Chapter XVI: Appendix: A (1)

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.”

Book vii. Chap. iv. (Edin. Edit. 1758.)

The correspondence between the above description and the account which I have before given of the topography of the Pass of Brandir, must be evident to every examiner. But the identity of that place and the one mentioned in the poem, is confirmed to a degree of certainty; first, by the fact, that such a correspondence can be found in no other part of the neighbouring districts; and, secondly, by the mention which is made in the description of the poem, of names which _now_ exist in the appellation of the place to which it is supposed to apply. ‘Avis’ is well known to have been the ancient name of Loch Awe,[145] and is often met with in old poems which make mention of that lake; and Cragunyn is clearly but a mis-spelling of ‘Craiganuni,’ the name of the rocks at the extremity of the Pass of Brandir. The error is merely owing to the ignorance of the transcribers of the poem, who did not understand Gaëlic orthography. Except by persons very competently masters of the language of the country, there is scarcely a name in the Highlands more correctly written at the present day.

“It is easy to show the solitude of the correspondence between Blind Harry’s description of the position of Sir Niel, and the topography of the Pass of Brandir. In the eighth line of the passage above quoted, it is said, that when the Campbell had gained the craig to which he retreated, he ‘baid’ (abode) fast upon Loch-Avis. From whence it is plain, that this post was immediately above the shore of Loch-Awe. In the brief notices of MacPhadian’s situation at the same period, it is equally evident, that he was entangled in a narrow and dangerous pass, bounded on one side by rocks, and on the other side by the lake. It is expressly said that he was on the opposite side from the Campbells. The water was then between them, and yet their positions were communicable by a bridge and a ford. In the whole sixty-eight miles, which form the circuit of Loch-Awe, there is not a spot where these circumstances could have existed except in the Pass of Brandir. On no part of the shore is there a pass of the nature and difficulty implied in Blind Harry’s notices of MacPhadian’s embarrassment except there. Neither is there any part of the lake which could be interposed between two bodies of men, and yet rendered evadable by a bridge, except the arm which terminates in the river Awe. In all other places the water is from one to three miles wide, and does not contract into any stream or inlet which could prolong its barrier sufficiently to prevent it from being turned, and yet admit of its being evaded by a passage of the nature above mentioned. But in the Pass of Brandir all these particulars are identically to be traced. The narrowing of the lake to an inconsiderable channel, and its prolongation into the river Awe, by which the former might be interposed as a barrier, and yet evaded by an immediate crossing; the bridge mentioned by Blind Harry as having existed at the foot of Craigunyn, and the probability that one formerly did exist in the corresponding spot of Craiganuni; the ford described as having been the only remaining communication in the separating water, its dangerous character, and the actual being of a pass of the same nature, and the same relative position in the water of Awe, all give the strongest evidence of the truth of the Minstrel’s relation, and the application of the scene which he has described. Having then established so much from the circumstances of the poem and the nature of the country, we may draw a clear deduction of the proceedings and motives of Sir Neil Campbell previous to his entering Craiganuni.

“Allowing that this spot was the place to which that chief retreated from MacPhadian, it follows as a necessary consequence, from the situation of the latter at the breaking of the bridge, that he must have made his pursuit round the east end of Loch-Awe; and it will very clearly appear, that he could not have chosen this direction, had he not been enticed into it by a similar route in the flight of the Campbell. The proof that MacPhadian did take the direction which I have advanced, is sufficiently decisive. We are expressly told, that when Sir Neil had gained Craiganuni, he was stopped in his pursuit on the opposite, or _east_ side of the water beneath. Now, as he possessed no vessels on Loch-Awe, he could not have gained this side of the arm of the water which runs under Craiganuni, had he not come to it by encircling the east end of the whole lake, which is only four miles distant. The conviction of this fact leads decisively to discover the march of Sir Neil. It is perfectly evident that he must have entered the heights from the same side as that on which it is apparent MacPhadian endeavoured to follow him; for, had he proceeded to Craiganuni by the west end of the lake, or crossed the water any where west of the Pass of Brandir, his enemy could have had no motive in taking the eastern route. In the first instance, he would have marched in an opposite direction to those whom he was pursuing; and in the second, he would have taken a road, which, allowing it might have been the shortest, would have placed between him and his enemy an impassable barrier, and have entangled him in a strait and dangerous labyrinth, where his numbers would have become useless, his attacks impracticable, and his retreat dangerous. Among such difficulties, it is not to be supposed that MacPhadian would voluntarily and unnecessarily have hazarded his success and his safety; he could only, therefore, have been enticed into them, by the allurement of pursuing upon the footsteps of his enemies. The proceedings of Sir Neil are thus reduced to a degree of certainty, and leave no alternative from the circumstances which I have pointed out.

“He observed, that entered from the east, and having his enemy on that side, Craiganuni was the most inaccessible and advantageous hold in all Argyleshire; but that entered and attacked from the opposite direction, all the securities of the place were converted into dangers. Placed then on this quarter, it was only by a stratagem that he could win the desired advantage; and in prosecution of its attainment, he adopted the only plan which could have been unforeseen by his enemy, and carried into execution with a certainty of success. At the approach of MacPhadian into Nether Loch-Awe, he fled before him along the south side, and towards the east end of the lake. Drawn after him by the consciousness of superiority, and the facility of the pursuit, the Irish Captain followed him with no thought but the eagerness of capture.

“The advantage, however, of Sir Neil in point of time, was sufficient to prevent him from falling into his hands in the open district from Inch-Connel to Glen-Urcha; and suddenly turning the head of the lake, and circling towards the west, he dived down the Pass of Brandir, crossed the water, broke down the bridge, ascended the height, and threw between him and his pursuers, the craigs, the rivers, and the lakes. It was then that the plan of the chief was seen in all its superiority.