
for  a  year,  because  the  Government  feared  that  the  increased 
opportunity  for  investment  which  would  arise  from  the  estab- 
lishment of  such  a  large  stock  company  as  was  proposed  would 
interfere  with  the  Treasury's  plans  for  raising  money  to  carry 
on  the  war  with  France.32 

The  investigation,  however,  was  not  without  certain  definite 
results.  One  was  to  instigate  the  Commissioners  of  Customs 
to  send  the  governors  of  all  the  plantations  in  America  a  circular 
letter  regarding  the  enforcement  of  the  navigation  acts  with 
especial  reference  to  the  Scots  Company.  This  letter,  after  call- 
ing attention  to  the  passing  of  the  Act,  its  tendency  to  discourage 
the  trade  and  navigation  of  England,  its  consideration  by  the 
Lords,  and  the  address  to  the  King,  declared  that  if  the  Scots 
settled  in  America  English  commerce  there  would  be  utterly  lost. 
With  the  letter  were  sent  copies  of  the  Act,  the  Address  and  the 
Answer  to  it  as  the  best  means  of  inciting  them  to  execute  vigor- 
ously the  laws  of  England  for  the  security  of  the  plantation 
trade.  Further,  the  Governors  were  requested  to  see  that  the 
customs  officers  performed  their  duties  and  gave  strict  account 
of  every  ship  trading  within  their  districts,  guarding  particularly 
against  allowing  any  to  pass  to  or  from  Scotland.  Finally  they 

29  Ho.  of  Us.  MSS.,  ii.  6. 

80  Jour.  Ho.  Lds.,  xv.  618  to  619. 

31  Jour.  Ho.  Ids.,  xv.  639 ;  Ho.  of  Ids.  MSS.,  ii.  30. 

32  Bruce,  dnnals  of  the  East  India  Company,  iii.  201,  202. 


Early  History  of  Scots  Darien  Company    445 

were  reminded  of  the  penalties  which  followed  breaking  the 
navigation  acts.33 

Another  result  was  that  the  Commissioners  of  Customs  were 
ordered  by  the  Lords  to  render  an  account  of  the  exports  and 
imports  for  the  past  three  years,  a  larger  undertaking  than  the 
Commissioners  cared  to  assume,  for  they  estimated  that  such  a 
report  could  not  be  performed  in  less  than  a  year  and  a  half,  even 
with  a  dozen  extra  clerks  working  constantly  on  it. 

An  indirect  result  of  the  investigation  was  a  general  over- 
hauling of  the  Admiralty,  who  were  asked  to  show  why  so  many 
difficulties  had  been  put  in  the  way  of  English  commerce.34  In 
fact,  the  excitement  and  interest  aroused  in  high  quarters  by  the 
Act  was  used  by  the  English  merchants  in  every  possible  way  for 
their  advantage. 

The  attention  of  the  Commons  had  been  called  to  the  subject 
when  the  Address  was  sent  for  their  concurrence  on  the  iyth  of 
December.  They  had  then  appointed  a  committee  to  examine 
into  the  methods  taken  for  obtaining  the  Act,  and  to  discover 
particularly  whether  corruption  had  been  practised  in  promoting 
it.35  Their  interest  waned  and  the  matter  dropped  for  a  time, 
although  the  committee  carried  on  its  investigations.  The  chief 
interest  of  the  Commons  was  in  the  state  of  the  coin  and  the 
clipped  money.  Minor  annoyances  also  engrossed  their  atten- 
tion.36 They  even  took  the  trouble  to  order  that  the  constables 
of  Westminster  see  to  it  that  the  passages  in  or  about  Westmin- 
ster Hall  be  kept  free  of  chairmen  and  coachmen,  who  were 
accustomed  to  stop  and  annoy  members  of  the  House,  and  that 
the  postmaster  attending  the  House  should  not  deliver  letters  to 
members  while  the  House  was  sitting.  In  the  meantime  the 
East  India  Company,  fearing  that  the  Commons  might  forget 
that  the  Scots  Company  still  existed,  petitioned  on  the  2oth  of 
January,  1696,  stating  that  several  ships  were  being  fitted  out 
in  the  Thames  for  the  East  Indies  by  persons  whom  they  believed 
to  be  subscribers  to  the  Scots  Company.37  At  all  events  applica- 
tion had  been  made  to  the  directors  of  the  Company,  who  were 
then  in  London,  for  permission  to  trade  in  the  East  Indies  under 

33  Jan.  9,  1696  ;  Ho.  of  Ids.  MSS.,  ii.  23  and  481-3. 

34  Jour.  Ho.  Ids.,  xv.  613. 

35  Jour.  Ho.  Com.,  x.  365. 
36/&V.,  xi.  367. 

37  Jour.  Ho.  Com.,  xi.  398  ;  Richard  Edge  to  Roger  Kenyon,  Hist.  MSS.  Com., 
XIV.  iv.  396. 


446  Hiram  Bingham 

the  privileges  of  the  Act.38  Accordingly  the  Commons  ordered 
the  aforementioned  committee  to  make  its  report,  which  it  did 
on  the  following  day,  presenting  with  it  copies  of  the  oath  de 
fideli  and  the  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  the  London 
directors.39 

During  their  sittings  the  committee  had  examined  Roderick 
Mackenzie,  who,  as  might  be  expected,  gave  them  little  satis- 
factory information.  He  had  heard,  to  be  sure,  that  the  fees 
for  passing  the  Act  amounted  to  .£150,  but  he  knew  nothing 
positive  about  it  as  he  was  only  the  secretary,  and  had  little  to  do 
with  the  finances  of  the  Company.  The  report  also  includes  an 
examination  of  Paterson,  who  gave  much  the  same  testimony  as 
at  the  bar  of  the  House  of  Lords.  Other  directors  had  been 
examined,  who  made  the  best  excuses  they  could.  None,  of 
course,  knew  anything  about  the  passage  of  the  Act,  nor  how  it 
had  been  secured.  One  confessed  that  he  was  a  member  of  the 
English  East  India  Company,  and  accordingly  had  been  opposed 
to  sending  out  an  interloper.  Another  admitted  that  his  sub- 
scription had  been  obtained  by  a  practice  familiar  to  promoters. 
He  had  been  told,  in  short,  that  if  he  did  not  subscribe  at  once 
there  were  others  who  would  get  the  advantage  which  he  was 
offered  first.40  Upon  hearing  the  committee's  report,  the  oath, 
and  the  transactions  of  the  Company,  the  Commons  became  quite 
excited  and  resolved  that  the  directors  had  committed  a  high 
crime  and  misdemeanour  in  taking  the  oath  de  fideli  and  in  raising 
money  in  England.  It  was  resolved  to  impeach  them,  and  a 
committee  was  appointed  to  prepare  articles  of  impeachment. 

This  committee,  however,  had  difficulty  in  getting  evidence. 
Roderick  Mackenzie  refused  to  testify,  and,  on  the  request  of 
the  committee,  was  ordered  by  the  House  to  be  taken  into  the 
custody  of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms.  But  he  successfully  eluded 
the  search  officers.  Accordingly,  on  the  8th  of  February,  the 
House  moved  to  ask  the  King  for  a  proclamation  for  apprehending 
the  unfortunate  secretary.41  This  was  issued  on  the  i3th,  but 
he  could  not  be  found.42  He  was  in  hiding  in  London  hoping 
to  be  called  to  Edinburgh.  His  absence  put  the  committee  at 

38  MS.  East  India  Co.  Court  Book  No.  37,  Folio  46*,  and  MS.  East  India  Co. 
Letters  Out,  p.  78. 

39  Jour.  Ho.  Com.,  xi.  400.       40  Ibid.,  xi.  400-407.       41  Jour.  Ho.  Com.,  xi.  436. 

42  The  only  known  copy  of  this  proclamation  was  sold  at  auction  in  London 
last  year  for  one  guinea. 


Early  History  of  Scots  Darien  Company    447 

a  great  disadvantage,  for  he  was  almost  the  only  person  who 
might  be  made  to  give  the  evidence  they  desired. 

By  this  time,  however,  it  was  felt  that  the  Scots  Company  had 
been  effectually  demolished  and  that  further  Parliamentary  action 
would  only  add  unnecessarily  to  the  growing  irritation  in  Scot- 
land over  the  insults  that  had  been  offered  her  Parliament  and 
her  citizens.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  House  of  Lords 
had  believed  and  tried  to  prove  that  the  passage  of  the  Act  had 
been  obtained  by  bribery,  and,  furthermore,  had  summoned  to 
its  bar  the  delegates  from  Edinburgh,  who  included  the  popular 
Lord  Belhaven.  This  action  and  the  King's  dismissal  of  his 
secretaries,  who  were  well  liked  in  Scotland,  greatly  irritated  the 
country.43  The  attention  of  England  was  diverted  to  another 
subject :  the  discovery  of  the  plot  against  the  King's  life.44 
Altogether  it  was  deemed  best  to  let  the  matter  drop.  So  the 
committee  never  reported,  and  no  articles  of  impeachment  were 
ever  presented. 

Further  action  was  in  fact  unnecessary.45  Parliament  had 
succeeded  in  frightening  the  Company  out  of  England ;  the 
English  subscribers  were  only  too  glad  to  withdraw  their  sub- 
scriptions ;  it  was  doubted  whether  the  Scots  could  do  much  by 
themselves,  although  nothing  could  be  done  to  prevent  their 
trying. 

The  history  of  the  Company  would  have  been  far  different  had 
Parliament  allowed  it  to  have  the  benefit  of  English  capital  and 
experience.  It  was  the  intention  of  Paterson  and  the  promoters 
to  create  an  essentially  British  concern.  Both  the  stock  and  the 
directorate  were  to  be  equally  divided  between  England  and 
Scotland.  But  the  action  of  the  English  Parliament  resulted  in 
making  the  enterprise  thoroughly  Scottish.  The  Scots,  insulted 
and  thrown  on  their  own  resources,  were  incited  to  hurl  themselves 
headlong  into  an  undertaking  far  greater  than  was  warranted  by 
the  extent  of  their  capital  or  the  experience  of  their  merchants. 
Although  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  Scots  would  have  been  will- 
ing to  allow  the  headquarters  of  the  Company  to  remain  long  in 
London,  the  English  subscribers  would  undoubtedly  have  made 
strenuous  and  probably  successful  efforts  to  prevent  the  Company 
from  embarking  on  such  a  foolish  enterprise  as  the  Darien 

43  An  Enquiry  into  the  Causes  of  the  Miscarriage  of  the  Scots  Colony  at  Darien, 
p.  3  ;  Narcissus  Luttrell,  Brief  Historical  Relation,  iii.  535. 

44  Narcissus  Luttrell,  Brief  Historical  Relation,  iv.  21. 

45  Richard  Edge  to  Roger  Kenyon,  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  XIV.  iv.  366. 


448     Early  History  of  Scots  Darien  Company 

Scheme.  The  Company  would  have  carried  on  trade  with  Africa 
and  the  Indies,  and  had  a  comparatively  uneventful  career.  But 
the  English  Parliament  had  now  endowed  it  with  the  enthusiastic 
backing  of  the  whole  Scottish  nation.46  Its  support  became  a 
matter  of  national  honour,  and  its  history  was  destined  to  be 
tragic  rather  than  commonplace.47 

HIRAM  BINGHAM. 

46  <  'Twas  the  notice  the  parliament  of  Ingland  first  took  of  it  made  the  wholl 
nation  throng  in  to  have  some  share,  and  I'm  of  opinion  the  resentments  people 
are  acted  by,  are  the  greatest  supplys  that  furnishes  life  to  that  affaire.' — Adam 
Cockburn,  Lord  Justice  Clerk,  to  Lord  Tullibardine,  1 8  Dec.,  1697,  Hist.  MSS. 
Commission,  XII.  vii.  58. 

47  J.  Hill  Burton,  History  of  Scotland,  1897,  viii.  19-28. 


The  Pentland  Rising  and  the  Battle  of  Rullion 

Green 

THE  following  letter — extracted  from  the  collection  of  the 
Carte  MSS.  in  the  Bodleian  library — must  of  course  be 
read  in  connection  with  Mr.  Sandford  Terry's  detailed  study  of 
the  Pentland  Rising  and  the  battle  of  Rullion  Green,  and  is 
published  as  a  supplement,  not  a  criticism,  of  that  work.  The 
first  result  of  a  close  comparison  of  the  two  is  an  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  historical  insight  that  has  produced  out  of 
complex  (and  sometimes  conflicting)  evidence  a  narrative  which 
a  document  so  important  as  the  official  despatch  of  the  King's 
Major-General  does,  substantially,  nothing  but  confirm. 

The  main  facts  of  General  Drummond's  career  are  already 
known :  that  he  was  a  cadet  of  the  Madertie  branch  of  the 
family — that  he  supported  the  Royalist  cause  both  in  England^ 
where  he  was  imprisoned  after  Worcester,  and  in  Scotland,  where 
he  was  an  emissary  from  Charles  II.  to  the  uneasy  forces  under 
Glencairn.  Mews,  the  Royalist  agent  and  reporter,  says  that 
without  him  the  adventure  would  have  come  to  an  even  speedier 
end  than  it  found  at  Lochgarry  in  1654 — he  being  'not  only  a 
good  soldier,  but  a  sober  rationall  man,'  in  which  case,  as  Mews 
said,  he  would  have  been  an  f  extraordinary  losse '  to  that 
company.  He  had  some  personal  intercourse  with  Cromwell,, 
and  Charles,  at  all  events  in  exile,  was  his  '  affectionate  friend.' 
After  the  failure  of  the  rising  he  found  employment  with  Dalziel 
in  the  foreign  levies  of  the  Czar  Michaelovitch,  and  returned  with 
that  officer  to  Scotland  in  1665,  bringing  with  him  several  of  the 
distinctions — and,  Bishop  Burnet  thought,  too  many  of  the 
methods — of  Russian  military  service.  He  was  appointed  Major- 
General  of  the  new  Scotch  forces,  and  one  of  his  earliest  duties 
was  to  take  the  field  with  Dalziel's  van  for  the  reduction  of  the 
rebellious  Covenanters  in  the  south-west. 

Mr.  Terry's  survey  of  the  march  is  based  on  abundant  evi- 
dence— from  Wallace,  who  commanded  the  insurgents,  from 

449 


45°  M.   Sidgwick 

Veitch,  who  served  in  their  ranks,  from  James  Turner,  who  was 
throughout  a  prisoner  in  their  hands.  Drummond  himself  was 
aware  that  the  enemy  had  the  better  of  him  in  the  matter  of 
scouting  intelligence — and  his  own  was  notably  accurate.  His 
report  only  confirms  Turner's  praise  of  the  marching  quality  of 
Wallace's  foot,  since  it  appears  that  he  was  all  through  even 
further  behind  than  was  believed.  He  was  at  Strathaven  not,  as 
Wallace  asserts,  on  the  night  of  the  24th  of  November,  but  of  the 
25th,  to  which  date  a  despatch  from  the  Scotch  Privy  Council  to 
the  Commissioner  Rothes  (Lauderdale  Papers,  i.  246)  bears 
independent  witness.  His  foot  crossed  Lanark  ford  on  the 
night,  not  the  morning,  of  the  26th,  and  on  the  following 
morning,  when  Blackwood  reported  him  to  Wallace  as  c  not 
nearer  than  Calder,  if  there,'  he  was  in  fact  marching  out  of  his 
Lanark  quarters.  { Calder  Torphicens  hous,'  where  Charles 
Maitland  told  his  brother  Lauderdale  they  rested  the  night  of  the 
2 yth,  becomes  in  Drummond's  letter  '  tarfichens  hather,'  and 
Bathgate  has  a  somewhat  similar  (but  obscure)  suffix. 

As  to  the  battle  Mr.  Terry  appears  to  have  steered  a  middle 
course  among  the  various  accounts  of  witnesses  with  differing 
sympathies,  capabilities,  and  points  of  vision,  and  between  his 
version  and  Drummond's, — which  yielded  perhaps  to  official 
restraints — there  is  no  serious  discrepancy.  The  general  outline 
seems  to  be  that  after  the  repulse  of  Drummond's  fore  party 
there  were  three  separate  attacks  by  Dalziel's  right  wing — the  two 
first  unfavourable  to  him — the  third  so  successful  that  he  seized 
the  occasion  to  engage  his  left — and  by  a  simultaneous  advance 
of  his  whole  line  beat  in  the  enemy's  horse  upon  their  foot  and 
routed  them,  the  darkness  alone  staying  his  pursuit.  The 
accounts  of  the  two  leaders,  Wallace  and  Drummond,  agree  well 
together,  down  to  details  such  as  the  hand-to-hand  fight  with 
swords  in  the  first  main  attack,  and  the  incautious  advance  of 
Wallace's  right  wing  of  horse  after  the  third.  Maitland  of 
Halton,  though  apt  to  be  impulsive  in  his  figures,  agrees  in 
outlines.  Where  he  differs  we  may  take  it  that  the  general  was 
right.  Halton  was  an  officer  and  a  gentleman,  and  wrote  (and 
spelt)  as  such.  Drummond  was  an  old  campaigner  and  a  man  of 
letters — (his  funeral  sermon  compares  him  favourably  with 
Agricola,  Cato,  Epaminondas,  and  Julius  Caesar  Scaliger) — and 
his  despatch  is  both  business-like  and  picturesque.  In  one  point 
he  corrects  the  accepted  version.  Dalziel's  loss  was  evidently  less 
trivial  than  was  supposed — a  fact  which  might  have  consoled  the 


The  Pentland  Rising  451 

Covenanters  in  the  hardships  of  their  flight.  It  is  noticeable  that 
the  very  phrase  about  '  cashiered  preachers '  to  which  Wodrow 
takes  exception  in  the  accounts  of  various  English  historians 
occurs  at  the  end  of  this  letter,  which  may  have  been  the  official 
source  of  the  error — pleasantly  termed  a  '  plain  falsehood  '  by 
Wodrow.  M.  SIDGWICK. 


Carte  MSS.  Ixxii.  f.  iii. 

Letter  from  Major-General  William  Drummond  to  Lord  Rothes. 

Pentland  Novemb'  2 9th   1666 
May  it  please  yor  Grce 

I  beg  you  be  not  offended  for  my  soe  long  silence,  for  I  had 
noe  resolucon  to  write  that  wch  would  only  have  vexed  you,  nor  could  I 
untill  this  time  free  you  from  the  anxiety  that  I  am  sure  troubled  yor  heart, 
&  that  yor  Grce  might  know  pfectly  all  Our  proceedings,  I  shall  begin  at  Our 
March  &  give  you  a  short  ace1  of  all  passages  untill  this  day ;  Upon  Sunday 
the  1 8th  Inst.  Our  march  began  from  all  Our  severall  Quarters  &  upon 
tuesday  the  2Oth  wee  met  att  Glasco,  wee  spent  Wednesday  in  preparacons 
for  what  wee  wanted,  whereof  Bandeliers  was  a  cheif  defect ;  and  in  consultacons 
with  My  Lord  Glasco  &  ye  other  Noblemen  who  Comanded,  thursday  the 
22th  the  horse  watched  killmarnock  &  the  foot  upon  friday  at  Much  adoe,  there 
wee  understood  that  the  rebells  were  convened  at  Machlin  with  all  their 
force  &  a  resolucon  to  fight  us,  they  had  been  in  Air  &  taken  about  200 
Armes  of  all  sorts  out  of  the  tolbooth,  wch  had  been  formerly  gathered  out  of 
ye  Countrey  when  it  was  disarmed,  all  the  Gentlemens  houses  they  searched 
for  horses  &  armes  And  (I  beleive)  found  diverse  ready  to  their  hands,  wch  must 
bee  judged  as  taken  by  force.  Saturday  the  24th  wee  came  to  Machlin,  the 
rebells  were  gone  to  Comnock  &  from  thence  to  the  Moor  kirk  of  kyll  &  to 
Douglas,  wee  judged  &  not  amisse  that  they  designed  for  Oltsdale  (Clydesdale  ?) 
Hanylton  &  Glasco  &  there  upon  Sunday  took  a  neerer  way  to  stop  that 
course  &  marched  through  Evendal  to  Streven  (Strathaven),  where  wee  had 
notice  that  they  were  at  Lathmahago  (Lesmahagow)  but  4  miles  from  us, 
that  Sunday  they  knowing  of  us  as  they  used  to  have  quick  Intelligence  of 
Our  motions  in  a  Countrey  of  their  owne  freinds  disaffected  to  us,  they  passed 
the  river  Clyde  to  Lenricke  (Lanark),  their  foot  in  2  boates  wch  Imediately 
they  sunk,  &  forded  with  their  horses  not  wthout  danger,  the  river  being  great. 
Upon  Monday  the  26th  Our  fore  partie  had  a  view  of  ym  on  the  rivers  syde  over 
agst  us,  as  if  they  meant  to  forbid  Our  passage,  but  when  Our  body  of  horse 
began  to  appeare,  they  marched  of  &  kept  a  lusty  rearguard  with  more  order  then 
could  have  been  hoped  from  them,  wee  past  the  ford  instantly  deep  &  strong, 
wch  made  us  very  doubtfull  whither  it  was  wadable  by  the  foot  &  followed 
them  4  miles  on  their  reare,  but  in  regard  of  the  distance  from  Our  foot 
&  approach  of  ye  night,  could  not  with  any  reason  engage  with  them,  wee 
gott  over  the  foot  that  night  with  much  danger  but  not  one  lost,  tuesday 
wee  followed  the  rebells  track  for  8  miles  through  a  black  mosse  &  marking 
their  way  to  make  for  huhghgour  (?),  wee  were  affrayed  of  Edenburgh  & 
bent  Our  course  to  tarfichens  hather(?),  the  rebells  had  marched  on  Monday 
from  Lenrick  to  Bathkt  Huhthgour  (Bathgate ?)  &  were  at  Collintone 


452  The  Pentland  Rising 

2  Myles  from  Edenburgh,  on  Tuesday  the  27*  by  midday  to  Our  admiration 
whatever  their  designe  or  invitacon  was  for  soe  desperate  a  March  they  found 
their  plot  p'vented,  wee  judged  rightly  they  would  gett  of  to  Bigger,  &  betook 
us  to  fall  in  their  way,  going  over  the  Pentland  Hills  at  Currie,  Our  fore 
party  of  about  loo  horse  discovered  them  on  their  march  towards  Linton  the 
bigger  way  near  a  place  called  Glencors  kirk  &  with  great  boldnes  sett  upon 
them,  &  endured  the  danger  to  face  all  their  strength,  horse  &  foot,  untill 
Our  Cavalry  farre  behind  came  up  &  that  spent  near  2  houres,  Soe  had  God 
blinded  these  fooles  to  neglect  their  advantage,  Our  party  being  in  a  ground 
whence  they  could  not  come  of,  Some  sharpe  charges  past  in  this  time,  wch  the 
rebells  gave  &  received  with  desperate  resolucon  to  Our  prejudice,  at  last 
Our  horse  comes  on  &  gave  breathing  to  that  weary  party,  but  Our  foot 
was  yet  4  miles  from  us,  wee  found  it  convenient  to  draw  from  that  ground 
very  advantageous  for  their  foot,  wch  they  after  much  consideracon  began  to 
imploy  agst  us,  but  wee  prevented  them  &  gott  of  a  little  to  a  better  ground 
where  they  made  a  fashion  to  annoy  us  without  any  gaine,  soe  soon  as  Our 
foot  came  up  wee  put  Ourselves  in  order  &  embattled  in  a  faire  plaine  upon 
their  Noses,  they  upon  the  hill  above  did  the  like  but  gave  us  noe  disturbance 
tho  well  they  might,  by  this  time  the  sun  was  sett,  wee  must  make  haste 
and  advanced  a  partie  of  horse  &  foot  from  Our  right  hand  to  assault  their 
left  wing  of  horse  wch  instantly  came  downe  &  met  them,  &  there  the  work 
began,  wee  fought  obstinately  a  long  time  wth  swords  untill  they  mixed  like 
chessmen  in  a  bag,  wee  advanced  Our  right  wing  &  they  their  left  to  give 
reliefe,  there  againe  it  was  disputed  toughly,  then  came  a  strong  partie  of 
foot  from  their  body  &  forced  our  right  wing  back  to  the  foot  in  some  disorder, 
but  this  was  instantly  rectified,  their  right  wing  of  horse  came  from  their  ground 
foolishly  &  crosses  their  foot,  apprehending  their  left  wing  to  bee  in  distresse, 
wherein  they  were  mistaken  &  soe  gave  our  left  wing  their  Slack,  wch  opportunity 
wee  had  hold  on  &  there  went  their  Cavalrie  in  disorder,  Our  whole  body  then 
advanced  &  beat  in  their  horse  upon  their  foot,  then  confusion  &  flight 
followed,  wee  pursued  in  the  dark,  killed  all  the  foot  &  but  for  the  night 
&  steep  hills  had  wholy  destroyed  them,  Some  prisoners  there  are  fitt  for 
examples,  I  know  not  how  many  but  I  conjecture  not  above  140,  for  there 
was  sound  payment,  Our  losse  I  cannot  tell,  but  it  is  greater  then  many  of  their 
Skins  were  worth,  their  number  was  about  15  or  1600,  &  would  without  doubt 
have  encreased,  if  God  had  not  confounded  their  Imaginacons  &  rebellious 
dispositions,  upon  Monday  the  rebells  swore  the  Covenant  at  Lenrick  &  all 
to  die  in  defence  of  it,  most  of  these  who  led  their  troupes  were  cashiered 
preachers,  now  I  trust  yor  Grce  is  at  ease.  I  am 

Yor  Or™ 

Most  obedient  &  most  humble  Serv' 
W.  DRUMOND. 

Endorsed.  Leter  from  Major  GenrU  Drumond  to  the  E.  of  Rothess  of  the 
defeat  of  the  Rebells  in  Scotland.  29  Nov.  66.  Rec.  4th  Dec.  1666  in 
a  letter  from  the  Ld  Arlington. 


The  c  Scalacronica '  of  Sir  Thomas  Gray 

Tike  Reign  of  Edward  //.,  as  recorded  in  1356  by  Sir 
Thomas  Gray  in  the  c  Scalacronica^  and  now  trans- 
lated by  the  Right  Hon.  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell, 
Bart. 

AFTER  the  death  of  Edward  the  First  after  the  Conquest, 
his  son,  Edward  the  Second,  reigned  in  great  tribulation 
and  adversity.  He  was  not  industrious,  neither  was  he  beloved 
by  the  great  men  of  his  realm  ;  albeit  he  was  liberal  in  giving, 
and  amiable  far  beyond  measure  towards  those  whom  he  loved 
and  exceedingly  sociable  with  his  intimates.  Also,  in  person 
he  was  one  of  the  most  powerful  men  in  his  realm.  He  took 
to  wife  Isabel,  daughter  of  Philip  le  Beau,  King  of  France,  whom  MS. 
he  married  at  Amiens  and  brought  to  England,  where  they  were  fo.  206 
crowned  in  London  with  great  solemnity.  Then  the  king  and 
his  said  wife  Isabel  passed  again  into  France,  to  Paris,  to  treat 
of  his  affairs  in  Gascony,  when  the  said  King  Edward  enter- 
tained the  said  King  of  France  at  Saint-Germain-en-Pres,  which 
feast  was  greatly  spoken  of  at  the  time. 

At  which  time  it  was  reported  to  the  said  King  Philip  of 
France  that  the  wives  of  his  sons  had  misbehaved.  He  had 
three  sons — Philip,  Louis,  and  Charles — by  his  wife  the  daughter 
of  the  King  of  Navarre  (by  whose  inheritance  he  was  King  of 
Navarre),  the  mother  of  which  wife  was  married  to  Edmund, 
brother  of  Edward  the  First  of  England,  after  the  Conquest, 
by  whom  he  begot  Thomas  and  Henry,  afterwards  Earls  of 
Lancaster.  He  [King  Philip]  also  had  one  daughter,  this  same 
Isabel,  Queen  of  England.  He  was  informed,  then,  that  the 
said  ladies  [his  daughters-in-law]  had  committed  adultery  par 
amours  with  knights  of  his  Court,  which  thing  weighed  heavily 
upon  his  heart.  Wherefore,  after  the  departure  of  the  said  King 
of  England,  the  said  King  of  France  enquired  of  Philip  Dawnay, 
an  old  knight  of  his  Council,  what  should  be  done  to  those  who 

453 


454  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,  Bart. 

had  intrigued  with  the  wives  of  the  king's  sons  and  princes  oF 
the  blood  royal  of  France. 

*  Sire,'  replied  the  worthy  gentleman,1  *  they  deserve  to  be 
flayed  alive.' 

'Thou  hast  pronounced  judgment,'  said  the  king  to  him;, 
'they  are  your  own  two  sons,  who  shall  suffer  the  punishment 
according  to  your  judgment.' 2 

One  of  them  was  condemned  immediately ;  the  other  escaped 
to  England,  but  was  taken  at  York  and  sent  back  to  the  said 
King  of  France,  for  which  the  King  of  England  received 
much  blame  from  murmurs  of  the  Commons,  seeing  that 
the  said  knight  had  come  for  succour  to  his  realm.  The  said 
knight  was  flayed  alive  ;  two  of  the  ladies  were  put  to  a  shameful 
death  ;  the  third  was  enclosed  in  a  high  wall  without  meat  or 
drink,  where  she  died. 

It  was  generally  reported  among  the  common  people  that  this 
scandal  was  communicated  to  the  King  of  France  by  his  daughter 
Isabel,  Queen  of  England,  although  this  was  supposed  by  many 
people  to  be  an  untruth.  It  was  judged  and  declared  by 
the  Commons  that,  because  of  this  cruelty,  neither  the  father 
[King  Philip]  nor  the  sons  should  live  long.  The  father  died 
shortly  after.3  His  three  sons  aforesaid  became  Kings  of  France, 
one  after  the  other,  for  a  short  time.  The  eldest  of  them,4  who 
was  King  of  Navarre  during  his  father's  life,  had  no  offspring  5 
but  one  daughter,6  who  afterwards  married  the  Count  of  Evreux, 
and  became  King  of  Navarre  in  right  of  his  said  wife.  The 
second  brother7  had  by  his  wife,  daughter  of  the  Count  of 
Artois,  three  daughters,  who  afterwards  shared  the  succession  to 
Artois.  The  Duke  of  Burgundy  married  one,  the  Count  of 
Flanders  another,  and  the  Lord  of  Faucony  took  the  third  as  his- 
mistress.  Charles,  the  third  brother,8  and  last  to  become  King,, 
died  without  offspring,  whereupon  the  succession  to  France 
should  by  right  have  devolved  upon  Edward  [III.]  of  England,. 

1  Le  prudhom.  2  Com  iuge  auez.     Omitted  in  Maitland  Club  E& 

3  zgth  Nov.,   1314.  4  Louis  X.,  le  Hutin,  d.   5th  June,   1316. 

5  He  had  a  posthumous  son  who  died  an  infant. 

6  Succeeded  as  Joanna  II.,  Queen  of  Navarre,  on  the  death  of  her  brother- 
in-law,  Charles  IV. 

7  Philip  V.  d.   3rd  Jan.,   1322. 

8 Charles    IV.,   le   Beau,   d.    I3th   Jan.,    1328,    last    of  the    Capets.       At    his 
death  the  crowns  of  France  and  Navarre  were  again  separated. 


Edward  II.  in  the  c  Scalacronica '        455 

son  of  Isabel,  sister  of  the  said  three  brothers  and  kings,  as  the 
nearest  heir  male,1  for  at  [the  time  of]  the  decease  of  the  said 
Charles,  their  uncle,  the  last  king  of  the  three  brothers,  the 
daughters  of  the  two  aforesaid  brothers  and  kings  had  no  male 
issue,  wherefore  the  said  Edward,  son  of  Isabel  of  England,  was 
the  nearest  heir  male.  Nevertheless,  as  will  be  recorded  here- 
after, for  want  of  good  advice,  and  because  he  was  young  and 
entangled  with  other  matters,  he  lodged  no  challenge  whatever 
upon  the  death  of  his  uncle  Charles,  so  that  another  collateral,2 
the  son  of  the  uncle  of  the  aforesaid  Charles,3  was  crowned  King 
by  means  of  his  supporters,  especially  of  Robert  of  Artois  (to 
whom  he  was  afterwards  the  greatest  enemy),  because  no  other 
challenged  the  right  at  the  proper  time,  nor  until  a  considerable 
time  after,  as  will  be  recorded  hereafter ;  which  [thing]  is  correct, 
and  ought  to  be  a  notable  thing  and  remembered  everywhere. 

At  this  time  Thomas  de  Gray4  was  warden  of  the  castle  of 
Cupar  and  Fife,6  and  as  he  was  travelling  out  of  England  from 
the  King's  coronation  to  the  said  castle,  Walter  de  Bickerton, 
a  knight  of  Scotland,  who  was  an  adherent  of  Robert  de  Brus, 
having  espied  the  return  of  the  said  Thomas,  placed  himself 
in  ambush  with  more  than  four  hundred  men  by  the  way  the 
said  Thomas  intended  to  pass,  whereof  the  said  Thomas  was 
warned  when  scarcely  half  a  league  from  the  ambush.  He  had 
not  more  than  six-and-twenty  men-at-arms  with  him,  and  per- 
ceived that  he  could  not  avoid  an  encounter.  So,  with  the  approval 
of  his  people,  he  took  the  road  straight  towards  the  ambush, 
having  given  his  grooms  a  standard  and  ordered  them  to  follow 
behind  at  not  too  short  interval. 

The  enemy  mounted  their  horses  and  formed  for  action,  think- 
ing that  they  [the  English]  could  not  escape  from  them.     The    MS. 
said   Thomas,   with   his  people,   who   were   very  well    mounted,  fo.  207 
struck  spurs  to  his  horse,  and  charged  the  enemy  right  in  the 
centre  of  their  column,  bearing  many  to  the  ground  in  his  course 
by  the  shock  of  his  horse  and  lance.     Then,  turning  rein,  came 

1  Al  plus  prochain  heire   masle.      He   means   the   nearest   male    in   blood,   for 
Edward  III.,  as  Isabel's  son,  was  not  technically  heir  male. 

2  The   insertion    here    of  a    full    stop    instead   of  a   comma   in    the    Maitland 
Club  Ed.  makes  nonsense  of  this  long  sentence. 

3  Philip  V.   de  Valois,   eldest  son    of  Charles,   Count   of  Valois,   brother   of 
Philip  IV. 

4  Father  of  the  chronicler. 

5  Gardem  du  chattel  de  Couplr  et  de  Fif. 


456  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,   Bart. 

back  in  the  same  manner  and  charged  again,  and  once  again 
returned  through  the  thick  of  the  troop,  which  so  encouraged 
his  people  that  they  all  followed  him  in  like  manner,  whereby 
they  overthrew  so  many  of  the  enemy,  their  horses  stampeding 
along  the  road.  When  they  [the  enemy]  rose  from  the  ground, 
they  perceived  the  grooms  of  the  said  Thomas  coming  up  in 
good  order,  and  began  to  fly  to  a  dry  peat  moss  which  was  near, 
wherefore  almost  all  [the  others]  began  to  fly  to  the  moss,  leaving 
their  horses  for  their  few  assailants.  The  said  Thomas  and  his  men 
•could  not  get  near  them  on  horseback,  wherefore  he  caused  their 
horses  to  be  driven  before  them  along  the  road  to  the  said  castle, 
where  at  night  they  had  a  booty  of  nine  score  saddled  horses. 

Another  time,  on  a  market  day,  the  town  being  full  of  people 
from  the  neighbourhood,  Alexander  Frisel,  who  was  an  adherent l 
of  Robert  de  Brus,  was  ambushed  with  a  hundred  men-at-arms 
about  half  a  league  from  the  said  castle,  having  sent  others  of  his 
people  to  rifle  a  hamlet  on  the  other  side  of  the  castle.  The  said 
Thomas,  hearing  the  uproar,  mounted  a  fine  charger  before  his 
people  could  get  ready,  and  went  to  see  what  was  ado.  The 
enemy  spurred  out  from  their  ambush  before  the  gates  of  the 
said  castle,  so  doing  because  they  well  knew  that  he  (Sir  Thomas) 
had  gone  forth.  The  said  Thomas,  perceiving  this,  returned  at 
a  foot's  pace  through  the  town  of  Cupar,  at  the  end  whereof 
stood  the  castle,  where  he  had  to  enter  on  horseback,  [and]  where 
they  had  occupied  the  whole  street.  When  he  came  near  them 
he  struck  spurs  into  his  horse  ;  of  those  who  advanced  against 
him,  he  struck  down  some  with  his  spear,  others  with  the  shock 
of  his  horse,  and,  passing  through  them  all,  dismounted  at  the 
gate,  drove  his  horse  in,  and  slipped  inside  the  barrier,  where  he 
found  his  people  assembled. 

This  King  Edward  the  Second  after  the  Conquest  bestowed 
great  affection  during  his  father's  life  upon  Piers  de  Gaveston, 
a  young  man  of  good  Gascon  family ;  whereat  his  father 
became  so  much  concerned2  lest  he  [Piers]  should  lead  his 
son  astray,  that  he  caused  him  [Piers]  to  be  exiled  from  the 
realm,  and  even  made  his  son  and  his  nephew,3  Thomas  of 
Lancaster,  and  other  magnates  swear  that  the  exile  of  the 
said  Piers  should  be  for  ever  irrevocable.  But  soon  after 

1  Qenherdaunt  esfoif,   misprinted  qenderdaunt  in  Maitland  Club  Ed. 
^  Prist  malencoly. 

3  He  was  not  the  King's  nephew,  but  a  distant  cousin,  son  of  Edmund 
"*  Crouchback,'  Earl  of  Lancaster. 


Edward  II.  in  the  £  Scalacronica '       457 

the  death  of  the  father,  the  son  caused  the  said  Piers  to  be 
recalled  suddenly,  and  made  him  take  to  wife  his  sister's 
daughter,  one  of  Gloucester's  daughters,  and  made  him  Earl 
of  Cornwall.  Piers  became  very  magnificent,  liberal,  and 
well-bred  in  manner,  but  somewhat1  haughty  and  supercilious, 
whereat  some  of  the  great  men  of  the  realm  took  deep  offence. 
They  planned  his  destruction  while  he  was  serving  the  King 
in  the  Scottish  war.  He  had  caused  the  town  of  Dundee  to 
be  fortified,  and  had  behaved  himself  more  rudely  there  than 
was  agreeable  to  the  gentlemen  of  the  country,  so  that  he 
had  to  return  to  the  King  because  of  the  opposition  of  the 
barons.2  On  his  way  back  they  surprised  and  took  him  at 
Scarborough,  but  he  was  delivered  to  Aymer  de  Valence  upon 
condition  that  he  was  to  be  taken  before  the  King,  from 
whose  [Aymer' s]  people  he  was  retaken  near  Oxford,  and 
brought  before  the  Earl  of  Lancaster,  who  had  him  beheaded 
close  to  Warwick,3  whereat  arose  the  King's  mor.tal  hate,  which  MS. 
endured  for  ever  between  them.  f°.  2 

Adam  Banaster,  a  knight  bachelor  of  the  county  of  Lancaster, 
led  a  revolt  against  the  said  earl  by  instigation  of  the  King  ; 
but  he  could  not  sustain  it,  and  was  taken  and  beheaded  by 
order  of  the  said  earl,  who  had  made  long  marches  in  following 
his  [Banaster' s]  people. 

During  the  dispute  between  the  King  and  the  said  earl, 
Robert  de  Bruce,  who  had  already  risen  during  the  life  of 
the  King's  father,  renewed  his  strength  in  Scotland,  claiming 
authority  over  the  realm  of  Scotland,  and  subdued  many  of 
the  lands  in  Scotland  which  were  before  subdued  by  and  in 
submission  to  the  King  of  England  ;  and  [this  was]  chiefly 
the  result  of  bad  government  by  the  King's  officials,  who 
administered  them  [the  lands]  too  harshly  in  their  private 
interests. 

The  castles  of  Roxburgh4  and  Edinburgh5  were  captured 
and  dismantled,  which  castles  were  in  the  custody  of  foreigners, 
Roxburgh  [being]  in  charge  of  Guillemyng  Fenygges,6  a  knight 
of  Burgundy,  from  whom  James  de  Douglas  captured  the 
said  castle  upon  the  night  of  Shrove  Tuesday,7  the  said 

1  En  party. 

2  Pur  debate  des  barouns,  or  *  because  of  the  displeasure  of  the  barons.' 
3A.o.   1312.  46th  March,   1314.  5Lent,    1314. 
6  Sir  William  de  Fiennes.                                       7  La  nuyt  de  quarrem  pernaunt. 


458  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,  Bart. 

William  being  slain  by  an  arrow  as  he  was  defending  the 
great  tower.  Peres  Lebaud,  a  Gascon  knight,  was  Sheriff  of 
Edinburgh,  from  whom  the  people  of  Thomas  Randolph,  Earl 
of  Moray,  who  had  besieged  the  said  castle,  took  it  at  the 
highest  part  of  the  rock,  where  he  suspected  no  danger. 
The  said  Peter  became  Scots  in  the  service  of  Robert  de  Brus, 
who  afterwards  accused  him  of  treason,  and  caused  him  to  be 
hanged  and  drawn.  It  was  said  that  he  suspected  him  [Peres] 
because  he  was  too  outspoken,  believing  him  nevertheless  to 
be  English  at  heart,  doing  his  best  not  to  give  him  [Bruce] 
offence. 

The  said  King  Edward  planned  an  expedition  to  these  parts, 
where,  in  [attempting]  the  relief  of  the  castle  of  Stirling,  he 
was  defeated,  and  a  great  number  of  his  people  were  slain, 
[including]  the  Earl  of  Gloucester  and  other  right  noble 
persons;  and  the  Earl  of  Hereford  was  taken  at  Bothwell, 
whither  he  had  beaten  retreat,  where  he  was  betrayed  by  the 
governor.  He  was  released  [in  exchange]  for  the  wife  of 
Robert  de  Brus  and  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews.1 

As  to  the  manner  in  which  this  discomfiture  befel,  the 
chronicles  explain  that  after  the  Earl  of  Atholl  had  captured 
the  town  of  St.  John2  for  the  use  of  Robert  de  Brus  from 
William  Oliphant,  captain  [thereof]  for  the  King  of  England, 
being  at  that  time  an  adherent  of  his  [Edward's],  although 
shortly  after  he  deserted  him,  the  said  Robert  marched  in 
force  before  the  castle  of  Stirling,  where  Philip  de  Moubray, 
knight,  having  command  of  the  said  castle  for  the  King  of 
England,  made  terms  with  the  said  Robert  de  Brus  to  surrender 
the  said  castle,  which  he  had  besieged,  unless  he  [de  Moubray] 
f  Ms'  g  should  be  relieved  :  that  is,  unless  the  English  army  came 
within  three  leagues  of  the  said  castle  within  eight  days  of 
Saint  John's  day  in  the  summer  next  to  come,  he  would  sur- 
render the  said  castle.8  The  said  King  of  England  came 
thither  for  that  reason,  where  the  said  constable  Philip  met 
him  at  three  leagues  from  the  castle,  on  Sunday  the  vigil  of 
Saint  John,  and  told  him  that  there  was  no  occasion  for  him 

1  William  de  Lamberton,  from  whom   Bruce  received  more  advice  and    en- 
couragement than  from  almost  any  other  at  the  outset  of  his  enterprise. 

2  Perth. 

3  It  was  not    with    King    Robert,  but   with    his    brother    Edward,   that    this 
agreement  was  made  ;  much  to  Robert's  displeasure,  whose  main  strategy  it  was 
to  avoid  a  pitched  battle. 


Edward  II.   in  the  c  Scalacronica '       459 

to  approach  any  nearer,  for  he  considered  himself  as  relieved. 
Then  he  told  him  how  the  enemy  had  blocked  the  narrow 
roads  in  the  forest.1 

[But]  the  young  troops  would  by  no  means  stop,  but  held 
their  way.  The  advanced  guard,  whereof  the  Earl  of  Gloucester 
had  command,  entered  the  road2  within  the  Park,  where  they 
were  immediately  received  roughly  by  the  Scots  who  had 
occupied  the  passage.  Here  Peris  de  Mountforth,  knight, 
was  slain  with  an  axe  by  the  hand  of  Robert  de  Brus,  as  was 
reported.3 

While  the  said  advanced  guard  were  following  this  road, 
Robert  Lord  de  Clifford  and  Henry  de  Beaumont,  with  three 
hundred  men-at-arms,  made  a  circuit  upon  the  other  side4  of 
the  wood  towards  the  castle,  keeping  the  open  ground.  Thomas 
Randolph,  Earl  of  Moray,  Robert  de  Brus's  nephew,  who  was 
leader  of  the  Scottish  advanced  guard,5  hearing  that  his  uncle 
had  repulsed  the  advanced  guard  of  the  English  on  the  other 
side  of  the  wood,  thought  that  he  must  have  his  share,  and 
issuing  from  the  wood  with  his  division  marched  across  the 
open  ground  towards  the  two  afore-named  lords. 

Sir  Henry  de  Beaumont  called  to  his  men  :  c  Let  us  retire 
a  little;  let  them  come  on;  give  them  room!'6 

( Sir,'  said  Sir  Thomas  Gray,7  *  1  doubt  that  whatever  you 
give  them  now,  they  will  have  all  too  soon.' 

*  Very  well ! '    exclaimed  the  said    Henry,  *  if  you  are  afraid, 
be  off!' 

*  Sir,'  answered  the  said  Thomas,   *  it  is  not  from   fear  that 
I   shall  fly  this   day.'     So   saying   he   spurred  in  between   him 
[Beaumont]  and  Sir  William  Deyncourt,  and  charged  into  the 
thick  of  the  enemy.     William    was  killed,  Thomas  was  taken 

xThe  Torwood. 

2  The    Roman   Road,  running  through   the   Park   which   Alexander   III.  had 
enclosed  for  the  chase. 

3  It  was  Sir  Henry  de  Bohun,  nephew  of  the  Earl  of  Hereford,  who  fell  in 
single  combat  with  the  King  of  Scots. 

4  The  east  side  next  the  Carse. 

5  He  commanded  the  central  of  the  three  divisions  which  formed  Bruce's  front. 

6  Randolph's  division  being  entirely  on  foot,  of  course  the  English  squadron 
could  have  pushed  on  to  establish  communication  with  Stirling  Castle,  for  which 
purpose  they  had  been  detached.     It  was  characteristic  of  the  chivalrous  ceremony 
of  the  day  that  Beaumont  should  have  insisted  on  awaiting  attack  from  the  Scots. 

7  Father  of  the  chronicler. 


460  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,   Bart. 

prisoner,  his  horse  being  killed  on  the  pikes,  and  he  himself 
carried  off  with  them  [the  Scots]  on  foot  when  they  marched 
off,  having  utterly  routed  the  squadron  of  the  said  two  lords. 
Some  of  whom  [the  English]  fled  to  the  castle,  others  to  the 
king's  army,  which  having  already  left  the  road  through  the 
wood  had  debouched  upon  a  plain  near  the  water  of  Forth 
beyond  Bannockburn,  an  evil,  deep,  wet  marsh,  where  the 
said  English  army  unharnessed  and  remained  all  night,  having 
sadly  lost  confidence  and  being  too  much  disaffected  by  the 
events  of  the  day. 

The  Scots  in  the  wood  thought  they  had  done  well  enough 

for  the  day,   and  were  on    the    point   of  decamping    in   order 

to  march  during  the  night  into  the  Lennox,  a  stronger  country, 

when    Sir    Alexander   de    Seton,    who    was    in    the    service    of 

MS.     England  and  had  come  thither  with  the  King,  secretly  left  the 

fb.  208   Engiisn  army,  went  to  Robert  de  Brus  in  the  wood,  and  said 

to  him :  '  Sir,  this  is  the  time  if  ever  you  intend  to  undertake 

to  reconquer  Scotland.     The  English   have  lost  heart  and  are 

discouraged,  and  expect  nothing  but  a  sudden,  open  attack.'1 

Then  he  described  their  condition,  and  pledged  his  head, 
on  pain  of  being  hanged  and  drawn,  that  if  he  [Bruce]  would 
attack  them  on  the  morrow  he  would  defeat  them  easily  without 
[much]  loss.  At  whose  [Seton's]  instigation  they  [the  Scots] 
resolved  to  fight,  and  at  sunrise  on  the  morrow  marched  out 
of  the  wood  in  three  divisions  of  infantry.  They  directed 
their  course  boldly  upon  the  English  army,  which  had  been 
under  arms  all  night,  with  their  horses  bitted.  They  [the 
English]  mounted  in  great  alarm,  for  they  were  not  accustomed 
to  dismount  to  fight  on  foot;  whereas  the  Scots  had  taken  a 
lesson  from  the  Flemings,  who  before  that  had  at  Courtrai 
defeated  on  foot  the  power  of  France.  The  aforesaid  Scots 
came  in  line  of  'schiltroms,'2  and  attacked  the  English  columns, 
which  were  jammed  together  and  could  not  operate  against 

1This  incident  is  important,  and  does  not  appear  in  other  chronicles  of 
Bannockburn.  Sir  Thomas  Gray,  father  of  the  writer,  was  at  the  time  a  prisoner 
in  the  Scottish  camp,  and  probably  communicated  the  information  direct  to  his 
son.  It  is  true  that  Sir  Alexander  de  Seton  transferred  his  allegiance  from 
Edward  II.  to  King  Robert  about  this  time.  In  March,  1322-3,  he  proceeded 
with  Sir  William  de  Mountfichet  on  a  mission  to  the  English  Court  from 
King  Robert. 

2  The  '  schiltrom '  or  shield  troop  was  the  favourite  formation  of  the  Scottish 
infantry.  It  was  a  dense  column,  oval  in  form,  resembling  in  effect  a  modern 
square. 


Edward  II.  in  the  £  Scalacronica '       461 

them  [the  Scots],  so  direfully  were  their  horses  impaled  on 
the  pikes.1  The  troops  in  the  English  rear  fell  back  upon 
the  ditch  of  Bannockburn,  tumbling  one  over  the  other. 

The  English  squadrons  being  thrown  into  confusion  by  the 
thrust  of  pikes  upon  the  horses,  began  to  fly.  Those  who 
were  appointed  to  [attend  upon]  the  King's  rein,  perceiving 
the  disaster,  led  the  King  by  the  rein  off  the  field  towards 
the  castle,  and  ofF  he  went,  though  much  against  the  grain.2 
As  the  Scottish  knights,  who  were  on  foot,  laid  hold  of  the 
housing  of  the  King's  charger  in  order  to  stop  him,  he  struck 
out  so  vigorously  behind  him  with  a  mace  that  there  was  none 
whom  he  touched  that  he  did  not  fell  to  the  ground. 

As  those  who  had  the  King's  rein  were  thus  drawing  him 
always  forward,  one  of  them,  Giles  de  Argentin,  a  famous 
knight  who  had  lately  come  over  sea  from  the  wars  of  the 
Emperor  Henry  of  Luxembourg,  said  to  the  king  : 

1  Sire,  your  rein  was  committed  to  me ;  you  are  now  in  safety ; 
there  is  your  castle  where  your  person  may  be  safe.  I  am  not 
accustomed  to  fly,  nor  am  I  going  to  begin  now.  I  commend 
you  to  God  ! ' 

Then,  setting  spurs  to  his  horse,  he  returned  into  the  mellay, 
where  he  was  slain. 

The  King's  charger,  having  been  piked,  could  go  no  further  ; 
so  he  mounted  afresh  on  a  courser  and  was  taken  round  the 
Torwood,  and  [so]  through  the  plains  of  Lothian.3  Those  who 
went  with  him  were  saved ;  all  the  rest  came  to  grief.  The  King 
escaped  with  great  difficulty,  travelling  thence  to  Dunbar,  where  MS. 
Patrick,  Earl  of  March,  received  him  honourably,  and  put  his  &•  209 
castle  at  his  disposal,  and  even  evacuated  the  place,  removing 
all  his  people,  so  that  there  might  be  neither  doubt  nor  suspicion 
that  he  would  do  nothing  short  of  his  devoir  to  his  lord,  for 
at  that  time  he  [Dunbar]  was  his  liegeman.  Thence  the  King 
went  by  sea  to  Berwick  and  afterwards  to  the  south. 

Edward  de  Brus,  brother  to  Robert,  King  of  Scotland,4 
desiring  to  be  a  king  [also],  passed  out  of  Scotland  into  Ireland 
with  a  great  army  in  hopes  of  conquering  it.5  He  remained 

1The  full  stop  here  is  omitted  in  the  Maitland  Club  Ed.,  making  nonsense 
of  the  passage. 

2  Maugre  qil  enhust  qi  enuyte  sen  departist.  3  Lownesse. 

4  This  is  the  first  occasion  on  which  Gray  acknowledges  King  Robert's  title. 

5  More   probably  King    Robert  sent  him  there  to  create  a  diversion  favour- 
able to  the  Scottish  war. 


462  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,  Bart. 

there  two  years  and  a  half,  performing  there  feats  of  arms, 
inflicting  great  destruction  both  upon  provender  and  in  other 
ways,  and  conquering  much  territory,  which  would  form  a 
splendid  romance  were  it  all  recounted.  He  proclaimed  himself 
King  of  the  kings  of  Ireland  ;x  [but]  he  was  defeated  and  slain 
at  Dundalk  by  the  English  of  that  country,2  [because]  through 
over  confidence  he  would  not  wait  for  reinforcements,  which 
had  arrived  lately,  and  were  not  more  than  six  leagues 
distant. 

At  the  same  time  the  King  of  England  sent  the  Earl  of 
Arundel  as  commander  on  the  March  of  Scotland,  who  was 
repulsed  at  Lintalee  in  the  forest  of  Jedworth,3  by  James  de 
Douglas,  and  Thomas  de  Richmond  was  slain.  The  said  earl 
then  retreated  to  the  south  without  doing  any  more. 

On  another  occasion  the  said  James  defeated  the  garrison  of 
Berwick  at  Scaithmoor,  where  a  number  of  Gascons  were  slain.* 
Another  time  there  happened  a  disaster  on  the  marches  at 
Berwick,  by  treachery  of  the  false  traitors  of  the  marches, 
where  was  slain  Robert  de  Nevill ; 6  which  Robert  shortly  before 
had  slain  Richard  fitz  Marmaduke,  cousin  of  Robert  de  Brus, 
on  the  old  bridge  of  Durham,  because  of  a  quarrel  between 
them  [arising]  out  of  jealousy  which  should  be  reckoned  the 
greater  lord.  Therefore,  in  order  to  obtain  the  King's  grace 
and  pardon  for  this  offence,  Nevill  began  to  serve  in  the  King's 
war,  wherein  he  died. 

At  the  same  period  the  said  James  de  Douglas,  with  the 
assistance  of  Patrick,  Earl  of  March,  captured  Berwick  from  the 
English,8  by  means  of  the  treason  of  one  in  the  town,  Peter  de 
Spalding.7  The  castle  held  out  for  eleven  weeks  after,  and  at 
last  capitulated  to  the  Scots  in  default  of  relief,  because  it  was 
not  provisioned.  The  constable,  Roger  de  Horsley,  lost  there 
an  eye  by  an  arrow. 

Aymer  de  Valence,  Earl  of  Pembroke,  travelling  to  the  court 
of  Rome,  was  captured  by  a  Burgundian,  John  de  la  Moiller, 
taken  into  the  empire  and  ransomed  for  20,000  silver  livres, 

I2nd  May,  1316.  2  5th  Oct.,   1318. 

8  In  1317.  Not  of  the  House  of  Brittany,  as  Hailes  follows  Barbour  in 
stating,  but  a  Yorkshire  knight,  owner  of  Burton-Constable. 

4  Ou  furount  mors  toutes  playnes  de  Gascoins ;  ( where  the  Gascons  were  slain  to 
a  man.' 

6 The  'Peacock  of  the  North.'  6  28th  March,   1318. 

7  Barbour  calls  him  "  ane  burgess  Sym  of  Spalding." 


Edward  II.  in  the  *  Scalacronica  *       463 

because  the  said  John  declared  that  he  had  done  the  King 
of  England  service,  and  that  the  King  was  owing  him  his 
pay. 

This  James  de  Douglas  was  now  very  busy  in  Northumberland.  MS. 
Robert  de  Brus  caused  all  the  castles  of  Scotland,  except  Dun-  fo-  209b 
barton,  to  be  dismantled.  This  Robert  de  Brus  caused  William 
de  Soulis  to  be  arrested,  and  caused  him  to  be  confined  in  the 
castle  of  Dunbarton  for  punishment  in  prison,  accusing  him 
of  having  conspired  with  other  great  men  of  Scotland  for  his 
[Robert's]  undoing,  to  whom  [de  Soulis]  they  were  attorned 
subjects,  which  the  said  William  confessed  by  his  acknowledg- 
ment. David  de  Brechin,  John  Logic,  and  Gilbert  Malherbe 
were  hanged  and  drawn  in  the  town  of  St.  John,1  and  the 
corpse  of  Roger  de  Mowbray  was  brought  on  a  litter2  before 
the  judges  in  the  Parliament  of  Scone,  and  condemned.  This 
conspiracy  was  discovered  by  Murdach  of  Menteith,  who  him- 
self became  earl  afterwards.  He  had  lived  long  in  England 
in  loyalty  to  the  King,3  and,  in  order  to  discover  this  conspiracy, 
went  to  [de  Soulis's]  house.4  He  became  Earl  of  Menteith  by 
consent  of  his  niece,  daughter  of  his  elder  brother,  who,  after 
his  death  at  another  time,  became  countess. 

The  King  of  England  undertook  scarcely  anything  against 
Scotland,  and  thus  lost  as  much  by  indolence  as  his  father  had 
conquered  ;  and  also  a  number  of  fortresses  within  his  marches 
of  England,  as  well  as  a  great  part  of  Northumberland  which 
revolted  against  him.5 

Gilbert  de  Middleton  in  the  bishoprick  of  Durham,  plundered 
two  Cardinals  who  came  to  consecrate  the  Bishop,  and  seized 
Louis  de  Beaumont,  Bishop  of  Durham,  and  his  brother  Henry 
de  Beaumont,  because  the  King  had  caused  his  [Gilbert's]  cousin 
Adam  de  Swinburne  to  be  arrested,  because  he  had  spoken  too 
frankly  to  him  about  the  condition  of  the  Marches. 

This  Gilbert,  with  adherence  of  others  upon  the  Marches, 
rode  upon  a  foray  into  Cleveland,  and  committed  other  great 

1  Perth. 

2  Sur  une  lettre,  in  the  original,  but  evidently  the  word  ought  to  be  lltiere. 

3  Which  King  ?     Edward  of  England  or  Robert  Bruce  to  whom  he  revealed 
the  plot.     The  expression  is  :  qi  longement  auolt  demore  en  Engleterre  a  la  foy  le 
roy. 

4  This  passage  is  obscure  also,  Qi  pur  decouerer  cet  couyne  sen  ala  a  losteL 

5  The  omission  of  a  full  stop  here  in  the  MS.  makes  nonsense  of  this  para- 
graph. 


464  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,   Bart. 

destruction,  having  the  assistance  of  nearly  all  Northumberland, 
except  the  castles  of  Bamborough,  Alnwick,  and  Norham,  of 
which  the  two  first  named  were  treating  with  the  enemy,  the 
one  by  means  of  hostages,  the  other  by  collusion,1  when  the 
said  Gilbert  was  taken  through  treachery  of  his  own  people  in 
the  castle  of  Mitford  by  William  de  Felton,  Thomas  de  Heton, 
and  Robert  de  Horncliff,  and  was  hanged  and  drawn  in 
London. 

On  account  of  all  this,  the  Scots  had  become  so  bold  that 
they  subdued  the  Marches  of  England  and  cast  down  the 
castles  of  Wark  and  Harbottle,  so  that  hardly  was  there  an 
Englishman  who  dared  to  withstand  them.  They  had  subdued 
all  Northumberland  by  means  of  the  treachery  of  the  false 
people  of  the  country.  So  that  scarcely  could  they  [the  Scots] 
find  anything  to  do  upon  these  Marches,  except  at  Norham, 
MS.  where  a  [certain]  knight,  Thomas  de  Gray,2  was  in  garrison 
fo.2iowith  his  kinsfolk.  It  would  be  too  lengthy  a  matter  to  relate 
[all]  the  combats  and  deeds  of  arms  and  evils  for  default  of 
provender,  and  sieges  which  happened  to  him  during  the  eleven 
years  that  he  remained  [there]  during  such  an  evil  and  disastrous 
period  for  the  English.  It  would  be  wearisome  to  tell  the 
story  of  the  less  [important]  of  his  combats  in  the  said  castle.3 
Indeed  it  was  so  that,  after  the  town  of  Berwick  was  taken 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  English,  the  Scots  had  got  so  completely 
the  upper  hand  and  were  so  insolent  that  they  held  the  English 
to  be  of  almost  no  account,  who  [the  English]  concerned  them- 
selves no  more  with  the  war,4  but  allowed  it  to  cease. 

At  which  time,  at  a  great  feast  of  lords  and  ladies  in  the 
county  of  Lincoln,  a  young  page5  brought  a  war  helmet,  with 
a  gilt  crest  on  the  same,  to  William  Marmion,  knight,  with  a 
letter  from  his  lady-love  commanding  him  to  go  to  the  most 
dangerous  place  in  Great  Britain  and  [there]  cause  this  helmet 
to  be  famous.  Thereupon  it  was  decided  by  the  knights 
[present]  that  he  should  go  to  Norham,  as  the  most  dangerous 
[and]  adventurous  place  in  the  country.  The  said  William 
betook  himself  to  Norham,  where,  within  four  days  of  his 
arrival,  Sir  Alexander  de  Mowbray,  brother  of  Sir  Philip  de 
Mowbray,  at  that  time  governor  of  Berwick,  came  before  the 
castle  of  Norham  with  the  most  spirited  chivalry  of  the  Marches 

1  Par  affinite.  2  Father  of  the  chronicler. 

8  Et  ia  k  meinz  aucuns  de  sez  journes  en  le  dit  chattel  enuoit  lestoir  deviser. 

4  La  guer,  misprinted  quer  in  Maitland  Club  Ed.  5  Vn  damouel  faye. 


Edward  II.  in  the  '  Scalacronica '       465 

of  Scotland,  and  drew  up  before  the  castle  at  the  hour  of  noon 
with  more  than  eight  score  men-at-arms.  The  alarm  was  given 
in  the  castle  as  they  were  sitting  down  to  dinner.  Thomas  de 
Gray,  the  constable,  went  with  his  garrison  to  his  barriers,  saw 
the  enemy  near  drawn  up  in  order  of  battle,  looked  behind1 
him,  and  beheld  the  said  knight,  William  Marmion,  approaching 
on  foot,  all  glittering  with  gold  and  silver,  marvellous  finely 
attired,  with  the  helmet  on  his  head.  The  said  Thomas,  having 
been  well  informed  of  the  reason  for  his  coming  [to  Norham], 
cried  aloud  to  him  : 

*  Sir  knight,  you  have  come  as  knight  errant  to  make  that 
helmet  famous,  and  it  is  more  meet  that  deeds  of  chivalry  be 
done  on  horseback  than  afoot,  when  that  can  be  managed 
conveniently.  Mount  your  horse:  there  are  your  enemies:  set 
spurs  and  charge  into  their  midst.  May  I  deny  my  God  if 
I  do  not  rescue  your  person,  alive  or  dead,  or  perish  in  the 
attempt ! ' 

The  knight  mounted  a  beautiful  charger,  spurred  forward, 
[and]  charged  into  the  midst  of  the  enemy,  who  struck  him 
down,  wounded  him  in  the  face,  [and]  dragged  him  out  of  the 
saddle  to  the  ground. 

At  this  moment,  up  came  the  said  Thomas  with  all  his 
garrison,  with  levelled  lances,  [which]  they  drove  into  the 
bowels  of  the  horses  so  that  they  threw  their  riders.  They 
repulsed  the  mounted  enemy,  raised  the  fallen  knight,  re- 
mounting him  upon  his  own  horse,  put  the  enemy  to  flight, 
[of  whom]  some  were  left  dead  in  the  first  encounter,  [and] 
captured  fifty  valuable  horses.  The  women  of  the  castle 
[then]  brought  out  horses  to  their  men,  who  mounted  and  Ms. 
gave  chase,  slaying  those  whom  they  could  overtake.  Thomas  fo.  ziob 
de  Gray  caused  to  be  killed  in  the  Yair  Ford,  a  Fleming 
[named]  Cryn,  a  sea  captain,2  a  pirate,  who  was  a  great 
partisan  of  Robert  de  Brus.  The  others  who  escaped  were 
pursued  to  the  nunnery  of  Berwick. 

Another    time,   Adam    de    Gordon,3   a   baron    of    Scotland, 

1  Derier  ly,  misprinted  derier  in  Maitland  Club  Ed. 

2  Vn  amirail  de  la  mere,  vn  robbour.     This  appears   to    be    the   same  man  as 
the  pirate  John   Crab,    whose    engineering   skill    enabled    Walter    the    Steward 
to   repulse   the   attack  on   Berwick   in    1319.      (See   Barbour's  Brus,  cxxx.   and 
Bain's  Calendar,  iii.   126.) 

3  Formerly  a  supporter  of  the  English  King;  but,  being  suspected  in   1313, 
was  imprisoned  in  Roxburgh  Castle.     (Bain's  Calendar,  ii.  No.   337.) 


466  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,  Bart. 

having  mustered  more  than  eight  score  men-at-arms,  came 
before  the  said  castle  of  Norham,  thinking  to  raid  the  cattle 
which  were  grazing  outside  the  said  castle.  The  young 
fellows  of  the  garrison  rashly  hastened  to  the  furthest  end  of 
the  town,  which  at  that  time  was  in  ruins,  and  began  to 
skirmish.  The  Scottish  enemy  surrounded  them.  The  said 
men  of  the  sortie  defended  themselves  briskly,  keeping  them- 
selves within  the  old  walls.  At  that  moment  Thomas  de  Gray, 
the  said  constable,  came  out  of  the  castle  with  his  garrison, 
[and],  perceiving  his  people  in  such  danger  from  the  enemy, 
said  to  his  vice-constable  :  c  I'll  hand  over  to  you  this  castle, 
albeit  I  have  it  in  charge  to  hold  in  the  King's  cause,  unless 
I  actually  drink  of  the  same  cup  that  my  people  over  there 
have  to  drink.' 

Then  he  set  forward  at  great  speed,  having  [within]  of 
common  people  and  others,  scarcely  more  than  sixty  all  told. 
The  enemy,  perceiving  him  coming  in  good  order,1  left  the 
skirmishers  among  the  old  walls  and  drew  out  into  the  open 
fields.  The  men  who  had  been  surrounded  in  the  ditches, 
perceiving  their  chieftain  coming  in  this  manner,2  dashed 
across  the  ditches  and  ran  to  the  fields  against  the  said  enemy, 
who  were  obliged  to  face  about,  and  then  charged  back  upon 
them  [the  skirmishers].  Upon  which  came  up  the  said  Thomas 
with  his  men,  when  you  might  see  the  horses  floundering  and 
the  people  on  foot  slaying  them  as  they  lay  on  the  ground. 
[Then  they]  rallied  to  the  said  Thomas,  charged  the  enemy, 
[and]  drove  them  out  of  the  fields  across  the  water  of  Tweed. 
They  captured  and  killed  many ;  many  horses  lay  dead,  so 
that  had  they  [the  English]  been  on  horseback,  scarcely  one 
would  have  escaped. 

The  said  Thomas  de  Gray  was  twice  besieged  in  the  said 
castle — once  for  nearly  a  year,  the  other  time  for  seven  months. 
The  enemy  erected  fortifications  before  him,  one  at  Up- 
settlington,  another  at  the  church  of  Norham.  He  was  twice 
provisioned  by  the  Lords  de  Percy  and  de  Nevill,  [who  came] 
in  force  to  relieve  the  said  castle  ;  and  these  [nobles]  became 
wise,  noble  and  rich,  and  were  of  great  service  on  the 
Marches. 

Once  on  the  vigil  of  St.  Katherine  during  his  [Gray's]  time, 

1  En  le  maner. 

2  A  la  gise.     This  may  be  an    idiomatic    expression   for  moving  briskly,  gise 
meaning  '  a  goad  '  as  well  as  '  manner,  way.' 


Edward  II.  in  the  '  Scalacronica '       467 

the   fore-court  of  the   said   castle  was  betrayed  by  one   of  his 
men,  who  slew  the  porter  [and]  admitted  the  enemy  [who  were] 
in  ambush  in  a  house  before  the  gate.     The  inner  bailey  and 
the  keep  held  out.      The  enemy   did  not  remain  there  more 
than    three   days,  because   they  feared   the    attack   of  the   said 
Thomas,   who  was  then   returning    from    the   south,   where  he    MS. 
had  been  at  that  time.     They  evacuated  it  [the  forecourt]  andfo-211 
burnt  it,  after  failing  to  mine  it. 

Many  pretty  feats  of  arms  chanced  to  the  said  Thomas 
which  are  not  recorded  here. 

About  this  time  Joscelin  d'Eyville1  caused  the  manor  of 
Allerton  to  be  seized,  and  held  it  by  force  of  arms ;  such 
disorder  taking  place  because  the  barons  respected  not  the 
King's  authority,  so  that  every  one  did  as  he  pleased.  At 
which  time  John  the  Irishman z  ravished  the  Lady  de  Clifford  ; 
the  malefactors  were  called  schaualdours. 

The  barons  came  at  this  time  to  a  parliament  in  London, 
their  people  being  dressed  in  livery  with 3  quartered  coats ; 
and  there  began  the  mortal  hatred  between  them  and  the 
King. 

At  which  time  appeared  the  star  comet ;  also  it  was  a  dear 
year  for  corn,  and  such  scarcity  of  food  that  the  mother 
devoured  her  son,  wherefore  nearly  all  the  poor  folk  died. 

The  aforesaid  King  tarried  in  the  south,  where  he  amused 
himself  with  ships,  among  mariners,  and  in  other  irregular 
occupation  unworthy  of  his  station,  and  scarcely  concerned 
himself  about  other  honour  or  profit,  whereby  he  lost  the 
affection  of  his  people. 

At  the  same  time  there  came  a  man  who  declared  himself 
to  be  King  by  right,  having  been  taken  out  of  the  cradle  and 
this  Edward  substituted  as  King.  This  fellow  was  hanged  at 
Northampton,  declaring4  that  the  devil  in  the  shape  of  a  cat 
had  made  him  say  this. 

By  intervention  of  the  nobles  of  the  realm  the  King  was 
reconciled  with  Thomas,  Earl  of  Lancaster,  in  regard  to  the 
death  of  Piers  de  Gaveston,  which  [reconciliation]  endured  for 
a  while,  and  soon  afterwards  [the  quarrel]  was  renewed. 

1  An  ancient  Northumbrian  family  whose  castle  of  Dilston  (d'Eyville's  toun) 
still  remains,  a  ruin,  near  Corbridge. 

2  Johan  le  Irroys,  who  abducted  the  lady  from  Barnard  Castle  in  the  autumn 
of  1315.     The  King  sent  three  knights  and  thirty-six  esquires  to  rescue  her. 

=  avec,  misprinted  ou  in  Maitland  Club  Ed.  ^  Relay  aunt. 


468  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,   Bart. 

This  King  Edward  was  on  one  occasion  before  Berwick  with 
all  his  royal  power,  and  had  besieged  the  town,  which  shortly 
before  had  been  lost  to  him  through  the  treachery  of  Peter 
de  Spalding,  when  he  [the  King]  had  given  it  into  the  hands 
of  the  burghers  of  the  town,  in  order  to  save  the  great  expense 
to  which  he  had  been  put  before.  At  the  same  time  the  Scots 
entered  by  way  of  Carlisle,  and  rode  far  into  England,  when 
the  common  people  of  the  towns  and  the  people  of  Holy 
Church  assembled  at  Myton,1  and  were  there  defeated,  as  a 
folk  unaccustomed  to  war  before  fierce  troops.  Wherefore 
the  King  raised  his  siege  of  Berwick,  intending  to  operate 
against  his  enemies  within  his  realm  ;  but  they  moved  through 
the  wasted  lands  towards  Scotland  so  soon  as  they  knew  of 
the  raising  of  the  siege,  [to  effect]  which  had  been  the  reason 
for  their  expedition. 

The  King  left  his  Marches  in  great  distress  [and]  without 
succour,  and  retired  towards  the  south,  where  the  great  men 
Ms-  b  of  his  realm  were  again  in  rebellion  against  him,  [namely]  the 
said  Earl  of  Lancaster  and  others,  who  besieged  his  [the  King's] 
castle  of  Tickhill.2  The  Castle  of  Knaresborough 3  was  sur- 
prised by  John  de  Lilleburn,  who  afterwards  surrendered  upon 
terms  to  the  King.  The  Queen  besieged  the  Castle  of  Leeds,  to 
whom  it  was  surrendered,  for  the  barons  would  not  relieve  it 
out  of  respect  to  the  Queen  Isabel.  The  said  barons  came  in 
force,  with  banners  displayed,  against  the  King,  at  the  bridge 
of  Burton-on-Trent,  where  they  were  defeated,  and  retired 
towards  Scotland,  as  it  was  said,  to  obtain  aid  and  support. 
But  at  the  bridge  of  Boroughbridge,  Andrew  de  Harcla  and 
other  knights  and  esquires  of  the  north,  who  were  of  the 
King's  party,  perceiving  the  barons  approaching  in  good  order,4 
seized  one  end  of  the  bridge  aforesaid,  the  way  by  which  they 
[the  barons]  had  to  pass ;  where  the  earls  and  barons  were 
defeated,  killed  and  captured  ;  the  Earl  of  Hereford  being 
slain,  the  Earl  of  Lancaster  and  many  of  the  barons  being 
taken  and  brought  before  the  King.  The  lords  de  Moubray 
and  de  Clifford  were  hanged  at  York  in  quartered  coats,  such 
as  their  people  had  worn  in  London.  Thomas,  Earl  of 


x<The  Chapter  of  Myton,'  zoth  Sept.,   1319. 

2  In  the  West  Riding.     The  Norman  keep  wa 
arliamentarians. 

3  Dismantled  in   1648   by  the  same  authority.  4  A  la  maner. 


2  In  the  West  Riding.     The  Norman  keep  was  demolished  in   1646  by  the 
Parliamentarians. 


Edward  II.  in  the  c  Scalacronica '       469 

Lancaster,  was  beheaded  at  Pontefract1  in  revenge  for  Piers 
de  Gaveston,  and  for  other  offences  which  he  had  often  and 
habitually  committed  against  the  King,  and  at  the  very  place 
where  he  had  once  hooted,  and  made  others  hoot,  the  King 
as  he  [the  King]  was  travelling  to  York. 

Andrew  de  Harcla  was  made  Earl  of  Carlisle  ;  but  he  did 
not  last  long  ;  for  in  his  pride  he  would  commit  the  King  to 
having  made  peace  with  the  Scots  in  a  manner  contrary  to  his 
instructions ;  which  was  the  finding  of  the  King's  council. 
This  Andrew  was  tried  by  the  chief  men  of  his  council  at 
Carlisle,  and  was  there  drawn  and  hanged.2 

Andrew  de  Harcla  had  behaved  gallantly  many  times  against 
the  Scots,  sometimes  with  good  result  and  sometimes  with  loss, 
[performing]  many  fine  feats  of  arms  ;  until  he  was  captured 
by  them  and  ransomed  at  a  high  price.3 

In  the  summer  *  following  the  death  of  the  Earl  of  Lancaster 
the  King  marched  with  a  very  great  army  towards  Scotland, 
having,  besides  his  knights  and  esquires,5  an  armed  foot-soldier 
from  every  town  in  England.  These  common  people  fought 
at  Newcastle  with  the  commons  of  the  town,  where,  on  the 
bridge  of  the  said  town,  they  killed  the  knight,  John  de  Penrith, 
and  some  esquires  who  were  in  the  service  of  the  Constable, 

1  A.D.  1322. 

2  In  February,  1323,  Sir  Andrew,  who  took  his  family  name  from  the  manor 
of  Harcla    in   Westmorland,  had  done  King  Edward    splendid    service.      It    is 
true    that    he    entered    into    unauthorised    negotiations  with  King  Robert,  and 
that  an  indenture,  pronounced  to  be  treasonable  was  drawn  up  between  them 
at  Lochmaben,   3rd  January,    1322-3  ;  but  it  is  pretty  clear  that  Harcla  never 
meant  to  betray  his  country.     He  despaired,  and  with  good  cause,  of  Edward 
II.'s  government,  and   endeavoured  to  avert  the  disasters  which  he  foresaw  by 
acknowledging    Robert    as  King    of  Scots,  thereby    securing    the    peace    which 
Robert  was  anxious  to  restore  between  the  two  countries. 

3  Barbour  refers  to  de   Harcla's   capture  by  Sir  John  Soulis  of  Eskdale,  with 
fifty  men  against    Harcla's    three    hundred,  'horsyt  jolyly.'      He    alludes,   also, 
in  most  tantalising  manner  to  a  ballad  celebrating  the  exploit  : 

'  I  will  nocht  reherss  the  maner 
For  quha  sa  likis,  thai  may  her 
Young  wemen,  quhen  thai  will  play, 
Syng  it  amang  thaim  ilk[a]  day.' 

On  23rd  November,  1316,  Sir  Andrew  petitioned  King  Edward  II.  to 
grant  him  two  Scots  prisoners  in  aid  of  his  ransom,  adding  that  his  valet, 
John  de  Beauchamp,  will  explain  how  he,  Sir  Andrew,  came  to  be  taken. 

4  Le  procheyn  este,  omitted  in  Maitland  Club  Ed. 

5  Who  of  course  had  each  his  armed  followers. 


47°       Edward  II.  in  the  c  Scalacronica ' 

and  the  Marshal,  because  they  tried  to  arrest  the  ruffians  so  as 
to  quell  the  disturbance  ;  so  insolent  were  the  common  folk  in 
their  conduct. 

The   said    King   marched   upon    Edinburgh,  where  at   Leith 

there  came  such  sickness  and  famine  upon  the  common  soldiers 

of  that  great  army,  that  they  were  forced  to  beat  a  retreat  for 

MS.    want    of  food ;    at    which    time    the    King's    light    horsemen 1 

fo.  212  foraging    at    Melrose    were    defeated    by    James    de    Douglas. 

None  [dared]  leave  the  main  body  to  seek  food  by  foray.     So 

greatly  were  the  English  harassed  and  worn  with  fighting  that 

before   they   arrived   at    Newcastle    there   was   such   a   murrain 

in    the   army   for   want    of    food,   that    they   were   obliged   of 

necessity  to  disband. 

The  King  retired  upon  York  with  the  great  men  of  his 
realm  ;  when  Robert  de  Brus  having  caused  to  assemble  the 
whole  power  of  Scotland,  the  Isles  and  the  rest  of  the  High- 
lands, pressed  ever  after  the  King,  who,  perceiving  his  approach, 
marched  into  Blackhow  Moor  with  all  the  force  that  he  could 
muster  on  a  sudden.  They  [the  Scots]  took  a  strength  on  a 
hill  near  Biland,  where  the  King's  people  were  defeated,2  and 
the  Earl  of  Richmond,  the  Lord  of  Sully,  a  baron  of  France, 
and  many  others  ;  so  that  the  King  himself  scarcely  escaped 
from  Rivaulx,  where  he  was  [quartered].  But  the  Scots  were3 
so  fierce  and  their  chiefs  so  daring,  and  the  English  so  badly 
cowed,  that  it  was  no  otherwise  between  them  than  as  a  hare 
before  greyhounds. 

The  Scots  rode  beyond  the  Wold  and  [appeared]  before 
York,  and  committed  destruction  at  their  pleasure  without 
resistance  from  any,  until  it  seemed  good  to  them  to  retire. 

1  Lez  hoblours.  2  I4th  October,  1322. 

3  Estoient,  omitted  in  Maitland  Club  Ed. 

(To  be  continued.) 


Excavations    at    Newstead    Fort 

Notes    on   some    Recent    Finds 

work  of  excavating  the  Newstead  Fort  still  continues. 
A  Much  has  been  done  in  tracing  the  plan  of  the  buildings 
in  the  interior,  and  several  points  of  interest  have  emerged  ; 
but  the  most  striking  result  of  the  work  lies  in  the  collection 
of  objects  from  the  Roman  period  which  have  been  brought 
to  light.  In  this  respect  the  Newstead  excavations  more  closely 
resemble  those  of  the  German  Limes  Forts  than  any  hitherto 
undertaken  on  similar  sites  in  Britain. 

The  finds  for  the  most  part  have  been  made  in  clearing 
out  what  would  appear  to  be  disused  wells  or  rubbish  pits. 
These  have  been  found  outside  the  Fort  as  well  as  within 
the  ramparts.  In  depth  they  vary  from  twelve  to  thirty  feet, 
and  all  of  them  are  more  or  less  full  of  decomposed  animal 
and  vegetable  matter  which  has  a  marked  preservative  influence. 
In  many  instances  branches  of  birch  and  hazel  have  been  found 
with  the  bark  bright  and  silvery.  Animal  bones  occur  in  large 
quantities,  and  rope,  fragments  of  cloth,  even  a  tiny  portion 
of  an  egg-shell,  have  been  met  with.  Pottery  is  well  pre- 
served, and  the  red  Samian  ware  retains  the  full  brightness  of 
its  glaze.  Iron  tools  seem  little  the  worse  for  their  immersion, 
and  brass  and  bronze  objects  have  been  recovered  showing  little 
or  no  discolouration.  The  finds  made  in  the  pit  discovered 
in  the  courtyard  of  the  Praetorium,  consisting  of  an  altar  and 
remains  of  armour,  were  noted  in  the  October  issue  (S.H.R. 
iii.  126).  In  tracing  the  barrack  buildings  on  the  east  side  of 
the  Fort,  the  sinking  of  a  wall  revealed  another  pit,  at  the 
bottom  of  which  was  found  a  bronze  vase  with  a  single  handle. 
It  stands  eleven  inches  high,  and  belongs  to  a  type  emanating 
from  Southern  Italy.  It  probably  dates  from  the  end  of  the 
first  century.  Similar  specimens  have  been  found  in  Central 
Europe,  and  traces  of  them  have  been  met  with  before  in 
Scotland,  as  in  the  remains  of  bronze  vessels  found  on  Ruberslaw, 


472  James  Curie 

now  in  the  Hawick  Museum  ;  but  the  metal  of  which  they 
are  made  is  thin,  and  we  do  not  know  of  another  specimen 
in  the  north  which  has  survived  in  its  entirety.  The  vase 
is  undecorated,  except  for  the  handle,  which  is  of  fine  work- 
manship, and  in  part  beautifully  patinated.  The  highest 
point  is  formed  by  a  lotus  bud,  rising  from  a  collar  of  leaves 
from  which  two  arms  in  the  form  of  long-beaked  birds  spread 
out  to  attach  it  to  the  rim  of  the  vase.  The  lowest  point  of 
the  handle,  where  it  is  fastened  to  the  side,  takes  the  form 
of  a  Bacchanal  head,  with  ivy  tendrils  wreathed  in  its  hair. 

In  the  field  known  as  the  Fore  Ends,  lying  to  the  south  of 
the  Fort,  and  just  beyond  its  ramparts,  fourteen  pits  have 
been  cleared  out  with  most  interesting  results.  In  one  of 
these  two  chariot  wheels  three  feet  in  diameter  were  found. 
The  felloes  were  made  of  a  single  piece  of  ash,  with  an  iron 
rim.  The  hubs  were  of  elm,  bushed  with  iron.  The  spokes, 
which  were  unfortunately  broken,  were  neatly  turned,  fitting 
into  the  hub  with  a  square  tennon  and  into  the  felloe  with 
a  round  tennon.  The  type  of  wheel  is  precisely  that  of  the 
interesting  specimen  found  last  year  at  Barrhill.  In  the  same 
pit  was  found  a  human  skull  cleft  by  the  blow  of  some  sharp 
weapon,  an  axe,  and  remains  of  two  buckets.  In  another  pit 
was  found  a  small  globular  vase  of  Samian  ware,  an  iron  sword, 
a  battered  bronze  object,  which  at  first  was  thought  to  be  a 
helmet,  but  which  is  more  probably  a  vessel,  with  the  name 
LVCANI  twice  scratched  upon  it,  two  long  chisels,  one  with  its 
haft  of  bone,  a  hoe  or  entrenching  tool,  and  a  number  of 
iron  mountings. 

A  most  valuable  collection  of  armour  came  from  a  third  pit. 
It  consisted  of  four  pieces  of  bronze  armour,  two  for  the 
protection  of  the  shoulders,  and  two  probably  for  the  arms  ; 
nine  phalerae  of  bronze  ;  a  circular  plate  of  bronze,  nine 
inches  in  diameter,  embossed  in  the  centre ;  an  iron  helmet 
considerably  damaged  ;  fragments  of  a  second  helmet  ;  an 
iron  visor  mask,  unfortunately  broken  ;  and  a  very  fine  helmet 
of  brass  decorated  with  embossed  figures  in  high  relief.  The 
pit  also  produced  an  iron  sickle-shaped  knife  or  bill-hook,  a 
quantity  of  leather  and  some  shoes,  two  bridle  bits,  a  complete 
quern,  and  several  fragments  of  Samian  ware.  Part  of  one 
bowl,  of  a  type  dating  from  the  end  of  the  first  century,  has 
been  put  together.  The  bronze  armour  and  the  brass  helmet, 
all  objects  of  the  greatest  rarity,  are  in  wonderful  preservation, 


C.    H.   Curie 
ROMAN   HELMET  OF    BRASS   FOUND   AT   NEWSTKAD,    I  ITH    APRIL,    1906 


Sec  page  473 


Excavations  at  Newstead  Fort  473 

and  it  adds  greatly  to  their  interest  that  on  most  of  them  the 
owner's  name  has  been  scratched  with  a  sharp  point.  Three 
of  the  four  armour  pieces  have  the  number  XII  punctured 
upon  the  inner  side,  and  one  the  number  XV.  All  of  the 
four  have  scratched  upon  them  the  name  SENECIONIS  or 
SENECIO.  In  addition,  the  last-mentioned  piece  has  a  name 
faintly  scratched,  of  which  the  reading  is  possibly  SIUSELI. 
The  nine  phalerae  all  bear  the  name  DOMETI  ATTICI.  The 
brass  helmet  has  an  inscription  punctured  on  the  rim,  probably 
an  owner's  name,  but  it  has  not  as  yet  been  satisfactorily 
deciphered.  The  armour  pieces  are  without  decoration  of  any 
kind ;  they  appear  to  have  been  sewn  on  leather,  and  are 
furnished  with  small  holes  round  the  edges  for  that  purpose. 
The  phalerae  were,  on  the  other  hand,  fastened  to  the  lorica 
by  small  nuts,  many  of  which  remain.  It  is  interesting  to 
note  that,  though  undecorated,  they  correspond  exactly  in  number 
and  in  shape  to  the  well-known  set  of  these  objects  found  at 
Lauersfort,  in  Prussia,  in  1858,  now  preserved  in  Berlin.  Of 
the  two  iron  helmets  one  has  probably  been  quite  plain,  only 
fragments  of  it  are  left ;  of  the  other,  though  much  damaged, 
enough  remains  to  show  us  that  in  type  it  probably  resembled 
the  specimen  found  at  Bettenberge,  now  at  Stuttgart.  The 
whole  of  the  back  of  the  head  is  fashioned  to  resemble  curling 
locks  of  hair  bound  with  a  wreath.  Several  attachments  of 
bronze  which  remain  were,  no  doubt,  intended  for  use  in 
fixing  a  plume  or  crest.  The  rim  round  the  neck  is  overlaid 
with  a  band  of  bronze  decorated  with  a  chevron  ornament. 

It  is  probable  that  the  iron  mask  found  formed  the  visor 
of  this  helmet.  The  features  are  of  classical  type,  as  in  the 
visor  of  the  well-known  Ribchester  helmet,  and  in  other  specimens 
found  on  the  Continent.  On  the  forehead  and  above  the  ears 
are  curling  hair-locks  resembling  those  of  the  helmet,  and  among 
them  small  pieces  of  silver  are  to  be  noted,  probably  the 
remains  of  some  ornamentation.  The  most  perfect  object  of 
the  find  is  the  brass  helmet.  No  visor  was  found  with  it. 
It  covers  the  head  and  neck,  and  has  a  high  projecting  peak 
in  front.  The  whole  of  the  crown  is  covered  with  an 
embossed  design.  At  the  back  a  winged  figure  stands  up- 
right, driving  a  two-wheeled  chariot,  to  which  a  pair  of  griffins 
are  harnessed.  In  one  hand  it  holds  the  reins,  in  the  other  a 
whip,  with  which  it  urges  them  on.  In  front  another  winged 
figure  floats  through  the  air.  A  helmet  in  many  respects 

2  H 


474  Excavations  at  Newstead  Fort 

resembling  it  was  found  at  Nikopol  in  Bulgaria,  and  is  now 
preserved  in  Vienna.  It  has  the  same  projecting  peak,  and 
though  more  elaborately  executed,  a  design  with  winged  figures. 

Twice  in  England  a  large  number  of  iron  objects  have  been 
found  in  Roman  pits.  The  first  find  occurred  at  Great  Chester- 
ford  in  Essex  in  1854.  The  second  at  Silchester  in  1900. 
A  similar  find  has  lately  been  made  at  Newstead.  The  pit 
was  twenty-two  feet  in  depth.  In  the  usual  deposit  of  black 
decaying  matter  it  contained  a  quantity  of  bones,  among  them 
some  fine  red  deer  antlers,  a  saddle  quern,  an  oak  plank,  a 
yoke  also  of  oak,  a  beautifully  made  shoe  with  the  upper  part  of 
openwork,  a  large  vase  of  black  ware,  portions  of  a  human 
skull,  and  no  less  than  ninety-one  objects  or  pieces  of  iron, 
and  three  of  brass.  These  consisted  of  two  small  anvils,  one 
sword,  five  spears,  four  scythes,  five  hammers,  two  pairs  of  tongs, 
two  chisels,  two  gouges,  one  stirrup,  one  axe,  four  pickaxes,  one 
chain,  two  handles,  a  smith's  drift,  a  bucket  hoop,  two  wheel  rims, 
twenty-six  hub  rims,  two  staple  mandrils,  five  pieces  resembling 
the  tops  of  a  railing,  three  brass  mountings,  and  twenty-two 
pieces  of  iron  or  portions  of  objects  to  which  a  purpose 
cannot  be  assigned.  The  sword  blade  is  broken  in  two.  Some 
of  the  spear  points  are  blunted  by  use.  The  pickaxes,  which 
have  all  the  appearance  of  military  tools,  have  the  edges  broken 
and  the  points  turned  by  hard  usage.  Many  objects  show 
signs  of  wear,  others  were  evidently  in  process  of  being  converted 
to  some  new  purpose.  The  whole  find  suggests  the  contents 
of  a  forge. 

A  considerable  area  still  remains  to  be  excavated  if  the 
necessary  funds  are  forthcoming.  Should  it  yield  results  as 
interesting  as  those  already  obtained,  the  Newstead  finds  will 
form  a  collection  of  the  greatest  archaeological  value  as  illustrative 
of  the  life  on  the  Roman  frontier. 

JAMES  CURLE. 

[The  nature  and  variety  of  the  finds  at  Newstead  Fort  and  the  care 
with  which  they  are  being  recovered  and  preserved,  make  the  excava- 
tions a  work  of  national  importance.  The  expense  of  digging  is  very 
considerable^  and  further  funds  are  required.  Contributions  may  be 
sent  to  Joseph  Anderson,  LL.D.,  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  Scotland^ 
£>ueen  Street,  Edinburgh.  Ed.  S.H.R.] 


The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony  and 
Mr.  J.  H.  Round. 

THE  Ruthven  of  Freeland  peerage  controversy,  so  far  as  I  am 
at  present  concerned,  consists  of  Mr.  J.  H.  Round's  articles 
or  article  to  prove  that  the  peerage  is  extinct,1  my  pamphlet 
to  shew  that  Mr.  Round  has  not  made  out  his  case,2  Mr. 
Maitland  Thomson's  review  of  that  pamphlet  (S.H.R.  in.  p.  104), 
and  Mr.  Round's  reply  to  it  (S.H.R.  in.  pp.  194  and  339). 
I  now  proceed  to  make  my  second,  and,  as  I  propose,  my  final 
contribution  to  the  controversy,  consisting  of  an  examination 
of  Mr.  Round's  Reply. 

One  preliminary  observation  occurs  to  me  to  be  made.  It 
is,  that  I  propose  to  treat  as  Mr.  Round's  own  arguments  all 
arguments  which  he  puts  forward  for  his  own  purposes.  Mr. 
Round  desires  to  distinguish,  in  the  matter  of  his  responsibility, 
between  the  arguments  which  he  has  only  borrowed  from 
Riddell  and  the  late  Earl  of  Crawford,  and  those  which  he 
has  discovered  or  invented  for  himself.  I  do  not  refer  to  his 
statement  that  '  Mr.  Stevenson  .  .  .  persistently  ignores  my 
own  points  which  tell  against  his  case.'  The  truth  of  that 
assertion  may  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  those  who  have 
taken  the  trouble  to  read  my  pamphlet.  What  1  refer  to  are 
the  passages  in  which  he  says  that  I  put  in  his  mouth,  or  foist 
upon  him  statements  which  are  not  his,  but  which  he  only  quoted. 
I  reply  that  a  disputant  is  not  permitted  to  borrow  statements 
or  arguments  and  use  them  for  his  own  purposes,  and  at  the 
same  time  deny  that  they  are  his  arguments.  It  is  impossible 
to  recognise  any  differences  in  a  controversialist's  responsibility 
for  the  weapons  which  he  uses. 

Ingrained  in  all  Mr.  Round's  writings  on  the  question  of 
the  peerage  of  Ruthven  is  the  theory  that  a  special  Scotch 

1  See  Foster's  Collectanea  Genealogica,  1884,  p.  167;  Quarterly  Review,  1893, 
p.  407  ;  Studies  in  Peerage  and  Family  History ,  1901. 

^The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Peerage  and  its  Critics  (MacLehose),   1905. 

475 


476       The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony 

system  exists  which  affords  a  shelter  to  the  pretender  to  a 
peerage  from  the  necessity  of  proving  his  right,  to  which  he 
would  have  been  exposed  in  England.  It  has  to  be  remem- 
bered therefore  that  there  is  no  such  system.  The  same  law 
with  regard  to  the  assumption  of  titles  of  peerage  obtains  in 
both  countries,  and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  House  of  Lords  to 
compel  its  observance  is  the  same  in  Scotland  as  it  is  in 
England. 

Mr.  Round  informs  us,  however,  that  *  no  less  a  writer  on 
the  British  Constitution  than  Sir  William  Anson  has  declared 
the  absence  of  any  certain  bar  to  the  wrongful  assumption 
of  Scottish  dignities  a  flaw  in  our  existing  system  ' ;  and  that 
Mr.  jflineas  Mackay  and  the  late  Lord  Clerk  Register,  and 
Lyon  King  of  Arms  '  reluctantly  admitted '  to  the  Lords' 
Committee  of  1882  that  there  were  persons  in  Scotland  who 
had  not  been  put  to  a  proof  of  their  pretensions,  and  persons 
who  might  and  might  not  be  peers.  But  we  should  like  to 
have  the  proof  that  these  authorities  admitted  or  asserted  the 
fact  that  what  they  said  applied  specially  to  Scotland,  or, 
what  is  better,  the  proof  of  the  fact  itself. 

As  Mr.  Round  informs  us  at  this  point  that  he  is  an  English- 
man, his  proof  of  the  Scottish  flaw  must  not  be  called  Irish ; 
but  the  fortification  of  his  statement  consists,  firstly,  of  a 
citation  of  the  Irish  { Lord  Carlingford '  case ;  secondly,  of 
the  mention  of  '  a  certain  title,'  unnamed,  and  not  said  to  be 
Scottish,  f  which  has  never  been,  and,  it  is  alleged,  never 
could  be  proved,'  and  of  which  Mr.  Round  mysteriously 
announces :  *  I  may  add  that,  to  my  own  knowledge,  this  case 
causes  anxiety  in  an  official  quarter';1  and,  thirdly ',  'at  least 
one  English  peerage  title  which  is  at  present  persistently 
assumed.'  (S.H.R.  iii.  p.  195.)  It  is  only  as  he  writes  that 
Mr.  Round  finds  a  current  Scotch  case,  or  a  rumour  of  one, 
in  a  newspaper,  and  puts  it  in  a  footnote. 

So  Mr.  Round  has  admitted  that  the  unwarranted  assump- 
tion of  a  title  of  peerage  may  be  found  in  England  and 
Ireland;  and  has  proved  that  his  authorities  cannot  possibly 
have  meant  what  he  attributed  to  them. 

The  only  peculiarity  in   peerage    matters  in    Scotland,  which 

is  not  found  in  England  or  Ireland,  is  one  which  has  nothing 

to  do  with  freedom  or  restriction  in  assuming  titles ;  it  is  that 

in  Scotland  the  peers  are  summoned  to  elect  their  parliamentary 

1  Society  papers,  please  copy- 


and   Mr.  J.   H.   Round  477 

representatives  without  a  roll  of  peers,  but  with  a  roll  of 
peerages  only;  with,  in  fact,  no  roll  of  voters,  but  only  a 
roll  of  qualifications,  and  with  no  power  of  refusing  votes 
without  the  intervention  of  the  House  of  Lords.  But  whose 
fault  is  that  ? 

The  Lords'  Committee  of  1882,  from  whose  Minutes  of 
Evidence  Mr.  Round  quotes,  a  Committee  the  majority  of 
whom  were  Scotsmen,  reported  unanimously  in  favour  of  the 
institution  of  a  Roll  of  Peers.  They  also,  by  a  majority, 
reported  in  favour  of  altering  the  system  in  matters  of  pro- 
tests, etc.,  and  of  taking  evidence  in  Scots  peerage  claims,  by 
utilising  the  Court  of  Session.  Who  then  appeared  'passionately 
attached  to  the  present  system  or  lack  of  any,'  or  revealed 
that  the  subject  was  a  *  tender '  one  for  him  ?  It  was  Mr. 
Round's  own  countryman,  the  Earl  of  Redesdale,  who  dis- 
sented from  the  majority  because  he  considered  that  their 
suggestions  were  an  imputation  on  the  efficiency  of  the  House 
of  Lords  as  the  Court  for  all  these  matters  for  the  last  170 
years.  Mr.  Round  must  have  missed  the  Report. 

The  Committee  also  was  moved  to  make  recommendations 
by  the  advice  of  its  Scots  witnesses,  Mr.  Mackay,  the  Lord 
Clerk  Register,  and  the  Lyon  King,  who  agreed  on  this 
at  least,  that  the  present  electoral  system  was  in  want  of 
amendment.  Mr.  Round  must  have  missed  that  too  ;  for  it 
turns  out  that  the  facts  which  he  innuendoes  as  *  admissions,' 

*  reluctant,'    '  very    reluctant,'    and    so    on,    Lyon    indeed    being 
'  driven    to   admit,'    were    actually    the    facts    which    they    had 
come    expressly    to    London    to    persuade    the    Committee    to 
accept  as  grounds  for  the  changes  which  they  desired. 

The  discussion,  however,  has  no  relevance  to  the  question 
of  the  peerage  of  Ruthven,  unless  proof  is  forthcoming  that 
the  system,  Scottish  or  not,  has  actually  protected  that  peerage 
from  any  sufficient  trial  to  which  it  would  otherwise  have  been 
subjected.  That  proof  is  absent. 

In    his  original    case,    Mr.    Round    stated    that,   in    Scotland, 

*  Wrongful  assumptions  were  challenged  in  one  of  two  ways : 

(1)  by  a  counter-claimant,  as  in  Oxenford,  and  Rutherford.  .  .  . 

(2)  by    the   vote    happening    to   turn   the   scale   at  a   contested 
election,    as    in    Newark,   and    Lindores.'     He    asserted    at    the 
same    time    that    the    first  test    '  could   not '   apply  to  Ruthven, 
because  there  was  in  fact  no  counter-claimant.     He  stated  also 
that  on  the  only  *  important '  occasion  on  which  the  second  test 


478       The  Ruthven  of  Freeland   Barony 

was  in  fact  applied,  Ruthven,  being  a  minor,  was  not  present. 
'  We  thus  perceive,'  says  Mr.  Round,  *  that  it  was  from  special 
circumstances  that  the  Ruthven  peerage  escaped  challenge.' 

The  argument,  of  course,  embodies  the  familiar  formal 
fallacy  of  the  *  illicit  major.' 

The  rival  claimant  and  the  said  contested  election  are  dangers. 

Ruthven  escaped  these. 

Therefore  Ruthven  escaped  all  dangers. 

But  it  does  not  appear  why  there  was  no  counter-claimant, 
if,  as  one  of  Mr.  Round's  authorities  says,  the  peerage  was  open 
to  collateral  heirs  male.  Nor  do  we  perceive  that  the  Ruthven 
vote  was  never  exposed  to  challenge  merely  because  the  peer 
was  not  able  to  be  present  on  the  only  '  important '  occasion 
on  which  other  peerages  were  challenged.  There  is  thus, 
manifestly,  a  complete  failure  of  proof  that  the  Ruthven 
'  escape '  from  challenge  was  due  to  '  special  circumstances.' 

In  consequence  of  the  abundant  evidence  which  I  adduced 
in  my  pamphlet  that  the  event  of  the  appearance  of  a  rival, 
or  the  event  of  a  vote  turning  the  scale  at  an  election,  were 
not  the  only  contingencies  which  a  pretender  to  a  peerage  had  to 
fear,  Mr.  Round  now  rejoins :  *  I  never  used  the  word  "  only  " 
(S.H.R.  iii.  200,  note  2).  I  accept  the  disclaimer,  without 
examination  of  the  fact.  His  amended  statement  of  his  argu- 
ment is  now  :  '  That  the  accident  of  its  [Ruthven's]  survival 
is  explicable  by  its  lucky  circumstances,  which  saved  it  from 
the  usual  perils'  (ib.  I96).1  Verily,  Mr.  Round,  whatever  he 
meant  before,  puts  forward  a  transparent  fallacy  now. 

To  the  consideration  of  the  cases  of  protest  which  were 
not  made  by  rival  claimants,  and  not  made  when  there  were 
contests  imminent,  Mr.  Round  has  now  applied  himself ;  and  he 
says  that  they  were  'rare,'  and,  arguing  from  the  occasions  of 
the  cases  on  record,  he  says  such  protests  were  *  only  based ' 
on  '  (i)  the  claim  being  at  variance  with  a  known  limitation,  and 
possibly  (2)  on  a  claimant  not  having  proved  his  pedigree.' 
In  the  case  of  Ruthven,  therefore,  he  concludes  :  '  Naturally 
there  was  no  protest,  because  these  grounds  of  a  protest  were 
wanting.'  This  is  an  instance  of  an  argument  in  a  circle, 
Mr.  Round  having  premised  that  the  bases  he  observed  were 
the  'only  bases.'  But  there  was  nothing  to  restrict  the  peers 
from  challenging  on  any  sufficient  ground. 

1  Mr.  Round's  arguments  here  from  the  cases  of  Duffus  and  Oxenford,  even 
if  otherwise  valid,  which  they  are  not,  contain  this  fallacy. 


and  Mr.  J.   H.  Round  479 

It  therefore  stands  that  Ruthven's  c  lucky  circumstances '  did 
not  save  it  from  the  danger  of  challenge.  Other  peerages 
were  challenged  by  the  Lord  Clerk  Register,  or  by  a  peer  who 
was  no  rival  claimant,  and  at  times  when  there  was  no  contest  of 
any  kind.  And  the  House  of  Lords  repeatedly  interfered 
whether  there  was  a  competition  or  a  protest  or  not,  and  ordered 
the  pretender  to  a  peerage  to  prove  his  right  before  he  further 
attempted  to  use  the  title. 

I  find  no  important  observations  in  Mr.  Round's  reply  on 
the  cases  I  adduced  in  my  proof.  To  some  of  them  he  makes 
no  reply  at  all.  The  only  argument  which  seems  to  call  for 
notice  regards  the  case  of  Wigton.  It,  says  Mr.  Round,  was 
*  a  glaring  case  of  baseless  assumption.'  In  his  view,  however, 
that  circumstance  cannot  distinguish  Wigton  from  Ruthven, 
which  he  has  announced  to  be  a  '  fraud,'  and  a  c  flagrant  scandal 
...  of,  I  believe,  unparalleled  character.' 

But  not  even  a  fragment  of  Mr.  Round's  argument  remains. 
For  he  denies  also  that  he  ever  said  that  the  Lord  Ruthven 
of  1734  in  question  never  voted  when  his  vote  might  have 
turned  the  scale.  (S.H.R.  iii.  199.) 

It  is  thus  clearly  to  be  presumed  that  the  peers  at  elections, 
and  the  peers  in  parliament,  refrained  from  challenging  the 
Lords  Ruthven,  not  because  of  the  absence  of  any  interested 
party  to  bring  the  case  before  them,  but  simply  because  they 
did  not  class  the  Lords  Ruthven  with  those  whose  titles  ought 
to  be  challenged,  or  needed  to  be  proved. 

Mr.  Round  here  falls  back  upon  an  argument  which  concludes 
for  a  smaller  concession.  The  cases  of  Borthwick  [which  he 
has  admitted]  and  Wigton  'will  not,'  he  says,  'avail  Mr. 
Stevenson,  for  what  he  has  to  prove  is  that  "  all  things  "  were  set 
right,  and  if  it  can  be  shewn  that  a  single  known  wrongful 
assumption  ran  the  gauntlet  successfully,  Mr.  Stevenson's 
argument  breaks  down,  for  Ruthven  may  have  done  the 
same.' 

It  would  no  doubt  be  a  relief  for  the  assailant  in  this  case 
if  the  onus  of  proof  which  he  has  undertaken  might  now  be 
shifted  on  to  the  shoulders  of  his  opponent ;  but  the  principles 
of  probation  decline  to  assist  him.  Firstly,  I  cannot  be  compelled 
to  prove  a  negative,  and  secondly,  as  I  have  shewn  that  the 
House  of  Lords  once  set  its  hand  to  the  elimination  of  mere 
pretenders,  and  that  it  successfully  eliminated  a  number  of 
them,  a  presumption  has  come  in,  whether  Mr.  Round  or  I 


480       The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony 

will  or  not,  that  the  House  continued  its  work  till  it 
completed  it. 

Mr.  Round  styles  the  peerage  of  Ruthven  '  an  accidental 
survivor,'  but  that  proves  nothing.  How  accidental  ?  Because 
the  '  exceptional '  action  of  the  House  of  Lords  was  '  but  a 
flash  in  the  pan.'  If  there  was  ever  any  use  in  conundrums, 
I  should  be  inclined  to  ask  why  Mr.  Round  so  frequently 
argues  in  a  circle. 

There  is,  then,  no  presumption  that  the  House  stopped 
short.  That  is  a  fact  which  Mr.  Round  has  to  prove  ;  and 
if  his  proof  is  to  neutralise  the  presumption  arising  from  a 
recognition  as  prolonged  as  that  of  Ruthven,  he  must  be  able 
to  point  to  an  instance  in  which  a  peerage  was  (i)  known  to 
be  extinct,  and  (2)  was,  nevertheless,  allowed  to  a  line  of 
pretenders  for  a  very  considerable  term  of  years. 

Mr.  Round  tables  two  cases,  Newark,  and  Colvill  of  Ochil- 
tree,  and  my  respect  for  his  abilities  entitles  me  to  assume 
that  they  are  the  most  apposite  to  his  purpose  that  can  be 
found.  But  neither  of  the  cases  possesses  the  requisite  character- 
istics. Newark  fails  in  the  first ;  it  was  not  known  to  be  extinct 
until  the  House  of  Lords,  in  1793,  pronounced  its  documentary 
title  to  be  bad.  The  case  of  Colvill  fails  in  the  second  requisite. 
As  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson  says  :  {  For  claimants  of  the  Colvill 
of  Ochiltree  type  there  is  justice  in  Scotland  as  swift  and  sudden 
as  south  of  the  Tweed.'  (S.H.R.  iii.  p.  108.)  The  pretender 
to  that  title  appeared  in  1784,  and  in  that  year  voted  at  an 
election  ;  he  voted  again  in  1787,  but  on  tendering  a  vote  a  few 
months  later,  in  January,  1788,  his  vote  was  challenged,  and 
on  a  petition  was  disallowed.  That  was  the  end  of  that 
claimant ;  he  at  least  cannot  be  said  to  have  f  run  the  gauntlet 
successfully.' 

The  proof,  then,  that  any  known  wrongful  assumption  ever 
ran  the  gauntlet,  or  received  the  recognition  accorded  to  the 
peerage  of  Ruthven,  has  failed. 

It  is  not  surprising,  as  I  have  said,  that  the  assailant  of  this 
peerage,  who  has  asserted  the  fact  that  the  peerage  is  extinct, 
should  desire  to  be  relieved  of  the  proof  of  it. 

So  we  find  Mr.  Round  harking  back  to  the  presumption  of 
law,  which,  he  complains,  I  have  not  dealt  with.  Abandoning 
his  proof  that  the  patent  was  to  heirs  male  of  the  body,  or  else 
to  heirs  male,  he  states  the  fact  that,  'when  the  contents  of 
a  patent  are  unknown,  the  law,  as  laid  down  by  Lord  Mansfield, 


and  Mr.  J.  H.   Round  481 

presumes  a  limitation   to    the  heirs  male  of  the    body  of  the 
patentee.' 

That  is,  no  doubt,  perfectly  true,  but  the  existence  or  nature 
of  a  legal  presumption  invented  in   1761,  which  fixes  the  onus 
of  proof,  relieving  the   heir   male,   and  burdening  the    heir   of     , 
line  and  the  heir  of  entail,  is  quite  irrelevant  to  the  enquiry. 
It  deals  with  the  necessity,  not  the  weight  of  evidence. 

*  As  the  contents  of  the  patent  are  admittedly  unknown,'  he 
perseveres,  l  that  title  has  been  extinct  in  the  eyes  of  the  law,, 
as  now  understood  and  acted  upon,  for  the  last  180  years.' 
So  Mr.  Round  invites  us  to  consider  a  presumption  of  law  as 
a  point  in  a  demonstration  of  fact !  But  it  won't  do.  Lord 
Mansfield's  doctrine  neither  extinguishes  nor  vivifies  peerages.1 
If  it  absolves  Mr.  Round  from  proof  until  the  presumption 
is  rebutted,  good  and  well.  But  if  from  any  feeling  that,  for 
example,  facts  and  circumstances  have  rebutted  the  presumption > 
Mr.  Round  enters  the  arena  of  fact,  he  is  on  the  level  of  all 
disputants,  he  has  to  prove  his  facts. 

What  then  are  the  facts  ?  It  is  amazing,  at  this  advanced 
stage  in  the  discussion,  to  find  a  disputant  who  has  been 
engaged  in  it  for  twenty  years,  starting  the  suggestion,  that 
perhaps  there  never  was  any  Ruthven  of  Freeland  peerage  at 
all.  Mr.  Round  is  not  very  sure  of  his  law,  he  does  not 
*  insist  in  any  way  upon  this  '  ;  but  he  states  the  fact  '  for  what 
it  is  worth,'  that  the  Ruthven  patent  never  passed  the  Great 
Seal!  (S.H.R.  iii.  198.) 

But  what  ground  does  Mr.  Round  shew  for  the  statement  ? 
Not  a  scrap.  He  points  out  that  the  contemporary  patent  of 
the  Earldom  of  Ormond  never  passed  the  Seals.  But  granted 
that  a  second  patent  had  to  be  issued  before  the  heir  could  sit  in 
Parliament,  Lord  Ruthven  was  already  sitting  there.  That  is 
all  that  Mr.  Round's  facts  on  this  head  come  to.  His  assertion 
that  the  patent  of  the  lordship  of  Ruthven  was  in  the  same 
case  with  that  of  Ormond,  is  entirely  out  of  his  own  head. 
He  refers  to  Riddell  (Peerage  Law,  pp.  67,  68),  at  the  end 
of  his  sentence,  but  Riddell  says  not  a  word  about  the  Ruthven 
patent  in  the  whole  book. 

On  entering  into  the  discussion  of  the  validity  of  the 
attack  on  the  survival  of  the  Ruthven  peerage  I  found  ranged 
against  Mr.  Round  the  Union  Roll  of  1707  (along  with  which 

xlf  Mr.  Round  were  right,  the  Sutherland  peerage  had  been  extinct  for  250 
years  when  the  same  Lord  Mansfield,  in  1771,  awarded  it  to  an  heiress. 


482       The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony 

may  be  taken  the  Parliamentary  Roll  of  1706),  the  Roll  of 
1740  returned  by  the  Judges  of  the  Court  of  Session,  and 
the  uniform  practice  at  Holyrood  at  the  Elections  of  Peers, 
and  at  Court,  Coronations,  etc.  ;  and  cited  in  his  favour 
Crawford's  Peerage,  Chamberlayne's  List,  MacFarlan's  List,  and 
a  manuscript  note  by  Lord  Hailes,  also  John  RiddelFs  opinion, 
in  his  Remarks  on  the  Scottish  Peerage  Law,  1833,  pp.  136,  143. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  evidence  here  in  favour  of  the 
peerage  contained  in  the  official  Rolls  is  at  least  superior  in 
kind  to  the  evidence  collected  against  it.  The  distinction  is 
well  recognized  in  all  Courts  of  Law.  The  official  Roll  is 
certainly  admissible  evidence  and  to  be  taken  as  good  until  it 
is  proven  not  to  be  good  ;  while  the  evidence  of  irresponsible 
writers  has  to  be  shewn  to  be  admissible  before  the  nature  of 
its  contents  can  be  looked  at. 

The  Union  Roll  of  1707.  This  Roll  of  1707  was  but  a 
certified  copy  of  the  Roll  of  the  Scotch  Parliament,  as  was 
proved  by  its  identity  with  the  Roll  of  1706.  It  admittedly 
included  the  title  of  Ruthven.  Mr.  Round,  following  Riddell, 
argued  that  the  inclusion  of  a  peerage  in  the  Roll  did  not  prove 
that  the  peerage  existed,  because  the  Roll  omitted  three  peerages, 
Somerville,  Dingwall,  and  Aston  of  Forfar,  that  were  extant,  and 
admitted  two,  Abercromby  and  Newark,  that  were  extinct.1 

The  omission  of  the  holders  of  good  titles  does  not 
prove  the  inclusion  of  bad  titles ;  but  in  the  case  of  each 
of  these  omitted  titles  I  found  something  that  distinguished 
it  from  the  cases  of  peerages  in  a  normal  state  of  exercise. 
Somerville  had  not  appeared  even  in  the  Decreet  of  Rank- 
ing of  1606,  and  had  not  been  asserted  since.  No  Lord 
Dingwall  had  ever  taken  his  seat  in  Parliament  ;  the  first 
lord  had  become  an  Irish  Viscount  and  Earl,  and  the  family 
had  entirely  left  Scotland  for  near  a  hundred  years.  The  first 
Lord  Aston  of  Forfar  was  an  Englishman.  He  had  sat  in 

1Mr.  Round  says  that  his  reference  to  the  inclusion  also  of  two  dormant 
peerages,  Ochiltree  and  Spynie,  on  the  Roll  was  merely  to  shew  that  inclusion 
did  not  infer  a  recognition  that  the  title  had  been  validly  assumed  by  any 
particular  person.  Of  course  it  did  not.  The  Roll  was  merely  a  Roll  of 
Peerages.  Inclusion  in  it  inferred  merely  that  the  peerage  was  extant.  For 
the  sake  of  a  full  statement  of  the  elements  of  the  Roll,  I  called  Mr.  Round's 
attention  to  an  admission  of  another  extinct  peerage,  that  of  Glasford  ;  but 
as  he  does  not  appear  to  accept  the  case,  I  do  not  press  it.  It  turns  on 
whether  Lord  Glasford's  death  in  the  Fleet  Prison  should  have  been  officially 
known  in  Scotland. 


and  Mr.  J.   H.   Round  483 

Parliament  on  two  successive  days  in  the  year  that  Charles  I. 
went  to  Edinburgh  to  be  crowned,  and  that  was  all.  He  died 
in  1639.  His  son  and  grandson  had  never  sat.  If  the  framers 
of  the  Roll  of  1707  had  happened  to  know  of  the  survival  of 
these  titles  so  long  after  they  had  disappeared  from  Parliament, 
good  and  well.  But  it  is  ridiculous  to  insist  that  as  they 
knew  of  the  survival  of  Fairfax,  they  should  have  sent  a 
commission  abroad  to  enquire  for  Aston  and  his  pedigree. 

As  to  the  inclusion  of  the  two  extinct  titles,  Abercrombie 
and  Newark,  I  found  that  their  retention  on  the  Roll  was 
capable  of  explanation.1  The  case  of  Abercrombie  turned  upon 
the  construction  of  its  patent,  one  of  the  clauses  of  which 
bore  that  the  title  went  to  collaterals.  Newark  turned,  as  I 
have  already  said  above,  on  the  validity  of  a  document,  which 
was  not  ascertained  till  1793. 

After  stating  the  facts  just  summarised  I  added,  'Mr.  Round 
will  perhaps  be  dissatisfied  with  the  foregoing  account  of  the 
errors  of  the  document  in  question,  for  again,  following  Riddell, 
he  informs  us  in  a  footnote  that  such  was  the  carelessness  and 
inaccuracy  with  which  the  Union  Roll  was  constructed  that 
"Douglas  himself  confesses  the  inaccuracy  of  the  test,  for  he 
at  the  same  time  observes  that  the  Lords  of  Session  in  *  their 
report  found  the  titles  of  no  less  than  twenty-five  Peers  of 
that  Roll  dubious,'  so  little  reliance  is  there  to  be  placed  upon  it." 
(Round,  page  174,  Riddell,  page  136.) 

Mr.  Round's  sentence  bears  only  one  construction.  It  meant 
that  the  judges  had  found  that  twenty-five  of  the  titles  on 
the  Union  Roll  were  doubtful  when  they  were  placed  there. 
I  proved  that  Douglas  never  confessed  or  asserted  what  Mr. 
Round  said  he  had  confessed ;  and  that,  whether  he  had  or 
not,  the  judges  never  found  or  pretended  to  find  what  Mr. 
Round  says  they  found.  What  has  Mr.  Round  had  to  say 
in  reply  ?  He  says  :  £  My  readers  are  now,  doubtless,  prepared 

*  to  learn  that  I  have  nowhere  made  any  such  statement.     The 
'  statement  that  the  Lords  of  Session   found  the    titles  of  no 

*  less  than  twenty-five  Peers  of  that  Roll  dubious  is  triumphantly 
4  cited   by  Riddell  from   Douglas,   who   is  therefore   the  person 
4  responsible  for  it.     I  am  in  no  way  responsible  for  its  accuracy, 

*  nor  did  I  myself  impugn  more  than  two  titles,  besides  Ruthven, 

*  on    the   Roll '    (S.H.R.   iii.    209).     So  in   the    act    of  running 

1  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  they  appear  also  in  Chamberlayne's  List  of 
1708,  the  first  edition  of  the  List  cited  by  Mr.  Round,  as  an  authority. 


484       The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony 

away   he   says  over   his   shoulder    that    the    charge  was  good— 
*  triumphant.'      Some    pages    earlier   in    his    Reply    (page    203), 
he    quotes    an    accusation   of  irrelevancy  levelled   by  me  again 
against   Riddell.     On    that    he  comments :    *  Riddell    is  a    dead 
man  who  cannot  defend  himself.' 

Mr.  Round  accuses  me  of  not  meeting  his  argument,  that 
detention  of  a  peerage  on  the  Roll  was  merely  an  admission 
that  its  extinction  had  not  been  demonstrated,  and  was  not  a 
recognition  that  it  had  been  validly  assumed  by  any  particular  person. ' 
(The  italics  are  Mr.  Round's.) 

But  no  one  ever  said  that  the  presence  of  a  peerage  on  the 
Roll  was  an  assertion  of  the  pedigree  right  of  the  holder, 
and  it  is  quite  unnecessary  to  take  the  trouble  to  confute  the 
assertion  that  the  retention  on  the  Roll  of  a  peerage,  which 
was  in  the  position  of  the  Ruthven  peerage,  for  six  years  after 
the  extinction  of  the  grantee's  male  line,  while  the  patent  was 
no  more  than  fifty  years  old,  was  merely  an  f  admission '  that 
its  extinction  had  not  been  demonstrated. 

The  Roll  of  1740  was  made  up  in  the  form  of  a  Return, 
in  pursuance  of  an  Order  of  the  House  of  Lords  demanding, 
among  other  things,  a  list  of  all  the  existing  Scotch  Peerages 
and  a  statement  as  far  as  the  judges  were  able  to  make  it 
of  the  particular  limitations  of  those  peerages.  The  judges 
confined  themselves  to  the  first  part  of  the  remit. 

Their  Return  contained  a  list  of  Peerages,  which  list  was, 
practically,  the  Roll  of  1707  along  with  some  additions,  some 
omissions,  some  alterations  and  some  observations.  The  Return 
has  all  the  weight  of  an  official  document  made  by  the  most 
responsible  authorities  in  the  performance  of  a  public  duty. 
And  the  form  and  contents  of  the  Return  are  such  as  to  leave 
no  alternative  to  the  conclusion  that  the  judges  proceeded  to 
their  work  with  the  greatest  method,  and  that  they  deliberately 
classed  the  peerage  of  Ruthven  with  those  of  the  subsistence 
of  which  they  had  no  doubt. 

Mr.  Round's  assertion  first  in  logical  order  against  this  Roll 
was  that  it  had  '  no  judicial  or  even  official  authority.'  I  believe 
I  showed  in  reply  that  the  Roll  has  both.  What  then  does  Mr. 
Round  reply  ?  He  attempts  to  escape  from  the  responsibility 
of  having  made  the  assertion. 

*  Here  we  have  Mr.  Stevenson  again  trying  to  foist  on 
me  a  statement  which  was  not  mine,  but  as  we  discover  in 
his  next  page  Lord  Crawford's.' 


and  Mr.  J.  H.   Round  485 

Other  people  must  have  discovered  Lord  Crawford's  author- 
ship in  my  next  line.  My  words  were  :  c  Mr.  Round's  argument 
which  comes  first  in  logical  order,  is  the  formal  objection  that  the 
report  has  "  no  judicial  or  even  official  authority."  His  state- 
ment is  couched  in  what  is,  or  appears  to  be,  a  quotation 
from  the  great  pleading  in  favour  of  heir  of  line  of  the 
earldom  of  Mar.' 

But  Mr.  Round  adopts  the  statement.  He  puts  it  in 
italics.  He  announces  that  Lord  Crawford  in  the  quotation 

*  disposes    of  this    unfortunate    document,'    and  pronounces  his 
Lordship's  assertions  an  '  expose  of  "  the  Lords  of  Session  "  and 
"their  elaborate  (!)  report."'     Finally  he  adds,   'so  much  for 
the    evidence    of  this    report.'      After   all    this    it    is    that    Mr. 
Round   attempts  to  disown  the  statement.     Then,  after  having 
solemnly    treated    us    to    all    this    quibble    as    to    whether    the 
words    are    his    own    or    not,    he    takes    the    trouble   to   reprint 
them  in  extenso,  and  again   in  italics,   and  comments  on   them, 

*  this    is    strong    enough,     and    I     cannot    wonder    that    Mr. 
'  Stevenson   does  not  like  it.'     He    petitions    to  be  allowed  to 
adopt   other  people's    statements,   without    having   to    take    the 
consequences. 

Then,  similarly  after  disclaiming  the  responsibility  for  the 
statement,  which  he  quotes  from  Lord  Crawford,  that  the 
report  was  the  work  of  one  man,  he  concludes,  '  and  at 

*  the    end  of  it    all  what   do   we  find  ?      The   above  quotation 

*  from  Lord    Crawford    is  perfectly    accurate,   which    is  all   that 
'  concerns  me.' 

The  extent  to  which  the  logic  of  authority  appeals  to  Mr. 
Round  on  occasions  is  remarkable.  The  strength  of  Lord 
Crawford's  statement  carries  conviction  to  his  mind,  and 
terror,  he  concludes,  to  his  opponents'  souls.  But  what  was 
the  '  end  of  it '  ?  I  proved  that  it  was  not  the  fact  that  the 
Report  was  the  work  of  one  man,  and  I  shewed  that  the 
Report  certainly  has  official  authority.  What  the  accuracy  of 
Mr  Round's  quotation  of  inaccuracies  matters  I  do  not  pretend 
to  know.  Mr.  Round  made  other  and  longer  quotations  from 
the  Earl.  But  I  showed,  by  printing  the  original  passages,  that 
Mr.  Round's  quotations  were  so  selected  and  pieced  together 
as  to  be  essentially  misleading. 

Leaving  the  contemplation  of  Lord  Crawford's  statement, 
Mr.  Round  proceeds  to  adduce  some  equally  partizan  assertions 
of  Riddell's,  and  immediately  expresses  the  anxious  hope  that  'if 


486       The  Ruthven  of  Freeland   Barony 

'  Mr.  Stevenson  should  attempt  to  dispose  of  these  assertions 
4  so  fatal  to  his  whole  argument,'  he  will  at  least  refrain  from 
describing  them  as  *  Mr.  Round's  statements.'  My  present 
business  is  to  examine  Mr.  Round's  statements  and  arguments. 
If,  therefore,  he  does  not  adopt  the  assertions  and  make  them 
part  of  his  case,  they  do  not  come  within  the  circumscribed 
task  to  which  I  have  set  myself. 

It  appears,  then,  that  my  conclusion  remains,  and  that  the 
Report  of  1 740  *  is  a  certificate  of  the  existence  of  the  peerage 
of  Ruthven  at  its  date,  which  can  only  be  outweighed  by  very 
direct  and  overwhelming  evidence  to  the  contrary.' 

Mr.  Round  gravely  assures  us  that  Riddell  was  reluctantly 
compelled  to  admit  that  the  Roll  of  1 740  contained  inadvertencies 
and  inaccuracies.  Just  so,  and  the  wolf  who  set  himself  to 
pick  a  quarrel  with  the  lamb  was  reluctantly  compelled  to 
admit  that  the  lamb  who  was  down  stream  was  polluting  the 
water  which  he,  the  wolf,  was  drinking.  If  Mr.  Round  knew 
more  about  his  subject  than  he  appears  to  do,  he  would  not 
fall  into  the  solecism  of  quoting  Riddell  as  he  does. 

Riddell's  works  are  a  quarry  of  charter  and  pedigree  facts, 
but  in  argument  they  are  little  more  than  the  vehicle  by 
which,  if  he  did  not  consciously  attempt  to  influence  public 
opinion  in  favour  of  his  clients,  he  at  least  gave  the  world  the 
substance  of  his  briefs.  His  confession  of  the  history  of  his 
published  opinions  deprives  them  of  the  slightest  particle  of 
judicial  authority.  It  is  to  be  found  at  the  end  of  his 
Stewartiana  (Edinburgh,  1843).  ^s  section  there  headed 
My  Last  Chapter  which  begins  on  page  147  of  that  work,  and 
which  was  inserted  in  that  book  after  the  index  was  completed,1 
is  one  of  the  most  cynical  confessions  ever  made  by  any  writer. 
From  what  prudential  motives  the  confession  arose  does  not 
appear,  but  they  were  at  any  rate  sufficient  to  induce  Riddell 
to  state  expressly  that  his  published  books,  including  the  two 
on  which  Mr.  Round  so  confidingly  founds,  were  written  in 
advocacy  of  his  clients  : — 

'  I  only  praise  Lord  Hailes  because  I  find  his  authority 
'  convenient  to  support  some  peerage  cases  which  I  am  engaged 
'  to  defend.  If  I  had  been  on  the  other  side  I  would  have 
'abused  him  as  I  have  done  other  judges  who  differed  from 
'me'  (p.  149). 

1 1  cite  from  Riddell's  presentation  copy  to  Thomas  Thomson. 


and  Mr.  J.   H.   Round  487 

Then  follows  an  extraordinary  catalogue  of  his  forensic 
resorts  in  objurgation  and  vituperation,  mainly  of  Lords 
Mansfield  and  Roslyn,  culled  mostly  from  his  Peerage  Law, 
that  storehouse  from  which  his  disciple  in  the  Ruthven  case 
brings  out  things  new  and  old  under  the  blissful  impres- 
sion that  every  word  of  Riddell  is  of  the  quality  of  a  citation 
from  the  judgment  of  a  supreme  court.  Some  lines  further 
down  (p.  150)  Riddell  reveals  the  character  and  intention  of 
his  writings : — 

'  I  am  quite  aware  that  anyone  who  liked  to  pull  them  to 
'pieces,  might  make  a  curious  contrast  between  my  first 
'performance  and  my  last  (my  Remarks  of  1833  and  my 
'  Peerage  Law  of  1842),  and  what  more  natural  when  they 
*  were  written  on  different  sides  of  the  question  ? ' 

As  it  is  unnecessary  to  add  to  what  I  have  already  said  on 
the  subject  of  the  coronation  summonses  I  pass  to  Mr.  Round's 
proof  in  contradiction  of  the  Rolls. 

Crawford's  Peerage.  Crawfurd  had  said  that  the  peerage  died 
with  David,  the  second  lord.  (That  Crawfurd  changed  his  mind 
afterwards  we  may  neglect  in  this  context.)  As  there  were 
collateral  heirs  male,  Crawfurd  meant  that  the  peerage  was  to 
heirs  male  of  the  patentee's  body.  I  found,  however,  that 
Crawfurd's  short  article  in  the  peerage  in  question  was  other- 
wise full  of  errors,  it  is  wholly  unreliable.  There  is  no  need 
of  rehearsing  these  errors. 

Chamberlain's  List  of  1726.  This  list  Mr.  Round  adduces  to 
prove  generally  that  the  Ruthven  peerage  was  non-existent  when 
David's  heirs  were  assuming  it.  The  list  is  an  anonymous 
part  of  a  London  periodical  of  the  almanac  type,  entitled 
'  "The  Present  State  of  Great  Britain,'  and  I  showed  it  to  be 
full  of  errors  and  utterly  unreliable,  even  if  it  were  admissible 
as  evidence  at  all. 

'  A  Contemporary  Manuscript  of  Note.'  '  There  is,'  says  Mr. 
Round,  *  no  contemporary  clue  to  its  [the  patent's]  contents 
save  a  manuscript  of  note  in  the  "  Advocate's  Library,"  in 
which  the  dignity  occurs  in  a  list  of  creations,  granted  to  Sir 
Thomas  Ruthven  and  to  his  heirs  male.'  I  showed  that  the 
manuscript,  on  the  face  of  it,  was  a  hundred  years  later  than 
the  patent,  and  that  it  was  notable  only  for  its  errors  and  its 
unreliability  ;  and  I  asserted  that  Mr.  Round  must  have 
founded  upon  it  without  examining  it. 

I  pointed   out  also  that,  if  reliable,  the  list  completely  con- 


488       The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony 

tradicted  Mr.  Round's  other  authority,  Crawfurd,  for  the  List 
gives  the  title  to  collaterals,  while  Crawfurd  denies  it  to 
them.1 

Lord  Hailes's  Manuscript  Note.  Mr.  Round's  fourth  and  last 
authority  was  a  statement  of  Lord  Hailes's  on  the  margin  of 
his  copy  of  Douglas's  peerage  (a  book  published  only  in 
1764)  at  the  statement  in  the  text  dealing  with  Isabell,  Lady 
Ruthven's,  summons  to  Royal  Coronations.  The  note  runs 
that  *  in  a  jesting  way  she  said  that  this  was  her  patent,  and 
that  she  would  preserve  it  as  such  in  her  chartered  chest,' 
and  it  added  that  he  had  heard  that  Lady  Ruthven's  pension 
was  {to  Lady  Ann  Ruthven.' 

I  showed  (i)  the  immateriality  of  this  tale,  (2)  that  there 
was  no  evidence  of  its  truth  ;  that  from  the  dates  of  Lady 
Ruthven's  death,  1732,  and  Lord  Hailes's  birth,  1726,  the 
story  depended  on  hearsay,  possibly  on  hearsay  of  hearsay  ; 
(3)  that  Lord  Hailes  was  not  shewn  to  have  been  in  any 
special  position  to  learn  the  family  tradition  ;  and  (4)  that  the 
designation  '  Lady  Ann '  was  not  necessarily  any  denial  of  her 
peerage,  in  support  of  which  last  I  cited  the  instances  collected 
in  the  minutes,  etc.,  of  the  Herries  Peerage  Case. 

What  has  Mr.  Round  had  to  say  in  reply  ?  Not  a  word. 
The  whole  of  his  positive  authority  for  the  absence  of  right 
of  the  heirs  in  possession  has  thus  gone  by  the  board,  with- 
out an  attempt  to  save  it. 

The  conduct  of  the  family.  In  one  of  his  opening  sentences  in 
his  original  indictment  Mr.  Round  announced  that  the  assump- 
tion of  the  peerage  under  consideration  originated  in  a  joke.  It 
is  of  course  obvious  to  every  one,  whether  lawyer  or  not,  that 
if  the  statement  was  true,  the  burden  was  at  once  thrown  on 
the  defenders  of  the  peerage  to  show  when  the  assumption  of 
the  title  changed  its  character  and  became  anything  else  than  a 
joke.  He  now  explains — an  extraordinary  explanation — that 
the  joke  he  referred  to  was  the  joke  retailed  in  or  after  1764 
by  Lord  Hailes,  and  he  stands  amazed  at  my  not  recognising 
the  fact.  My  observation  is  that  the  fact  was  unrecognisable 
in  the  fiction.  The  peerage  was  assumed  by  the  female  heir 
of  entail  in  1702,  and  Mr.  Round  has  said  that  that  assumption 
originated  in  a  joke.  Now  that  he  is  brought  to  book,  he 

1  Mr.  R.  complains  that  I  *  persistently  ignore '  his  '  own '  points.  The 
word  '  contemporary '  was  Mr.  R.'s  '  own '  here.  All  the  rest  was  Riddell's. 


and  Mr.  J.   H.   Round  489 

says  he  did  not  mean  anything  more  than  that  there  was  a 
joke  made  twelve  or  twenty-five  years  afterwards,  after  the 
coronation  of  1714  or  of  1727,  he  does  not  know  which; 
and  that  if  the  lady  in  a  joke  seized  upon  her  summons  to 
the  coronation  as  the  '  first  official  recognition  of  her  assumption,' 
it  appears  to  Mr.  Round  to  be  admissible  for  him  to  say  that 
the  assumption  of  the  peerage  had  originated  in  1702  in  a 
joke.  It  is  most  certainly  not  admissible,  and  the  proof  of 
that  is  that  the  statement  was  essentially  and  grossly  misleading. 

The  question  is,  however,  settled.  Mr.  Round  no  longer 
asserts  that  the  assumption  of  the  peerage  originated  in  any 
such  way. 

Jean,  Lady  Ruthven.  Mr.  Round's  indictment  as  concerned  her, 
rested  on  two  propositions  :  The  first  of  these  was  her  significant 
delay.  He  asserted  that  she  did  not  assume  the  title  till  twenty 
years  after  her  brother's  death.  1  proved  that  she  took  it  up 
in  twenty  months,  and  in  how  much  less  we  know  not.  Mr. 
Round  admits  that  correction.  If  I  dealt  with  him  as  he  deals 
with  Douglas,  Burke,  etc.,  I  should  say  he  '  carefully  kept  out 
of  sight '  the  fact  that  Jean  took  up  the  title  thus  early  because 
it  would  have  been  a  '  fatal  flaw '  in  his  story  about  her 
*  significant  delay '  ;  but  I  think  it  was  done  through  pure 
ignorance,  the  same  which  is  visible  in  so  many  other  parts  of 
his  performance. 

The  second  proposition  was  the  lady's  cautious  use  of  the  title. 
Mr.  Round  stated  that  the  lady  had  not  ventured  to  assume 
the  title  in  legal  documents,  which  might,  'even  in  Scotland,' 
have  been  invalidated  by  her  use  of  a  style  to  which  she  was 
not  entitled.  I  produced  evidence  (pages  57,  58  and  59)  that 
she  did  style  herself  a  peeress  in  legal  documents. 

Mr.  Round  asserted,  in  addition,  that  the  lady  reverted  three 
times  to  her  designation  of  Mrs.  Jean.  But  on  investigation  I 
found  that  on  each  occasion  when  she  did  so  her  conduct  was 
explainable  as  due  to  a  formality  of  her  lawyers,  which  did  not 
involve  her  or  their  apprehension  of  the  bench,  and  that  on  the 
one  occasion,  when  that  explanation  was  inapplicable,  it  turns 
out  that  she  did  not  revert.  Mr.  Round  replies  that  I  have 
'  had  to  admit '  that  the  lady  deserted  her  title  on  one  of  these 
occasions  '  as  if  apprehensive  of  the  scrutiny  of  the  bench.'  I 
leave  this  to  the  verdict  and  sentence  of  the  reader. 

The  culmination  of  Mr.  Round's  proof  was  the  fact  that 
finally  Jean  was  no  longer  able  to  keep  up  the  masquerade  of 


49°       The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony 

bearing  a  title  of  peerage,  and  that  in  her  last  will  she  deserted 
it.  I  showed  that  she  died  intestate  and  that  all  that  was 
proved  was  that  Mr.  Round  did  not  know  the  meaning  of  a 
testament  dative. 

I  may  here  cite  with  regard  to  the  case  of  Jean,  what  Mr. 
Maitland  Thomson,  whose  opinion  on  such  a  subject  carries  more 
weight  than  any  other's,  does  me  the  honour  to  pronounce  on 
my  whole  proof  of  the  conduct  of  the  family,  '  that  the  accusation 

*  of  mala  fides   founded  upon  the  recorded  actions  of  the  early 

*  holders  of  the  title,  is  here  thoroughly  investigated,  and  tri- 
'umphantly  refuted.'     (S.H.R.  iii.   106.) 

Passing  by  Sir  William  Cunningham  for  a  moment,  who 
succeeded  Jean,  I  come  to  :  Isobell,  Lady  Ruthven.  In  her  case 
also,  the  evidence  of  consistency  appeared  to  me  to  be  satisfactory. 
But,  says  Mr.  Round,  *  I  alleged  that  more  than  three  years 
'  after  assuming  the  title  she  gave  up,  under  the  humble  name 

*  of  Mrs.  Isobell  Ruthven,  the  additional  inventory  of  her  Aunt. 

*  Is  this  the  fact  or  not  ? ' 

The  document  referred  to  by  Mr.  Round  is  now  printed  in  the 
Appendix  to  my  pamphlet  (p.  77).  Mr.  Round  had  professed 
to  quote  it.  Isobell,  he  said,  had  styled  herself  Mrs.  Isobell 
Ruthven,  and  her  aunt  c  ambiguously '  as  *  Lady  Jean  Ruthven,' 
or  as  plain  'Jean  Ruthven.'  I  took  the  trouble  to  examine 
the  document,  and  discovered  that  Mr.  Round  had  mis- 
quoted it  essentially.  It  had  styled  Jean  throughout  as  Jean, 
Lady  Ruthven.  It  was  thus  an  assertion,  not  a  denial  of  the 
peerage.  How,  then,  was  Isobel  *  Mrs.  Isobell '  ?  The  question 
seemed  to  be  reasonably  answered  only  in  the  manner  which 
has  already  suggested  itself  to  me  in  the  case  of  Jean.  To 
all  this  the  question  just  quoted  is  Mr.  Round's  sole  reply. 

Mr.  Round  alleged  that  Isobell  had  vacillated  in  her  assump- 
tion so  far  that,  as  once  she  styled  her  aunt  Jean,  Lady  Jean 
Ruthven,  she  styled  herself  in  her  own  will  in  the  same 
'  ambiguous '  way.  I  proved  that  she  did  neither,  and  also, 
that  she  made  no  will. 

I  observe  that  Mr.  Round  criticises  my  statement  of  sundry 
dates  of  documents  cited  by  me  in  this  branch  of  my  proof  by 
adding  a  laconic  '  sic '  to  his  restatement  of  them  as  follows  : 
'  4th  Jan.  1703  (sic),' '  26th  Jan.  1712  (sic).'  What  is  the  ground 
of  this  criticism  ?  The  dates  are  accurate  copies  of  the  originals 
in  each  case.  Is  it  possible  that  Mr.  Round  means  that  the 
dates  are  incompletely,  though  not  wrongly,  stated,  that  he  is 


and  Mr.  J.   H.   Round  491 

left  in  ignorance  of  whether  they  should  be,  in  the  first  instance, 
1702-3  or  1703-4,  and,  in  the  second  instance,  1711-12  or 
1712-13  !  For  I  notice  that  both  dates  are  between  ist 
January  and  25th  March  of  these  years.  Mr.  Round  perhaps  is 
not  aware  that  though  this  double  enumeration  was  required 
in  England  till  the  year  1751,  it  had  been  abolished  in 
Scotland  by  the  year  1600.  A  very  slight  acquaintance  with 
Scottish  documents  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries 
would  have  brought  this  to  his  knowledge. 

Sir  William  Cunynghame.  The  questions  which  arise  over 
the  case  of  Sir  William  Cunynghame  are  somewhat  different 
from  those  concerning  the  other  heirs  of  the  Ruthvens.  He 
was  nephew,  through  his  mother,  to  David  and  Jean,  and 
succeeded  Jean  in  the  lands  under  the  entail. 

His  first  step,  or  that  of  his  lawyers,  was  naturally  to  obtain 
control  of  his  aunt's  moveable  estate,  and  he  was  forthwith 
appointed  her  executor  dative.  But  he  survived  her  only  six 
months,  and  died  without  being  served  heir  either  to  her  or 
to  David,  without  being  seized  in  the  estates,  and  without 
having  taken  up  the  title. 

Mr.  Round  had  only  two  '  proofs '  that  Sir  William  believed 
that  the  title  did  not  descend  to  him. 

(i)  The  terms  of  his  appointment  as  executor  dative  to 
Jean.  In  this  appointment  Jean  was  undoubtedly  not  accorded 
her  title  of  peerage,  and  Sir  William  did  not  take  it.  But 
Mr.  Round's  argument  that  the  document  is  therefore  a  denial 
of  the  survival  of  the  honour  is  deprived  of  all  force,  from 
the  circumstance  that  if  Jean  is  not  styled  a  peeress,  Sir 
William  is  not  styled  a  baronet.  The  document  proves 
nothing  or  it  proves  too  much.  If  Sir  William  did  not  deny 
his  baronetcy  he  denied  nothing. 

Mr.  Round  has  no  reply  ?  He  simply  repeats  that  Sir 
William  '  made  no  attempt  to  assume  the  title '  and  that,  '  to 
this  we  may  now  add  that  he  gave  up  his  aunt's  testament  dative 
as  that,  not  of  Jean  Lady  Ruthven,'  but  of  4  Mrs.  Jean  Ruthven.' 

Here  again  Mr.  Round,  as  is  so  usual  with  him,  ignores  the 
existence  of  an  argument,  and  restates  his  misleading  or  contro- 
verted statement  as  if  it  had  been  admitted  or  corroborated.1 

1  Before  passing  to  Mr.  Round's  next  point,  I  may  observe  that  Mr.  Round 
affects  to  quote  a  passage  of  mine  (from  my  p.  63),  and  that,  as  he  has 
done  repeatedly  in  making  quotations,  he  has  omitted  an  essential  part  of  that 
passage,  and  has  misrepresented  my  meaning. 


492      The  Ruthven  of  Freeland   Barony 

(2)  '  Sir  William  retained  his  baronetcy  title  in  his  own  will.' 
I  suggested  that  he  might  have  said  reverted,  but  Mr.  Round 
has  not  responded,  which  is  as  well,  as  Sir  William  neither  retained 
nor  reverted,  for,  as  I  had  to  point  out,  this  will  was  our  old 
friend  the  *  testament  dative,'  Sir  William  died  intestate,  and  his 
designation  was  the  work  of  his  cousin  and  successor,  Isobell, 
or  her  agents.  I  confess,  however,  that  I  did  not  see  the  full 
interest  of  the  fact,  that  at  the  last,  so  far  as  we  know,  Sir 
William  dropped  his  baronetcy  title,  as,  naturally,  I  had  not  seen 
Mr.  Maitland  Thomson's  interesting  speculation  that  it  marked 
an  intention  to  assume  the  peerage. 

It  seemed  incredible  that  at  this  date  any  one  should  be  left 
who  does  not  know  that  even  if  Sir  William  had  left  the 
peerage  dormant  for  the  term  of  a  long  life,  the  fact  would 
not  have  impeached  his  right.  In  the  circumstances,  how- 
ever, I  instanced  the  much  stronger  case  of  the  lordship  of 
Somerville,  which,  as  every  one  knows,  was  dormant  for  a 
hundred  years.  Surely,  exclaims  Mr.  Round,  Mr.  Stevenson 
'  cannot  be  ignorant  that  the  failure  to  assume  that  title  was  due  to 
a  doubt  whether  it  should  descend  to  the  heir  male  or  the  heirs 
of  line,  and  that  when  this  doubt  was  removed  by  a  single  person 
becoming  heir  in  both  capacities,  he  successfully  claimed  the 
peerage.'  A  '  doubt,'  when  there  was  an  heir  male  of  the  body, 
and  no  known  limitation  of  the  title !  I  am  glad  to  hear  it ! 

But  Mr.  Round,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  is  again  quite  wrong  on 
the  facts.  The  two  lines  of  the  Somervilles  united  in  the  person 
of  the  great-grandfather  of  the  claimant.  For  four  generations 
thereafter  the  line  possessing  the  rights  of  heir  male  and  heir 
general  abstained  from  asserting  them.  Poverty  has  hitherto 
been  accepted  as  the  reason  why  the  Somervilles  allowed  their 
pretensions  to  sleep.1 

James  Lord  Ruthven,  son  and  heir  of  Isobell.  I  found  that 
my  theory  of  the  practice  regarding  delay  in  the  adoption  of 
the  peerage  style  is  borne  out  by  the  case  of  James,  the  next 
peer  after  Isobel.  He  is  styled  James  Ruthven  of  Ruthven  as 
executor  of  his  mother,  '  Isobell  Lady  Ruthven,'  and  in  his 
service  to  David  his  grand  uncle,  in  which  service  his  mother 
Isobell,  and  his  grand  aunt  Jean,  were  styled  Isobell  Lady 
Ruthven  and  Jean  Lady  Ruthven.  Mr.  Round's  answer  to 
that  is  that  he  l  may  repeat '  from  his  original  article  that  James 
gave  up  his  aunt's  '  testament  dative,'  and  was  also  served  heir 
1  Maidment,  Peerage  Claims,  92. 


and  Mr.  J.   H.   Round  493 

to  his  uncle,  David,  as  *  James  Ruthven  of  Ruthven.'  He 
dilates  on  the  fact  that  the  jury  served  James  as  a  plain 
commoner,  but  he  is  silent  as  to  the  fact  that  the  jury  by  the 
same  act  served  this  commoner  as  son  and  heir  of  a  peeress. 

James  succeeded  in  1732.  'It  was  not  till  late  in  the  follow- 
ing year,'  says  Mr.  Round,  cthat  we  find  him  styling  himself 
(in  a  private  deed)  James  Lord  Ruthven.'  I  showed  that  he 
had  already  made  the  most  public  demonstration  then  possible 
to  him  of  his  pretensions,  by  voting  at  the  first  election  of 
Peers  that  had  taken  place  since  his  succession.  I  am  glad 
to  find  that  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson  agrees  with  my  con- 
clusion on  the  conduct  of  this  member  of  the  family  also, 
and  that  the  charge  of  mala  fides  against  him  is  groundless. 
(S.H.R.  iii.  106.) 

To  print  the  names  of  the  jury  that  served  James  Ruthven 
of  Ruthven  as  heir-in-special  to  his  grand-uncle  David,  and 
styled  his  mother  and  his  grand-aunt  Jean  as  peeresses,  is,  as  I 
meant  it,  a  complete  refutation  of  Mr.  Round's  attempted 
argument  that,  as  some  services  have  been  found  to  have 
proceeded  on  false  premises,  this  service  of  James  Ruthven  is 
to  be  disregarded.  There  have  been  bad  judgments  of  the 
Court  of  King's  Bench,  and  we  have  all  read  of  *  bad  Ellen- 
borough  law  '  as  well  as  good.  What  then  ? x 

Mr.  Maitland  Thomson,  in  his  review  of  my  pamphlet, 
indicated  his  view  that  the  belief  probably  entertained  by  the 
Ruthven  family  regarding  their  peerage  right  was  that  it  was 
destined  to  the  heirs  of  entail.  That  there  is  much  to  be 
said  for  that  view  is  already  obvious,  and,  were  Mr.  Thomson 
to  enter  into  a  further  analysis  of  the  facts,  I  have  no  doubt 
that  more  reason  for  it  would  appear.  In  spite  of  what  Riddell 
may  have  said,  and  Mr.  Round  may  have  believed,  there  is, 
of  course,  nothing  in  law  to  render  Mr.  Thomson's  theory 
impossible. 

As  I  stated,  however,  at  the  opening  and  close  of  my 
pamphlet,  the  task  of  shewing  what  the  terms  of  the  unknown 
patent  actually  were  was  no  part  of  my  undertaking  in  that 
particular  controversy.  Mr.  Round  appears  to  think  that  he  is 
entitled  to  call  for  a  statement  from  the  '  champions '  of  the 
peerage.  I,  personally,  do  not  think  that  he  is.  If  he  has 

1  Services  of  the  i8th  century  have  been  received  by  the  House  of  Lords, 
as  in  the  Airth  peerage  proceedings,  1871,  as  evidence  of  considerable  weight. 


494       The  Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony 

assumed  the  role  of  assailant,  and  failed  to  produce  a  prima  facie 
case,  what  concern  to  him  is  the  nature  of  the  peerage  ?  As 
for  myself,  a  mere  critic  of  Mr.  Round's  success  in  making  out 
his  case,  I  am  not  required  to  have  any  theories  about  the 
peerage.  All  I  say  is  that  it  has  once  lived,  and  that  it  has 
not  been  shewn  to  be  dead. 

What  use  would  Mr.  Round  make  of  a  theory  if  an  'apologist' 
of  the  assumption  of  the  peerage  presented  him  with  one  ?  Mr. 
Maitland  Thomson,  an  entirely  independent  critic,  not  addressing 
Mr.  Round  in  particular,  advanced  one  theory.  What  use  does 
Mr.  Round  make  of  it  ?  He  immediately  tramples  it  under 
feet  and  turns  to  rend  Mr.  Thomson  with  a  fallacy.  This  is 
a  characteristic  specimen  of  the  method  of  the  vicious  circle, 
and  it  is  not  good  manners. 

At  the  close  of  my  pamphlet  I  expressed  my  conclusion, 
in  terms  which  need  not  be  repeated  here,  that  Mr.  Round 
had  entirely  failed  to  prove  his  case.  At  the  close  of  his  Reply 
to  that  pamphlet  I  find  my  conclusion  only  strengthened. 
Mr.  Round  has  now  admitted  such  important  facts  to  be 
fictions,  has  abandoned  so  much  of  his  argument,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  whole  of  his  authorities  for  the  actual  limitation  of  the 
patent,  that  even  if  he  had  succeeded  in  doing  away  with  the 
weighty  authority  of  the  Official  Rolls  which  are  against  him, 
he  would  have  had  nothing  to  found  his  case  upon.  By  dint 
of  an  oblivion  both  of  facts  and  of  logic,  Mr.  Round  accom- 
plishes the  figures  of  a  series  of  successful  arguments  on 
selected  points ;  but  he  has  not  rehabilitated  the  case  with 
which  he  set  out,  which  was  to  prove  that  the  peerage  was 
not  destined  to  the  present  line.1 

J.  H.  STEVENSON. 

1 1  have  noticed  that  parts  of  Mr.  Round's  argument  are  eiked  out  by  the 
indications  which  he  sees  of  my  '  annoyance,'  '  wrath,'  and  even  '  wild  indigna- 
tion,' etc.,  etc.,  at  his  insistences.  To  these  elements  of  his  Reply  I  pay  no 
attention,  as  the  indications  which  he  so  frequently  sees  may  be  purely 
subjective.  For  I  observe  that  Mr.  Maitland  Thomson,  speaking  of  the  same 
treatise  in  which  Mr.  Round  finds  such  various  emotions,  announces  that 
*  Mr.  Stevenson  not  only  supplies  a  necessary  corrective  to  his  predecessors  ; 
'his  work  is  distinctly  more  judicial  than  theirs'  (S.H.R.  iii.  105).  So 
much  do  things  go  by  comparatives. 


Reviews    of   Books 

THE  LIFE  OF   JAMES   ANTHONY  FROUDE.     By   Herbert  Paul.     Pp.   ix, 
454.     Demy  8vo.     London:    Pitman,  1905.     i6s.  nett. 

AT  the  death  of  Mr.  Froude  in  1894  it  was  announced  that  he  had  given 
injunctions  that  his  personal  papers  should  be  destroyed  and  that  no  author- 
ised biography  of  him  should  be  written.  Mr.  Paul's  book,  therefore,  is 
not  based  on  original  documents,  nor  does  it  contain  any  revelations  fitted 
to  agitate  the  world  as  did  Froude's  own  memorable  Life  of  Carlyle.  But, 
if  not  an  'authorised'  biography  such  as  Froude  prohibited,  Mr.  Paul's 
book  has  at  least  been  written  from  trustworthy  sources  so  far  as  they 
were  accessible ;  the  accuracy  of  his  narrative  is  guaranteed  by  the  best 
authority  ;  and  he  gives  a  few  unpublished  letters  which,  if  not  of  a 
sensational  character,  have  the  interest  of  most  things  that  came  from 
Froude's  hand.  The  result  is  a  book  eminently  readable,  at  once  from 
the  interest  of  its  subject  and  from  Mr.  Paul's  own  manner  of  treatment. 
It  is  a  book,  moreover,  which  Froude  himself  would  have  approved — 
approved  both  for  its  sympathetic  appreciation  of  his  own  character  and 
work  and  for  the  style  in  which  it  is  written.  Mr.  Paul  is  always  lucid, 
always  trenchant,  and  as  uncompromising  in  the  expression  of  his  opinions 
as  Froude  himself  in  his  most  militant  humour. 

The  biographical  portion  of  Mr.  Paul's  book  which  will  be  read  with 
the  greatest  interest  is  his  account  of  Froude's  boyhood  and  of  his  early 
surroundings.  From  Canon  Mozley's  Reminiscences  it  appeared  that  Froude's 
early  years  were  unhappy,  but  Mr.  Paul  has  added  further  details  that  tell 
a  tale  of  harshness  and  petty  tyranny  which  should  not  be  forgotten  in  any 
estimate  of  Froude  in  his  later  years.  His  father,  Archdeacon  Froude, 
never  understood  him,  and  persisted  in  regarding  him  as  a  discredit  to  the 
family  till  the  opinion  of  the  world  partly  convinced  him  that  he  was 
mistaken.  But  it  was  from  his  elder  brother,  Hurrell,  subsequently  the 
ally  of  Newman  in  his  attempt  to  de-Protestantise  the  Church  of  England, 
that  Anthony  had  most  to  endure.  Mr.  Paul  thus  describes  the  means 
which  Hurrell  took  to  educate  his  younger  brother.  *  Conceiving  that  the 
child  wanted  spirit,  Hurrell  once  took  him  by  the  heels,  and  stirred  with 
his  head  the  mud  at  the  bottom  of  a  stream.  Another  time  he  threw  him 
into  deep  water  out  of  a  boat  to  make  him  manly '  (p.  8).  Sent  to  West- 
minster at  the  age  of  twelve,  Anthony  found  himself  even  more  unhappy 
than  at  home — bullied  by  the  boys,  censured  by  the  master,  ill-fed,  and  in 
bad  health  besides.  Recalled  from  this  *  den  of  horrors,'  as  Mr.  Paul  in  his 

495 


496  Paul  :    The  Life  of  Froude 

emphatic  way  describes  the  historic  school,  the  boy  returned  to  a  home 
that  was  little  of  a  home  to  him.  That  he  was  there  at  all  was  considered 
a  disgrace  to  the  family,  and  he  was  even  accused  of  having  pawned  his 
books  and  clothes  which  had  really  been  filched  by  his  schoolmates.  Such 
was  the  uncongenial  atmosphere  in  which  Froude  spent  his  early  years, 
and,  though  Mr.  Paul  does  not  make  the  inference,  these  years  must  partly 
explain  that  undertone  of  bitterness  and  cynicism  which  is  seldom  absent 
from  anything  that  Froude  wrote. 

The  least  satisfactory  portions  of  Mr.  Paul's  biography  are  those  which 
deal  with  those  critical  years  in  Froude's  career  when  for  a  time  he  came 
under  the  spell  of  Newman,  then  broke  with  him,  and  finally  learned  from 
Carlyle  the  gospel  that  was  to  serve  him  to  the  end  of  his  life.  It  is 
during  these  years  that  Froude's  essential  characteristics  are  most  fully 
revealed,  and,  with  the  materials  at  his  disposal,  we  feel  that  Mr.  Paul 
might  have  probed  more  deeply  than  he  has  done.  To  what  extent  was 
Froude  really  under  the  influence  of  Newman  during  his  brief  association 
with  him  ?  According  to  Froude's  own  testimony  in  his  later  years  his 
attitude  towards  Newman  was  always  more  or  less  critical,  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  in  his  contributions  to  the  Lives  of  the  Saints  he  shows  a 
sympathy  with  the  spirit  and  aims  of  the  Tractarian  movement  which 
must  have  been  entirely  to  Newman's  satisfaction.  Nor  does  Mr.  Paul 
sufficiently  emphasise  the  period  of  moral  collapse  which  followed  Froude's 
break  with  Newman — his  break,  indeed,  with  historic  Christianity.  To 
this  period  belong  Froude's  tales — Shadows  of  the  Clouds  and  the  Nemesis 
of  Faith,  productions  written  in  a  time  of  mental  and  moral  strain,  but 
which  reveal  the  permanent  strata  of  the  writer's  nature.  Nor,  again,  does 
Mr.  Paul  bring  out  with  adequate  fulness  the  debt  which  Froude  owed  to 
Carlyle — a  debt  which  Froude  himself  ungrudgingly  acknowledged  at 
every  period  of  his  later  life.  There  is,  indeed,  hardly  another  instance 
in  literary  history  of  a  writer  of  Froude's  force  so  completely  enduing 
himself  in  another  man's  garments.  The  governing  ideas  that  henceforth 
determined  his  life  and  achievement  were  all  those  of  Carlyle,  set  forth  in 
very  different  language  from  that  of  his  oracle,  but  with  a  force  of  con- 
viction that  gave  them  an  individual  stamp. 

The  longest  chapter  in  Mr.  Paul's  book  is  that  devoted  to  the  defence 
of  Froude  against  Freeman — perhaps  a  work  of  supererogation  at  this  time 
of  day.  The  persecution  of  Freeman  was  a  painful  experience  in  Froude's 
life  and  is  an  unhappy  chapter  in  literary  history,  but  the  respective  merits 
of  assailant  and  victim  have  been  judged  by  the  world,  and  it  is  perhaps  as 
well  that  the  feud  should  be  forgotten.  What  Mr.  Paul  makes  unhappily 
too  plain  is  that  the  persistent  and  petty  attacks  of  Freeman  were  not  so 
much  inspired  by  any  disinterested  love  of  truth  as  by  a  blind  fury  of 
personal  dislike  that  almost  justifies  Matthew  Arnold's  description  of  him 
as  a  'grotesque  and  ferocious  pedant.'  In  Mr.  Paul's  own  opinion  the 
'besetting  sin'  of  Froude  was  'love  of  paradox'  (p.  75),  but  it  is  perhaps 
nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  love  of  effect  accounts  for  most  of  the  short- 
comings with  which  he  has  been  charged.  Whether  he  is  stating  opinions  or 
facts,  we  feel  that  the  note  is  constantly  strained  :  the  Regent  Moray  is 


Paul :    The  Life  of  Froude  497 

'stainless,'  Queen  Mary  is  a  pantheress,  and  so  with  all  the  characters  he 
likes  or  dislikes — Henry  VIIL,  Thomas  Cromwell,  Julius  Caesar,  Carlyle, 
whose  natural  traits  he  exaggerates  beyond  recognition.  But  the  general 
tone  of  Mr.  Paul  is  not  that  of  carping  or  even  of  friendly  criticism  :  his 
admiration  of  Froude's  merits  as  a  writer  is  so  great,  he  personally  owes  to 
him  so  large  a  debt  of  pleasure,  that,  as  a  genuine  lover  of  literature,  he 
deems  it  ungrateful  to  insist  on  the  shortcomings  of  one  who  has  given  the 
world  so  much  that  is  a  permanent  source  of  enjoyment.  And  with  his 
general  estimate  comparatively  few  will  be  disposed  to  disagree,  for  only 
blind  prejudice  could  gainsay  that  Froude  wrote  history  as  few  have  written 
it,  and  that  his  abiding  purpose  was  to  say  the  truth  as  it  had  been 
delivered  to  him.  p  HuME  BROWN. 

THE  SCOTTISH  PARLIAMENT  :  ITS  CONSTITUTION  AND  PROCEDURE, 
1603-1707;  WITH  AN  APPENDIX  OF  DOCUMENTS.  By  Charles 
Sanford  Terry,  M.A.,  Burnett-Fletcher  Professor  of  History  in 
the  University  of  Aberdeen.  Pp.  x,  228.  Demy  8vo.  Glasgow  : 
James  MacLehose  &  Sons.  1905.  los.  nett. 

MR.  TERRY'S  industry  is  unflagging  and  most  commendable  :  it  seems 
only  the  other  day  that  his  Life  of  Claver  house  was  noticed  in  these 
pages,  and  now  we  have  another  volume  from  his  pen  which  forms 
an  important  contribution  to  the  constitutional  history  of  Scotland.  No 
previous  writer  has  attempted  to  deal  with  the  development  and 
functions  of  the  Scottish  Parliament  in  anything  like  detail,  though  we 
must  not  forget  the  chapter  which  Cosmo  Innes  wrote,  with  his  usual 
charm  of  style,  in  his  book  on  legal  antiquities.  He,  however,  attempted 
to  sketch  the  history  of  the  Parliament  from  the  earliest  times  :  Mr. 
Terry  confines  himself  to  the  century  before  the  Union.  And  indeed 
before  the  year  in  which  James  succeeded  to  the  English  throne  there 
is  little  to  tell  in  the  way  either  of  Parliamentary  constitution  or  pro- 
cedure. The  right  of  representation  enjoyed  by  both  counties  and 
burghs  was  looked  upon  more  as  a  burden  than  a  privilege  :  many  of 
them  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  send  a  representative  at  all,  and  the 
members  who  were  returned  found  that  their  duty  practically  con- 
sisted in  attending  the  opening  of  Parliament,  electing  a  committee 
called  the  Lords  of  the  Articles,  or  in  many  cases  accepting  the  nominees 
of  the  Crown  for  that  committee,  and  after  a  more  or  less  lengthy 
interval  attending  the  closing  of  Parliament  and  ratifying  what  had 
been  decided  upon  by  the  committee.  But  for  by  far  the  greater  part 
of  its  existence  there  was  no  debating,  no  interchange  of  opinions 
between  the  members.  And  this  state  of  matters  was  not  in  the  least 
considered  a  grievance :  in  was,  on  the  contrary,  accepted  with  placid 
acquiescence  and  looked  upon  as  the  most  natural  and  comfortable  way 
of  doing  business. 

It  was  not  till  well  on  in  the  seventeenth  century  that  this  system 
received  a  check.  In  1640  an  Act  was  passed  which  abolished  the 
Lords  of  the  Articles  as  a  standing  legislative  committee,  and  enabled 


49  8         Terry  :    The  Scottish  Parliament 

committees  of  the  House  to  be  appointed  which  had  no  power  to 
initiate  legislation,  but  were  charged  solely  with  the  duty  of  considering 
specific  matters  remitted  to  them.  This  alteration  was  due  not  so 
much,  as  the  author  points  out,  to  any  general  development  of  con- 
stitutional ideals  as  to  the  fact  that  the  clergy  were  no  longer  one  of 
the  Estates  of  Parliament.  The  custom  which  had  obtained  for  a  con- 
siderable period  before  1640  was  for  the  nobility  to  elect  the  clerical 
members  of  the  Committee  for  the  Articles  and  for  the  clergy  to  elect 
the  peerage  members,  and  both  these  estates  elected  conjointly  the 
representatives  of  the  shires  and  burghs.  In  1639  ^  was  known 
that  the  Crown  intended  to  step  in  in  place  of  the  clergy,  but  this 
raised  protests  from  all  the  other  estates,  and  the  ultimate  issue  was  the 
passing  of  the  Act  of  1640,  which  provided  that  it  should  be  com- 
petent for  future  Parliaments  to  choose  or  not  to  choose  Committees 
for  Articles  as  they  might  think  expedient.  Practically,  it  abolished 
the  Committee  of  the  Articles  and  substituted  in  its  place  small  com- 
mittees which  had  only  to  consider  questions  specially  remitted  to 
them  by  the  House  itself.  No  more  drastic  innovation  on  the  pro- 
cedure of  Parliament  had  ever  been  produced,  and  while  it  lasted  the 
Legislature  was  never  freer  in  the  exercise  of  its  duties.  Unfortunately 
it  did  not  last,  and  at  the  Restoration  the  'Articles'  were  again 
re-established  and  the  clergy  and  nobility,  through  their  representatives 
whom  they  had  mutually  elected,  nominated  the  sixteen  barons  and 
burgesses  who  were  to  serve  on  the  committee.  This  was  a  step 
backward,  and  it  was  not  till  1689,  after  the  Revolution  Settlement, 
that  the  Articles  disappeared  for  ever  and  committees  were  elected  by 
the  votes  of  the  whole  House,  while  officers  of  State,  while  they  might 
attend  the  meetings  of  the  committees,  had  no  voting  power  in  them. 

We  have  mentioned  the  Committee  for  the  Articles  somewhat  in 
detail  because  in  reality  its  rise  and  progress,  decline  and  fall,  make 
up  a  large  part  of  the  history  of  the  Scots  Parliament.  Freed  from  its 
incubus,  Professor  Terry  shows  that  Parliament  advanced  rapidly  in 
the  direction  of  constitutional  power  and  development  of  debate.  He 
is  of  opinion  that  by  the  time  it  came  to  an  end  at  the  Union  it  had 
brought  itself  to  a  reasonable  level  of  procedure  with  the  English  Parlia- 
ment of  the  day,  but  points  out  the  fact  that  it  did  not  secure  for 
itself  the  respect,  popularity,  and  authority  of  its  English  contemporary. 
This  arose  from  the  fact  that  the  abiding  interests  of  the  Scottish  nation 
were  non-secular,  and  that  it  was  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Church,  rather  than  to  Parliament,  that  it  looked  for  light  and 
leading.  It  is  a  pity  that  for  so  long  circumstances  prevented  its 
development  as  a  truly  representative  assembly,  and  that  just  when 
it  was  beginning  to  show  signs  of  becoming  a  potent  factor  in  the 
evolution  of  the  country  the  '  end  of  an  auld  sang '  came,  and  it  ceased 
to  exist. 

Professor  Terry  has  written  a  sound  and  scholarly  work  which  should 
be  a  valuable  mine  of  information  to  students  of  Scottish  history. 

J.  BALFOUR  PAUL. 


Innes  :    England  under  the  Tudors      499 

A  HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND  IN  Six  VOLUMES  :  General  Editor,  C.  W.  C. 
Oman,  M.A.  Vol.  IV.  ENGLAND  UNDER  THE  TUDORS.  By  Arthur 
D.  Innes,  sometime  Scholar  of  Oriel  College,  Oxford.  With  Maps 
and  Appendices.  Pages  xx,  482.  Demy  8vo.  London  :  Methuen  & 
Co.  1905.  i  os.  6d.  nett. 

HENRY  VIII.  By  A.  F.  Pollard,  M.A.,  Professor  of  Constitutional 
History  at  University  College,  London.  New  Edition,  with  Portrait. 
Pages  xii,  470.  Cr.  8vo.  London  :  Longmans,  Green  &  Co.  1905. 
8s.  6d.  nett. 

IT  cannot  be  questioned  that  the  period  of  the  Tudor  sovereigns  is 
maintaining  a  pre-eminence  as  the  favourite  period  of  English  history  if 
we  judge  of  the  demand  from  the  quantity  of  the  supply.  This  may 
be  considered  a  blessing  or  the  reverse,  according  to  the  temper  of  the 
reader.  If  much  attention  is  devoted  to  the  Tudors,  the  cause  may  be 
to  some  extent  ascribed  to  the  vast  mass  of  new  material  that  has  been 
brought  within  reach  of  students  in  recent  years.  As  there  is  no 
finality  in  history,  every  fresh  accession  of  evidence  necessitates  a  revisal 
of  the  old  verdicts.  The  process  of  our  enlightenment  is  going  on 
perhaps  with  more  activity  in  relation  to  the  sixteenth  century  than  to 
any  other  period  of  equal  length  in  our  national  history.  The  labours 
of  the  scholars  working  under  the  direction  of  the  Master  of  the  Rolls 
have  achieved  enormous  results  in  the  Calendars  of  State  Papers  at  home 
and  abroad.  This  work  has  been  supplemented  by  the  publications 
of  the  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  the  Camden  and  kindred 
Societies.  Mr.  Pollard  bemoans  the  wealth  of  documentary  evidence 
available  for  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  in  a  lesser  degree  the  same 
feeling  might  be  entertained  for  the  reigns  of  the  rest  of  the  Tudor 
sovereigns.  The  series  of  Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry  VIII.  previous 
to  1544  comprises  a  summary  of  thirty  or  forty  thousand  documents  in 
twenty  thousand  closely  printed  pages,  which,  when  taken  with  the 
materials  gathered  from  other  sources,  places  at  the  disposal  of  students 
at  least  a  million  definite  facts  about  a  period  of  some  thirty-five  years. 
It  is  useless  for  Midas  to  quarrel  with  a  situation  of  his  own  creation  : 
the  gods  themselves  cannot  take  back  their  gifts.  There  is  little  doubt 
that  Mr.  Innes  has  hit  upon  the  true  explanation  of  this  superabundance 
of  material.  The  Tudors  were  the  instruments  of  gigantic  revolutions  : 
the  dynasty  covered  a  period  of  unprecedented  intellectual  activity  and 
great  national  development.  It  was  inevitable  that  a  period  of  this  kind, 
coming  so  near  our  own,  should  have  produced  a  wealth  of  documentary 
history,  and  fortunate  it  is  for  us  that  so  much  of  it  has  been  preserved. 
It  is  the  glory  as  it  is  the  danger  of  the  modern  student  to  assimilate 
this  wealth  and  reproduce  it  in  a  well-ordered  and  intelligible  narrative. 

A  new  edition  of  Henry  Fill,  in  cheap  and  handy  form  could  not 
have  been  long  delayed.  The  sumptuous  monographs  of  the  English 
Historical  Series,  published  with  illustrations  by  Messrs.  Goupil  &  Co. 
during  the  past  dozen  years,  are  within  reach  only  of  the  few  persons 
with  ample  means.  In  the  present  enlarged  re-issue  of  the  letterpress, 


500  Pollard  :    Henry  VIII. 

it  may  be  anticipated  that  the  volume  by  Mr.  Pollard  will  attain  a 
wider  circulation  and  a  not  less  intelligent  appreciation.  Few  sovereigns 
have  attracted  more  attention  than  the  'majestic  lord  who  broke  the 
bonds  of  Rome/  It  is  notoriously  difficult  to  hold  an  even  balance 
between  rival  estimates  of  his  person  and  policy,  like  those,  for  instance, 
of  Nicholas  Sander  on  the  one  side  and  Froude  on  the  other,  but  no 
reader ,  of  Henry  VIII.  can  justly  accuse  its  author  of  ecclesiastical  bias. 
Nor  does  he  claim  to  have  said  the  last  word  on  the  subject  of  his 
memoir.  *  Dogmatism,'  he  tells  us,  *  is  merely  the  result  of  ignorance  : 
and  no  honest  historian  will  pretend  to  have  mastered  all  the  facts, 
accurately  weighed  all  the  evidence,  or  pronounced  a  final  judgment,'  a 
due  appreciation  of  the  difficulties  which  beset  a  delineation  of  the 
life  and  character  of  an  exceptional  personage  playing  a  large  part  on 
the  world's  stage. 

The  task  of  Mr.  Innes  was  more  concerned  with  writing  the  history 
of  a  period  than  with  the  illustration  of  a  character.  It  is  not  many 
weeks  since  we  pointed  out  the  excellence  of  one  of  the  volumes  of 
A  History  of  England,  edited  by  Professor  Oman,  and  the  volume  now 
before  us  forms  the  fourth  in  the  series  of  six.  Mr.  Innes  possesses 
the  same  masterly  grasp  of  the  evidences,  the  same  critical  ability,  and 
the  same  independence  of  judgment  manifest  on  almost  every  page  of 
the  previous  volume.  In  some  episodes  of  his  narrative  he  has  perhaps 
laid  himself  open  to  objection  from  an  indifference  to  detail  and  from 
a  little  too  much  self-confidence  about  his  knowledge  of  the  facts.  He 
is  quite  certain,  for  example,  that  l  the  English  victory '  at  Flodden 
'was  not  one  of  the  bow,  as  so  often  before,  but  of  the  bill  or  axe 
against  the  spears  in  which  the  northern  nation  trusted.'  The  poet 
Skelton  was  much  nearer  the  truth  when  he  ascribed  the  cutting  of 
'  the  flowers  of  the  forest '  to  an  effective  combination  of  both  weapons. 
Nor  is  he  clear  about  his  topography  of  the  fight  in  1542,  commonly 
called  the  Battle  of  Solway  Moss.  The  contest  was  decided  on  the 
plain  south  of  Esk,  in  the  region  of  what  is  now  the  village  of  Longtown, 
a  land  which  was  never  debatable.  The  swollen  river  was  the  first 
obstacle  encountered  by  the  fugitives,  the  salmon  pools  of  which  claimed  a 
tithe  of  routed  Scots.  The  morass  between  Esk  and  Sark,  to  which  the 
Ordnance  Survey  gives  the  name  of  Solway  Moss,  and  which  it  makes  the 
scene  of  the  battle,  was  only  the  trap  into  which  the  flying  squadrons 
had  fallen.  On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Innes  has  doubts  whether  the 
comperts  of  the  visitors  of  the  monasteries  in  1536-7  were  laid  before 
Parliament.  All  that  may  be  said  in  this  connexion  is  that  if  a  perusal 
of  the  Act  of  Suppression  does  not  convince  him,  without  the  help  of  the 
other  evidence,  his  scruples  are  somewhat  difficult  to  overcome. 

The  volume  is  furnished  with  a  short  pedigree  of  the  descendants  of 
Edward  III.,  some  appendices  on  contemporary  rulers,  genealogies  of 
Lennox  Stewarts,  Howards,  Boleyns,  the  houses  of  Habsburg,  Valois, 
Bourbon,  Guise,  the  claimants  to  the  English  throne,  and  a  bibliography 
of  authorities  ancient  and  modern.  The  maps  are  valuable,  one  of  which 
is  a  pen  sketch  of  the  campaign  of  Flodden,  showing  the  circuitous  route 


Mathieson  :    Scotland  and  the  Union     501 

taken  by  the  Earl  of  Surrey.  The  aim  of  the  whole  work  has  been 
well  maintained  by  Mr.  Innes  in  the  period  allotted  to  him,  for  he  has 
produced  a  text-book  of  a  high  order — scholarly,  attractive,  complete, 
and  useful.  JAMES  WILSON. 

SCOTLAND  AND  THE  UNION.  A  History  of  Scotland  from  1695  to 
1747.  By  William  Law  Mathieson.  Pp.  xiii,  387.  Demy  8vo. 
Glasgow  :  James  MacLehose  &  Sons,  1905.  IDS.  6d.  nett. 
THREE  years  ago  Mr.  Mathieson  set  himself  at  a  bound  among  the 
foremost  of  modern  historians  of  Scotland  upon  the  publication  of  his 
Politics  and  Religion  in  Scotland  from  1550  to  1695.  The  present  work 
is  a  continuation  l  on  a  broader  and  more  comprehensive  plan '  of  its 
predecessor,  and  aims  at  providing  c  a  history  of  Scotland  during  the 
period.'  Dealing  with  the  period,  'which  may  be  distinguished  as  that 
of  the  origin,  the  accomplishment,  and  the  consolidation  of  the  Union,' 
Mr.  Mathieson,  under  his  more  comprehensive  plan,  has  been  com- 
pelled to  follow  in  considerable  detail  the  history  of  an  episode  which 
has  been  treated  exhaustively  elsewhere,  and  must  inevitably  be  dealt 
with  again  in  the  forthcoming  volumes  of  Dr.  Hume  Brown  and  Mr. 
Lang's  Histories.  What  one  valued  in  Mr.  Mathieson's  earlier  work 
was  the  fact  that  it  was  an  exegesis  rather  than  a  narrative,  a  most 
illuminating  expounding  of  familiar  facts  from  a  fresh  and  detached 
point  of  view.  By  '  broadening '  his  narrative,  and  by  making  it  c  more 
comprehensive,'  does  he  not  fail  to  fill  his  own  distinctive  niche  ? 

But,  apart  from  the  question  of  treatment,  Mr.  Mathieson's  new 
volume  will  certainly  sustain  his  already  high  reputation.  Of  particular 
interest  and  value  is  his  handling  of  the  ecclesiastical  and  economic 
aspects  of  the  period,  and  his  Introduction — a  broad  treatment  of  the 
ecclesiastical  developments  of  the  seventeenth  century — is  a  very  model 
of  conciseness,  suggestive  and  illuminating.  Nowhere  else,  in  similar 
compass,  will  the  student  find  a  better  and  clearer  guide  to  the 
intricacies  of  an  intricate  period.  Mr.  Mathieson's  announced  intention 
to  deal  with  the  social  changes,  the  literature,  and  the  philosophy  of 
the  period  1695  to  1747  in  another  volume  will  be  welcomed  by 
everyone  who  has  the  interests  of  Scottish  History  at  heart. 

C.  SANFORD  TERRY. 

LECTURES   ON    EARLY    ENGLISH    HISTORY.     By  William   Stubbs,    D.D., 

edited  by  Arthur  Hassall,  M.A.     Pp.  vi,  391.     Demy  8vo.     London  : 

Longmans,  1906.      I2s.  6d.  nett. 
THE  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND  FROM  THE  EARLIEST  TIMES  TO 

THE   NORMAN    CONQUEST.     By  Thomas  Hodgkin,  Litt.D.     Vol.   I. 

Pp.    xxi,    528.     Demy    8vo.     London :    Longmans,    Green    &    Co. 

1906.     75.  6d.  nett. 

THESE  two  volumes,  published  almost  simultaneously  and  both  treating 
of  the  formative  periods  of  English  history,  suggest  interesting  points  of 
comparison  and  contrast.  Any  book  that  bears  the  name  of  Bishop  Stubbs 
is  certain  of  a  hearty  welcome  and  a  careful  hearing.  When  the  greatest 


502  Stubbs  :  Early  English  History- 
English  historian  of  last  century  accepted  the  see  of  Chester  in  1884, 
his  historical  labours  were  practically  at  an  end  ;  but  Mr.  Hassall,  since 
the  bishop's  death,  has  been  a  diligent  gleaner  among  the  drafts  of  his 
lectures  and  other  unpublished  papers.  Acting  scrupulously  on  the  motto 
that  *  the  king's  chaff  is  as  good  as  other  people's  corn,'  Mr.  Hassall 
has  here  published,  apparently  word  for  word,  without  addition,  comment, 
or  reservation,  a  somewhat  heterogeneous  collection  of  those  lectures  with 
which  Dr.  Stubbs  instructed  a  bygone  generation  of  students,  admirably 
suited  alike  in  style  and  substance  to  the  time  and  purpose  for  which 
they  were  delivered,  but  obviously  never  intended  for  publication  in  their 
present  form,  and  superseded  to  a  great  extent  by  the  researches  of  the  last 
twenty  or  thirty  years. 

The  public  is  thus  introduced,  unannounced  as  it  were,  to  an  amiable 
and  chatty  Regius  Professor,  lecturing  in  the  privacy  of  his  own  class- 
room, untroubled  by  suspicion  of  the  prying  eyes  of  a  remote  posterity, 
explaining  at  the  commencement  of  his  course  that  he  does  not  'feel 
convivial,  or  at  home,  and  certainly  not  majestic'  (p.  40),  and  later  on 
regretting  that  'both  the  class  and  the  subject  are  becoming  very  much 
attenuated'  (p.  175).  The  picture  is  an  entirely  pleasant  one;  yet 
probably  the  most  enthusiastic  of  Bishop  Stubbs'  hero-worshippers  would 
not  have  seriously  blamed  Mr.  Hassall  for  omitting  utterances  of  such 
purely  temporary  interest. 

The  title  'Early  English  History'  is  hardly  applicable  to  the  last 
half  of  the  volume,  which  is  devoted  to  the  comparative  constitutional 
history  of  medieval  Europe,  and  founded,  to  a  great  extent,  on  the 
researches  of  Hallam.  Teachers  of  history  will  read  with  interest  the 
lectures  numbered  III.  to  VIIL,  containing  a  free-and-easy  commentary 
on  some  of  the  leading  documents  of  the  Select  Charters.  Younger 
students,  however,  must  exercise  great  care  in  their  perusal,  since  many 
of  the  positions  still  tenable  in  1880-4  (presumably  the  date  of  these 
lectures)  have  now  been  completely  overturned,  while  no  word  of  warning 
has  been  vouchsafed  by  the  editor  in  places  where  supplement  is  needed, 
beyond  the  addition  at  the  close  of  each  essay  of  the  names  of  a  few 
of  the  more  important  among  recent  authorities.  The  reader  will 
accordingly  find  here  many  obsolete  theories  which  Bishop  Stubbs  assuredly 
would  never  willingly  have  published  at  the  present  day  :  the  exploded 
theories  of  the  '  mark '  and  '  folcland '  (discarded,  not  without  some  ap- 
parent reluctance,  in  the  later  editions  of  the  Constitutional  History]  here 
appear  in  their  crudest  forms  (pp.  6,  7,  and  311);  '  borough  English ' 
is  connected  with  burgage  tenure  (pp.  26-7)  ;  the  Conqueror  is  credited 
with  a  revenue  of  £1060  a  day  (p.  29) ;  the  husting  of  London  forms 
'the  collective  court  of  the  citizens'  (p.  127);  Henry  II.  confirms  his 
grandfather's  concessions  to  the  city  of  London  (p.  128) ;  Magna  Carta 
is  '  signed '  not  sealed  by  John  (p.  345),  and  is  made  to  enshrine  trial 
by  jury  (p.  342).  It  is  notable,  by  the  way,  that  these  lectures,  like  the 
Constitutional  History  itself,  while  deriving  copious  illustrations  from  almost 
every  country  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  show  practically  no  interest  in 
the  peculiarities  of  the  Scottish  constitution. 


Stubbs  :    Early  English  History          503 

While  everything  that  Bishop  Stubbs  has  written  commands  the  re- 
spectful attention  of  scholars,  little  of  importance  would  have  been  lost 
if  Mr.  Hassall  had  interpreted  his  editorial  duties  more  liberally,  and  used 
the  pruning  hook  more  freely.  The  lectures  add  little  to  those  views 
of  early  England  with  which  Dr.  Stubbs'  great  Constitutional  History 
has  familiarised  us.  What  the  present  generation  of  students  urgently 
require  is  a  new  edition  of  that  work,  supplementing  its  conclusions  in 
the  light  of  modern  research. 

In  some  important  respects  Dr.  Hodgkin's  volume  supplies,  for  the 
early  centuries,  the  supplement  that  students  require.  The  author  is 
thoroughly  conversant  with  the  trend  of  recent  speculations  affecting 
the  wide  but  difficult  period  of  which  he  treats  ;  and  where  he  refuses 
to  follow  blindly  the  most  recent  guides,  it  is  clearly  not  from  lack  of 
knowledge.  His  volume  suffers  from  two  defects,  for  which  he  is  not 
responsible  :  the  decision  of  the  editors  of  the  series  of  'Political  Histories ' 
to  which  this  volume  belongs  has  forbidden  the  addition  of  foot-notes  in 
which  authorities  might  be  cited  ;  while  a  somewhat  arbitrary  restriction 
is  imposed  by  the  title  of  the  series.  The  scope  of  '  political  history,' 
indeed,  is  not  defined  by  the  editors ;  but,  from  internal  evidence  contained 
in  this  volume  and  its  companions,  it  would  appear  that  *  political ' 
history  is  more  concerned  with  military  and  international  affairs  than 
with  methods  of  government  or  the  growth  of  institutions — a  strange 
use  of  the  word  '  politics,'  when  it  is  realised  how  inseparably  political 
science  and  constitutional  theory  are  related. 

The  particular  task  allotted  to  Dr.  Hodgkin  by  the  editors  was  a  difficult 
one,  demanding  perhaps  a  more  nicely  balanced  judgment  and  a  more 
varied  equipment  than  any  one  of  its  eleven  companion  volumes  ;  and 
Dr.  Hodgkin  seems  to  us  to  have  amply  justified  his  selection.  He  has 
produced  a  readable  and  scholarly  book,  well  fitted  to  maintain  the  high 
standard  set  in  the  volumes  that  have  preceded  it.  Many  and  varied 
were  the  vicissitudes  through  which  our  island  passed  between  that  early 
morning  of  August  27,  B.C.  55,  when  Caesar's  soldiers  first  caught  sight 
of  the  white  cliffs  of  Kent,  until  the  fatal  day  of  October,  1066,  when 
William  of  Normandy  planted  his  standard  on  the  spot  from  which 
Harold's  banner  had  fallen.  The  materials  at  the  disposal  of  the  historian 
of  the  intervening  centuries,  broken  and  tantalising  as  they  often  are,  are 
yet  almost  as  varied  as  the  events  to  which  they  relate.  Sound  judgment 
in  selecting  and  rejecting  is  here  urgently  required,  along  with  a  due 
sense  of  proportion  and  a  stern  will  to  suppress  whatever  is  not  essential 
to  the  main  thread  of  the  story.  No  little  skill  is  required  to  weave  the 
miscellaneous  materials  thus  selected  into  a  coherent,  lucid,  and  interesting 
whole.  Dr.  Hodgkin  has  shown  himself  possessed  of  the  necessary  quali- 
fications, and  has  produced  a  work  distinguished  by  breadth  of  outlook 
and  by  a  keen  appreciation  of  all  matters  of  human  interest  lurking  in 
the  most  unpromising  of  historical  documents.  The  search  for  modern 
instances,  indeed,  has  sometimes  been  carried  almost  to  excess  :  Aidan  is 
compared  with  Francis  of  Assisi,  Wilfrid  with  Loyola,  while  Columba 
is  'the  John  Wesley  of  the  6th  century,'  and  Degsastan  is  'the  Flodden 


504          Hodgkin  :    History  of  England 

of  the  yth  century ' ;  a  Killiecrankie  of  the  8th  century  is  referred  to, 
while  Nansens,  Franklins,  Talleyrands  and  Sunderlands  are  discovered  in 
abundance  in  the  gth  ;  the  fall  of  the  Roman  city  of  Camulodunum 
is  a  reminder  of  the  Indian  Mutiny,  and  the  arrow-flights  at  Hastings, 
of  the  deadly  musketry  of  the  Boers  at  Majuba  Hill.  A  characteristic 
note  of  moderation,  however,  runs  through  the  book  ;  the  author  identifies 
himself  neither  with  the  extreme  partisans  of  the  theory  of  Teutonic 
origins,  nor  with  those  who  postulate  the  continuing  influence  of  Roman 
civilisation.  The  same  quality  is  shown  in  the  treatment  of  such  thorny 
problems  as  the  functions  of  the  Witan,  which,  as  he  cleverly  and  rightly 
tells  us,  'are  better  learned  by  watching  the  course  of  national  history 
than  from  any  attempt  to  frame  a  definition  of  that  which  was  essentially 
vague,  fluctuating,  and  incoherent'  (p.  232).  The  passages  dealing  with 
the  early  relations  of  Scotland  and  England  are  equally  fair-minded.  The 
arguments  on  both  sides  are  clearly  stated  ;  but  Dr.  Hodgkin  makes  no 
reference  to  a  conscientious  monograph  which  deserves  to  be  better  known 
in  this  country,  namely,  Feudal  Relations  between  the  Kings  of  England 
and  Scotland,  by  Mr.  C.  T.  Wyckoff,  a  writer  who,  from  his  American 
nationality,  is  better  fitted  than  either  Englishman  or  Scotsman  to  act 
as  an  impartial  judge.  Scholars  need  not  expect  to  find  in  this  volume 
any  new  sources  of  historical  information,  or  to  derive  from  it  any  specially 
original  theories  ;  but  they  will  be  rewarded  for  the  pleasant  labour  of 
perusal  by  a  fresh  and  well-proportioned  presentment  of  an  intricate  period 
of  history,  and  they  can  hardly  fail  to  profit  from  a  new  survey  of 
familiar  ground  under  the  guidance  of  so  cultured  and  interesting  a  com- 
panion. 

The  general  reader  will  find  here  exactly  what  he  wants — the  story  of 
eleven  momentous  centuries  told  in  vigorous  and  straightforward  English, 
embodied  in  a  narrative  which  is  always  readable,  and  never  overburdened 
with  unnecessary  details.  WM.  S.  McKECHNiE. 

THE    POLITICAL    HISTORY    OF    ENGLAND    FROM    THE    ACCESSION    OF 

GEORGE    III.    TO    THE    CLOSE    OF    PITT'S    FIRST    ADMINISTRATION 

(1760-1801).     By   William    Hunt,   M.A.,    D.Litt.,  President   of  the 

Royal    Historical    Society.      Vol.    X.      Pp.    xviii,    495.      Demy    8vo. 

London  :    Longmans,  Green  &  Co.   1905.     75.  6d.  nett. 

THIS  volume  is  number  ten  of  a  series  of  twelve  in  which  the  political 

history    of   England    will    be    dealt    with.     The    prefatory    notice    states 

'  that  as  the  life  of  the  nation  is  complex  and  its  condition  at  any  time 

cannot    be    understood    without    taking    into   account    the  various    forces 

acting  upon  it,  notices  of  religious  matters  and  of  intellectual,  social  and 

economic  progess '  will  also  be  dealt  with  by  the  writers.     The  volume 

which  we  are  considering  makes  its  appearance  not   inappropriately  just 

100   years  after  the   death   of  Pitt,  and   it  deals  with  a  period  covering 

some  forty-one  years  of  that  life  which  ended  only  too  soon  at  the  early 

age  of  forty-seven.     Few  periods  in  the  history  of  any  country  can  equal 

in  importance  this  stimulating  era.     And  when  the  vast  changes  which 

it  had  in  store  for  England,  as  dealt  with   by  Dr.  Hunt,  are  adequately 


Hunt :    History  of  England  505 

considered,  one  feels  indeed  that  the  times  were  spacious,  and  that 
England,  exposed  to  the  most  critical  influences  both  at  home  and 
abroad,  emerged  after  what  Lord  Rosebery  has  called  the  'convulsion 
of  a  new  birth '  into  what  may  truly  be  termed  modern  times.  The 
vital  changes  which  were  wrought  in  those  forty  years  affected  the 
country  internally  as  well  as  in  her  status  as  an  international  power, 
and  no  less  in  relation  to  her  colonial  possessions.  Internally  they  included 
the  growth  of  the  privileges  of  parliament,  the  rise  of  the  Cabinet,  <a 
government  within  a  government ' ;  the  decay  of  the  personal  power  of 
the  sovereign,  or,  as  Dr.  Hunt  calls  it,  'The  King's  Rule,'  in  affairs  of 
government ;  the  enormous  increase  of  trade  and  manufactures,  the  dawn 
of  labour  combinations,  the  union  by  act  of  Parliament  of  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland,  and  the  publication  of  Adam  Smith's  Wealth  of  Nations. 
Abroad  England  was  called  upon  to  deal  with  the  problem  of  taxation 
in  her  American  colonies,  their  subsequent  revolt  and  final  separation, 
with  the  affairs  of  the  East  India  Company  and  the  growth  of  Parlia- 
mentary interference  therewith.  Added  to  all  this  there  was  the  unrest 
and  reaction  of  the  French  Revolution  and  the  struggle  with  France 
on  sea  and  land — a  great  age,  truly,  abounding  in  great  names.  Pitt 
follows  Chatham,  Rodney  and  Wolfe  give  way  to  Nelson  and  Wellington, 
and  as  Thackeray  puts  it  in  his  lectures  on  The  Four  Georges^  '  Napoleon 
is  to  be  but  an  episode,  and  George  III.  is  to  be  alive  through  all  these 
varied  changes,  to  accompany  his  people  through  all  these  revolutions 
of  thought,  government,  society  :  to  survive  out  of  the  old  world  into  ours.' 

Dr.  Hunt  deals  very  clearly  with  two  movements  of  the  first  importance 
which  characterise  the  period  we  are  considering  :  the  one,  the  personal 
political  predominance  of  the  king,  and  the  other  the  gradual  rise  and 
growth  of  that  interesting  constitutional  anomaly,  namely,  the  Cabinet. 
The  real  balance  of  power,  as  he  points  out,  was  not  to  be  found  in  either 
of  the  Houses  of  Parliament,  but  in  the  Crown.  The  Princess  Augusta 
imbued  her  son  with  extensive  notions  of  kingly  prerogative,  and  her 
reiterated  advice,  '  George,  be  a  king,'  was  further  instilled  into  his 
Royal  pupil  by  the  Earl  of  Bute. 

The  King's  personal  character,  resolution,  and  capacity  for  intrigue, 
it  may  be  safely  surmised,  enabled  him  to  pursue  this  line  of  action  with 
comparatively  little  serious  difficulty  until  the  failures  of  the  American 
War. 

The  growth  of  the  Cabinet  as  a  '  homogeneous  body  collectively 
responsible  to  Parliament '  is  a  study  of  deep  interest,  and  we  are  indebted 
to  Dr.  Hunt  for  the  lucid  manner  in  which  he  has  dealt  with  this  highly 
important  subject.  The  rise  of  the  Cabinet  as  we  know  it  to-day  can 
be  traced  to  no  alteration  of  the  law,  nevertheless  its  constitutional  status 
is  determined  beyond  all  dispute.  Dr.  Rudolf  von  Gneist  in  his  History 
of  the  British  Parliament  has  pointed  out  that  the  main  reason  for  its 
existence  is  to  be  found  in  the  necessary  unity  of  action  in  dealing  with 
the  political  and  commercial  relations  of  the  British  Empire,  which  can 
only  be  reached  by  forming  the  ministerial  council  from  men  who  were 
mainly  at  one  as  to  the  principal  measures  of  the  government  for  the  time 

2K 


506  Hunt  :    History  of  England 

being  and  who  had  secured  or  were  in  a  position  to  secure  a  majority  in 
both  Houses  in  favour  of  such  measures. 

Sincere  praise  is  due  to  Dr.  W.  Hunt  and  his  colleagues  for  the 
decision  to  treat  English  history  from  the  point  of  view  of  periods 
chosen  with  reason  and  sound  judgment,  and  in  the  particular  instance 
under  review  the  result  is  eminently  satisfactory.  A  severe  critic  might 
perhaps  be  forgiven  for  wishing  for  a  more  picturesque  presentment  so  far 
as  style  is  concerned ;  but  for  lucid,  accurate,  and  copious  treatment,  Dr. 
Hunt's  work  is  worthy  of  high  praise,  and  he  has  made  all  students  of  their 
country's  history  his  grateful  and  cordial  debtors.  PERCY  CORDER 

LES    PRISONNIERS  ECOSSAIS  DU  MONT  SAINT  MICHEL  (EN  NORMANDIE) 

AU  XVI'  SIECLE. 

UN  historien  normand,  Charles  de  Bourgueville,  qui  vivait  au  seizieme 
siecle,  rapporte  dans  ses  Memoires  que,  vers  1548,  ctrois  gentilshommes 
6cossais  qui  avaient  tu6  le  Cardinal  Daivid,  au  Chateau  de  Saint  Andr£ 
en  Ecosse,  furent  enferme's  par  1'ordre  du  roi  au  Mont  Saint  Michel.' 
II  raconte  que  ces  Ecossais  rdussirent  k  s'eVader ;  qu'une  enqueue  fut 
ordonnee,  qu'elle  fut  faite  par  le  bailli  de  Caen  et  que  le  capitaine 
gouverneur  du  Mont  Saint  Michel,  responsable  par  sa  negligence  de  cette 
evasion,  fut  destitu£  de  sa  charge. 

Nous  savons  par  les  historiens  e'cossais1  que  Norman  Lesley,  Lord 
Pittmillie  et  Lord  of  Grange  furent  d'abord  convoy^s  a  Cherbourg  et,. 
de  la,  internes  au  Mont  Saint  Michel ;  mais  voici  la  copie  authentique, 
tres  interessante,  nous  semble-t-il  pour  l'histoire  de  1'Ecosse,  de  documents 
trouvds  dans  les  archives  des  Tabellions  de  Cherbourg,  ann£e  1547,  et 
qui,  incontestablement,  s'appliquent  bien  aux  reformateurs  Ecossais : 

'Le  VII  D^cembre  a  Cherbourg,  devant  Jehan  Guiffart  et  Jehan  Le 
Vallois,  tabellions  et  notaires  commis  et  establis  au  siege  de  Cherbourg 
pour  le  Roy,  furent  presents  nobles  hommes  Jehan  de  Fontaynes, 
seigneur  de  la  Faye,  homme  d'armes  de  la  garnison  du  diet  lieu  de 
Cherbourg  (suit  Enumeration,  sans  inte>e"t,  de  plusieurs  hommes  d'armes), 
lesquels  nous  ont  certifie'  et  attest^  que  le  VIe  jour  d'octobre,  dernier 
passe,  fut  bailli  par  les  Seigneurs  Gouverneurs  g£n£raux  de  Rouen 
et  mit  en  la  saisigne  et  garde  de  noble  homme,  Janot  de  Lasne,  lieutenant 
en  la  dicte  ville  et  Chasteau  de  Cherbourg,  troys  gentilshommes  Ecossais, 
scavoir :  Nirmont  Lessetey,  cappitaine  du  Chasteau  de  Saint  Andre, 
Millort  de  Granges  et  le  Seigneur  de  Petit  Mel^  suyvant  le  commande- 
ment  et  voulloyr  du  Roy,  nostre  d.  seigneur,  dont  nous  a  est6  requis 
ce  present  certificat  pour  servir  et  valloir  qu'il  appartiendra.  Presents 
pour  temoins  Thierry  de  Goberville,  escuier  et  Jullien  Fouoche  de 
la  Garnison.' 

Une  annotation  sur  ce  me"me  registre  dit :  l  Les  prisonniers  furent 
envoy^s  par  le  Roy  au  Mont  Saint  Michel,  ou  ils  ont  est£  prisonniers 
virons  des  ans.  Comme  du  Mont  Saint  Michel  eschapperent,  dont 
le  capitaine  du  lieu  cut  bien  affaire.' 

1  Kirkcaldy  of  Grange,  by  Louis  Barbe,  pp.  41-42. 


Dupont  :    Prisonniers  licossais  507 

Aucun  doute  n'est  done  possible  sur  I'identit6  des  prisonniers  6cossais, 
enfermes  au  Mont  et  que  ne  citait  point  1'historien  de  Bourgueville. 

Nirmont  Lessetay  n'est  autre  que  Norman  Lesse/ey,  Millort  de  Granges, 
Kirkcaldy  of  Grange  et  le  Seigneur  de  Petit  Mel  Pitmillle.  Cette  alteration 
dans  1'orthographe  des  noms  est  tres  fre"quente  quand  il  s'agit  de  transcrire 
en  France  des  noms  propres  etrangers. 

ETIENNE  DUPONT. 


SELECT  DOCUMENTS  ILLUSTRATIVE  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  FRENCH 
REVOLUTION.  THE  CONSTITUENT  ASSEMBLY.  Edited  by  L.  G. 
Wickham  Legg,  M.A.,  New  College.  2  vols.  Pp.  xxii,  632. 
Crown  8vo.  Oxford  :  at  the  Clarendon  Press.  1905.  12s.  nett. 

No  better  companion  to  a  good  secondary  history  of  the  first  two  and 
a  half  years  of  the  French  Revolution  could  be  put  into  the  hands  of 
a  reader  than  these  volumes.  Extracts  from  contemporary  documents 
do  not  and  cannot  give  an  adequate  account  of  any  event,  but  they  are 
invaluable  in  transporting  the  reader  into  the  atmosphere  of  their  own 
day  and  in  representing  accurately  the  phases  of  popular  opinion.  It 
has  been  Mr.  Legg's  aim  to  represent  the  *  opinion  of  the  ordinary 
person,'  and  to  this  end  he  has  selected  his  extracts  mainly  from  the  most 
influential  contemporary  journals.  But  he  has  not  confined  himself  to  the 
eight  or  nine  great  newspapers  of  the  period,  and  has  chosen  many 
extracts  from  papers  quite  unknown  to  the  general  reader  and  not  often 
consulted  by  the  student.  In  an  excellent  introduction  Mr.  Legg  gives 
an  account  of  the  journals  from  which  he  quotes,  indicating  their  political 
and  historical  value. 

The  two  volumes  now  published  cover  the  period  from  the  opening 
of  the  States-General  in  May,  1789,  to  the  dissolving  of  the  Constituent 
Assembly  on  September  30,  1791,  and  the  documents  selected  divide 
themselves — although  not  formally  divided — into  two  classes  :  one  relating 
to  the  events  and  the  other  to  the  constitutional  changes  comprised  in 
that  period.  It  is  in  respect  to  these  last  that  Mr.  Legg  earns  the  student's 
deepest  gratitude. 

The  first  National  or  Constituent  Assembly  had  before  it  one  main 
object,  the  making  of  a  Constitution  for  France.  By  reprinting  decrees, 
resolutions,  and  the  opinions  of  the  press  concerning  these,  Mr.  Legg 
enables  the  student  to  follow  the  progress  of  this  work,  and  in  his 
connecting  paragraphs  and  notes  he  gives  an  immense  amount  of  definite 
information  on  exactly  those  points  which  a  general  history  is  apt  to 
leave  obscure  or  untouched.  To  this  he  adds  an  appendix  in  which  he 
gives  the  full  text  of  the  Constitution  of  1791,  and  of  the  decrees  most 
important  to  the  early  history  of  the  Revolution  ;  that  is,  those  on  the 
municipal  and  local  administrations,  on  the  civil  constitution  of  the  clergy, 
on  the  judicial  reforms,  and  on  the  organisation  of  the  ministry. 

A  very  useful  feature  of  these  volumes  is  the  reference  to  further 
authorities  given  in  the  connecting  paragraphs.  There  are,  however, 
several  points  on  which  fuller  references  might  well  have  been  made, 


508  Legg  :    French  Revolution 

as  for  example  to  the  documents  in  the  Bibliotheque  Carnavalet  on  the 
organisation  of  the  National  Guard. 

Where  so  much  has  been  given  it  may  seem  invidious  to  complain 
of  Mr.  Legg's  rejection — from  considerations  of  space — of  contemporary 
pamphlets.  But  their  omission  (with  two  exceptions)  leaves  unnoticed  the 
political  lampoons,  and  those  travesties  of  the  liturgy  which  represent 
popular  opinion  in  so  piquant  a  manner ;  the  pamphlets  also  often  give 
a  more  graphic  account  of  an  incident  than  do  the  newspapers.  Perhaps 
in  the  volumes  which  will  surely  follow  these,  Mr.  Legg  may  see  his 
way  to  represent  these  sources  of  contemporary  opinion  more  fully. 

SOPHIA  H.  MACLEHOSE. 

THE  PEDIGREE  OF  HUNTER  OF  ABBOTSHILL  AND  BARJARG,  AND  CADET 
FAMILIES — HUNTER  OF  BONNYTOUN  AND  DOONHOLM,  HUNTER-BLAIR 
OF  BLAIRQUHAN,  HUNTER  OF  AUCHTERARDER,  HUNTER  OF  THUR- 
STON.  Compiled  by  Andrew  Alexander  Hunter.  Pp.  vii,  47.  Demy 
4to.  With  numerous  illustrations.  London :  Elliot  Stock.  1905. 
305.  nett. 

THOUGH  in  his  preface  the  author  handles  a  long-standing  tradition  that 
the  families  of  whom  he  treats  are  descended  from  the  family  of  Hunter  of 
Hunterston,  he  unfortunately  is  unable  to  adduce  any  evidence  to  prove 
this  tradition  more  reliable  than  others  of  its  kind.  The  work  has  been 
compiled  on  sound  lines,  and  we  note  with  pleasure  the  lists  of  family 
portraits  and  of  their  present  owners,  as  also  the  plates  reproducing  many 
of  these  portraits  representative  of  each  family.  Views  of  mansions  of  the 
families  are  introduced,  and  there  is  careful  blazonry  of  their  arms.  But 
though  the  scheme  of  the  work  is  excellent,  the  work  itself,  as  a  whole,  does 
not  meet  so  well  with  our  approval.  The  list  of  authorities  which  the  author 
cites  in  his  preface  is  meagre  in  extreme,  and  not  sufficient  to  warrant  the 
genealogist  to  place  reliance  on  his  statements  without  further  verification. 
Particular  references  are  almost  entirely  ignored.  The  book  is  overladen 
with  reproductions  of  patents  and  matriculations  of  arms  which,  so  long  as 
the  Lyon  register  exists,  serve  no  useful  purpose.  In  various  passages  also, 
the  composition  is  at  fault.  With  all  its  shortcomings,  however,  the  book 
contains  a  great  deal  of  information  about  the  various  families  of  Hunter, 
the  pedigree  charts  are  carefully  executed,  and  in  the  text  the  descents  of 
the  families  lucidly  traced. 

ALEXR.  O.  CURLE. 

THE  FRONDE  (the  Stanhope  Essay,  1905),  by  George  Stuart  Gordon, 
Oriel  College,  Oxford.  Pp.  vi,  67.  Cr.  8vo.  Oxford :  B.  H. 
Blackwell,  1905.  2s.  6d.  nett. 

THE  tragi-comedy  of  the  Fronde,  which  may  be  said  to  be  composed 
of  two  acts,  or  four  scenes,  preceded  by  the  short  prologue  of  the 
'  Cabale  des  Importants,'  has  attracted  the  pen  of  many  writers,  and  it 
needs  no  little  skill  to  sum  up  the  results  of  those  labours  within  the 
compass  of  sixty  odd  pages.  It  must  be  acknowledged  at  once  that  the 


Gordon  :    The  Fronde  509 

skill  needed  is  present  in  the  essay  under  review.  The  writer  has  mastered 
many  authorities,  from  the  contemporary  memoirs  and  documents  to  the 
most  recent  researches,  from  de  Retz  to  Sainte-Beuve  and  Cousin,  from 
the  Mazarinades  to  the  latest  collections  of  documents.  The  Fronde,  in 
spite  of  its  riots  and  civil  wars,  of  its  bloodshed  and  waste  of  money,  was 
never  taken  very  seriously,  even  by  those  who  played  leading  parts  in  the 
different  scenes  ;  no  crisis  in  French  history  has  produced  such  a  harvest  of 
songs,  of  epigrams,  of  witticisms  ;  and  de  Retz  in  his  Memoirs  set  the  tone 
which  subsequent  writers  have  thought  fit  to  adopt  in  narrating  the  events 
of  those  fateful  years  (1648-1653),  during  which  Parliament,  Princes, 
Minister,  fought,  imprisoned,  banished,  and  cajoled  each  other  by  turns. 
The  essayist  has  breathed  so  deeply  in  that  literary  atmosphere  that  in 
every  page  of  his  book  one  comes  across  sprightly  phrases,  well-balanced 
epigrammatic  sentences  that  bring  out  in  vivid  relief  a  character  or  an 
incident.  Indeed,  were  it  not  for  a  conscientious  use  of  quotation  marks, 
it  would  be  hard  to  distinguish  between  what  is  old  and  what  is  new. 
The  narrative  is  clear,  and  the  crowded  events  are  easily  followed  ;  yet  at 
times  the  casual  reader  will  be  pulled  up  by  a  passing  hint  or  allusion  that 
he  may  not  readily  grasp  ;  but  of  course  the  essay  was  not  written  for 
casual  readers,  and  evidently  these  obscure  passages  have  been  appreciated 
in  the  proper  quarter.  The  little  book  is  certainly  full  of  promise. 

F.  J.  AMOURS. 

A  HISTORY  OF  THE  POST-REFORMATION  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS  IN 
OXFORDSHIRE,  WITH  AN  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  FAMILIES  CONNECTED 
WITH  THEM.  By  Mrs.  Bryan  Stapleton.  Pp.  viii,  372.  8vo.  Oxford : 
Henry  Frowde.  1906.  los.  6d.  nett. 

CAREFUL  and  loving  hands  have  sought  and  found  details  of  the  lives  of  all 
those  faithful  and  tested  adherents  of  the  Old  Faith  who,  in  Oxfordshire, 
have  kept  its  vital  spark  alive  in  times  of  trial  and  indifference.  The  book 
has  no  pretensions  to  literary  merit,  but  the  quaint  and  often  pathetic 
stories,  mostly  told  in  the  words  of  the  original  records,  have  a  charm  of 
their  own.  Oxford  readers  will  be  interested  in  the  following  account  of 
a  pathetic  incident  of  the  siege  of  Bletchingdon,  the  seat  of  the  present 
Member  for  the  City.  Francis  Windebank,  son  of  Mr.  Secretary  Winde- 
bank,  was  in  command  of  the  garrison  of  Bletchingdon  House.  After 
many  attempts,  the  Parliamentary  forces  were  enabled  at  last  to  cross  the 
Cherwell,  and  they  advanced  upon  Bletchingdon,  calling  the  governor  to 
surrender,  '  who  being  summoned  by  the  victorious  Cromwell,  and  per- 
suaded by  his  beautiful  young  bride  and  other  ladies  that  came  to  visit  her, 
surrendered  the  place,  with  all  the  arms  and  ammunition,  for  which 
surrender  the  hopeful  young  gentleman,  for  all  the  entreaties  of  his  wife 
and  the  merit  of  his  father,  was  shot  to  death  against  Merton  College  wall, 
to  the  great  regret  afterwards  of  the  King  when  he  understood  the  business, 
and  for  which  he  was  highly  displeased  with  Prince  Rupert.' 

Local    interest  may   be  taken    in  such   stories  as  those  of  the    'three 
old  cronies  of   Holywell '   related   by   Hearne.      '  Old   Mr.  Joyner  often 


510  Stapleton  :    Catholic  Missions 

desired  Mr.  Kimber  to  be  his  executor,  but  he  declined,  though  he  wished 
he  had,  because  after  his  death,  when  he  examined  his  books,  they  found 
money  stuck  in  almost  every  one  of  them,  in  all  to  the  value  of  three  or 
four  hundred  pounds,  which  I  take  to  be  the  reason  why  he  never  would 
let  one  see  his  study.' 

The  '  Catherine  Wheel '  in  Oxford,  once  a  hostel  near  St.  Mary 
Magdalene's  Church,  was  a  favourite  meeting  place  of  Catholics.  There 
one,  Thomas  Belson  of  Aston  Rowant,  arrived  to  confer  with  Father 
Nicol  and  Father  Yaxley.  'Their  secret  was  known,  and  one  midnight 
they  were  disturbed  by  the  violent  entrance  of  the  University  servants  and 
all  taken  the  next  morning  before  the  Vice-Chancellor's  Court.  In  reply 
to  the  examination  they  all  confessed  their  faith.  With  needless  barbarity 
they  were  taken  to  London,  imprisoned,  racked  and  tortured,  and  finally 
sent  back  to  Oxford  for  execution.  The  inn  servant,  Humphrey  Prichard, 
suffered  with  them,  and  their  heads  were  set  upon  the  old  Castle  walls  and 
their  quarters  over  the  city  gates.  The  good  landlady  also  suffered  for  her 
hospitality  to  the  martyrs  ;  she  was  condemned  to  the  loss  of  all  her  goods 
and  to  perpetual  imprisonment.'  One  would  like  to  quote  in  full  the 
account  of  the  receiving  of  Dr.  Newman  into  the  Old  Faith  by  Father 
Dominick,  and  the  well  known  '  "  Little-more,"  and  you  will  be  right.' 

The  authoress  rightly  hesitates  to  claim  the  poet  Milton  (who  was  an 
Oxfordshire  man)  as  a  Roman  Catholic,  though  there  seems  to  be  a 
persistent  report  of  his  conversion.  The  book,  though  mainly  interesting 
to  members  of  the  old  religion,  is  of  distinct  value  to  the  historical  student, 
and  covers  ground  that  has  never  before  been  dealt  with. 

C.  C.  LYNAM. 

ECCLESIOLOGICAL  ESSAYS,  by  J.  Wickham  Legg.    Pp.  xi,  275.    Med.  8vo. 
London  :  A.  Moring,  Ltd.     1905.     75.  6d.  nett. 

THESE  Essays  form  the  seventh  volume  of  that  most  interesting  series.  The 
Library  of  Liturgiology  and  Ecclesiology  for  English  Readers,  which  is  issued 
under  the  editorship  of  the  Provost  of  S.  Andrew's  Cathedral,  Inverness. 
They  have  been  collected  from  various  publications,  and  the  fact  that  they 
are  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Wickham  Legg  is  in  itself  a  sufficient  recom- 
mendation. Dr.  Legg  treats  of  such  subjects  as  '  Revised  and  Shortened 
Services,'  '  On  Two  Unusual  Forms  of  Linen  Vestments,'  '  On  the  Three 
Ways  of  Canonical  Election,'  *  Notes  on  the  Marriage  Service  in  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  of  1549,'  'The  Lambeth  Hearing,'  etc.  The  essay 
on  '  A  Comparative  Study  of  the  Time  in  the  Christian  Liturgy  at  which 
the  Elements  are  prepared  and  set  on  the  Holy  Table '  is  a  most  useful  and 
scholarly  compilation.  And  that  upon  '  Mediaeval  Ceremonials '  is  of 
exceptional  value  at  the  present  time.  It  is  no  surprise  to  those  who  have 
made  any  study  of  this  subject  to  find  it  stated  that  '  the  character  of  the 
Roman  rite  during  the  early  part  of  the  middle  ages  was  one  of  extreme 
simplicity.'  Ignorance  of  the  true  nature  and  character  of  mediaeval 
ceremonies  is  unfortunately  too  prevalent.  This  essay  should  be  of  service 
in  dispelling  it.  These  Essays  will  prove  of  interest  to  all  who  desire  that 


Legg  :    Ecclesiological  Essays  5 1 1 

soberness  and  sense  should  regulate  the  services  of  the  Church,  and  that  if 
changes  must  be  made,  that  they  be  made  according  to  knowledge.  It 
is  a  matter  for  congratulation  that  we  should  have  them  in  such  an 
accessible  and  attractive  form.  The  illustrations  are  excellent  and  informa- 
tive, and  there  is  a  full  index. 

W.  H.  MACLEOD. 

ECCLESIA  ANTIQUA  :  THE  STORY  OF  ST.  MICHAEL'S,  LINLITHGOW. 
By  the  Rev.  John  Ferguson,  Minister  of  Linlithgow.  Pp.  xxi,  357. 
Dy.  8vo.  Edinburgh  :  Oliver  &  Boyd.  1905.  js.  6d.  nett. 
ST.  MICHAEL'S  has  had  a  great  history  and  was  the  Church  of  Scottish 
kings  and  queens.  Through  the  energy  and  devotion  of  the  present  parish 
minister,  it  has  been  added  to  the  list  of  restored  Scottish  temples,  and 
although  its  beautiful  steeple-crown  was  removed  in  1821  cto  avoid  the 
danger  to  the  building,'  it  is  a  noble  church,  much  admired  by  all  who 
know  it.  Mr.  Ferguson  has  done  again  distinct  service  to  his  parish  by 
writing  the  history  of  his  church,  and  his  book  is  characterised  by  exact 
scholarship,  sympathetic  study,  careful  research  extended  over  many  years, 
and  by  a  fine  literary  style.  It  reveals  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the 
subject,  and  specially  valuable  is  the  appendix  information  regarding  the 
twenty-five  ancient  altars,  St.  Mary's  Chapel  at  the  East  Port,  St.  Mag- 
dalene's Hospital,  the  Sang  Schule,  Carmelite  and  Augustinian  Friaries, 
as  well  as  the  Obits. 

St.  Michael's  illustrates  the  Middle  Pointed  or  Decorated  Period  of 
Scottish  Architecture,  and  MacGibbon  and  Ross'  great  book  gives  an 
exact  and  reliable  account  of  its  structural  features. 

Regarding  its  former  collegiate  ministry,  Mr.  Ferguson  says :  '  We 
have,  in  this  second  charge  at  Linlithgow,  a  proof  that  the  clergyman  in 
possession  of  a  teind-stipend,  and  the  clergyman  voluntarily  supported,  had, 
for  centuries  before  the  chapel  at  Stewarton  was  built,  sat  together  in  the 
Church  Courts,  and  enjoyed  equal  rights  and  privileges :  and  it  might 
have  been  better  for  religion  in  Scotland  to-day  if  the  rights  of  heritors  had 
been  safeguarded  otherwise  than  by  deciding  that  the  possession  of  a 
legal  stipend  was  necessary  to  a  clergyman's  enjoying  the  full  status  of  a 
Presbyter.' 

Mr.  Ferguson's  history  is  worthy  of  its  subject.  D.  BUTLER. 

THE  ROMANIZATION  OF  ROMAN  BRITAIN.  From  the  Proceedings  of 
the  British  Academy  Vol.  ii.  By  F.  J.  Haverfield,  Fellow  of  the 
Academy.  Pp.  33,  with  13  illustrations.  Imp.  8vo.  London  :  Henry 
Frowde.  1906.  2s.  6d.  nett. 

WE  do  not  know  whether  the  British  Academy  produces  many  papers  of 
quality  equal  to  this.  Even  if  it  produces  only  a  few,  it  will  soon  justify 
its  existence.  The  besetting  sin  of  the  archaeologist  is  undoubtedly  his 
inadequate  sense  of  proportion,  his  tendency  to  regard  all  facts  as  equally 
important :  if  he  digs  up  a  camp  or  a  barrow,  he  is  prone  to  bury  it 
again  immediately  beneath  a  mountain  of  detailed  description.  Mr. 


512     Haverfield  :   Romanization  of  Britain 

Haverfield's  training  as  a  historian  has  delivered  him  from  this  weakness. 
There  is  no  lack  of  facts  in  what  he  writes ;  but  every  fact  is  strictly 
relevant,  and  is  assigned  to  its  proper  place  with  a  clearness  and  decision 
that  make  the  argument  easy  to  follow.  In  the  present  paper  he  sets 
himself  to  enquire :  How  far  was  Roman  Britain  really  Romanized, 
in  the  sense  that,  say,  Gaul  and  Spain  were  Romanized  ?  His  answer, 
based  on  abundant  archaeological  evidence,  is  at  variance  with  the 
results  that  have  been  reached  by  earlier  authorities.  He  begins  by 
emphasizing  the  vital  distinction  between  the  two  halves  of  the 
province, — ( the  one  the  northern  and  western  uplands  occupied  only  by 
troops,  and  the  other  the  eastern  and  southern  lowlands  which  contained 
nothing  but  purely  civilian  life.'  In  regard  to  the  former,  we  know  but 
little  about  the  natives.  In  regard  to  the  latter,  we  know  a  great  deal,  and 
we  find  that,  within  the  region  indicated,  the  average  Briton  was  as  com- 
pletely 'Romanized'  as  his  Gaulish  neighbour.  He  adopted  the  civiliza- 
tion of  his  conquerors.  Latin  was  his  everyday  speech.  Even  his  native 
art  was  abandoned,  or  survived  only  sporadically  as  in  the  potteries  on  the 
Nene.  Not  the  least  interesting  portion  of  Mr.  Haverfield's  paper  is  its 
conclusion,  where  he  shows  how  the  traces  of  this  Roman  period  in  British 
history  were  largely  obliterated,  not  merely  by  the  English  invasion,  but 
even  more  effectually  by  a  Celtic  revival  which  set  in  about  the  opening 
of  the  fifth  century  A.D.  Altogether,  the  brochure  is  one  to  be  carefully 
read,  and  laid  aside  for  frequent  reference. 

GEORGE  MACDONALD. 


HISTORICAL  ABERDEEN.     By  G.  M.   Fraser,  Librarian,  Public  Library, 
Aberdeen.     Pp.  xxviii,  172.     8vo.     Aberdeen  :  Wm.  Smith,   1905. 

MR.  FRASER  continues  to  make  admirable  use  of  his  leisure  and  of  his 
position  and  resources.  He  had  already  gratified  Aberdonians  and  others 
interested  in  Aberdeen  by  his  account  of  the  Green  and  its  associations. 
In  this  volume  he  gives  an  excellent  account  of  The  Castle  and  the 
Castlehill,  The  Snow  Church,  The  Woolmanhill  and  Neighbourhood, 
and  The  Guestrow.  On  two  disputed  points,  namely,  the  original 
breadth  of  Broad  Street,  and  the  origin  of  the  name  Guestrow,  we 
take  Mr.  Eraser's  view.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  the  Guestrow  and 
Broad  Street  ever  formed  one  street,  and  we  are  of  opinion  that  the 
origin  of  the  name  Guestrow  is  to  be  found  not  *  in  the  circumstance 
that  it  was  here  that  hostelries  or  houses  of  entertainment  existed — 
that  it  was  the  Guest  Raw ' — but  in  the  fact  that  it  overlooks  the 
city  Churchyard,  and  was  therefore  called  the  Ghaist  Row.  On  the 
question  of  etymology  we  note  that  Mr.  Fraser  ignores  a  deriva- 
tion suggested  to  account  for  the  name  Mutton  Brae.  It  is  true 
that  in  the  north  country  provisional  etymologies  are  favoured ;  thus 
St.  Brandon's  Fair  (Banff)  has  been  corrupted  into  Brandy  Fair,  and 
this  has  given  rise  to  Porter  Fair  (Turriff),  and  Whisky  Fair  (Aber- 
chirder).  The  suggestion,  however,  that  the  word  *  Mutton  '  in  Mutton- 
brae  is  connected  with  A.S.  mot,  a  meeting,  is  worth  consideration. 


Fraser  :    Historical  Aberdeen  513 

The  book  contains  a  good  index,  a  copy  of  Parson  Gordon's  map, 
and  interesting  illustrations.  Strangers  who  may  visit  Aberdeen  in 
September  in  connection  with  the  University  quater-centenary  celebra- 
tions will  find  it  extremely  useful.  A.  M.  WILLIAMS. 

NAPOLEONIC  STUDIES.     By  J.  Holland  Rose,  Litt.D.     Pp.  xii,  398.     Post 

8vo.     London  :  George  Bell  &  Sons,  1904.     ys.  6d.  nett. 
MR.  ROSE'S  well-established  reputation,  and  his  admirable  life  of  Napoleon 
— so  marked  a  service  to  English  readers — have  already  taught  us  to  expect 
from  him  accurate  research  and  a  clear  style. 

Of  the  twelve  essays  which  this  volume  contains  some  have  already 
appeared  in  the  various  reviews ;  but  of  greater  interest  and  importance 
are  the  four  new  essays  in  this  collection.  One  traces  in  Pitt's  Plans  for 
the  Settlement  of  Europe  (in  1795,  1798-99,  and  1804-1805)  a  clear 
forecast  of  the  settlement  arrived  at  by  the  Congress  of  Vienna.  In  another 
is  printed  an  interesting  description  (July,  1802)  of  Egypt,  its  geography 
and  antiquities,  the  nature  of  the  French  administration,  its  commerce, 
the  possibilities  of  its  agriculture — 'a  proper  management  of  the  water 
is  the  first,  the  last,  and  the  only  object  to  be  attended  to.'  A  third 
works  out  the  intimate  connection  of  Napoleon's  downfall  with  the  pacific 
disposition  of  Austria,  and  his  belief  that  she  could  be  bribed  or  bullied 
into  an  understanding  with  him.  Most  likely  to  interest  the  general 
reader  is  Mr.  Rose's  study  of  the  Idealist  revolt  against  Napoleon,  with 
which  he  joins  the  names  of  Wordsworth,  Schiller,  and  Fichte.  We  wish 
Mr.  Rose  had  given  himself  more  space  here  :  the  discussion  is  too  short 
to  be  adequate,  and — we  have  no  wish  to  quibble,  but  surely  his  use  of 
the  work  '  idealist '  is  a  little  misleading.  Napoleon  represented  heedless 
force  as  the  executant  of  vague  cosmopolitanism.  It  was  the  full  ex- 
hibition of  this  that  drove  speculators  into  contact  with  reality,  and  aroused 
in  Germany  a  nationalism,  that  was  ill  developed  but  perfectly  genuine, 
and  historic  from  the  days  of  Charles  V.,  and  long  before  him.  This, 
of  course,  is  much  more  obvious  in  the  case  of  England  ;  and  Mr. 
Rose  scarcely  notices,  when  writing  of  Wordsworth,  to  what  an  extent — 
and  far  more  than  Wordsworth  then  realised — his  enthusiasm  for  the 
Revolution  was  based  on  his  actual  experience  of  sober  liberty  in  England  : 
that  life  in  which  he  had  been  trained,  and  to  which  he  returned  'to 
nurse  his  heart  in  genuine  freedom.' 

At  the  end  of  the  volume  Mr.  Rose  has  printed  a  variety  of  letters  and 
despatches  illustrative  of  the  operations  in  the  Mediterranean,  1796, 
1798  ;  Napoleon's  plans  for  invading  England  ;  and  other  matters. 

K.  L. 

LIFE  OF  SIR  JOHN  T.  GILBERT,  LL.D.,  F.S.A.,  Irish  Historian  and 
Archivist.  By  Rosa  Mulholland  Gilbert.  Pp.  x,  461.  Demy  8vo. 
London  :  Longmans,  Green  &  Co.,  1905.  I2s.  6d.  nett. 

IT  is  not  very  easy  to  see  the  necessity  for  the   Life   of  Sir   John    T. 

Gilbert,    LL.D.j   F.S.d.^    which    his    widow    has    lately   published.      Sir 


Gilbert:   Life  of  Sir  John  T.  Gilbert 

John  Gilbert  was  a  capable  and  indefatigable  worker  in  the  historical 
antiquities  of  Ireland,  in  regard  to  which  he  occupied  for  many  years 
a  position  of  acknowledged  pre-eminence  among  his  contemporaries, 
and  his  long  labours  undoubtedly  did  much  to  enlarge  the  available 
sources  of  information  upon  many  important  periods  of  Irish  history. 
But  large  as  was  his  knowledge,  and  great  as  was  his  enthusiasm  for 
the  historical  records  of  his  native  country,  Gilbert  can  scarcely  be 
reckoned  an  historian,  and  there  was  nothing  in  his  career  to  differ- 
entiate him  from  numerous  learned  contemporaries  of  whom  even  in 
this  age  of  superfluous  biography  the  world  is  content  to  go  without 
a  formal  record.  The  public  which  Lady  Gilbert  rightly  believes  to 
feel  an  interest  in  her  husband's  career  would  gladly  have  welcomed  a 
short  account  within  the  compass  of  a  hundred  pages  of  her  husband's 
useful  and  laborious  career.  Such  a  memoir  Lady  Gilbert  is  well 
qualified  to  write. 

STUDIES  IN  ROMAN  HISTORY.      By  E.  G.  Hardy,    M.A.,  D.Litt.     Pp. 
ix,  349.     London  :  Swan,  Sonnenschein  &  Co.,  Limited,   1906.     6s. 

THESE  essays,  chiefly  on  the  introduction  and  spread  of  Christianity  in 
the  empire,  begin  with  the  earlier  attitude  of  the  Republic  towards 
foreign  cults,  especially  Judaism,  and  go  on  to  examine  the  growing 
faith  under  Nero  and  the  persecutions  for  the  '  Name,'  which  are 
treated  as  rather  social  than  religious.  Not  the  slight  to  the  national 
religion  moved  Nero,  Domitian,  or  Trajan,  but  the  disobedience  shown 
through  religion  to  the  imperial  government.  Mr.  Hardy  often  prefers 
a  view  opposite  to  Prof.  Ramsay's.  Included  are  essays  on  the  move- 
ments of  the  legions,  on  parallelisms  of  Plutarch,  Tacitus,  and 
Suetonius,  and  on  the  Bodleian  MS.  of  Pliny's  letters.  The  miscellany- 
displays  wide  classical  research.  In  the  military  section  Hadrian  is 
treated  as  builder  of  both  the  Wall  and  the  Vallum  in  north  England, 
a  standpoint  now  more  than  dubious. 

THE  HEADSMAN  OF  WHITEHALL.     By  Philip  Sidney.     Pp.  ix.  1 14.      8vo. 
Edinburgh:   Geo.  A.  Morton.     1905.     2s.  6d.  nett. 

MR.  SIDNEY  in  this  small  book  gives  a  well-written  series  of  essays  upon 
the  execution  of  King  Charles  I.,  and  the  circumstances  connected  with  it. 
He  prints  a  detailed  list  of  the  regicides  which  will  be  found  of  use,  but  the 
main  object  of  his  speculations  turns  upon  the  identity  of  the  King's  exe- 
cutioner which  is  a  still  unsolved  historical  mystery.  To  eighteen  persons 
has  been  attributed  the  dubious  honour.  One  contemporary  distich  ran — 

The  best  man  next  to  Jupiter, 
Was  put  to  death  by  Hugh  Peter. 

But  the  mass  of  the  evidence  seems  to  fix  the  responsibility  upon  the  heads- 
man, Richard  Brandon,  who  at  first  refused  absolutely  to  do  the  deed,  but 
may  later  have  been  compelled  by  main  force  to  mount  the  scaffold.  It  is 
an  interesting  study  of  one  of  the  bypaths  of  history. 


Henderson  :    Religious  Controversies     515 

THE  RELIGIOUS  CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCOTLAND.  By  the  Rev.  Henry  F. 
Henderson,  M.A.  Pp.  274.  Crown  8vo.  Edinburgh  :  T.  &  T. 
Clark,  1905.  45.  6d.  nett. 

A  GOOD  deal  of  the  marrow  of  divinity  has  always  been  in  the 
heresies.  Mr.  Henderson  is  full  of  guarded  sympathy  for  the  struggles 
of  nationalism  to  permeate  theology.  His  pleasantly  toned  volume 
surveys  the  burning  questions  of  other  days,  from  Hume's  essay  on 
miracles  and  Home's  Douglas  to  Edward  Irving's  gift  of  tongues,  and 
brings  the  theme  down  to  date  by  its  account  of  the  troubles  of 
Robertson  Smith,  Marcus  Dods,  and  Professor  Bruce.  Heresies,  how- 
ever, quickly  grow  stale.  Hume's  question  alone  seems  to  preserve  its 
salt. 

PATHFINDERS  OF  THE  WEST.     Radisson,  La  Vevendrye,  Lewis,  and  Clark. 

By    A.     C.    Lant.      Pp.    xxv.    380.      Cr.  8vo.     New    York:     The 

Macmillan  Company.     1904.     8s.  6d.  nett. 

THIS  is  a  well-illustrated  account  of  the  careers  of  the  early  explorers  of  the 
Western  portion  of  North  America  from  1651-1806.  It  is  full  of  exciting 
adventure  and  discovery,  and,  in  spite  of  some  uncouth  phrases,  is  well 
written.  The  writer  in  her  dedication  bases  much  of  her  knowledge  upon 
the  researches  of  Mr.  Suite,  President  of  the  Royal  Society,  Canada.  And 
from  them  and  other  careful  study,  she  has  constructed  a  book  that  will 
delight  those  who  love  adventure  and  who  care  for  North  American 
exploration. 

Historical  and  Modern  Atlas  of  the  British  Empire  specially  prepared 
for  Students  is  the  title  of  a  new  work  by  C.  Grant  Robertson,  All  Souls' 
College,  and  J.  S.  Bartholomew  (Methuen,  1905,  45.  6d.  net).  The 
aim  of  its  compilers  is  to  provide  a  geographical  and  historical  companion 
to  past  history  and  present  conditions,  so  that  teachers  and  pupils  may 
examine  the  historic,  the  physical,  the  economic,  and  the  modern  political 
factors  which  affect  the  development  of  the  nation.  The  maps  and 
charts  admirably  fulfil  this  purpose,  and  the  book  is  likely  to  be  as 
useful  as  it  is  interesting. 

Shakespeare  and  the  Supernatural,  by  Margaret  Lucy  (Liverpool  : 
Jaggard  &  Co.,  1906,  pp.  38,  2s.),  carries  a  little  information  in  a  great 
deal  of  sentiment.  Mr.  William  Jaggard's  appended  bibliography  of  the 
Shakespearean  supernatural  at  least  begins  the  subject. 

Notes  on  Shipbuilding  and  Nautical  terms  of  old  in  the  North^  a  paper 
by  Ein'kr  Magnusson  read  before  the  Viking  Club  Society  for  Northern 
Research  (London,  Moring,  pp.  56,  with  index,  is.),  brings,  alongside 
of  the  vessels  of  the  old  Norsemen,  the  evidence  of  archaeology  and 
etymology  conjoined  towards  tracing  the  evolution,  from  the  dug-out 
4  oakies '  of  the  prime  down  to  the  *  snekkia,'  *  dragon,'  and  '  buss '  of 
the  sagas.  Very  attractive  is  this  assembling  of  the  data,  showing  the 


5 1 6  Current   Literature 

changing  types  of  construction  and  tackle  from  the  coracle  of  wicker 
with  hide  *  sewn '  over  it  to  the  ocean-faring  clinker-built  galleys.  The 
viking  mast,  always  a  pole-mast,  the  rudder  or  *  styri '  (steering-oar)  at 
the  right-hand  side  buttock  of  the  ship,  the  old  nautical  terms,  the  names 
of  ships  and  winds  and  seas — all  are  discussed  with  abundant  reference 
and  document.  *  Starboard '  is  well  explained,  but  the  old  crux  of  '  larboard  ' 
is  a  problem  still.  The  little  book  brings  us  out  of  difficult  material  a 
pleasant  chapter  of  the  story  of  the  North  Sea. 

The  Letters  of  Cadwallader  John  Bates ,  edited  by  Rev.  Matthew 
Culley  (Kendal,  Titus  Wilson,  1906,  xiii.  192),  with  portrait  frontispiece, 
recall  the  bright  and  winning  personality  of  an  accomplished  and  original 
Northumbrian  antiquary,  who  died — too  soon — in  1902.  Mr.  Bates  did 
fine  work  in  North  English  history,  notably  in  his  Border  Holds  and 
his  short  History  of  Northumberland^  but  he  was  as  versatile  as  he  was 
learned,  and  his  sympathies  attracted  him  not  only  to  problems  of  the 
Roman  Wall,  to  'peels'  and  heraldry  and  medieval  record,  but  also 
to  such  dark  age  interests  as  the  computation  of  Easter  and  the  biography 
of  St.  Cuthbert.  His  letters  show  a  genuine  workman  in  his  study, 
and  carry  for  his  friends  echoes  of  happy  hours  in  his  company  at 
Langley  Castle  and  elsewhere.  A  bibliography  would  have  been  a 
valuable  supplement  to  this  collection  of  letters,  many  of  which  were 
well  deserving  of  preservation. 

Of  Burns  biographies  there  is  no  end.  The  Life  of  Robert  Burns 
by  John  Macintosh  (Paisley  :  Alex.  Gardner,  1906,  pp.  309,  2s.  6d.  net), 
follows  orthodox  Burnsite  lines  ;  though  its  note  is  local  and  not  critical, 
it  tells  the  old,  proud,  sad  story  with  due  sympathy  and  the  expected 
discretion,  and  it  avoids  heroics.  Its  detail  of  the  memorials,  monuments, 
celebrations,  centenaries,  exhibitions,  clubs,  etc.,  in  honour  of  the  bard  is, 
in  spite  of  its  disproportion  to  the  subject,  an  expressive  section  of  the 
chapters  on  Burns  and  Posterity. 

In  The  World's  Classics  (is.  per  volume),  now  published  by  the 
Oxford  University  Press,  the  last  two  volumes,  VI.  and  VII. ,  have  now 
been  issued  of  Gibbon's  Decline  and  Fall.  A  commendable  feature  of 
this  handy  and  readable  reprint  is  an  index  of  no  fewer  than  138 


Among  periodicals  received  are  Arch'iv  fur  das  Studium  der  neueren 
Sprachen  und  Literaturen  (March),  giving  the  close  of  a  transcript  of 
the  Dicta  Catonis  and  studies  on  Frankish  sagas  and  on  Boccaccio  in 
Spanish  Literature  :  Revue  des  Etudes  Historiques  :  Annales  de  I'Est  et 
du  Nord  :  Analecta  Bollandiana  :  Kritische  Blatter  :  Iowa  Journal  of  History 
and  Politics  :  Notes  and  Queries  for  Somerset  and  Dorset :  Northern  Notes 
and  £)ueries,  (April),  containing  a  compact  well-informed  biographical 
column  on  Mr.  Neil  Munro.  Reprinted  from  the  American  Quarterly, 
Modern  Philology^  is  Mr.  Carleton  F.  Brown's  expository  and  combative 
paper,  entitled  Chaucer' 's  '  Lite/  ClergeonJ  directed  with  no  small  force, 


Current  Literature  517 

to  disproving  Professor  Skeat's  interpretation  of  the  little  schoolboy  as 
a  chorister.  The  Ulster  Journal  of  Archeology  (April)  contains,  besides 
place-name  studies,  an  instalment  of  the  story  of  the  Fall  of  Down 
in  1642,  discussing  the  *  massacres.'  The  Rutland  Magazine  (April) 
has  a  paper  with  facsimiles  on  handwriting  from  the  times  of  Mary 
and  Elizabeth  to  the  days  of  Oliver  Cromwell.  We  have  received  an 
Alcuin  Club  tract  on  the  litany — The  People's  Prayers  (Longmans,  pp. 
43,  6d.). 

The  Reliquary  (April),  among  its  illustrations,  has  numerous  sanctuary 
rings,  like  the  knocker  at  Durham.  The  Gentleman  s  Magazine 
(February)  has  a  paper  which  champions  *  the  real  Claverhouse.'  The 
Revue  Hlstorlque  (March  and  April)  surveys  in  chivalrous  yet  patriotic 
retrospect  the  story  of  the  fall  of  Quebec  and  loss  of  Canada  in  1759-60. 
The  Modern  Language  Review  (April)  deals  with  Dante's  references 
to  sports  and  pastimes,  with  Shakespeare's  ghosts,  and  with  Professor 
Churton  Collins's  editing  of  Greene's  plays.  In  The  American  Historical 
Review  (April),  notable  as  usual  for  the  generous  space — 100  pages — 
given  to  able  and  informing  book-notices,  Professor  McMaster  dis- 
cusses American  standards  of  public  morals  as  exhibited  in  history, 
especially  in  such  matters  as  repudiation  of  State  debts,  toleration,  and 
codes  of  punishment. 

Scottish  Notes  and  Queries  (February)  had  a  note  on  a  tombstone  in 
Dundee,  brought  forward  as  a  suggestion  towards  identifying  Christian 
Lindsay,  whose  elusive  shadow  flits  across  the  court  literature  of 
James  VI.  In  the  June  issue  points  deserving  study  are  raised  regarding 
the  Diet.  Nat.  Elog.  articles  on  David  and  John  Leitch,  both  Latinists 
— John  certainly  a  Scot,  and  David  claimed  as  such. 

The  Celtic  Review  (April)  contains  Gaelic  texts  both  from  manuscript 
and  tradition,  as  well  as  discussion  of  place-names  and  debate  on  the  date 
of  Gildas.  In  its  Reviews  we  note  the  following  interesting  comment  on 
the  Killiecrankie  ballad,  '  by  an  eye-witness,'  dealt  with  by  Mr.  Millar 
in  our  October  number  (S.H.R.  iii.  63).  'This  eye-witness,'  remarks 
our  Celtic  reviewer,  'was  Iain  Lorn,  and  while  we  admit  his  descriptions 
of  the  battle  are  given  as  if  he  had  been  a  witness,  we  are  not  prepared 
to  accept  them  as  proof  of  his  presence  there.  Iain  Lorn  was  notoriously 
lacking  in  physical  courage,  and  the  fact  of  a  poet  describing  a  battle  as 
if  witnessing  it  when  in  reality  he  has  never  been  even  on  the  ground  is 
a  simple  literary  device  which  proves  nothing  except  the  poet's  dramatic 
power.  It  is  not  commonly  accepted  in  the  Highland  traditions  that 
Iain  Lorn  was  present  at  Killiecrankie,  and  there  is  really  no  proof 
either  way.' 

Much  discussed  as  have  been  the  relations  of  Saint  Simon  and  Comte, 
the  questions  take  a  new  departure  in  the  light  of  M.  Pereire's  article  in 
the  Revue  Historique  (May-June),  editing  documents  of  the  first  value 
for  philosophic  biography. 


Queries 

ROBERT  LITTLE.  To  what  family  did  Robert  Little  belong, 
who  was  born  on  ist  January,  1755,  was  for  a  year  or  two,  1778-9, 
at  the  University  of  Edinburgh,  and  then  went  to  America  and  settled 
in  New  York  county  ?  He  married  Elizabeth  Townsend  there,  and 
died  in  1831.  HENRY  PATON. 

1 2O  Polwarth  Terrace,  Edinburgh. 

*  SALVO  KER  MEO.'  In  the  famous  charter  of  liberties  granted 
to  the  borough  of  Egremont  in  Cumberland  by  Richard  de  Lucy 
towards  the  close  of  the  twelfth  century,  there  is  the  puzzling  phrase 
which  I  have  placed  as  the  title  of  this  note.  As  it  occurs  twice  I 
think  there  can  be  little  doubt  of  the  true  reading.  The  reservation 
is  thus  set  out  in  the  grant : 

(1)  '  Item,   burgenses  mei  quieti    erunt  de   pannagio  suo   infra  diuisas 
suas  de  porcis  suis,  scilicet,  a  Crokerbec  usque  ad  riuulum  de  Culdertun, 
saluo  Ker  meo.' 

(2)  '  Item,   burgenses   capient   necessaria   ad    propria  edificia  sua   infra 
predictas  diuisas  sine  uisu  forestariorum,  saluo  Ker  meo.' 

When  Nicolson  and  Burn  printed  the  deed  in  1777,  they  read  the 
difficult  passage  in  both  cases  as  '  salvo  maeremio,'  but  it  seems  clear 
that  though  the  reading  would  be  appropriate  in  the  second  passage,  it 
would  be  altogether  out  of  place  in  the  first.  Canon  Knowles  gave 
us  a  facsimile  of  the  document  in  1872,  and  if  the  script  has  been 
reproduced  correctly  there  can  be  no  question  that  'saluo  Ker  meo'  is 
the  true  reading.  In  the  first  passage  we  have  l  Ker '  with  a  capital 
and  *  meo '  with  the  customary  interspace.  There  is  no  mark  for 
contraction.  In  the  second  passage  the  first  letter  of  the  difficult  word 
has  been  rubbed  and  no  dogmatic  opinion  can  be  offered  about  it, 
but  the  'meo'  occupies  the  same  relative  position  as  in  the  other 
instance.  Of  course  the  scribe  may  have  mistaken  the  word  if  he 
wrote  from  dictation.  On  the  whole  I  think  he  meant  to  write 
'saluo  Ker  meo.'  It  is  scarcely  possible  that  the  central  letter  of 
'  mer[e]meo  '  could  have  perished  in  both  places.  On  the  other  hand, 
Nicolson  and  Burn,  no  incompetent  authorities,  had  seen  the  original, 
and  I  am  depending  solely  on  the  facsimile  by  Canon  Knowles,  who 
was  not  by  any  means  an  expert  palaeographist.  But,  as  I  said,  if  the 
facsimile  is  to  be  trusted,  my  reading  of  the  word  in  the  first  passage 
is  indisputable. 

518 


Queries  519 

The  only  analogy  I  can  suggest  is  from  a  Norfolk  inquisition  of 
1277 — *  de  quadam  consuetudine  que  vocatur  Kerhere,'  which  Ducange 
interprets  as  dro'it  de  chaucee,  deriving  from  the  Latin  carriera.  It  is 
perhaps  not  inadmissible  to  take  the  Egremont  word  from  the  English 
cer,  cerre,  cerran,  which  would  amount  to  the  same  thing,  viz.,  the 
lord's  right  of  passage  through  the  burghal  district. 

JAMES  WILSON. 

Dalston  Vicarage,  Cumberland. 

[Mr.  Wilson  is  not  to  be  rashly  questioned  on  such  a  point,  but  is  it 
not  probable  that  the  'Ker'  reserved  from  the  grant  was  a  piece  of 
ground  rather  than  a  right  ?  The  word  is  still  descriptive  on  both 
English  and  Scottish  border  connoting  a  low-lying  wet  tract  of  land. 
The  N.E.D.  s.v.  'Carr'  cites  Robert  of  Brunne,  telling  of  an  archbishop 
of  York  that  *  He  livede  in  Kerres  as  doth  the  stork.'  In  the  Coucher 
Book  of  Selby  (ed.  Fowler)  there  is  charter  mention  (i.  p.  146)  of 
'Stainer  Ker'  in  1259;  in  tne  fourteenth  century  *  Risebrig-Ker '  was 
a  waste  (ii.  28,  31)  being  reclaimed;  while  'one  lytle  carre'  is 
referred  to  in  1540  (ii.  p.  349)  which  was  'overronne  with  water 
almoste  all  the  yeere.'  The  great  alliterative  author  of  Sir  Gawayne 
knew  the  word  'Kerre'  (11.  1421,  1431)  which  his  editors  have  perhaps 
wrongly  explained  in  the  glossary.  Scottish  indications  of  the  sense 
appear  in  such  charter  passages  as  that  which  connects  '  le  Halch  Kerre 
Molendinurn  et  terras  molendini1  of  Ardonane  in  1509  (Reg.  Mag.  Sig. 
1424-1513,  No.  3288)  shewing  that  haugh  and  Ker  and  mill  lie 
together.  The  correlation  with  brushwood  is  well  shewn  in  the 
N.E.D.  by  instances  from  1440  downwards :  a  citation  from  the 
Selby  book  (ii.  p.  357)  in  1540  may  be  added:  'Totam  terram  et 
boscum  nostrum  vocatum  le  Carre.'  G.  N.] 

A  SILVER  MAP  OF  THE  WORLD.  There  are  in  the  British 
Museum  two  Silver  Medallions  engraved  with  a  Chart  of  the  World 
having  Drake's  Voyage  of  circumnavigation  clearly  marked  on  it ; 
only  one  other  copy  is  known  to  exist. 

Mr.  Miller  Christy  in  his  interesting  Monograph  l  on  this  Medallion 
suggests  that  it  was  engraved  in  commemoration  of  Drake's  voyage, 
but  states  that  the  engraver's  name  is  not  known,  nor  the  map  from 
which  the  Medallion  was  copied.  A  reference  to  this  Silver  Map  in 
Purchas  His  Pilgrimes,  vol.  3,  pages  461  and  462  has,  however, 
apparently  escaped  Mr.  Christy's  notice,  and  in  the  hope  of  eliciting 
further  information  on  the  subject  we  draw  attention  to  it  here. 

Purchas  is  defending  the  claims  of  the  English  navigators  to  the 
prior  discovery  of  the  passage  round  Cape  Horn  against  those  of  the 
Dutch  navigators,  and  instances  in  support  of  his  contention  'The  Map 

1  A  Silver  Map  of  the  World.  A  contemporary  Medallion  commemorative  of 
Drake's  Great  Voyage  (1577-1580),  by  Miller  Christy.  London  :  Stevens,  Son 
&  Stiles,  MDCCCC. 


520  Queries 


of  Sir  Francis  Drake's  Voyage  presented  to  Queene  Elizabeth  still 
hanging  [c.  1625]  in  his  Majestie's  Gallerie  at  White  Hall  neere  the 
Privie  Chamber  and  by  that  Map  wherein  is  Cabotas  Picture,  the 
first  and  great  Columbus  for  the  Northern  World  may  be  seen.'  He 
then  proceeds,  'And  my  learned  friend  Master  Brigges  told  me  that 
he  hath  seen  this  plate  of  Drake's  Voyage  cut  in  Silver  by  a  Dutchman 
(Michael  Mercator,  Nephew  to  Gerardus)  many  yeeres  before  Schouten 
or  Maire  intended  that  Voyage.' 

There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  '  plate  cut  in  Silver '  is  this 
Silver  Medallion,  but  who  was  Michael  Mercator  the  engraver,  and 
is  the  map  of  Drake's  Voyage  with  Cabot's  portrait  engraved  on  it, 
still  in  existence  ? 

*  Master  Brigges '  is  doubtless  Henry  Briggs,  the  Mathematician, 
1591-1630,  whose  life  is  given  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography, 
vol.  vi.  pages  326  and  327.  S.  D.  J. 

DEDICATIONS  TO  ST.  SUNNIVA.  In  A  Description  of  the 
Isles  of  Shetland  (p.  530),  Dr.  Hibbert  says:  'The  parish  of  Yell 
boasted  twenty  chapels,  variously  dedicated  to  Our  Lady,  to  St.  Olla, 
to  St.  Magnus,  to  St.  Laurence,  to  St.  John,  to  St.  Paul,  or  to  St. 
Sineva.'  Regarding  the  last-mentioned  saint,  the  Rev.  S.  Baring-Gould 
quotes  the  substance  of  a  twelfth  century  Saga  :  '  There  lived  in  the 
days  of  Earl  Hako  (i.e.  between  995-1000)  a  king  in  Ireland,  who  had 
a  most  accomplished  and  beautiful  daughter  named  Sunnifa.  A  northern 
viking,  hearing  of  her  charms,  became  enamoured,  and  harried  the 
coasts  of  Ireland  because  the  king  hesitated  to  give  him  her  hand.  The 
damsel,  to  save  her  native  island  from  devastation,  left  Ireland.  Her 
brother  Alban  and  a  multitude  of  virgins  accompanied  her,  and  all 
sailed  away  east,  trusting  in  God.  They  came  ashore  on  the  island 
of  Selja,  off  the  coast  of  Norway,  and  would  there  have  been  massacred 
by  Earl  Hako  had  not  the  rocks  opened,  and  all  the  maidens  having 
retired  within,  they  closed  on  them  again,  and  they  came  forth  no 
more  alive.  In  1170  the  relics  of  Sunnifa  and  her  virgin  train  were 
translated  from  Selja  to  Bergen  by  the  bishop,  Paul.'  (Lives  of  the  Saints, 
October,  p.  543.)  The  writer  of  the  article  on  the  united  parish  of 
Mains  and  Strathmartine  in  the  New  Statistical  Account  of  Scotland 
says :  *  There  is  only  one  spring  that  claims  to  be  noticed.  It  is 
called  Sinavey,  and  issues  from  the  crevice  of  a  perpendicular  rock  at 
the  castle  of  Mains.'  Bishop  Forbes,  however,  is  inclined  to  derive 
the  name  of  the  spring  from  that  of  St.  Ninian,  to  whom  the  church 
of  Mains  was  dedicated.  Had  St.  Sunniva  any  other  dedications  in 
Scotland  besides  the  one  in  Yell  referred  to  above  ?  Were  any  Nor- 
wegian churches  named  after  her  ? 

J.  M.  MACKINLAY. 


Wto 


Mf "  tl'iMc';;S'-;:i?i::^.t:;-:3^ra^  Ssi!.  = 


Communications  and  Replies 

THE  RUTHVEN  OF  FREELAND  BARONY.  He  who  puts 
himself  into  the  position  occupied  by  Mr.  Pickwick  on  a  certain  historic 
occasion  must  not  complain  of  a  cuff  or  two.  But  it  is  not  stated  that 
that  gentleman  evaded  Mr.  Slurk  by  sheltering  behind  Mr.  Pott.  If 
I  have  failed  to  grasp  the  import  of  the  Records  relied  on  to  establish  the 
charge  of  mala  fides  against  the  two  Baronesses  and  the  third  Baron 
Ruthven,1  I  accept  full  responsibility  therefor.  But  in  courtesy  to  Mr. 
Round,  I  have  asked  the  Editor's  leave  to  explain  my  view  of  the 
particular  instances  on  which  he  still  insists.  (S.H.R.  iii.  104,  194,  339.) 

The  case  of  James  Lord  Ruthven  is  simple.  Acting  no  doubt  under 
legal  advice,  he  took  the  title  in  succession,  not  to  his  mother  or  to  his 
great-aunt,  but  to  the  second  Baron  ;  and  forbore  to  assume  it  until  he 
had  been  served  heir  accordingly. 

But  why  did  Baroness  Jean  drop,  in  a  legal  document  of  1721,  the 
style  which  she  had  constantly  used  since  1702.  It  is  a  puzzle.  What 
special  risk  would  the  lady  have  run  by  retaining  on  that  occasion  the  title 
which  she  had  employed  on  so  many  seemingly  similar  occasions  before  ? 
Till  that  question  is  answered,  Mr.  Round's  theory  is  inadmissible,  and  he 
suggests  no  answer.  Nor  does  Riddell.  My  explanation,  offered  with 
diffidence,  is  as  follows.  The  third  Lord  in  his  Retour  as  heir  to  the 
second  Lord  is  styled  as  a  commoner,  because  on  that  Retour  he  was 
basing  his  claim  to  the  title.  What  if  Baroness  Jean,  in  recording  the 
entail  executed  by  her  brother,  were  seeking  (so  to  speak)  to  re-found 
thereupon  her  right,  which  had  been  ignored  in  Crawford's  Peerage  ? 
In  that  case,  her  reason  for  dropping  the  title  would  be  the  same  as  her 
grand-nephew's  for  delaying  to  assume  it.  It  does  not  follow  that  the 
entail  really  gave  her  a  legal  right  to  the  title ;  that  I,  like  Mr.  Round, 
think  improbable,  though  I  do  not  concur  with  him  in  thinking  that 
the  matter  can  be  settled  by  quoting  the  terms  of  another  patent.  If  the 
Ruthven  patent,  or  the  traditional  version  of  it  known  to  Baroness  Jean, 
could  be  so  understood,  that  is  enough  to  explain  Baroness  Jean's  action. 
In  my  former  notes  I  showed  cause  for  suspecting  that  her  assumption  of 
the  title  was  rather  acquiesced  in  than  approved  of  by  some  of  the  family. 
Be  that  as  it  may,  the  third  Lord,  as  has  been  already  pointed  out,  took  up 
the  title  in  succession  not  to  the  Baronesses  but  to  the  second  Lord  ;  and 
his  and  his  descendants'  withers  would  be  unwrung  though  Baroness  Jean's 
claim  were  definitely  rejected. 

*As  before,  I  use  the  titles  for  convenience  and  without  prejudice. 
2L  521 


522  Communications  and  Replies 

These  remarks  do  not  touch  Mr.  Round's  case  on  the  merits,  the 
strength  of  which  I  have  admitted.  He  might  without  loss  to  himself 
have  taken  much  of  the  wind  out  of  the  sails  of  his  opponent,  by  dropping 
the  argument  ad  invidiam  altogether.  But  '  Ephraim  is  joined  to  his 
idols.'  We  have  to  thank  him  for  giving  us  chapter  and  verse  for  Baroness 
Isobel's  Coronation  summons.  I  wish  he  could  have  proved  or  disproved 
the  story  of  the  like  summons  having  been  sent  to  Baroness  Jean. 

J.  MAITLAND  THOMSON. 

THE  ANDREAS  AND  ST.  ANDREW.  A  few  words  should 
be  said  in  reply  to  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Skeat  in  the  Review  for  April, 
1906  [S.H.R.  iii.  245  and  383].  Mr.  Skeat  asserts  very  positively  that 
Andreas  and  The  Fates  of  the  Apostles  must  be  taken  together  as  con- 
stituting a  single  poem,  which  he  would  call  The  Twelve  Apostles,  and 
for  his  proofs  in  detail  he  refers  us  to  his  article  in  An  English  Miscellany, 
Oxford,  1901.  These  proofs  are  repeated  in  summary  by  Mr.  Skeat 
in  his  remarks  in  the  April  Review,  without  reference,  however,  to 
the  discussion  of  the  subject  which  had  appeared  in  the  meantime  in  the 
introduction  to  my  edition  of  Andreas  and  The  Fates  of  the  Apostles,  New 
York,  1906.  With  all  deference  to  Mr.  Skeat,  I  must  repeat  the  con- 
clusions which  I  have  expressed  there,  that  there  is  no  proof  that  Andreas 
and  The  Fates  of  the  Apostles  are  to  be  taken  together  as  a  single  poem,  and 
that,  on  the  contrary,  there  is  very  good  indication  that  they  cannot  be  so 
regarded.  The  argument  which  Mr.  Skeat  bases  on  the  mechanical 
arrangement  of  the  poems  in  the  manuscript  is  inconclusive,  since,  as  I 
have  shown,  the  scribe  of  the  Vercelli  manuscript  uses  exactly  the  same 
method  in  marking  off  sections  of  a  poem  that  he  uses  in  separating 
entirely  different  poems.  There  would,  therefore,  be  as  much  reason 
for  regarding  the  Dialogue  between  the  Soul  and  the  Body,  Sermon  in  verse  on 
Psalm  xxviii.,  and  The  Vision  of  the  Cross, — three  poems  that  no  one  has 
ever  thought  of  uniting,  as  three  cantos  of  a  single  poem, — as  for  regarding 
The  Fates  of  the  Apostles  as  a  sixteenth  canto  of  a  poem  consisting  of 
Andreas  and  The  Fates  of  the  Apostles  united.  The  arrangement  of  the 
poems  in  the  manuscript  does  not  speak  decisively  in  favour  of  accepting 
The  Fates  of  the  Apostles  as  an  integral  part  of  Andreas. 

An  examination  of  the  subject  matter  of  the  two  poems  in  their  relation 
to  each  other  leads  to  the  positive  conclusion  that  they  are  separate  and 
distinct  compositions.  Limitations  of  space  do  not  permit  a  discussion  of 
the  question  here,  but  the  matter  will  be  found  fully  set  forth  in  the 
introduction  to  my  edition  of  the  poems.  It  will  suffice  for  the  present 
to  point  out  that  no  part  of  either  poem  is  necessary  for  the  understanding 
of  any  part  of  the  other  poem,  nor  is  there  any  allusion  in  the  one  to  the 
other.  Furthermore,  an  examination  of  the  sources  of  the  two  poems 
shows  that  the  author  or  authors  followed  these  sources  closely.  In 
neither  poem  is  there  any  indication  that  the  author  thought  he  was 
writing  a  great  epic  poem  on  the  Twelve  Apostles ;  he  was  simply  retelling 
old  stories  as  he  had  found  them.  The  story  of  Andreas  is  derived  from 
the  Trpageis  'AvSpeov  KCU  Mar0e/a  et9  rr 


Communications  and  Replies  523 

and  to  this  source  the  poet  adds  not  a  single  episode.  The  immediate 
source  of  The  Fates  of  the  Apostles  has  not  been  discovered,  but  the  type 
of  composition  to  which  it  belongs  is  a  well  known  form  of  apocryphal 
literature  preserved  in  numerous  examples.  The  poem  is  obviously  nothing 
more  than  a  translation  of  one  of  these  apocryphal  Latin  lists  of  the 
names  and  fates  of  the  Twelve  Apostles.  The  poet  made  no  attempt 
to  fuse  old  and  detached  episodes  into  a  single  unified  poem  ;  or  if  he 
did  so,  the  evidences  of  success  are  so  slight  that  no  one  could  think 
of  assigning  such  work  to  Cynewulf.  The  poems  are  separate  and 
distinct.  They  belong  to  two  different  types  of  medieval  composition ; 
their  sources  prove  this  and  their  own  internal  economy  permits  no  other 
supposition. 

Like  Mr.  Skeat,  I  do  not  at  present  '  write  to  convince  others,'  but 
simply  to  call  attention  to  an  explanation  of  the  relation  of  the  poems  that 
otherwise  might  escape  notice.  The  question  is  of  some  importance  in 
the  history  of  Anglo-Saxon  literature,  and  it  deserves  a  cool  and  unpre- 
judiced examination,  instead  of  which  it  has  been  treated  of  late  with 
a  hasty  dogmatism  that  passes  belief. 

In  conclusion,  I  think  we  may  clear  Thorpe  of  the  charge  which  Mr. 
Skeat  brings  against  him,  of  wilfully  disregarding  the  runic  signature 
containing  the  name  Cynwulf.  The  fault,  if  fault  there  was,  probably  lies 
further  back  than  Thorpe.  For  it  is  not  at  all  probable  that  Thorpe  saw 
anything  but  a  copy  of  the  manuscript,  and  it  is  altogether  likely  that  the 
runic  signature  was  missing  in  this  copy.1  Thorpe  pretty  certainly  printed 
everything  his  copy  contained,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  he 
*  coolly  ignored '  any  part  of  the  manuscript. 

GEORGE  PHILIP  KRAPP. 

Columbia  University,  New  York  City. 

THE  ANDREAS  AND  ST.  ANDREW  (S.H.R.  iii.  245  and  383). 
Not  to  accept  Professor  Skeat's  inferences  does  not  necessarily  imply 
ignorance  of  the  facts.  I  do  not  regard  as  proved  or  provable 
the  unity  of  the  Andreas  and  the  Fata  Apostolorum.  In  my  judgment 
the  poem  called  the  Andreas  is  rightly  so  called  since  St.  Andrew  is 
undoubtedly  the  hero  of  it,  occupying  the  stage  for  the  longest  time 
and  figuring  in  triumph.  As  I  have  said,  the  poem  is  a  free  translation 
of  a  well-known  Greek  original,  and  it  is  complete  in  itself.  There 
is  a  short  introduction  referring  to  the  twelve  apostles,  but  to  use  it 
to  cover  the  incorporation  of  the  Fata  Apostolorum  is  a  mere  straining 
of  the  facts.  Professor  Skeat's  assumption  that  the  poet  'finding  the 
whole  story  would  be  too  long,  accounts  for  the  rest  of  the  apostles 
by  merely  mentioning  their  ultimate  fate,'  is  quite  unwarranted.  The 
Anglo-Saxon  poet  did  not  boggle  at  the  length  of  his  composition ;  the 
Andreas  contains  1722  lines,  the  Genesis  contains  2935  ;  moreover, 

1  For  the  full  details  of  this  question  I  must  refer  to  my  discussion  of  it  in 
'The  First  Transcript  of  the  Vercelli  Book,'  in  Modern  Language  Notes, 
vol.  xvii.  pp.  171-172  (1902). 


524  Communications  and  Replies 

Professor  Skeat  ignores  the  fact  that  in  the  Fata  Jpostolorum  St.  Andrew 
and  St.  Matthew  are  introduced  again,  St.  Andrew  in  line  16,  St.  Matthew 
in  line  67.  I  have  no  hesitation  in  regarding  Fata  Apostolorum  as  an 

independent  composition.  A     ,,    TIT 

A.  M.  WILLIAMS. 

SOLOMON'S  EVEN  IN  SHETLAND.  (S.H.R.  i.  350.)  Re- 
specting the  word  the  Rev.  A.  Smythe  Palmer,  in  his  Folk-Etymology, 
says  :  '  I  have  no  doubt  that  this  is  a  corruption  of  Sowlemas  Even  or  Soul- 
mass  Even;  Sowlemas  Daye  or  Sowlemesday  being  an  old  name  for  the 
Feast  of  All  Souls,  which  fell  on  the  2nd  of  November.'  As  may  be 
remembered,  a  superstition  of  ill-omen  was  connected  with  Solomon's 
Even  not  out  of  harmony  with  the  sombre  associations  of  the  day  of 
the  dead.  Why  Solomon's  Even  should  have  fallen  on  the  third  of 
November  rather  than  on  the  second,  or,  more  correctly,  on  the  evening 
before  the  second,  does  not  appear. 

J.  M.  MACKINLAY. 

SCOTS  IN  POLAND.  The  following  translation  from  a  document 
in  High  German  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Patrick  Keith-Murray  is  printed 
here,  as  it  throws  some  light  upon  the  doings  in  the  early  part  of  the 
seventeenth  century  of  two  of  the  many  Scots  in  Poland  whose  history 
is  still  to  be  written.  The  two,  Peter  Lermondt1  and  William  Keitz, 
were  doubtless  members  of  the  Scottish  families  of  Learmonth  and  Keith 
serving  in  the  army  of  King  Sigismund  III.  of  Poland,  who,  from  his 
claims  to  the  throne  of  Sweden  in  the  North,  and  the  pressure  of  the 
Turks  on  the  South,  had  great  need  of  foreign  soldiers.  The  introduction 
of  the  name  Learmonth  into  Eastern  Europe  has  a  special  interest  of 
its  own  also,  when  we  remember  the  Russian  poet  Mikhail  Yurievitch 
Lermontoff  (1814-1841),  the  Poet  of  the  Caucasus,  was  descended  from 
George  Learmonth,  who — like  the  soldier  Peter  who  was  probably  a 
relative — entered  the  service  of  Poland  with  sixty  Scots  and  Irishmen,2 
and  afterwards,  in  1613,  passed  into  that  of  Russia. 

We,  Sigismundus  the  Third,  by  the  grace  of  God  King  in  Poland,  Grand- 
duke  in  Litthauen,  Russia,  Prussia,  Massawen  (Masovia),  Samoitia,  Livonia, 
Wolinia  and  Lierland  Lord,  and  also  of  the  Swedes,  Goths  and  Wends, 
King  and  Grand-duke  in  Finland,  Carelen,  Watz,  Lipetin  and  Ingern  in 
Russia,  of  the  Esths  in  Lierland  Duke,  send  to  all  and  each  Palatinate 
and  Princes  both  Cleric  and  Lay,  prelates,  counts,  lords,  knights,  burgo- 
masters, councillors  and  others,  of  whatever  dignity  they  may  be,  who 
may  see  this  our  open  letter,  in  which  they  are  assured  of  our  friend- 
ship, our  gracious  favour  and  all  good  wishes  to  your  beloved  countries  and 
yourselves.  We  hereby  declare  that  we  have  accepted  and  named  the  noble 

1  As  Peter  Leermonth  '  nobilis,'  he  appears  in  the  Minute  books  of  Marienburg 
in  1619.     v.  Fischer's  Scots  in  Eastern  and  Western  Prussia,  p.  131. 

2  v.    Russian  Literature,  by  P.  Kropotkin  (London,   1905),  p.   51.      Another, 
Captain  David  Learmonth,  son  of  Sir  John  Learmonth  of  Balcomie  (who  died, 
1625),  is  said  to  have  died  'in  Germany'  (Wood's  East  Neuk  of  Fife,  p.  444.) 


INSCRIBED    TABLET    FOUND    IN    ROUGH    CASTLE 


See  page  526 


Communications  and  Replies  525 

and  brave  Peter  Lermondt  as  chief  Captain  over  three  companies  of  German 
soldiers,  nine  hundred  foot  soldiers,  for  the  protection  of  our  kingdoms, 
provinces,  countries  and  people  against  the  hereditary  enemy  of  the 
Christian  name,  the  Turks.  It  is  therefore  necessary  that  such  soldiers 
should  be  levied  and  brought  to  camp  partly  outside  of,  but  best  in  our  own 
countries  :  the  newly  named  Lermondt  has  ordered  and  installed  the  noble 
and  brave  William  Keitz  as  captain.  We  herewith  request  your  beloved 
countries  and  yourselves,  also  each  one  individually  kindly  and  graciously, 
but  our  own  people  with  authority,  that  they  should  allow  the  aforenamed 
Lermondt  as  chief  Captain  and  his  captain  William  Keitz,  or  the  com- 
manders of  the  same,  to  levy  and  enlist  the  aforenamed  soldiers  in  your 
beloved  countries  towns,  villages,  authorities  and  realms  ;  also  to  let  the 
enlisted  soldiers  pass  freely  secure  and  unhindered  and  direct  wherever 
they  may  be  sent  by  Lermondt  as  chief  Captain  or  his  ordained  captain  or 
the  commanders  named  by  them  by  sea  or  land,  to  shelter  them  hospitably 
and  give  them  fair  and  proper  payment  provision  and  other  necessaries  ; 
also  to  give  them  everywhere  good  help  and  furtherance,  so  that  the 
said  soldiers  may  pass  through  all  the  speedier.  This  we  will  in  all  friend- 
ship and  favour  make  up  to  your  beloved  countries  and  yourselves.  In 
witness  whereof  we  have  signed  this  with  our  own  signature  and  have  our 
Royal  Seal  put  thereon.  At  our  Royal  Castle  of  Warschau  the  iyth. 
January  1621,  of  our  reign  (in  the  four  and  thirtieth  year  of  the  Polish 
Calendar  and  the  twenty-eighth  of  the  Swedish  Calendar). 

A.  FRANCIS  STEUART. 


Notes  and  Comments 

ROUGH   CASTLE,   two  and  a  half  miles    west    of  Falkirk,  well  deserved 
the   care   and    labour    expended    on    its    exploration    by   the 
Caftl  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  Scotland.     'The  vast  Roman  Fort 

upon  the  Wall,  called  Rough  Castle,'  said  the  Itinerarium 
Septentrionale  of  'Sandy'  Gordon,  published  in  1726,  'for  intireness 
and  magnificence  exceeds  any  that  are  to  be  seen  on  the  whole  Track 
from  sea  to  sea.'  A  position  naturally  favourable  for  defence  was 
strongly  fortified.  Having  the  Antonine  Vallum  as  its  northern  face, 
the  fort,  admirably  shown  (page  52°)  in  Mr.  Mungo  Buchanan's  plan 
(reproduced  by  permission  of  the  Society),  consisted  of  two  parts,  the 
fort  proper  and  the  annex.  The  main  rampart  of  the  fort  is  of 
earthwork  '  cespiticious '  in  character  on  a  base  of  stone  like  that  of  the 
Antonine  Vallum  itself.  Outside  of  the  rampart — west,  south,  and 
east — are  two  fosses.  The  rampart  of  the  annex  differs  in  structure 
from  that  of  the  fort.  Although  on  a  stone  foundation  it  does  not 
show  the  same  mossy  lamination,  and  it  has  not  the  double  outer  ditch 
of  the  fort.  All  the  main  fosses  are  of  V  section.  Foundations  of 
buildings  in  both  fort  and  annex,  while  scarcely  definite  enough  to 
warrant  specific  identifications  of  parts,  exhibit  apartments  and  structures 
various  in  size  and  character,  with  cross  walls,  indications  of  tile 
floorings,  buttresses,  hypocaust  pillars,  flagstone  paving,  drains,  culverts, 
etc.  What  are  believed  to  be  clear  evidences  of  alterations  and  additions 
point  to  the  character  and  duration  of  the  occupancy — a  subject  on 
which  the  report  in  the  last  volume  of  the  Society's  Proceedings  is 
chary  of  theorising.  Dr.  Christison  confines  himself  to  a  general 
description  and  account  of  this  important  station,  Mr.  Buchanan 
records  the  facts  of  the  exploration,  which  owed  much  of  its  success 
to  his  own  work  and  that  of  Mr.  J.  R.  MacLuckie,  of  Falkirk  ;  while 
Dr.  Joseph  Anderson  registers  the  potter's  marks  of  earthenware  remains 
and  the  special  features  of  the  glass,  bronze,  lead,  iron,  and  leather 
articles — in  this  instance  neither  numerous  nor  important. 

The  sole  inscription  previously  found  associated  this  station  with  the 
sixth  cohort  of  the  Nervii.  A  tablet  (page  524)  was  during  the  Society's 
explorations  found  at  the  entrance  to  the  building  in  the  fort  marked 
on  the  plan  No.  I.  It  is  of  special  interest  not  only  as  confirming 
the  connection  between  the  Nervians  and  this  fort,  but  as  showing 
that,  in  the  second  century  A.D.,  l principia '  was  probably  the  true  name 
of  the  group  of  buildings  in  a  Roman  camp  which  we  have  been 
accustomed  to  call  the  l  praetorium1 : 

526 


Notes  and  Comments  527 

[IMP.CAEJSARI.TITO 

[AELIO.]  HADRIANO. 

|:ANTO]NINO.AVG 

fPIO.]  P.  P.  COM.  VI 
;NER]VIORUM.  PRI 

[NCQPIA.  FECIT 

(In  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Caesar  Titus  Aelius  Hadrianus 
Antoninus  Augustus  Pius,  father  of  his  country,  the  sixth  cohort  of 
Nervii  made  the  headquarters.) 

Yet  more  interesting  than  this  inscription,  however,  was  the  discovery 
of  a  series  of  defensive  forts  (p  524)  forming  a  guard  to  the  north-west 
side  of  the  approach  to  the  north  gate  of  the  fort.  There  were  ten 
parallel  rows  with  the  pits  arranged  obliquely,  so  that  pit  and  plain 
surface  alternated  either  way.  This  curious  feature  of  the  works  of 
Rough  Castle  was,  with  surprising  exactness,  explained  by  Mr.  Haverfield's 
reference  to  Caesar's  Commentaries  for  the  pits  with  sunken  stakes,  set 
quincunx  fashion,  used  by  Caesar  to  strengthen  his  lines  at  the  siege  of  Alesia. 

GEORGE  BUCHANAN  is  being  very  variously  honoured  as  he  enters  upon 
his  fifth  century.  As  was  to  be  expected  the  occasion  has 
already  produced  a  number  of  books.  Professor  Hume  Brown  „  £ 
has  written  a  popular  sketch  expressly  for  the  young — George 
Buchanan  and  ffis  Times  (Edinburgh  :  Oliphant,  Anderson  &  Ferrier, 
pp.  96,  with  portraits,  etc.,  is.  net) — in  which  the  career  of  the  scholar, 
historian  and  politician  are  briefly  traced  with  attractive  simplicity  of 
language,  and  with  the  same  studied  moderation  of  tone  as  distinguished 
the  fine  biography  which  the  author  published  in  1895.  To  the 
latter  work,  as  of  prime  authority,  all  subsequent  writers  have  been 
profoundly  indebted.  The  late  Dr.  Robert  Wallace,  in  his  unfinished 
sketch  of  Buchanan  for  the  Famous  Scots  series  now  reprinted 
(George  Buchanan,  by  Robert  Wallace,  completed  by  J.  Campbell 
Smith.  Quater-Centenary  edition.  Edinburgh  :  Oliphant,  Anderson  & 
Ferrier,  1906,  pp.  150,  six  illustrations,  is.),  expressly  said  that  he 
did  not  pretend  to  contribute  any  fresh  material,  but  that  his  object 
was  to  boil  down  Dr.  Hume  Brown.  This  he  did,  but  with  con- 
stant touches  of  enthusiasm  and  characterisation,  which  mark  the 
posthumous  essay  as  a  specially  bright  biographical  estimate.  The 
most  considerable  recent  work  on  this  theme  of  the  hour,  however, 
is  George  Buchanan,  a  Biography,  by  Donald  Macmillan,  M.A.,  D.D. 
(Edinburgh :  George  A.  Morton,  1906,  pp.  ix,  292,  35.  6d.  net), 
in  which  a  revised  judgment  is  offered  on  the  chief  issues  dealt  with 
by  earlier  biographers  and  critics.  The  standpoint  is,  perhaps,  rather 
too  obviously  clerical,  but  in  popularising  and  canvassing  the  older 
opinions  upon  the  one  Scot  whom  Europe  has  ever  hailed  as  pre- 
eminent among  the  scholars  of  his  time,  Dr.  Macmillan's  review  of 
the  evidence  will  be  of  service  in  shaping  the  new  verdict  to  which 
a  Quater-Centenary  Celebration  can  hardly  fail  to  lead.  Time — deadly 
in  the  part  of  Devil's  Advocate — seems  to  have  taken  his  stand  definitely 
on  Buchanan's  side. 


528  Notes  and  Comments 

His  vigorous  survival  after  four  complete  centuries  is  to  be  scholastically 
celebrated,  as  it  were,  at  St.  Andrews,  where,  besides  Lord 
"  \£ua  ei  Reay's  oration  in  his  honour,  there  are  to  be  University 
nary  receptions  and  the  like,  as  well  as  a  bibliographic  exhibition 
which  can  hardly  fail  to  be  of  historical  importance.  Buchanan  was, 
of  course,  not  only  a  writer  of  books  himself,  but  the  cause  of  so  many 
books  by  others  in  his  own  time  and  since  that  a  bibliography  is  now 
a  spacious  task.  In  Glasgow  the  proposed  celebrations  (not  a  little  due 
to  the  initiative  of  Lord  Provost  Bilsland)  are  on  a  purposely  subordinate 
scale  and  embrace  an  archaeological  visit  in  August  to  the  Moss,  Killearn, 
where  Buchanan  was  born,  and  an  anniversary  address  in  November  by 
the  Rev.  Principal  Lindsay  in  connection  with  the  Historical  Society  of 
the  University  of  Glasgow.  A  special  Committee  in  Glasgow  has  in 
charge  the  preparation  of  a  Memorial  Volume  or  'Festschrift'  to  contain 
along  with  Dr.  Lindsay's  address  a  number  of  documents  and  special 
essays.  Contributions  by  Prof.  Hume  Brown,  Sir  Archibald  Lawrie, 
Dr.  David  Murray  and  others  are  expected — the  papers  including 
unprinted  texts  and  charters  relative  to  Buchanan,  notes  on  books 
belonging  to  or  gifted  by  him,  the  reprint  of  at  least  one  very  rare 
pamphlet  shewing  his  poetical  influence,  discussion  of  the  provenance 
and  effect  of  his  political  doctrine,  and  other  first-hand  studies  in  the 
history  and  literature  of  his  time.  We  are  authorised  to  state  that  the 
Committee  will  be  pleased  to  consider  any  contributions  on  those  lines 
which  may,  not  later  than  ist  September,  be  offered  or  submitted  to 
them  by  students  of  Buchanan  or  of  the  intellectual  movement  he 
represents. 

MR.  H.  E.  EGERTON,  M.A.,  Beit  Professor  of  Colonial  History  in  the 
_  .  .  .  University  of  Oxford,  has  published  at  the  Clarendon  Press  his 
Histor  inaugural  lecture,  The  Claims  of  the  Study  of  Colonial  History 

upon  the  Attention  of  the  University  of  Oxford  (pp.  32,  is. 
net).  He  protests  against  the  Oxford  curriculum  for  dealing  with 
'English  history  only.ias  far  as  the  accession  of  Queen  Victoria.'  His 
thesis  that  for  colonial  history  the  year  1837  is  an  impossible  limit 
establishes  easily  a  foregone  conclusion.  We  have  often  no  great  sym- 
pathy with  ultra-patriotic  outcry  against  a  broad  application  of  the  word 
*  England,'  but  what  excuse  is  there  for  the  use  of  the  term  the  *  English 
Empire,'  by  any  person  presumably  exact,  speaking  from  a  chair  of 
history  ? 

THE  RYMOUR  CLUB,  EDINBURGH,  has  been  formed  to  'gader  the  relefis 

[fragments]   thatt  ar   left  that  thai   perische  nocht' — in   other 

Club  ym°ir  words>    to    c°Mect   waifs  and    strays    of  traditional  rimes   and 

popular  airs.     Printed  for  members  only,  the  first  part  of  their 

Miscellanea  contains  reminiscences  of  children's  chants,   and   the  gallant 

ballad  of  Jack    Munro.     Mr.  A.   H.  Millar   contrasts   the   original  and 

improved  versions    of  '  Within  a  Mile  o'  Edinboro'  Town.'      There  is 

clearly   a   field    for    useful  work   by   the  Club,  which   bids   fair   to   earn 

the  benison  of  students  of  Scottish  folk-lore. 


Index 


Abbots  of  the  House  of  Dun- 
drennan,  - 

Accountants,  List  of  Scottish, 

Adder's  Head  and  Peacock's  Tail, 
240, 

Aeneas  Sylvius,  his  visit  to  Scot- 
land, ----- 

Alexander,  King  of  Scotland, 

Alexander  III.,  his  victory  at 
Largs, 

Altar  of  St.  Fergus,  St.  Andrews, 

American  Historical  Review, 

Amours,  F.  J.,  -         -        93, 

Analecta  Bollandiana, 

Anderson,  Rev.  John, 

Anderson,  J.  Maitland, 

no,  255,  301, 

Andreas,  The,  -        245,  383,  522, 

Andrew,  St.,  Anglo-Saxon  legend 
concerning,  245  ;  his  connec- 
tion with  Scotland, 

Annandale's  Faroes  and  Iceland,   - 

Argentine,  Giles  de,  slain  at 
Bannockburn,  - 

Argyll,  Earl  of,  1689,  Regiment 
of  Highlanders  raised  by,  27  ; 
its  history,  - 

Argyllshire  Highlanders,  The,     - 

Armada  time,  - 

Armitage,  Mrs.,  on  *  Castles,' 

Armour,  Roman,       - 

Arran,  Earl  of,  Regent  after  death 
of  James  V.,4i  i  ;  his  position 
relative  to  James's  '  Will,'  411 

Articles,  Lords  of  the, 

Bacon,  Roger,  his  Metaphysica,    - 
Balfour,  Henry,  notary,   413,  414, 
Balfour,  Sir  James,  his  collections, 
258, 


PAGE  PAGE 

Ballad  on  duel  in  1660,     -         -         2 
241       Ballads,     Highland,    on     Killie- 
231  crankie,        -         -         -         -       65 

Ballads  on  Bishops'  Wars,  257  ; 
389  on  the  Covenants,  -          -     261 

Balliol,  King  John,  -          -          -15 
179      Bannockburn,  Battle  of,     -         -     459 
12      Bar    Hill,  Excavations,  at,   123; 

chariot  wheel  found  there,       -      123 
401       Bateson,  Miss  Mary,        224,  230,  360 
1 08      Bateson's  Records  of  the  Borough  of 
1 02          Leicester,       -         -         -         -       84 
509      Beaton,  Cardinal,  Knox  on,  380  ; 
238  and  James  V.,       -         -         -     410 

119      Berwick,  its  capture,  -          -     462 

Bingham,  Hiram,      -       210,  316,  437 
360      Bishop's     Loch    near     Glasgow, 
523  Crannogat,-         -         -         -     127 

Bishops'  Wars,  Ballads  on,  -     257 

Book  collecting,         -          -          -     357 
252       Borders,  Record  book  on,    101  ; 
88  French  troops  in,  236  ;   Scot- 

tish, in  English  History,          -      364 
461       Bower's   Scotichronicon,   its    state- 
ment   regarding    St.    Andrews 
University,  -          -          -          -     302 
27       Boyd,  Zachary,  his  MSS.  quoted,      389 
27      Breadalbane,  Arms  of,  80 

102      Brooch  of  Lorn,  no  ;  illustration 
237          of,       -         -  -         -     113 

472      Brown's  History  of  Accounting  and 

Accountants,  -         -         -         -     230 
Brown,  Professor  Hume,    -       157,  407 
•422      Brown's,  Professor  Hume,  George 
497  Buchanan  and  his  Times,-         -     527 

Brown,  Richard,       -  "39° 

99      Bruce,  Edward,  brother  of  King 
41  5  Robert,  461  ;  proclaimed  King 

of  Ireland,  462  ;  his  death,     -     462 
266      Bruce,  Robert,  the  competitor,   -        i  5 

529 


53° 


Index 


Bruce,  King    Robert,  legend   of 
his  brooch,  no;  kills  Comyn, 
329;    defeated    at     Methven, 
331;    takes  the   Isle  of  Man, 
405  ;    and  the  War   of  Inde- 
pendence, 456;   gains  victory 
at    Biland,    470 ;    his   sexcen- 
tenary,        -         -         -         -     391 
Brut,  The,       -         -         -      239,  360 
Buchanan,  A.  W.  Gray,     -      241,  253 
Buchanan,  George,  -       256,  420,  527 
'  Bulloch  '  as  a  Name,         -         -     237 
Burghal  History,      -         -         -       84 
Burns'  Church  Property,      -         -     377 
Burns'  Song   '  Charlie   He's  My 

Darling,'  -  -  -  -  171 
Burton,  Richard,  his  portrait,  88,  89 
Bury's  Life  of  St.  Patrick,  -  -  77 
Bute,  Earl  of  (temp.  George  III.),  505 
Bute,  late  Marquess  of,  -  -  109 
Butler,  Rev.  Dugald,  -  -511 

Caird,  Edward,         -         -         -  362 
Caithness  incorporated  with  Scot- 
land, -----  409 
Cambridge  Modern  History,-      225,  364 
Campbell  of  Ardkinglass,   -         -  253 
Campbell  Arms,        -          -          -  388 
Campbell,  G.  W.,     -         -         -  388 
Campbells  of  Ardeonaig,    -          -  240 
Candlemakers,  Scottish,      -         -  75 
Carlaverock,  Siege  of,         -          -  222 
Carlyle,  Froude's  portrait  of,       -  497 
Casket  Letters,          -          -         97,  225 
Castles,  Origin  of  Norman,          -  236 
Cave  sculpturings  at  East  Wemyss,  237 
Celtic  Scotland,         -          -      366,  393 
Chadwick's  Anglo-Saxon  Institutions,  89 
Chalmers,  P.  Macgregor,   -          -  256 
Chariot  Wheel  at  Bar  Hill,         -  122 
Charles  II.,  his  connection  with 
Art  and  Letters,  41  ;  his  books, 
46;    verses    assigned    to,    50; 
letters  by,     -          -          -  51 
'  Charlie   He's   My  Darling,'    its 
original,    171  ;    print    of   the 
original  song,         -          -          -  175 
Charms,  -----  247 
Chaucer's  '  Litel  Clergeon,'          -  516 
Claverhouse,  see  Graham. 
Coldingham  Church  and  Seal,  252,255 


College  of  St.  Leonard,      -         -  84 

Colville,  James,  -  -  -  423 
Communications  and  Replies, 

104,  242,  383,  521 
Companion  to  English  History  (Middle 

Ages),          -         -         -         -  235 
Comyn,  John,  slain    by   Robert 

Bruce,         -         -         -       329,  391 

Cook,  W.  B.,  -  -  -  -  234 
Cooper,  Professor  James,  -  93,  98 
Cooper's  Ecclesiastical  Titles  and 

Designations,-         -         -         -  100 

Corder,  Percy,  -  -  -  506 
Courthope's  History  of  English 

Poetry,          -         -         -         -  374- 

Courtrai,  Battle  of,  referred  to,  -  460 
Covenant,  Ballads,  261  ;  wars  of, 

424;  sworn  at  Lanark  in  1666,  452 
Covenanters,    Battle    of  Rullion 

Green,         -         -         -         -  45 1 

Cowley,  Abraham,  on  Scots  War,  257 
Craighall  purchased  by  Sir  Thomas 

Hope,           -  429 

Craigie,  W.  A.,         -         -         -  88 
Crannog  at  Bishop's  Loch,  Glas- 
gow,  -          -          -          -          -127 

Crichton,  The  Admirable,-         -  54 

Cromlix,  Lady,  1 5  9  6- 1 604,  -  23 
Culley's  Letters  of  Cadwallader 

John  'Sates,  -         -         -         -  516 

Cupar  Fife,  its  castle,         -         -  455 

Curie,  Alexr.  O.,      -         -         -  508 

Curie,  James,  -         -         -         -  471 

Cymry,  The,  -  -  -  -  367 
Cynewulf,  -  -  -  -251 

Darien  Company,  210  ;  its  early 
history,  210;   its  organization 
in  London,  316;  negotiations 
and  intrigues  in  London,  321  ; 
investigation  by  English  Parlia- 
ment,   437-448 ;     Parliament 
objects   to  the  Act   in    favour 
of,   441  ;   King  William  III.'s 
reference   to    it,  442 ;    course 
of  the  parliamentary  investiga- 
tions, -  -  443 
Davenant,  on  Scots  War,  -         -     257 
Davis'  History  of  England,   -         -     362 
Dedications  to  St.  Sunniva,          -      520 
Devil,  Compacts  with,        -          -     370 


Index 


'Diary'  of  Sir   Thomas   Hope, 

1633-45,      -         -         -         -423 

Dixon,  Professor  W.  Macneile,  -  359 

Douglas,  Sir  Archibald,  -  -  268 
Douglas,  Good  Lord  James,  457; 

captures  Roxburgh  Castle, 45  7  ; 

repulses    English   at    Lintalee, 

462  ;    captures  Berwick,  462  ; 

raids    Northumberland,    463  ; 

success  at  Melrose,          -          -  470 
Douglas,  House  of,  -         -         -412 

Dowden,  Bishop,  -  -  79 
Drummond,  Major  -  General 

William,  his  despatch  regarding 

Rullion  Green,      -  449 
Dudden's  Gregory  the  Great:  His 

Place  in  History  and  Thought,    -  354 

Duel,  A  Restoration,          -          -  i 

Dumfries  Castle,  -  391 
Dunblane,  Proceedings  for  Popery 

in,       -          -          -          -          -  26 

Duns  Scotus,  his  life,                     -  256 

Dupont,  Etienne,  -  -  377,  507 
Dupont's  Bibliographic  Generate 

du  Mont  Saint-Michel,    -         -  236 

Dyer,  Henry,  -         -         -         -  377 

Earls,  Seven,  of  Scotland,  -  -  1 8 
Early  History  of  the  Scottish 

Darien  Company,  210,  316,  437 

Edinburgh  Castle  captured,  -  457 
Edinburgh  in  1640-50,  Records 

of  St.  Cuthbert's,  -  -  -  385 

Edmond,  J.  P.,  -  -  -  358 
Edward  I.,  account  of  his  reign 

in  Scalacronica,  9 

Edward  II.,  -  -  -  -  461 

Edwards,  John,  -  -  179,  256 

Eeles,  F.  C.,  -  -  -  -  109 
Egerton's  Claims  of  the  Study  of 

Colonial  History,  -  -  528 

English  Historical  Review,  101,  236,  379 

Facsimiles,  Congress  on,     -          -  254 

Fairies,  Charm  against,       -          -  395 

Falkirk,  Battle  of,     -         -         -  221 

Fast  Castle,  255  ;  illustrations  of,  254 

Ferguson's  Ecclesia  Antiqua,         -  511 

Fergusson,  R.  Menzies,  20 

Firth,  Professor  C.  H.,       -           I,  257 

Fleming,  D.  Hay,  LL.D.,  -         -  254 


Flodden,  Battle  of,  -  -  -  500 
Fortification, '  Lilia'  pits,-  527,  528 
Foulis,  William,  keeper  of  privy 

seal,    -         -  -         -     312 

Fraser's  Historical  Aberdeen,          -     512 
Friars,  settlement  and  history  of 
Greyfriars,   1 79  ;    influence  of 
Mendicant    Orders,    186;    as 
royal  confessors,    -          -  193 

Gaelic  literature,  -  99,  125,  237 
Gaelic  origins,  -  -  -  366 

Gaelic,  race  and  language,  393  ; 

Irish,  394;  personal  names,  -  394 
Gasquet,  Abbot,  -  -  -  99 
Gasquet's  Henry  the  Third  and  the 

Church,         -  226 

Geography  of  Religion  in  the  High- 
lands, -         -         -         -         -     100 
George  III.,     -  505 

Gibbon's  Decline  and  Fall,  -  -516 
Gibbs,  Hon.  Vicary,  -  84 

Gilbert's,  Rosa  Mulholland,  Life 

of  Sir  John  T.   Gilbert,    -  5 1 3 

Glasgow   Cathedral,   early    tomb 

there,-          -          -          -          -     256 
Glasgow,  Greyfriars  there,  1 79  ; 
plan  of  their  Place,  183  ;  pro- 
clamations at  Craigmak,  -     191 
Glencoe  Massacre,    -  32~35 
Glenshiel,  Battle  of,  -          -          -      120 
Gordon's  The  Fronde,         -         -     508 
Goudie,  Gilbert,                            -      374 
Gowrie,  Earl  of,  1597,  at  Padua,        55 
Graham  of  Claverhouse,  Viscount 

of  Dundee,  at  Killiecrankie,  -63-70 
Grammars,  Early  Scots,  -  255 

Gray,  Master  of,  his  duel,  -  -  i 
Gray,  Sir  Thomas,  author  of 

Scalacronica,  -  -  6,  218,  327,  453 
Gray,  Sir  Thomas,  Senr.,  exploits 

by  him  at  Norham,      464,  466,  467 
Gretna  Green  and  its  Traditions,  125,  242 
Greyfriars     in     Glasgow,    179  ; 
settlement  of  Observant  Order, 
181  ;    plan   of  the    Place    of 
the  Greyfriars,       -          -          -      183 
Gunpowder  Plot,      -          -          -      102 
Guthrie's  John  Knox  and  his  House,     100 


Hadden,  J.  Cuthbert, 


376 


532 


Index 


Hamilton,  House  of,          -         - 
Hamilton,  James,  second  Marquis 

of,  his  portrait,  390  ;  alluded 

to  by  Ben  Jonson, 
Hamilton,  James,  third  Marquis 

of,  Ballad  of  1638-9  concerning, 
Hannay,  Robert  Kerr, 
Harbottle  Castle  cast  down,        - 
Harcla,  Sir  Andrew,  defeats  in- 

surgents    at     Boroughbridge, 

469  ;   made   Earl  of  Carlisle, 

469  ;  captured  by  the  Scots,  - 
Hardy's  Studies  in  Roman  History, 
Hassall's  Early  English  History,  - 
Haussonville,  Le  Comte  d',  - 
Haverfield's  Romanization  of  Roman 

Britain,        -         -         -         - 
Helmet,  Roman,       -         -         - 
Henderson,  T.  F.,    -          -         89, 
Henderson's  Religious   Controver- 

sies of  Scotland,        - 
Heraldry,  'armes  parlantes,'  56  ; 

arms  of  Breadalbane,  80  ;  arms 

of  Johnstons,   90  ;    Johnstone 

arms  at  Gretna,  124  ;  Camp- 

bell arms,     - 

Herkless,  Professor  John,   -         - 
Hexham  and  St.  Andrew,-         - 
Highland  Regiment,  The  First,  27, 
*  Hoblours,'  light  horsemen,        - 
Hodgkin's  Ernst  Curtius,    - 
Hodgkin's  Political  History,          - 
Holden,  Robert  MacKenzie,       - 
Hope,  Sir  Thomas,  1633-45,      - 
Hopetoun  '  Place,'    - 
Home's  Labour  in  Scotland  in  the 

Seventeenth  Century,  -  - 
Hunt's  Political  History  of  England, 
Hunter-Blair,  Rev.  Sir  D.  O.,  - 


PAGE 

4*3 


391 

260 
84 
464 


469 
5  1  4 
501 
392 


472 
171 


-515 


388 
84 
252 
389 
470 
235 
501 
27 
423 
426 

100 
5  04 
356 

Iceland,  how  peopled,        -          -  88 

Innes's  England  under  the  Tudors,  499 
Irroys  (Irish),  Johan  le,  carries  off 

Lady  Clifford,       -         -         -  467 

Irvine,  J.  M.,  96 

Jackson,  S.  Douglas,  on  a  Silver 

Map,-  -         -         -     519 

Jacobites  and  Papists,          -          -      121 
James  I.  of  Scotland  and  the  Uni- 

versity of  St.  Andrews,  -          -     301 


James   II.,  his  army's  march   to 

Killiecrankie,  -  -  65 

James  V.,  his  'Will,'  379,  410  ; 

his  death,  -  -  -  -  41  1 
Johnston,  Arthur,  at  Padua,  -  59 
Johnston's,  Harvey,  Heraldry  of  the 

Johnstons,  90 

Johnston  of  Warristoun,  author 

of  Covenant,  -  426,  427,  431 

Johnstone  arms  at  Gretna,  -  1  24 

Justiciary  Court  Records,  at 

Edinburgh,  1661-69,     -      I28»  368 

Keith,  William,  a  Scot  in  Poland,  524 
Kelman's  Interpreter's  House,  -  100 
*  Ker,'  its  meaning,  -  -  518,519 
Kerr,  Professor  J.  Graham,  -  233 
Killiecrankie,  63  ;  the  Gaelic 

ballad  on,  -  -  -  -517 
Kingsford,  C.  L.,  -  -  -  359 
Kintyre,  acquired  by  King  Mag- 

nus, -----  398 
Kirkcaldy  of  Grange,  prisoner  -  506 
Knox,  John,  a  royal  chaplain, 

98  ;  on  Cardinal  Beaton,  -  380 
Knox's  statements  concerning 

'Will'  of  James  V.,       - 
Krapp,  George  Philip,       - 


Lang,  Andrew,  129,  274,  382, 
Largs,  Battle  of,  -  -  - 
Last  days  of  James  V.,  -  - 
Latta,  Professor  R.,  -  -  - 
Laut's  Pathfinders  of  the  West,  - 
Law,  Dr.  T.  G.,  estimate  of 

Queen  Mary,  -  -  - 
Lawrie,  Sir  Archibald  C.,  -  - 
Learmonth,  Peter,  a  Scot  in 

Poland,  -  -  -  - 
Leask's  Thomas  M'Lauchlan,  - 
Legg's  Ecclesiological  Essays,  - 
Legg's  Select  Documents,  - 
Leitch,  David  and  John,  Latinists, 
Leland,  John,  his  travels  and 

itinerary,      -          -          -          - 
Lesley,  Norman,  prisoner  1547, 
Leslie,  General  David,  his  body- 

guard, 424  ;  his  march  south, 
Les  Prisonniers  Ecossais,  -  - 
*  Lilia  '  pits  at  Rough  Castle,  - 
Lindsay,  Christian,  -  -  - 


420 
523 

410 
401 
382 
87 
515 

225 
370 

524 

99 

510 

507 
5  1  7 

375 
506 

425 

506 
528 
5  !  7 


Index 


533 


PAGE 

Linlithgow  Church,  -         -511 

Little,  Robert,  -         -          -518 

Little's  The  Far  East,         -         -  376 

Littlejohn,  David,  LL.D.,            -  93 

Livingstone,  Lady,  1596-1602,  -  20 
Livingstone's  Guide  to  the  Public 

Records  of  Scotland,           -         -  98 

Loch,  Lord,  and  Manx  statutes,  404 
Lochmaben,  hoard  of  coins 

there,  -          -          -          -          -  1 24 

Lochmabenstane,       -        124,  125,  242 

Logan  of  Restalrig,  -  -  -  25  5 
Lollardism,  Oath  against,  at  St. 

Andrews,     -         -         -  307 

Lord's  Regency  of  Marie  de  M edicts,  9  3 

Lorimer,  George,  -  -  -  388 
Lucius  Britannius  rex,  a  new 

identification,        -          -          -  238 
Lucy's  Shakespeare  and  the  Super- 
natural,        -         -         -  5 1 5 
Lynam,  C.  C.,           -         -         -  510 
Lyon   King    of    Arms   and    the 

Darien  Seal,           -          -  214 

Mabon,  -----  390 
Macbain,  Alexander,  -  -  368 

MacDonald,  George,  -  124,  512 
MacDougall,  Iain,  -  -  -  1 1 5 
MacDougalls  of  Lorn,  -  -  1 1 1 
MacDowall,  Duncan  or  Dungall, 

defends  Castle  Rushen,  -  -  405 
MacGregor,  Rev.  Duncan,  -  91 
Macgregor,  'Rob  Roy,'  -  -  369 
Macintosh's  Life  of  Robert 

Burns,  -  516 

Mackay,  Lieut.-General  Hugh, 

at  Killiecrankie,  -  -  63,  66 

M'Kechnie,  W.  S.,  90,  101,  504 

M'Kechnie's  Magna  Carta,  101,  229 
Mackinlay,  J.  M.,  -  382,  520,  524 
MacLehose,  Sophia  H.,  -  -  508 
Macleod,  Rev.  W.  H.,  -  390,  511 
Macmillan's  George  Buchanan,  a 

Biography,  -  -  -  -  752 
Macmillan's  New  History  Readers,  235 
MacRitchie,  David,  -  -  -  120 
Magic,  -  -  -  -  56 

Magna  Carta,  -  -  -  101 

Magnusson's  Shipbuilding  of  old  in 

the  North,  -  -  -  -515 
Maidment's  Pasquils,  -  258,  266 


Man,  Isle  of,  its  connection  with 

Scotland,  -  -  -  -  393 

Marchmen,  The,      -       462,  463,  464 

Margaret,  Queen  of  Scotland, 

1286-1290,  12;  her  death,  -  14 

Marmion,  Sir  William,  at  Nor- 
ham  Castle,  -  -  464,  465 

Marshall,  Andrew,    -         -         -     375 

Marwick,  Sir  James  D.,     - 

Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  her  letter 
to  the  Pope,  96  ;  her  portraits 
and  jewels,  129,  274  ;  estimate 
of,  -  -  -  -  225 

Mathieson's  Scotland  and  the 
Union,  -  -  -  -  501 

Maxwell,   Sir    Herbert,   6,   218, 

H4,  327,  39°»  453 
Medley,    Professor    D.    J.,   226, 

233,  235,  366 
Menzies-Fergusson's     Logie :      a 

Parish  History,       -         -         -     234 
Methven,  Battle  of,  -          -331 

Michel  de  T Hospital,  -  -  -  377 
Millar,  A.  H.,-  -  -  63,  389 
Millar's  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  -  96 
Milton,  John,  his  portrait,  88,  89 

Mitton,  The  Chapter  of,  -          -     468 
Moncrieff,  W.  G.  Scott,     -         -     368 
Mont    Saint-Michel,    Scots    pri- 
soners in,     -          -          -          -     236 
Moore,  Arthur  W.,  -  393 

Morison,  J.  L.,  97 

Mottes,  -  -  -  -  -  236 
Mowbray,  Roger,  his  execution,  463 
Murdoch,  W.  G.  Blaikie,  -  -  41 
Murray,  David,  -  119,231,255 
Murray,  James  A.  H.,  -  -  240 

Napoleon,        -         -         -         -     238 

Neilson,  George,  224,  244,  402, 

409,  519 

Newburn  battle  in  1640,  Ballad 

on,  -----  266 

Newstead,  Excavation  of  Roman 

Station  at,  -  126,471 

Nicholson's  Keltic  Researches,       -     366 

Nobility,  Scottish,  their  part  in 

history,  -  -  -  157 

'  Nolbin,'  Manx  name  of  Scot- 
land, -----  393 

'  Nordreys,'  the  North  Isles,        -     396 


534 


Index 


Norham  Castle,  exploits  of  chi- 
valry there,  -  464,  466 

Norsemen,  in  Ireland,  123; 
western  influence  on,  371  ;  in 
Irish  Sea,  -  395 

Norway,  Kings  of,  their  relations 
with  Scotland  and  the  Isle  of 
Man,  -----  395 

Notes  and  Comments,  123,  254, 

391,  526 

Numismatic  Chronicle,  -         -     124 

Nun's  Rule,  The,  99 


Oaths  by  Regent  Arran,     -      418,420 
*  Odal,' tenure,          -  396 

Oman,  Professor,      -         -      362,  378 


Padua,  Scots  at,  -  -  -  5  3 

Paper  Manufacturing  in  Scotland,  7 1 

Parker,  Martin,  ballad  writer,  -  262 

Pastoral  Drama,  -  -  -  239 
Paterson,  William,  of  the  Darien 

Scheme,  -  -  -  212,  316 

Paton,  Henry,  -  -  -  518 

Patrick,  St.,  his  life,  -  -  -  77 

Paul,  Sir  James  Balfour,  91,  362,  498 
Paul's,  Sir  James  Balfour,  Scots 

Peerage,  79 
Paul's,  Herbert,  History  of  Modern 

England,  -  -  -  375 
Paul's,  Herbert,  Life  of  James 

Anthony  Froude,  -  -  -  495 

Pedigree  of  Hunter  of  Abbots  hill,  -  508 
Peerage  Law  (see  Ruthven  of 

Freeland  Barony),  -  207,  475 
Pentland  Rising,  The,  and 

Rullion  Green,  -  449 

Perth  captured,  -  -  -  458 
Pictish  inscriptions,  -  -  -367 

Pirates,  -  88 

Pitmillie,  Laird  of,  prisoner  -  506 

Place  name  derivations,  -  -  368 

Pollard's  Henry  VIII.,  -  -  499 

Portraits,  Historical,  -  -  88 

Praetorium,  now  styled  Principia,  526 

Presbytery  and  Popery,  -  -  20 

Priests  of  Peebles,  -  239 
Priory  Church  of  St.  Mary,  Col- 

dingham,      -          -          -          -  252 


Queries,     - 


103,    240,    380, 


Rannie's  Student's  History  of  Scot- 
land,   -         -         -     '  -     233 
Rat  hen  Manual,         -         -         -       91 
Record  Room,           -        1 08,  121,  313 
Records    of  the    Sheriff   Court  of 

Aberdeenshire,        -         -        93,  128 
Red  and  White  Book  ofMenzies,    -     378 
Reformation,  Share  of  St.   Leo- 
nard's College  in,  -          -          -        86 
Regality,  Courts  of,  -          -          -        95 
Register  House  Deeds,       -         -       98 
Renwick,    Robert,    Peebles    and 
John  Turnbull,  103  ;  his  Glas- 
gow  Protocols,   182  ;    plan  of 
Greyfriars  Place  prepared  by, 
182  ;  Peebles,  -          -     239 

Reviews  of  Books,      77,  225,  354,  495 
Revolution  of  1688,  -         -       27 

Riddell,  John,  peerage  antiquary, 

83,487 
Robertson's     Historical    Atlas    of 

British  Empire,      -         -         -515 
*  Rob  Roy,'      -         -         -         -     369 
Roman  Britain,        471,  511,  514,  516 
Roman   Scotland,   excavations  at 
Bar  Hill,    123  ;   at  Newstead, 

126,471 

Ronaldsway,  Battle  of,        -         -     404 
Rose's  Napoleonic  Studies,    -  5 1 3 

Rough  Castle,  Plan  of,  520  ; 
inscribed  tablet,  524;  its  ex- 
cavation, -  -  -  -  526 
Round,  J.  H.,  on  Ruthven  Peer- 
age, 104  ;  his  reply  to  J.  H. 
Stevenson,  194,  339  ;  criticised, 

475,  521 

Roxburgh  Castle  captured,  -     457 

Royal  Historical  Society,   -          -     392 
Rullion    Green,   The    Battle    of, 

and  the  Pentland  Rising,         -     449 
Rushen     Castle     besieged      and 

taken,  -  405 

Russell's  North  America,      -         -     231 
Ruthven  of  Freeland  Barony,  104, 

108,  194,  203,  206,  339,  475,  521 
Rye,  Henry  A.,  -  -  -  241 
Rymour  Club,  Edinburgh,  -  -  528 

St.  Andrews,  Altar  of  St.  Fergus,      108 


Index 


535 


St.  Andrews  University, 

84,255,  301,  308,  315,  360 
St.  Columba,  -  -  -  -  394 
St.  Giles  and  Children,  -  -  382 
St.  Leonard's  College,  -  85 

St.  Serf  or  Servanus,  -         -     239 

St.  Servan,  -  -  -  -  239 
Sadler,  Sir  Ralf,  -  -  -  411 
«  Salvo  Ker  Meo,'  -  -  -518 
Scalacronica,  translation  of, 

6,  218,  327,453 
'  Schaualdours,'  temp.  Edward  II.,     467 

*  Schiltrom,'  the  Scottish  military 

formation,  -  460 

Scots  at  Padua  University,  -  53 

Scots  Darien  Company,  210,  253,  316 
Scots  in  Poland,  -  -  -  524 
Scots  Peerage,  -  -  -  -  79 
Scots  Scouts  Discoveries,  -  -  259 
Scots,  Verses  against,  in  1641,  -  272 
Scott,  W.  R.,  -  -  71,  100 

Scottish  Church  Militant  of 

1640-3,  -  385 

Scottish  Ecclesiological  Society,  -  91 
Scottish  Industrial  Undertakings,  71 
Scottish  '  Nation  '  at  Padua,  -  53 
Scottish  references  in  London 

Chronicles,  -  -  -  -  360 
Seal  of  Priory,  Coldingham,  -  252 
Second  Prayer  Book  of  Edward 

n".  -.-..-        ~        -      97 

*  Senecio '  inscriptions,       -          -     473 

Separation  of  Church  and  State 

in  France,    -  392 

Shearer's    Old    Maps    and    Map 

Makers  of  Scotland,  -         -     377 

'  Shelta,'  -          -          -          -      120 

Sheriff  Court  Records,  -  93,128 
Ship  Service  in  the  Isles,  -  402,  405 
Sidgwick,  Miss  M.,  -  -  -  451 
Sidney's  Headsman  of  Whitehall,  -  514 
Signatures  to  Royal  Charters,  -  119 
Silvanus,  Altar  to,  -  -  127 

Silver  Map  of  the  World,  -  -  519 
Sinclair,  Sir  Oliver,  his  capture,-  410 
Skeat,  Professor  Walter  W., 

384,  522,  523 

Slater's  How  to  collect  Books,  -  357 
Smith,  Lucy  Toulmin,  -  -  375 
Smith,  Professor  D.  Nichol,  -  375 
Snell's  Age  of  Transition,  -  -  3  5  8 


Snowden's  Tirief  Survey  of  British 

History,  -  -  -  -  100 
'  Sodor '  Bishopric,  -  -  396,  402 
Solomon's  Even  in  Shetland,  -  524 
Soulis,Sir  William,  his  conspiracy, 

463  ;  his  punishment,    -          -     463 
Southesk,  Earl  of,  his  duel,          -          I 
Stapleton's    Mrs.   Bryan,  History 
of  the  Post-Reformation  Catholic 
Missions,       -         -         -  5°9 

Steel's  edition  of  Bacon's  Meta- 

physica,  -       99 

Steuart,  A  Francis,   -  53,  97,  121,  525 
Stevenson,    J.    H.,    on    Ruthven 
Peerage,   104  ;    his  views  dis- 
cussed by  J.  H.  Round,   194, 
339  ;  his  reply,     -  -     475 

Stewart,  C.  Poyntz,  -  -  -  378 
Stirling,  Battle  of,  -  -  219 

Stone  Circle  at  Garrol  Wood,  -  128 
Story,  Principal,  -  -  -  362 
'  Sudreys,'  the  South  Isles,  -  396 

Swift's  Prose  Works,  -  -  -  100 
Swinton,  George  S.  C.,  -  -  390 
Swinton  Charters,  Sir  Archibald 

Lawrie  and  the,    -         -         -     390 

Terry,  Professor  C.  Sanford, 

63»  449>  501 

Terry's  Scottish  Parliament,-         -     497 
Texts,  Rental  of  St.  Fergus  at  St. 
Andrews,  108  ;  letter  of  James 
I.   to  Pope  Martin  V.,    313  ; 
the  Pope's  reply,  -          -  3 1 5 

Thomson,  J.  Maitland,  on  Ruth- 
ven Barony, 

108,203,206,344,  351,  521 
Three  Chronicles  of  London,  -  -  359 
Trevelyan's  American  Revolution,  -  97 
Turnbull-Bullok,  -  -  -  103 

Union  Roll,  in  Peerage  Law, 

207,  209,  339,  482 

Union  of  Scotland  and  England,  441 
Urchill,  Lady,  1604-5,  -  25 

Valence,  Amyer  de,  taken  prisoner 

in  Burgundy,         -  462 

'  Vicecomes '  of  Man,                    -  399 

'  Volusenus  '  (F.  Wilson),  -  432 


536 


Index 


PAGE  PAGE 

Wallace,  Sir  William,         -         -     219  Whithorn,       -         -       394,403,407 

Wallace's  George  Buchanan,-         -     527  *  Will '  of  James  V.  discussed,      -     410 

Wark  Castle  cast  down,      -         -     464  Williams,  A.  M.,      -       235j253?5I3 

Wealth  of  Nations  (in  French),  its  Wilson,  Rev.  James,   228,  364,  501,  5  -.9 

translations,           -         -               115  Witchcraft,      -         -       370,427,467 

Welsh  and  Scots  in  Covenant  time,  WyckofFs,  Feudal  Relations,         -     504 

262,  266 


GLASGOW:     PRINTED   AT  THE   UNIVERSITY   PRESS   BY   ROBERT   MACLEHOSE   AND   CO.    LTD. 


DA 
750 
S23 
v.3 


The  Scottish  historical 
review 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 


UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY 


II  K  •  i 


tfl