CHAPTER XI.

ROBERT BRUCE JOINS THE STANDARD OF WALLACE.--PERCY AND CLIFFORD SENT TO SUPPRESS THE INSURRECTION.--NIGHT SKIRMISH IN ANNANDALE.--DISAFFECTION OF THE SCOTTISH NOBLES.--WALLACE RETIRES TO THE NORTH.--BATTLE OF STIRLING BRIDGE.

The success of the insurrection excited by Wallace, has been attributed by some English authors--and by Langtoft[104] in particular--to the foolish parsimony of Cressingham, who had disgusted the English soldiery by withholding their pay, at a time when their services might have been of the greatest advantage. In consequence of this unjust procedure, many of the yeomen and pages, finding little else than danger to be met with in the service, deserted their posts, and returned to their own country. Although the impolitic and avaricious character of the English treasurer is a matter on which the authors of both countries are agreed, the precipitation with which the garrisons of the Usurper now retreated on the approach of the Scots, shows that the severe examples which had already been made were not without their effect.

While our hero was thus following up his plan for the emancipation of his country, his standard was unexpectedly joined by the younger Robert Bruce. This powerful baron, it seems, had incurred the suspicion of the Warden of the Western Marches, who summoned him to attend at Carlisle, on pretence of business relating to the kingdom. Afraid to disobey, Bruce made his appearance, accompanied by a numerous retinue of his followers, and was there obliged to make oath on the consecrated host, and the sword of Thomas à Becket, that he would remain the faithful vassal of the King of England. In order to prove his loyalty, and do away with the mistrust attached to him, he made an inroad on the estates of Sir William Douglas, who at the time was acting with Wallace, and carried off his wife and children to one of his own fortresses in Annandale. Having thus lulled the suspicions that had been awakened, he next assembled his father’s vassals, and endeavoured to persuade them to join him in attempting the deliverance of their country. In this, however, he was disappointed: he therefore collected his own retainers, and marched to the quarters of Wallace; consoling himself with the reflection, that the Pope would easily absolve him from his extorted oath.

The insurrection in Scotland had hitherto been regarded by Edward more as the unconnected operations of banditti, than any thing like an organized scheme for regaining the national independence. Having most of the Scottish barons in his power from whom he thought he had any thing to apprehend, and conceiving that their vassals would not dare to move without the warrant of their superior,--he looked upon the affair as one which the troops he had left behind were more than sufficient to suppress. In this opinion he was confirmed both by the English and the Scotch barons whom he had along with him. The latter, either ignorant, or pretending ignorance of the talents and resources of our hero, represented their presence as being absolutely necessary before any formidable force could be brought into the field; and Langtoft[105] charges the English barons with deceiving their sovereign in the affair, and concealing from him the real state of the country. It is a matter of notoriety, that about this time, Edward and his nobles were not on the best of terms. Having now, as he thought, in addition to Wales, insured the subjection and obedience of Scotland, and remembering the facility with which, by the aid of 30,000 Scots lent him by Alexander III., he overawed and suppressed the Earl of Gloucester and those who took part with him; he began to assume towards the English nobility an imperious and haughty demeanour, which both alarmed their fears and excited their jealousy. The unprincipled stretches of power which he had attempted since his triumphal entry into London after his victories in Scotland, had also sown the seeds of dissatisfaction among the inferior classes, who, no longer dazzled with the splendour of his achievements over the freedom of their neighbours, began to reflect on the encroachments which their ambitious sovereign was making on their own.

When Edward, therefore, became fully apprised of the serious nature of the revolt in Scotland, he paused in the midst of preparations for an expedition to Flanders, and despatched orders to the Earl of Surrey for the suppression and punishment of the insurgents. This distinguished and powerful nobleman, the most efficient perhaps of all Edward’s generals, was at that time residing in Northumberland for the recovery of his health. Having associated with him in the command, his nephew Lord Henry Percy, and Robert de Clifford, he sent them forward with forty thousand foot and three hundred cavalry, a force which he deemed sufficient to restore the country to the allegiance of his master.[106]

While the troops under Percy and Clifford were on their march through Annandale, their camp was attacked during the night by a body of Scots, led on by Wallace and Douglas. The darkness prevented the English from at first discovering the numbers of their assailants. Much confusion in consequence ensued; and many were either killed or driven into the adjacent morass. In this extremity, the English set fire to a number of their own tents; and, by the light thus obtained, they were enabled to form their ranks, and repulse the enemy, who were too inconsiderable in number to attempt any thing beyond a surprise. Hence, it may be inferred, that Bruce and his Annandale vassals were not engaged in the affair.

The English army lost no time in following the tract of the Scots, who retired towards those districts where the cause of national liberty had gained the greatest ascendancy. On reaching the neighbourhood of Irvine, the English commander found Wallace and the insurgent barons encamped on a well chosen position, and able, from their numbers, to have given battle, had they not been wofully enfeebled by dissension. The feuds among them ran so high, that Sir Richard Lundin, whose services had lately proved so useful, went over in disgust to the enemy, declaring that “he would no longer remain with a party at variance with itself.” His example was speedily followed by others, most of whom, as they were the cause of the dissension, could not assign the same reason for their conduct. Pride of birth, and reluctance on the part of the higher barons to submit to the only man among them who had talents[107] to meet the emergency, have been assigned, with great probability, as the cause of this unfortunate disagreement. The Steward of Scotland; his brother, the Knight of Bonkill; Robert Bruce; William Douglas; Alexander de Lindsay; and Wishart, Bishop of Glasgow, with their followers, were among those who submitted to the enemy. The Bishop negociated the terms on which they were to be admitted to the peace of their “Lord Paramount:”--an acknowledgment of their errors, and hostages for their future obedience, were the basis of the treaty; and a copy of the deed, to which their seals were appended, was sent to Wallace, in expectation of his following their example. The high-minded patriot, however, entertaining views of a more elevated nature, treated this record of their desertion of the liberties of their country with merited disdain.

At the head of his personal adherents, and a large body of the “_liberi firmarii_,” or free yeomanry of Scotland, Wallace retired indignantly towards the North. This latter class of men consisted of the tenants, and descendants of tenants, of the crown and church-lands, or those who occupied farms on the demesnes of the barons, for which they paid an equivalent rent in money or produce. They had the privilege of removing to whatever place they might think most desirable, and owed no military service except to the King for the defence of the country. Among them the independence of Scotland always found its most faithful and stubborn supporters. These “liberi firmarii,” for so they are called in the chartularies, and chamberlains’ accounts, were considered so useful from their superior industry, and agricultural knowledge, that during the minority of the Maid of Norway, a sum of money appears to have been distributed among them as an inducement to remain on the crown lands of Libertoun and Lawrence-town, which they were preparing to leave in consequence of a mortality among their cattle. They formed a striking contrast to the _cottars_ or _villeyns_, who were entirely subject, both in body and means, to the will of the landholder, and were sold or transferred along with the estate; and could be claimed or brought back to it, if they removed, in the same manner as strayed cattle.[108] These formed the bulk of the degraded horde who followed the banners of the recreant barons, and whose servility, ignorance and ferocity, often made them dangerous to the liberties of the country; while the former class, along with the freemen of the boroughs, supplied the materials from which Wallace recruited the ranks of his patriotic battalions.

Aware, from former experience, of the difficulty of bringing Wallace to action if he were not so inclined, Percy and Clifford appear to have withdrawn their forces, satisfied with having detached the aristocracy from his standard; none remaining with our hero save the gallant Sir Andrew Murray, Sir John Graham, and a few of his own personal friends.

But the system which Wallace had organised for the emancipation of his country, was not liable to any material derangement, in consequence of the defection of a few timid and interested barons. It is true, the desertion of such men as Sir William Douglas must have occasioned him considerable regret, being thereby prevented from meeting the enemy openly in the field, with such an equality of force as would have insured success. This feeling, however, did not retard his exertions, but rather stimulated him to fresh undertakings; for we find that he shortly afterwards surprised and garrisoned the Castle of Dunotter. Tyber,[109] or Tibber, on the banks of the Nith, he also took and destroyed. Forfar, Brechin and Montrose, were either taken, or deserted by their garrisons on his approach. Aberdeen, which the enemy set on fire, and then retreated to their ships, afterwards fell into his hands. He then led his troops against the Castle of Dundee, and had already made considerable progress in the siege of that strong-hold, when he was apprised of the advance of an English army under the Earl of Warren, and Cressingham the treasurer.

Edward, dissatisfied with the imperfect measures which had been taken for the suppression of the Scottish revolt, and irritated by the accounts which were daily received of the operations of the insurgents, had despatched peremptory orders for Warren to proceed in person to the North. He also directed his writs to the Bishop and Sheriff of Aberdeenshire, commanding them to adopt strong and effectual means for extinguishing the flame of rebellion within the boundaries of their jurisdiction. They were likewise required to furnish whatever supplies might be wanted by William de Warren[110] for the defence of the Castle of Urquhart, a strong and extensive fortress on the banks of Loch Ness, of which he was governor. Warren was also ordered to be at his post, and fully prepared to meet any attempt of the enemy.

On learning the movements of the English, Wallace collected those of the burgesses of Dundee who were able to bear arms, and, placing them under the command of their townsman, Sir Alexander Scrymgeour, enjoined them, at the peril of “lyf and lyme,”[111] to continue the siege. He then retired, with his followers, who were now considerably increased, to watch the motions of the advancing army.

In cases of invasion, a favourite plan adopted by the Scots for the defence of their country, was to convey their cattle and other valuables to the more inaccessible districts north of the Forth. By this measure, they not only secured their own suppplies, but, by depriving their enemies of the means of subsistence, compelled them to an early retreat as the only resource against the miseries of starvation. On the present occasion the usual precaution was not omitted.[112]

The success which had attended our hero, since the affair of Irvine, and the formidable character of the well-disciplined force which now adhered to his banner, occasioned a wavering among a number of those barons who had so shamefully submitted to the usurper. Their situation, it must be allowed, had become one of great difficulty. The character of Wallace was stern and decisive. The punishment he inflicted on such offenders, they had reason to know was seldom mitigated by any consideration for the high rank of the parties;[113] and the English had repeatedly shown, that they were unable to protect the _serviles_ from the vengeance of their indignant countrymen. It was therefore with no slight alarm that the party heard of the house of the Bishop of Glasgow being attacked, and pillaged, and his family carried off they knew not whither. The selection which Wallace had made of Wishart, as an example to the others, had no doubt been suggested partly by the ingratitude of that churchman, in deserting the cause, after having been, by means of the patriots, so lately restored to his diocese; and partly from his being so instrumental in the disgraceful negociation with the enemy. The sacredness attached to his character, as a priest, would speedily disappear before the heinous offence of assisting to detach, in the hour of need, the swords of a Douglas, a Lundin, and a Bruce, from the service of their country. Meanwhile the hostages for their fidelity had been carelessly exacted; and when soon after called for by Warren, (whose remiss conduct had so far incurred the displeasure of Edward, that he sent Brian Fitz Alan to supersede him as lieutenant), he found them more inclined for a new arrangement, than willing to fulfil the terms of the former. They wished, in particular, to introduce some stipulations respecting the liberty of Scotland, a proposal no doubt made for the purpose of allaying in some degree the indignation of their patriotic countrymen. The continued obstinacy, and increasing power of Wallace, was made a pretext for their non-compliance; and they could now with apparent justice decline the final ratification of a deed of treason against the independence of their country, when protection from the consequences was so extremely uncertain.

In this dilemma the Steward and the Earl of Lennox sought permission of Warren to open a communication with the leader of the Scots, under pretext of bringing him over to the interests of Edward. In consequence of this arrangement, these chiefs ventured to visit the Scottish army, which, by this time, had reached the neighbourhood of Stirling, and taken up a strong position near the bridge, where it appeared determined to wait the approach of the English. The retiring population had left little behind them that could be useful to the enemy; all their cattle and provisions being now secured in the rear of the protecting columns of their countrymen. This rendered the position of Wallace still more valuable, prepared, as he was, in the event of a defeat, to fall back to certain supplies, while his opponents would be still farther removed from their resources.

But if feuds had rendered the Scots inert and submissive to the enemy at Irvine, the councils of the English were now, in their turn, distracted from the same cause. The mind of Warren appeared more occupied in brooding over his late disgrace, than in attending to the details of the campaign; while Cressingham,[114] a haughty, ambitious, and imperious churchman, assumed additional importance on learning that his colleague had incurred the royal displeasure. Conflicting measures, supported by querulous and acrimonious language, engendered a dangerous spirit of animosity between them. Cressingham, on the plea of economy, ordered the disbanding of a body of eight thousand foot and three hundred cavalry, commanded by Lord Henry Percy, a force which Warren wished to retain as a reserve; and during the altercations which this occasioned, the communications of the Steward and the Earl of Lennox with the Scottish camp were injudiciously allowed to continue.

On the arrival, however, of the English in front of the position occupied by the Scots, those noblemen returned. With well feigned displeasure they announced their inability to make any pacific impression on Wallace and his followers; and then took their leave, for the alleged purpose of bringing up a number of their mounted vassals to join the English, who were to defile along the bridge in the morning.

Five thousand foot and a body of Welsh archers had passed the bridge before Warren had left his bed.[115] Whether this sluggishness on the part of the English general arose from indisposition or chagrin, is not explicitly stated. The troops, however, on finding that they were not supported by the rest of the army, returned to their station. Warren, who arose about an hour after,--feeling, perhaps, reluctant to attack the Scots in their present position, and not deeming it prudent to calculate on the recurrence of the same mistake which had given him so easy a victory at Dunbar,--despatched two friars to make a last attempt at pacification.

The answer returned was evidently intended to exasperate the English, and bring them on headlong to the fray. After a bold declaration of independence, a taunting allusion was made to the conquerors of England. “We came not here,” said the intrepid assertor of Scotland’s rights, “to negociate, but to fight; and were even your masters to come and attack us, we are ready to meet them at our swords’ point, and show them that our country is free.” Enraged at this stern and provoking defiance, the English became clamorous to be led on.

A council of war being called, it was proposed by Cressingham that the army should instantly cross the river and attack the Scots. In this he was opposed by Sir Richard Lundin, who pointed out the many difficulties they would have to encounter in attempting to defile along a bridge, so narrow, in presence of so wary an enemy; and offered to guide them to a ford not far distant, where they could pass with less hazard. Cressingham,--either displeased at being contradicted,--or not placing full reliance on the fidelity of Lundin, who had but recently joined the English, told Warren,--who appeared to hesitate, that, as treasurer of the King of England, he (Cressingham) could not be answerable for squandering the money of his master in protracted warfare with a handful of enemies, who,--in order to be defeated, had only to be attacked, and would always be formidable,--provided they were never brought to an engagement. Stung by the reproach conveyed in these remarks, Warren gave orders for the troops to move onwards.

Sir Marmaduke Twenge, a knight belonging to the North-Riding of Yorkshire, of much experience and distinguished personal prowess, assisted Cressingham in leading the van. When nearly one half of the English had cleared the bridge without opposition, an attempt was made to dislodge the Scots from the ground they had chosen; and for that purpose, Sir Marmaduke rather impatiently charged up-hill with a body of heavy-armed cavalry. The consequence was, however, fatal to the assailants, as the enemy, from their vantage-ground, drove them headlong before them with their long spears. In the mean time, the communication between the bridge and the van of the English army was cut off by a masterly movement of a division of the Scots, who afterwards kept up such an incessant discharge of arrows, darts,[116] “gavelocks,” and other missiles, as completely interrupted the progress of the enemy. Wallace contemplated, for a moment, the success of his plan, and instantly rushed down to the attack with an impetuosity which the scarcely formed battalions of the English were ill prepared to withstand. Giving way to the shock, they fell into irretrievable confusion, while the repeated charges of the compact bodies of the Scottish spearmen were fast covering the ground with the splendid wreck of the chivalry of England. The scene now became animating beyond measure; and many of those who had defended the bridge forsook their companions to join in the desperate _mêleé_. The passage being thus left comparatively open, the royal standard of England, displaying “_Three gold leopards courant, set on red_,” was advanced to the cry of--“For God and St George!” attended by a strong body of knights, who, with their triangular shields, defending themselves from the missiles which still showered thick upon the bridge, rushed forward to aid their fellow-combatants. The banner of Warren next appeared, _chequered with gold and azure_, and followed by his numerous vassals. The day, however, was too far gone to be retrieved, even by this powerful assistance. Finding no room to form, they only increased the confusion, and swelled the slaughter made by the Scottish spearmen, before whose steady and overwhelming charges thousands were either borne down or driven into the river.

While Warren, with inexpressible anxiety, beheld from the opposite bank the destruction of the flower of his army, the Steward of Scotland and the Earl of Lennox were seen approaching with a strong body of horse; but, as might be expected, instead of joining the English, they assisted their countrymen in pursuing and killing those who were attempting to save themselves. Sir Marmaduke Twenge gallantly cut his way to the bridge, and escaped.[117]

The panic now became general, and the face of the country was soon covered with a confused mass of terrified fugitives, hurrying on to avoid the swords of their conquerors, and increasing, as they fled, the disorder of their retreat, by throwing away their arms and their standards, in order to facilitate their flight.

Wallace having crossed the ford alluded to by Lundin, the pursuit was followed up with the most destructive perseverance. The day of retribution had arrived;--the butcheries of Berwick, the carnage of Dunbar, with a long list of national indignities and personal sufferings had now to be atoned for. Conscious of the provocation which had roused to frenzy the vengeance of an infuriated people, Warren turned with dismay from the scene of havoc, leaving twenty thousand of his soldiers to manure the fields of those they had so lately oppressed. Cressingham, the most detested of all the tools of Edward, was among the number of the slain;--and when Wallace came up, a party were employed in flaying the body. According to the MS. Chronicle of Lanercost, he is said to have ordered only as much of the skin to be taken off as would make a sword-belt; and his men, perhaps, imitating his example, might have appropriated the rest. This, says a respectable author,[118] is no doubt the origin of the tale told by Abercromby and some other historians, of the Scots having used it as girths to their horses. An order of this kind, given in the heat of the pursuit, was perhaps never thought of afterwards; at least, we have no account of Wallace ever wearing such an appendage. The circumstance, however, shows the deep-rooted detestation with which the individual was regarded.

Warren, who fled rapidly to Berwick, was most probably, like another English general of more modern times, the first herald of his own discomfiture. The consternation which his disaster occasioned among his countrymen in Scotland was so great, that few or none would venture to wait the approach of the enemy; but, abandoning their strongholds, they hurried southward with the greatest precipitation, justly conceiving that the terms they were likely to obtain from one who followed up his victories with so much energy, were hardly worth staying for. The loss on the part of the Scots was comparatively small; none of note having fallen, save the brave Sir Andrew Murray of Bothwell.[119]

In this manner was Scotland once more restored to that liberty of which she had been so unjustly deprived. Nor was the benefit conferred on the country less, than the glory which redounded to her gallant liberator. The brilliant and decisive victory at Stirling Bridge was gained on the 11th September 1297, exactly twelve months and eleven days from the return of Edward to Berwick, after what he conceived to be the final subjugation of the kingdom.

The state of Scotland in the early part of 1297, was such as might well have extinguished the ardour of any mind possessed of less energy than that of Wallace. He saw his country humbled and debased at the feet of a tyrant, whose talents and power forbade every hope of emancipation, while the boldest of her nobles dared not express a wish to be free. His own indignant feelings blazed forth, and, with his kindling enthusiasm, he breathed into his torpid and enslaved countrymen, the breath as it were of a new existence. The regenerating influence of his heroic example, was quickly caught by those whose bosoms still beat responsive to the call of honour; and in the short space we have mentioned, those banners which had lately waved over hecatombs of butchered Scots, and had been paraded through the land with all the triumphant arrogance of conquest, were now trampled under foot, and the colossal power by which they were sustained, overthrown before the virtuous indignation of a people determined to be free. When we contemplate the might and the resources of Edward, who, in addition to those of his own kingdom, had Ireland, Wales, and his Continental possessions to depend upon; it is impossible not to feel impressed with admiration at the greatness of that mind, which, with the fractions of a divided and dispirited people, could form the idea of braving a force so overwhelming: But when we find those plans which he had conceived in the deep recesses of his woodland retreats, not only perseveringly carried on against a tide of adverse circumstances--in defiance of the aristocracy of his own country, and the opposition of secret and avowed enemies--it may with truth be said, that, however highly he may have been extolled, a tythe of his greatness has not yet been appreciated. Much has been said of romance being mixed up with the accounts given of him; but it would be difficult for any of those who delight in _nibbling_ at great names, to point out any tradition respecting Wallace, sufficiently romantic to outstrip the simple facts that stand recorded of him in the authentic annals of British history.

Deserted by the barons at a time when he conceived he had united in the sacred cause all that was noble, and all that was high minded in the land, it required no common intrepidity to bear up against their heartless and unseemly defection; and to recruit his ranks after so serious a diminution, required talents of the highest order, and exertions beyond the reach of ordinary men. This, however, he not only accomplished, but also recovered a number of fortresses,--drove the enemy from the North, and, with a numerous and gallant army, sat down in a well-chosen position, to await the advance of the legions of England,--all within two months of the disgraceful negociation at Irvine.

After a victory achieved in the face of difficulties so formidable; with what feelings must the hero of Stirling Bridge and the Scottish aristocracy have regarded each other! The mighty force of him whom they had acknowledged as their Lord Paramount, was now broken and dispersed before the superior valour and steadiness of one whom they had so rashly abandoned. In the rich harvest of laurels which had been acquired, they had excluded themselves from all participation; and, though conscious that they could not lay claim to a single leaf, they were sensible that the heroism of their late companions would soon be emblazoned through every country in Europe; while they had the mortification to reflect, that the tale of their own pusillanimous submission, would be held up as a counterpart to the gallantry of those friends whom they had so shamefully forsaken in the road to immortality.

APPENDIX.

A.

WALLACE’S TREE.--TORWOOD.

Page 179.

The following memoranda respecting this celebrated tree, will doubtless be acceptable to the reader:[120]

“In Dunipace parish is the famous Torwood, in the middle of which there are the remains of Wallace’s Tree, an oak, which, according to a measurement when entire, was said to be about 12 feet diameter. To this wood Wallace is said to have fled, and secreted himself in the body of that tree, then hollow, after his defeat in the north.”--_Stat. Acc._ iii. 336.

“This oak is still dignified by the name of _Wallace’s Tree_. It stands in the middle of a swampy moss, having a causeway round its ruins; and its destruction has been much precipitated, by the veneration in which the Scottish hero has been long held; numerous pieces have been carried off, to be converted into various memorials of the Champion of Scotland.”--_Kerr’s Hist. of Bruce_, i. 127.

“Wallace’s Oak, as it has been called for ages, still remains in the Torwood near Stirling. The old tradition of the country bears, that Sir William Wallace, after a lost battle, secreted himself in this tree, and escaped the pursuit of his enemies. By this account, it behoved then, that is, about 500 years ago, to have been a large tree. Whatever may be its age, it certainly has in its ruins the appearance of greater antiquity than what I have observed in any tree in Scotland.

“At a very remote period it has separated in the middle, and the one half of it has mouldered entirely away. The other half remains, and is in one place about twenty feet high. But what the tree was above this height, is unknown. All the original part of the tree is putrid. Yet one may perceive that the whole of it, from the head to the very bark, has been red wood, and is so hard even in its putrid state as to admit of a polish.

“In this ancient Torwood, it stands in a manner alone. For there are no trees, nor any ruin of a tree, to be seen that is nearly coeval. Compared to it, even the oldest of them is of a very modern date. The memory of its having saved Wallace, has probably been the means of its preservation, when all the rest of the wood at different times has been destroyed. It has been immemorially held in veneration, and is still viewed in that light.

“There is a peculiar sort of renovation of an old tree that sometimes occurs, and has taken place in this. A young bark has shot upwards from the root in several places, which has formed fresh branches towards the top of the old trunk. This young bark has spread, and still spreads, like a callus, over several parts of the old tree that are dead; and particularly over a very large arm, which has had no bark on it in the remembrance of the oldest person alive.

“The tree stands in carse land, in a deep wet clay-soil. The road that passes by it in the wood is laid crossways with thick branches of trees, to prevent carriages from sinking to the axles in wet weather.”--_Essays on Natural History, by John Walker, D.D._ (1771.)

The ground on which this tree stood was elevated above the surrounding level, which appears at one time to have been a sort of swamp. Causeways of a rude construction led up to the oak on different directions; and as the first formation of these causeways is beyond the memory of the oldest inhabitants living, it proves that the sheltering place of the Defender of Scotland must have been an object of deep interest to his countrymen at a very early period. Although this ancient memorial of Wallace measured, in the recollection of people still living, 42 feet in circumference, not a vestige of it is now to be discovered. The veneration with which it was regarded, secured it from all human interference; and it was left to the winds of heaven, and the hand of time, till it reached that state of decay which indicated an approaching crisis. Its extinction was then hastened by an anxiety on the part of visitors to possess some portion of it, as a relict of one with whose name it had been so long associated; and so far was this feeling carried, that, after the trunk had disappeared, the ground was dug up to the extent of twelve feet round it, in order to get at any fragment of the root that might chance to remain. This grand search took place after the time was fixed for the visit of George IV. to Scotland; and Mr Craig, an artist residing at Helensburgh, of considerable taste in his profession, used a part of it which had then been found, in the formation of a snuff-box, ingeniously composed, besides, of various small pieces of wood, including portions of “the Elderslie Oak,” “Queen Mary’s Yew,” the “Bush abune Traquair,” and other celebrated inmates of the forest, which have been consecrated by the historical and poetical Muse of Scotland. This elegant little national gem was with much propriety presented to, and graciously accepted by, his Majesty, during his residence in Scotland. Thus, after a lapse of ages, the root of that oak which had preserved the houseless patriot when outlawed by the enemies of his country, has, by a strange vicissitude, been transplanted to the personal possession of the legitimate descendant of that race of kings for whose right he so nobly contended, and whose beloved representative now wields a sceptre over a countless accumulation of subjects, and a dominion from which the sun may be said never to withdraw his light.

The wood-cut which we are now about to introduce, shows the state of the tree in 1789, at which time it measured twenty-four feet in height. It is taken from a drawing with which the publishers have been politely favoured by the family of the late Mr A. Kincaid, a gentleman of literary attainments, to whom the public are indebted for a History of Edinburgh, and some other meritorious publications; and who visited the Torwood, and made the following sketch in the year above mentioned. Although exhibiting the same general appearance as the drawing made by Mr Nasmyth eighteen years earlier, which forms the vignette to this volume, it will be observed that it was gradually hastening to decay; and, as partially filling up a _hiatus_ in the history of the “august vegetable,” we have much pleasure in presenting it to our readers.

In the preceding year, at the depth of a foot from the surface, and about 30 feet west of Wallace’s tree, the head of an ancient Scottish spear was found, which was presented to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, by Mr Alexander Kincaid. By the kindness of that learned body, we are also enabled to give the following wood-cut of this antique and once-powerful weapon. It measures 8 inches in length, and, if not of higher antiquity, was probably one of those used in the fatal conflict which took place in the Torwood between James III. and his rebellious nobles in 1488.

B.

THE CRAWFURDS.

Page 193.

Crawfurd, is a corruption of two Celtic words _Crodh-Phort_, pronounced _Cro-forst_, signifying _a sheltering place for cattle_, a designation expressive of the general appearance of the parish of Crawford-John. As every thing relating to so illustrious a character as Wallace is important, the following pedigree, showing his maternal descent, will doubtless be acceptable to many.

According to that accurate genealogist _George Crawfurd_, author of the _Scottish Peerage_, and the _History of Renfrewshire_, and of the _House of Stewart_, published more than 100 years ago, the Craufurds are derived from Thorlongus, an Anglo-Danish chief, who, being expelled from Northumberland by William the Conqueror, found an asylum in Scotland, and, in particular, had a grant of land in the Merse from Edgar, King of Scots, whose reign is included betwixt the year 1097 and the 8th January 1106-7.

This appears from _Crawfurd’s_ MS. “History of the Craufurds,” in the Advocates’ Library, and is corroborated by _Anderson_ in his _Diplomata_, compiled at the desire of the Scots Parliament, who has this notice of Thor-Longus:--“Hic vir nobilis et Anglus genere fuisse, videtur ac forte idem qui _Thor_ in Libro vulgo dicto _Doomsday-Book_, sæpius memoratus amplissimis suis prædiis in borealibus Angliæ partibus sitis a Gullielmo Conquisitore erat exûtus.”

At what particular time his expulsion took place, does not precisely appear; but it seems probable that it must have been betwixt the years 1069 and 1074, when, from the unsubmissive spirit of the Northumbrians, they brought down on their own heads the most direful wrath of the conqueror, who was so provoked with them, for joining their original countrymen the Danes, who had at that time invaded England, (and whom, for all his prowess, he was fain to buy off), that “he swore by the splendour of God he would not leave a soul alive;” and so soon as he found it in his power (the foreigners being now gone) to be avenged of them, he ravaged their country in so merciless a manner, that for 60 miles together he did not leave a single house standing.--See _Rapin_, vol. i. p. 172.

All this took place betwixt the years as above stated; and as they were quite subdued by the last of these dates (1074), and as there appeared to have been no more exterminating spoliation of this part of the country afterwards during William’s reign, it seems to be a fair conclusion, that this Anglo-Danish chief had found it necessary to fly, and make his escape to Scotland during the interim mentioned. The era of the _Doomsday-Book_ itself (1079), in which Thor is mentioned to have been, before that time, deprived of his possessions, should be a concluding evidence of the fact. That he obtained lands in Scotland during the reign of King Edgar, appears distinctly from the following writs, copied from the MS. History of Crawfurd, and which also are to be found in the archives of the cathedral of Durham.

CHARTA THORLONGI.

Omnibus sanctæ matris Ecclesiæ filiis Thorlongus in Domino, salutem: Sciatis quod Edgarus Dominus meus Rex Scottorum, dedit mihi Ednaham desertam, quam ego, suo auxilio et mea propria pecunia inhabitavi, et ecclesiam in honorem Sancti Cuthberti fabricavi, quam ecclesiam cum una carrucata terræ, Deo et Sancto Cuthberto et monachis ejus in perpetuum possidendum dedi; hanc igitur donationem feci pro anima domini mei Regis Edgari, et pro animabus patris et matris illius, et pro redemptione Lefwini patris mei dilectissimi, et pro meimet ipsius tam corporis quam animæ salute, et siquis hanc meam donationem sancto predicto et monachis sibi servientibus aliqua vi vel ingenio auferre presumserit, auferat ab eo Deus omnipotens vitam Regni celestis, et cum diabolo et angelis ejus pœnas sustinet eternas. Amen.

EJUSDEM.

Domino suo charissmo David Comiti Thor, omnibusque suis, salutem: Scias domine mi, quod Edgarus Rex frater vester dedit mihi Ednaham desertam, quam ego suo auxilio et mea pecunia inhabitavi, et ecclesiam a fundamentis fabricavi quam frater vester Rex in honorem Sancti Cuthberti fecit, dedicavit, et una carrucata terræ eam dotavit. Hanc eandem ecclesiam pro anima ejusdem domini mei Regis Edgari et patris et matris vestri et pro salute vostra et Regis Alexandri et Mathildis Reginæ, sancto predicto et monachis ejus dedi, unde vos precor sicut dominum meum charissimum, ut pro animabus parentum vestrorum et pro salute vivorum hanc donationem Sancto Cuthberto, et monachis sibi in perpetuam servituris concedatis.

This historian deduces the Crawfurds from the above Thorlongus, in the following order of succession:--

I. Thorlongus, who has charters as above in the reign of King Edgar (_inter_ 1097 _et_ 1107), and whose seal in the first is quite entire, had two sons; 1. Swane; 2. William, whose name appears in a charter by William de Vetereponte, in the archives of Durham.

II. Swane, son of Thorlongus, whose name appears in several charters of the same age, as in one by king Edgar to the monastery of Coldingham, of the lands of Swinton; also in one of the reign of David I., as possessing the Fishery at Fiswick, near Berwick, and others in these archives.

III. Galfredus, son of Swane, also mentioned in these archives. He is stated by Crawford to have had two sons; 1. Hugh, the next in this line; 2. Reginaldus, of whom afterwards.

IV. Hugh, the eldest son of Galfredus, from whom came the Crawfords of Crawford proper, as under.

V. Galfredus de Crawford, who is a witness to a charter of Roger, Bishop of St Andrew’s, to the monastery of Kelso, in 1179, and died about 1202.

VI. Reginald de Crawford, probably his son, is witness to a charter of Richard le Bard to the same monastery, together with William, John and Adam, his sons, in 1228. Of the first and third no other memorial exists. The second,

VII. Sir John Crawfurd, his successor, is designated, _Dominus de eodem miles_, in several donations. He died without male issue in 1248, leaving two daughters, of whom the eldest was married to Archibald de Douglas, ancestor of all the Douglases whose descent can be traced; and the youngest was married to David de Lindsay of Wauchopedale, ancestor of all the Lindsays in Scotland.

The last three are extracted from _Wood’s Peerage_, under the title _Crawford_; and the authorities are stated on the margin. That these ladies, the daughters of Sir John Crawfurd, were descended from Hugh, No. IV., is distinctly mentioned by _Crawfurd_, in the MS. History of the Crawfurds, as above. To return now to the second son of Galfredus, No. III.

_Crawfurd_ further states, that Galfredus, No. III., as above, besides Hugh, had another son,

IV. Reginald, with whom another portion of the barony of Craufurd remained, and that from him descended his son,

V. John; and hence the distinction of this part of the barony into Crawford-John. This John, he adds, is the first on record that used the surname of Craufurd from his lands; and he is mentioned as a witness to a charter by Arnold, Abbot of Kelso, in 1140. In the account of Craufurd of Auchnames, in Renfrewshire, p. 365, it is stated, that Sir Gregan Craufurd, ancestor of the Dalmagregan branch of Craufurds, was a younger brother of Sir John Craufurd of Crawford-John; of course, he must also have been a son of Reginald, No. IV. This point may afterwards be more clearly verified. Suffice it here to say, that this branch diverged into several, as those of Torringzean, Drongan, Camlarg, Balquhanny, Liffnoris, &c. all either now extinct, or whose history is very little known. They were distinguished by the stag’s head in their armorial bearings, in allusion to their common ancestor Sir Gregan’s having rescued David I. from the attack of a stag which had unhorsed him. This exploit is said to have taken place near Edinburgh, in 1127, which date corresponds not unfitly with the era of his supposed brother, Sir John Craufurd of Crawford-John, who appears as a witness, as above-mentioned, in 1140.

VI. Dominus Galfredus de Craufurd, is the next stated by Craufurd the historian, in the succession in this line. He lived in the reign of Malcolm IV. (_inter_ 1153 et 1165), and in that of his successor William; and is a frequent witness to the donations of that prince to the abbacy of Arbroath, particularly in 1179.

VII. Hugh de Craufurd appears to be the next in succession, though it is more from probable conjecture than from precise evidence, that he is reported to be the son of the preceding. But that this Hugh was father of

VIII. Sir Reginald de Craufurd, sheriff of Ayrshire, Crawfurd has no hesitation in affirming. This Sir Reginald, about the beginning of the 13th century, married the heiress of Loudoun, and from him all the Crawfurds of that family, and their numerous cadets, are descended. It would appear that he had four sons; 1. Hugh; 2. William; 3. John, from whom is descended the Crawfordland family; and, 4. Adam.

IX. Hugh carried on the line of Loudoun. He had two sons; 1. Hugh; 2. Reginald, who was the first of Kerse.

X. Hugh, the eldest son, was of Loudoun. He had a son, said to be ancestor of the Baidland Craufurds, and a daughter, Margaret, who was married to Sir Malcolm Wallace. She was the mother of the Guardian of Scotland, Sir William Wallace, from whom the Bailies of Lamington are maternally descended.--_Robertson’s “Ayrshire Families.”_

C.

THE BURNING OF THE BARNS OF AYR.

Page 201.

As this is one of those portions of our history on which Lord Hailes has thought proper to be sceptical, the following remarks of the learned Dr Jamieson[121] on the subject maybe satisfactory to the reader. With respect to the date, it may, with great propriety, be fixed about midsummer 1297.

“The story of the destruction of these buildings, and of the immediate reason of it, is supported by the universal tradition of the country to this day; and local tradition is often entitled to more regard than is given to it by the fastidiousness of the learned. Whatever allowances it may be necessary to make for subsequent exaggeration, it is not easily conceivable, that an event should be connected with a particular spot, during a succession of ages, without some foundation.

“Sir D. Dalrymple deems this story ‘inconsistent with probability.’ He objects to it, because it is said, ‘that Wallace, accompanied by Sir John Graham, Sir John Menteth, and Alexander Scrymgeour, constable of Dundee, went into the west of Scotland, to chastise the men of Galloway, who had espoused the part of the Comyns, and of the English;’ and that, ‘_on the 28th August 1298_, they set fire to some granaries in the neighbourhood of Ayr, and burned the English cantoned in them.’--Annals, I. 255, N. Here he refers to the relations of Arnold Blair and to Major, and produces three objections to the narrative. One of these is, that ‘Comyn, the younger of Badenoch, was the only man of the name of Comyn who had any interest in Galloway; and he was at that time of Wallace’s party. The other two are; that ‘Sir John Graham could have no share in the enterprise, for he was killed at Falkirk, 22d July 1298;’ and that ‘it is not probable that Wallace would have undertaken such an enterprise immediately after the discomfiture at Falkirk.’ Although it had been said by mistake, that Graham and Comyn were present, this could not invalidate the whole relation, for we often find that leading facts are faithfully narrated in a history, when there are considerable mistakes as to the persons said to have been engaged.

“But although our annalist refers both to Major and Blair, it is the latter only who mentions either the design of the visit paid to the west of Scotland, or the persons who are said to have been associates in it. The whole of Sir David’s reasoning rests on the correctness of a date, and of one given _only_ in the meagre remains ascribed to Arnold Blair. If his date be accurate, the transaction at Ayr, whatever it was, must have taken place thirty-seven days afterwards. Had the learned writer exercised his usual acumen here--had he not been resolved to throw discredit on this part of the history of Wallace--it would have been most natural for him to have supposed, that this event was post-dated by Blair. It seems, indeed, to have been long before the battle of Falkirk. Blind Harry narrates the former in his Seventh, the latter in his Eleventh Book. Sir David himself, after pushing the argument from the date given by Blair as far as possible, virtually gives it up, and makes the acknowledgment which he ought to have made before. ‘I believe,’ he says, ‘that this story _took its rise_ from the pillaging of the English quarters, about the time of the treaty of Irvine, in 1297, which, as being an incident of little consequence, I omitted in the course of this history.’ Here he refers to Hemingford, T. I. p. 123.

“Hemingford says, that ‘many of the Scots and men of Galloway had, in a hostile manner, made prey of their stores, having slain more than five hundred men, with women and children.’ Whether he means to say that this took place at Ayr, or at Irvine, seems doubtful. But here, I think, we have the nucleus of the story. The _barns_, according to the diction of Blind Harry, seem to have been merely ‘the English quarters,’ erected by order of Edward for the accommodation of his troops. Although denominated _barns_ by the Minstrel, and _horreas_ by Arnold Blair, both writers seem to have used these terms with great latitude, as equivalent to what are now called _barracks_. It is rather surprising, that our learned annalist should view the loss of upwards of five hundred men, besides women and children, with that of their property, ‘as an incident of little consequence,’ in a great national struggle.

“Major gives nearly the same account as Blair. Speaking of Wallace, he says, ‘Anglorum insignes viros apud _horrea_ Aerie residentes de nocte incendit, et qui a voraci flamma euaserunt ejus mucrone occubuerunt.’--Fol. lxx.

“There is also far more unquestionable evidence as to the cause of this severe retaliation, than is generally supposed. Lord Hailes has still quoted Barbour as an historian of undoubted veracity. Speaking of Crystal of Seton, he says--

“It wes gret sorow sekyrly, That so worthy persoune as he Suld on sic maner hangyt be. Thusgate endyt his worthynes. And off Crauford als Schyr Ranald wes, And Schyr Bryce als the Blar, _Hangyt in till a berne in Ar_.”

_The Bruce_, III. 260 v. &c.

“This tallies very well with the account given by the Minstrel.

“_Four thousand haill that nycht was in till Ayr. In gret bernyss, biggyt with out the toun, The justice lay, with mony bald barroun._”

_Wallace_, vii. 334.

“The testimony of the _Complaynt of Scotland_, a well-known national work, written A. D. 1548, concurs. Speaking of the king of England, the writer says:

“Ony of you that consentis til his fals conques of your cuntre, ye sal be recompenssit as your forbears var at the blac perliament at _the bernis of Ayre_, quhen kyng Eduard maid ane conuocatione of al the nobillis of Scotland at the toune of Ayre, vndir culour of faitht and concord, quha comperit at his instance, nocht heffand suspitione of his tresonabil consait. Than thai beand in his subiectione vndir culour of familiarite, he gart hang, cruelly and dishonestly, to the nummer of sexten scoir of the maist nobillis of the cuntre, tua and tua, ouer ane balk, the quhilk sextene scoir var cause that the Inglismen conquest sa far vithtin your cuntre.”--_Compl. Scotl._ p. 144.

“The author refers to this as a fact universally acknowledged among his countrymen, although, it must be recollected, no edition of the Life of Wallace was printed for more than twenty years after this work was written. He introduces it again, as a proof of treachery and cruelty, which still continued to excite national feeling.

“Doubtles thai that ar participant of the cruel inuasione of Inglismen contrar thar natyue cuntraye, ther cragges sal be put in ane mair strait yoik nor the Samnetes did to the Romans, as Kyng Eduard did til Scottis men at the blac parlament at _the bernis of Ayr_, quhen he gart put the craggis of sexten scoir in faldomis of cordis, tua and tua, ouer ane balk, of the maist principal of them,” &c.--_Ibid._ p. 159, 160.

D.

MEMOIR OF BISHOP ANTHONY BEK.

Page 205.

For the following biographical notice of this ecclesiastical warrior, who, in ambition, power, and talents for political intrigue, may justly be considered as the Cardinal Wolsey of his day, we are indebted to a work of Nicholas Harris Nicolas, Esq., a name sufficient to recommend it to all who have any taste for antiquarian research.

“Of the period of Bek’s birth we have no precise information. He was a younger son of Walter Bek, Baron of Eresby; and in the 54th Henry III. 1270, was signed with the cross on going to the Holy Land with Prince Edward,[122] who nominated him one of the executors of his will, which was dated at Acre in June 1272.[123] In 3rd Edward I. 1275, being then a clerk, he was appointed Constable of the Tower of London;[124] and was constituted Archdeacon of Durham as early as 1273.[125] He was present in the Parliament at Westminster at the feast of St Michael, 6th Edward I. 1278, when the King of Scotland did homage to Edward;[126] and on the 9th July 1283, was elected Bishop of Durham. The ceremony of his consecration was performed by the Archbishop of York, in the presence of the King, on the 9th of January following; but at his enthronization at Durham on Christmas eve, a dispute arose between the official of the Archbishop of York and the Prior of Durham, as to the right of performing the office, which the bishop-elect terminated, by receiving the mitre from the hands of his brother, Thomas Bek, Bishop of St David’s. On the festival of St John the Evangelist, he presented the church with two pieces of rich embroidery, wrought with the history of the Nativity.

“It is impossible to state even the principal occasions on which Bishop Bek was conspicuous; it being perhaps sufficient to observe, that scarcely a single event of any importance took place during the reign of Edward the First, whether of war or diplomacy, but in which he was concerned. Several facts might be mentioned which tend to prove the influence that he at one time possessed over the mind of his sovereign. According to Fordun, it was by his advice that Edward supported the claim of Baliol instead of that of Bruce,[127] in the competition for the crown of Scotland; and he was frequently a mediator, not only between the King and his barons, but between his Majesty and his children. The Prelate’s ambition was equal to his resources; and both were evinced by the splendour of his equipage, and the number of his followers. If his biographer,[128] from whom Mr Surtees has derived a great part of his statements, may be believed, the retinue with which he attended the King in his wars amounted to twenty-six standard-bearers of his household;[129] one hundred and forty knights, and five hundred horse; and one thousand foot marched under the consecrated banner of St Cuthbert, which was borne by Henry de Horncestre, a monk of Durham. The Bishop’s wealth and power soon, however, excited the suspicion of the King; and the process of ‘quo warranto’ was applied, with the view of reducing them. His temporalities were seized, but he recovered them after an appeal to Parliament; and his palatine rights were confirmed in the most ample manner by the Justices Itinerant in 1293. From the proceedings in Parliament in the 21st Edward I., it seems, that on the Wednesday before the feast of St James the Apostle, in the 20th Edward I., namely, on the 23d July 1292, at Derlyngton, and afterwards at Alverton, and other places, the Archbishop of York had formerly excommunicated the Bishop of Durham, he being then engaged in the King’s service in the North; for which offence the Archbishop was imprisoned, but pardoned on paying a fine of 4000 merks.[130] Bek’s frequent quarrels with the Prior of Durham, whom he had of his own authority deprived and ejected, soon afforded a pretext for the royal interference; and a formidable attack was afterwards made upon his possessions. About the same time he espoused the popular cause by joining the Earl Marshal and the Earl of Hereford against the crown; and when charged by the King with deserting his interests, he boldly replied, ‘That the Earls laboured for the advantage and honour of the sovereign and his realm, and therefore he stood with them, and not with the King, against them.’ In the meanwhile he obeyed a second citation to Rome, for having deprived the Prior, where he appeared with his usual magnificence, and triumphed over his adversaries, by obtaining from the Pontiff a confirmation of his visitorial superiority over the convent. By quitting the realm without license, he exposed himself to the enmity of the crown; and his vassals availed themselves of his absence to urge their complaints. The Palatinate was seized into the King’s hands; and, in July 1301, the temporalities of the see were committed to the custody of Robert de Clifford. In the parliament in the following year, having effected a reconciliation with his vassals, and submitted to the King, the bishop obtained a restitution of his temporalities. But Bek’s intractable spirit soon involved him in fresh disputes with the Prior; and being accused of having infringed on the dignity of the crown, by some instruments which he had obtained from Rome, his temporalities were, in December 1305, once more seized; and the King seems to have used every exertion, not only to humiliate the haughty prelate, but to divest his see of some part of its extensive territories. From this time until Edward’s demise, he continued under the royal displeasure; but no sooner was Edward the Second on the throne, than he added to his power and titles, by procuring the dignity of King of the Isle of Man, together with ample restitution of what had been arrested from him by the late monarch.

“It is here, however, necessary to refer to the notice of the Bishop in the poem.” (See Siege of Carlaverock). Mr Surtees has evidently adopted the translation given of it in the ‘Antiquarian Repertory,’ where the words ‘uns plaitz’ are rendered ‘a wound,’ as he says, ‘the Bishop of Durham is described in the roll of Carlaverock, as being absent from the siege on account of a wound; whereas the passage is presumed to have meant, that the Bishop was detained in England in consequence of a treaty on some other public transaction. It appears that he then sent the King one hundred and sixty men-at-arms; and at the battle of Falkirk, he is stated to have led the second division of the English army with thirty-nine banners.[131] In the 35th Edward I., being sent to Rome with other Bishops and the Earl of Lincoln, to present some vessels of gold to the Pope from the King, his Holiness conferred on him the title of Patriarch of Jerusalem.[132] Thus, Mr Surtees remarks, on receiving the sovereignty of the Isle of Man, ‘his haughty spirit was gratified by the accumulated dignities of Bishop, Count Palatine, Patriarch and King.’ The last political transaction of his life was his union with the Earl of Lancaster, against Piers de Gaveston, in 1310; and, on the 3d of March following, 1310-11, he expired at his manor of Eltham in Kent.

The character of Anthony Bek is given with more elegance than truth in the Poem. ‘The mirror of Christianity’ is an emphatic allusion to his piety and virtue; and his wisdom, eloquence, temperance, justice and chastity, are as forcibly pointed out, as the total absence of pride, covetousness and envy, for which he is said to have been distinguished. But this is rather a brilliant painting, than a true portrait; for, if all the other qualities which are there ascribed to him be conceded, it is impossible to consider that humility formed any part of his merits. His latest biographer, Mr Surtees, has however described him with so much discrimination and elegance, that his words are transferred to these pages, because they form the most appropriate conclusion of this sketch, and powerfully tend to redeem its many imperfections.

“‘The Palatine power reached its highest elevation under the splendid pontificate of Anthony Bek. Surrounded by his officers of state, or marching at the head of his troops, in peace or in war, he appeared as the military chief of a powerful and independent franchise. The court of Durham exhibited all the appendages of royalty; nobles addressed the Palatine sovereign kneeling; and, instead of menial servants, knights waited in his presence-chamber and at his table, bare-headed and standing. Impatient of control, whilst he asserted an oppressive superiority over the convent, and trampled on the rights of his vassals, he jealously guarded his own Palatine franchise, and resisted the encroachments of the crown when they trenched on the privileges of the aristocracy.[133] When his pride or his patriotism had provoked the displeasure of his sovereign, he met the storm with firmness; and had the fortune or the address to emerge from disgrace and difficulty, with added rank and influence. His high birth gave him a natural claim to power; and he possessed every popular and splendid quality which could command obedience, or excite admiration. His courage and constancy were shown in the service of his sovereign. His liberality knew no bounds; and he regarded no expense, however enormous, when placed in competition with any object of pleasure or magnificence.[134] Yet, in the midst of apparent profusion, he was too prudent ever to feel the embarrassment of want. Surrounded by habitual luxury, his personal temperance was as strict as it was singular; and his chastity was exemplary, in an age of general corruption.[135] Not less an enemy to sloth[136] than to intemperance, his leisure was devoted either to splendid progresses[137] from one manor to another, or to the sports of the field; and his activity and temperance preserved his faculties of mind and body vigorous, under the approach of age and infirmity.

“‘In the munificence of his public works he rivalled the greatest of his predecessors. Within the bishopric of Durham he founded the colleges of Chester and Lanchester, erected towers at Gainford and Coniscliff, and added to the buildings of Alnwick and Barnard Castles. He gave Evenwood manor to the convent, and appropriated the vicarage of Morpeth to the chapel which he had founded at Auckland.[138] In his native county of Lincoln, he endowed Alvingham priory, and built a castle at Somerton.[139] In Kent he erected the beautiful manor-house of Eltham whose ruins still speak the taste and magnificence of its founder. Notwithstanding the vast expenses incurred in these and other works, in his contests with the crown and with his vassals, in his foreign journeys, and in the continued and excessive charges of his household, he died wealthier than any of his predecessors, leaving immense treasures in the riches of the age; gallant horses, costly robes, rich furniture, plate and jewels.’[140]

“Anthony Bek was the first prelate of Durham who was buried within the walls of the cathedral. His predecessors had been restrained from sepulture within the sacred edifice by a reverential awe for the body of the holy confessor;[141] and on this occasion, from some motive of superstition, the corpse was not allowed to enter the doors, although a passage was broken through the wall[142] for its reception, near the place of interment. The tomb was placed in the east transept, between the altars of St Adrian and St Michael, close to the holy shrine. A brass, long since destroyed, surrounded the ledge of the marble, and bore the following inscription:

“Presul magnanimus Antonius hic jacet imus Jerusalem strenuus Patriarcha fuit, quod opimus Annis vicenis regnabit sex et j plenis Mille trecentenis Christo moritur quoque denis.”

“The Bishop’s heirs were found, by the inquisition held after his decease, to be his nephew, Robert de Willoughby, son of Alice his eldest sister; and his nephew John de Harcourt, son of his second sister Margaret.”

E.

EXPEDITION TO THE WEST HIGHLANDS.

Page 216.

In this account of the expedition to Loch-Awe, the statements, as the reader will perceive, are all taken from the pages of the Minstrel. The writer was induced to do so, not from the circumstance of Henry being the only ancient author who has recorded the transaction, but from the evidence of its truth, which may be found in the traditions of the country where the conflict took place. These have already been alluded to in the Introduction. It may not, however, be improper to state, that “_Uagh Mhac Phadan_,” or M’Fadyan’s cave, can still be pointed out by old Highlanders, who add, on the authority of tradition, that the determination with which the Irish leader defended himself was such, that his pursuers had to throw down bundles of burning furze into the cave before he surrendered. The rock on which his head was afterwards set up, still goes by the name of _Beinnean Mhac Phadan_, the _Peak or Pinnacle of MacFadyan_. In short, the localities of the country are so correctly described, particularly the scene of the battle, which appears to have been on the comparatively open space between _Crag-an-àradh_ and the rock of _Bradhir_ or _Brandir_, as it is called, for the convenience of the English reader, that few who have had an opportunity of contrasting the scenery with the account of the Minstrel, can resist the impression of its being either the work, or translated from the work, of an eyewitness. This, taken in connection with the evidence afforded by the coins of Edward I., which from time to time have been found about the ruins of Ardchattan priory, and which have also been previously adverted to in the “Introduction,” ought to be pretty conclusive as to the occurrence narrated.

This subject has already engaged the attention of a literary gentleman[143] of talent and intelligence, who has handled the matter with no small degree of acumen. The following extracts may therefore be interesting to those readers who have not had opportunities for personal investigation.

“Blind Harrie has very particularly related the circumstances of MacPhadian’s proceedings; and his account so exactly coincides with the tradition and topography of the district where the facts are said to have been performed, that there can be little or no doubt of the truth of his narration.

“Loch-Awe, upon the banks of which the scene of action took place, is thirty-four miles in length. The north side is bounded by wide muirs and inconsiderable hills, which occupy an extent of country from twelve to twenty miles in breadth, and the whole of this space is enclosed as by a circumvallation. Upon the north it is barred by Loch-Eitive, on the south by Loch-Awe, and on the east by the deep and dreadful pass of Brandir, through which an arm of the latter lake opens at about four miles from its eastern extremity, and discharges the river Awe into the former. The pass is about three miles in length; its east side is bounded by the almost inaccessible steeps which form the base of the vast and rugged mountain of Cruächan. The craigs rise in some places almost perpendicularly from the water; and, for their chief extent, show no space nor level at their feet, but a rough and narrow edge of stony beach. Upon the whole of these cliffs grew a thick and interwoven wood of all kinds of trees, both timber, dwarf, and coppice; no track existed through the wilderness, but a winding path which sometimes crept along the precipitous height, and sometimes descended in a straight pass along the margin of the water. Near the extremity of the defile, a narrow level opened between the water and the craig; but a great part of this, as well as the preceding steeps, was formerly enveloped in a thicket, which showed little facility to the feet of any but the martins and the wild cats. Along the west side of the pass, lies a wall of sheer and barren craigs: from behind they rise in rough, uneven, and heathy declivities, out of the wide muir before mentioned, between Loch-Eitive and Loch-Awe; but in front they terminate abruptly in the most frightful precipices, which form the whole side of the pass, and descend at one fall into the water which fills its trough. At the north end of this barrier, and at the termination of the pass, lies that part of the cliff which is called Craiganuni: at its foot the arm of the lake gradually contracts its water to a very narrow space, and at length terminates at two rocks (called the rocks of Brandir), which form a straight channel, something resembling the lock of a canal. From this outlet there is a continual descent toward Loch-Eitive, and from hence the river Awe pours out its current in a furious stream, foaming over a bed broken with holes, and cumbered with masses of granite and whinstone.

“If ever there was a bridge near Craiganuni in ancient times, it must have been at the rocks of Brandir. From the days of Wallace to those of General Wade, there were never passages of this kind; but in places of great necessity, too narrow for a boat, and too wide for a leap, even then they were but an unsafe footway, formed of the trunk of trees, placed transversely from rock to rock, unstripped of their bark, and destitute of either plank or rail. For such a structure there is no place in the neighbourhood of Craiganuni, but at the rocks above-mentioned. In the lake, and on the river, the water is far too wide; but, at the strait, the space is not greater than might be crossed by a tall mountain pine, and the rocks on either side are formed by nature like a pier. That this point was always a place of passage, is rendered probable by its facility, and the use of recent times. It is not long since it was the common gate of the country on either side the river and the pass. The mode of crossing is yet in the memory of people living, and was performed by a little currach moored on either side the water, and a stout coble fixed across the stream from bank to bank, by which the passengers drew themselves across, in the manner still practised in places of the same nature. It is no argument against the existence of a bridge in former times, that the above method only existed in ours, rather than a passage of that kind which might seem the more improved expedient. The contradiction is sufficiently accounted for, by the decay of timber in the neighbourhood. Of old, both oaks and firs of an immense size abounded within a very inconsiderable distance; but it is now many years since the destruction of the forests of Glen-Eitive and Glen-Urcha has deprived the country of all the trees of a sufficient size to cross the strait of Brandir; and it is probable, that the currach was not introduced till the want of timber had disenabled the inhabitants of the country from maintaining a bridge. It only further remains to be noticed, that at some distance below the rock of Brandir there was formerly a ford, which was used for cattle in the memory of people yet living. From the narrowness of the passage, the force of the stream, and the broken bed of the river, it was, however, a dangerous pass, and could only be attempted with safety at leisure, and by experience.

“Such is the topography of the country in which, tradition says, that Sir Niel Campbell made his retreat and refuge. It now remains to show, what correspondence there is between its features, and the relation given by Blind Harrie. The words of the Minstrel are as follows:

“Ye knycht Cambell maid gud defens for yi Till _Craigunyn_ with thre hunder he zeid, Yat strenth he held for all his[144] cruel deed, Syne brak ye _bryg_ quhar yai mycht not out pass Bot throuch a _furd_ quhar narow passage was Abandounly Cambell agayne yaim baid Fast upon _Avis_ yat was bathe deep and braid, Makfadzan was apon ye toyir syd, And yar on force behuffyt hym for to byd, For at ye furd _he durst nocht_ entir out, For gud Cambell mycht _set hym yan in dout_, Mak Fadzane socht, and a small passage fond Had he lasar he mycht pass off yat land Betwix a roch and ye gret wattir syd Bot four in frount na ma mycht gang or ryd.”