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.
“Had he passed round the west end of the lake, or crossed it westward of the Pass of Brandir, he would have entered that wide and open country which I have before described,—a country every where untenable, and so surrounded by natural barriers, that it would have been almost impossible for him to have evacuated it under the closeness of his pursuit. Craiganuni, which had been before him, would have been not only totally unserviceable to him, from the direction in which he entered; but its barriers, lying wholly in his rear, would have made it the most dangerous situation. Had he been beset in the moors, the multitude of his enemies had devoured him; had he been overtaken at the craig, his flight would have been cut off by the gulf below; and those who had fled from the sword would have been driven over the precipices, and plunged into the water. Had he escaped these alternatives of ruin, every hardship would have been presented to his retreat. The country round the pass was wild and barren, even to horror and desolation; and had he succeeded in gaining it with security, he must have pursued his flight, hopeless of reinforcement and straitened for subsistence. By the tactic upon which he acted, he not only avoided all the evils, but converted the whole of their disadvantages to the inconvenience of his enemy. The instant he had occupied Craiganuni, and broken down the bridge over the mouth of the river, he was inaccessible on every side, and possessed in his rear a tract of nearly three hundred square miles, wholly open to his operations, but secured from his enemies by the same barriers which rendered himself unapproachable. In front, the depth of the water, and the precipices of the pass, were an insurmountable barrier; on the north, Loch-Eitive continued the line of circumvallation from the sea to Beann Starabh; and on the south it was extended by Loch-Awe from Lorn to Glen-Urcha. Sir Niel was thus encompassed by a formidable barrier of seventy-three miles in circumference; and from the obstacles of this cordon, and the security of the wide space in his rear, he could at pleasure have evacuated his position under cover of the night, and have retreated, in unmolested security, to Loch-Fine, from whence he might have proceeded in his galleys to the coast of Airshire, and here joined himself with the successful associates of the late victorious Wallace.
“I have said nothing of the ford through the Awe, by which there was an approach to the position of Sir Niel, nor of the capability of MacPhadian, to have passed Loch-Eitive by means of his fleet; of the first, the enemy feared to avail himself from the danger of the passage, and the want of discipline among his troops; and from the second, he could have reaped little avail, since, in the consumption of time necessary to have brought round these vessels from the sea, Sir Niel might have abandoned his position, and in one night have made good his retreat beyond Loch-Awe.
“Thus baffled and out-manœuvred, MacPhadian not only failed in his object of offence, but found himself drawn into an intricate and desolate labyrinth, where his multitude encumbered themselves; the want of subsistence prevented him from remaining to blockade Sir Niel, and his ignorance of the clues of the place made it difficult to extricate himself by a retreat. In this exigence he was desirous of returning to Nether Loch-Awe, where there was abundance of cattle and game for the support of his men. At length he discovered a passage between the rocks and the water; the way was only wide enough for four persons to pass abreast; yet as they were not in danger of pursuit, they retired in safety, and effected their march to the south side of the lake.[146]
“Here we must leave Mac-Phadian, and return to Duncan of Lorn. In his youth the latter had been a school-companion of Wallace at Dundee; and he now determined to resort to him, and make use of their old acquaintance to prevail on the champion of Scotland to come to the assistance of Sir Niel Campbell. As soon, therefore, as Mac-Phadian had evacuated the Pass, Duncan descended from Craiganuni, and pursued his way for the Low country, attended only by a single follower, named Gillemichel. This faithful clansman was an aged man, but even in his age was still famous for an uncommon speed of foot,[147] and on their return performed good service for his master. When Duncan arrived in the Low country he found the Wallace at Dundaff, with Sir John the Græme. The patriot chieftain had just returned from the overthrow of the English in the Barns of Air and the city of Glasgow; and besides the friends and forces who had come to him upon those occasions, he had been joined by Malcolm, Earl of Lennox, and Richard of Lundi, who brought with them a considerable number of their followers. No sooner had Wallace heard the tidings of Duncan MacDougall, than he resolved to go to the aid of Sir Niel Campbell; and, assembling his force, he instantly set out upon his march. He directed his course by Stirling, either to gather increase of followers, or apprehensive of leaving behind him an English garrison on the threshold of the Highlands. The castle, however, was not a place to be taken in a day; and bent upon the destruction of Mac-Phadian, Wallace would not delay his march to pursue the siege in person, but, leaving the Earl of Lennox to carry on that service, he determined to push forward his expedition into Argyleshire. Having assembled his forces at the bridge of Stirling, and found them to amount to two thousand men, ‘worthi and wycht,’ he hastened forward on his way. Duncan of Lorn acted as his guide; and while they pursued their march, he sent forward his man Gillemichel to discover intelligence of the enemy. Blind Harrie proceeds to relate, that as the army proceeded, it became fatigued with its march, that a great part of the men and horses were incapable to continue their way with that speed which the urgency of the expedition required. Upon this Wallace determined to divide the weary from the strong, and to hasten forward with the latter only, and surprise the enemy before they could have the opportunity of choosing a position, where their superiority of numbers could be displayed to its advantage. For this purpose he divided his host into two bodies; the first, consisting of seven hundred men, he chose to haste forward with himself; and the second, which contained but five hundred, and which was spent with fatigue, he left in the rear to follow as well as they might. Before they continued their march Wallace again separated the first division into three companies; the first, consisting of one hundred men, his own chosen West country veterans, he led in person as the advance guard; the second, of the same numbers, he committed to Sir John the Græme; and the last, to the amount of five hundred, he gave to Richard of Lundi, with whom he joined Wallace of Richardtown, his cousin. After this disposition, the two grand divisions separated: that under the leading of Wallace hastened forward on its march, and, crossing the mountain in their front, lost sight of their feeble comrades. In Glen-Dochart they were met by Gillemichel the scout; with him came Sir Niel Campbell, who had escaped from Craiganuni, and at the head of his three hundred clansmen had hastened to join the approaching aid of Wallace.
“In this part of Blind Harrie’s poem there is an error, which throws some confusion upon the traces of the march of Wallace. It appears, however, to have been the fault of the transcriber or reciter, and I think may be satisfactorily explained. The mistake consists in the contradiction of the name of the place where the host of Wallace began to fail with fatigue, and of that in which it is said, that he afterwards met Sir Niel Campbell. The words of the poem are thus:—
“Be our party was passit Straithfulan,
Ye small fute folk began to irk ilk ane.”
Book vii. l. 763.
To which it is subsequently said,
“In Glendowchar yair spy met yaim agayne,
With lord Cambell,” &c.
Ib. l. 785.
“Straith-Phillan opens from the west end of Glen-Dochart towards the north-west; and consequently, as Wallace came from the south-east, it must have been the second of the two places in the succession of his march, and could not, as it stands in the poem, have been the first. I shall presently show, that there is every evidence from the narrative of the Minstrel, and the evidence of tradition, that Wallace did not pass through Straith-Phillan in any part of his march. The mention of the name, in this place, must therefore have been an error altogether, arising either from the carelessness of the transcriber, or from the confusion of two appellations, something similar in import. I am inclined to lean to the latter opinion. At the northern extremity of Straithearn, between the Glen and Loch-Earn, the mountains form a little amphitheatre, in the middle of which there is a small conical hill, once sacred to St Phillan, and still called by his name. Near its summit was a holy spring, distinguished also by the name of the apostle, and at its foot was a small cell of religious, formed originally by his disciples. It appears to me highly probable, that Wallace entered the Highlands by Straithearn; that it was at St Phillan’s Hill that his men became fatigued; and that it was this place which the reciter or transcriber of Blind Harrie’s poem confounded with Straith-Phillan. This supposition is much supported by the correspondence between the circumstances mentioned by the Minstrel, respecting the march of Wallace, and the route between Straith-Earn and Glen-Dochart. A few miles north of St Phillan’s Hill, the old and short track of the country emerges from the level side of Loch-Earn, and, passing over the transverse mountains at its extremity, enters into Glen-Dochart, at the foot of Bean Mòr, and near the eastern extremity of the lake.
“This was the common Pass used of old by the Highlanders, before the construction of the roads. It is a wild and pathless track, but is still used by shepherds, and is shorter than the modern ‘Rad mòr an righ’[148] by some miles. The mention which Blind Harrie makes of the march of Wallace, after the separation from his weary men, agrees very much with this path, and its direction:—
“Yus Wallace ost began to tak ye hycht,
Our a montayne sone passit off yar sycht.
In Glendowchar yair spy met yaim agayne
With lord Cambell, yan was our folk rycht fayne.”
Book vii. l. 783.
“The correspondence is made still more near by the hint which is given of the spot where the men of Wallace met Sir Niel Campbell. It appears to have happened immediately upon their entering Glen-Dochart; and, after having described the meeting of the two parties, when the Minstrel tells us, that they resumed their march, he says—
“By Louthdochyr full sodynlye yaim drew.”
Ib. l. 792.
“From this it would appear, that Wallace entered the glen near the extremity of the lake, and this is the exact point where the mountain path enters from Loch-Earn.
“From this period of the poem to the conclusion of the episode of MacPhadian, the relation of the Minstrel is clear and consistent; and, by the aid of the tradition of the country, the route pursued by Wallace may be well identified with the localities of its existent topography. The oral account, handed down in Argyleshire, states, that at the coming of Wallace, MacPhadian and his host were posted in the northern extremity of the Pass of Brandir; and that they were there attacked and overthrown by Sir William and the Campbells. It will be found, that this account is much confirmed by the correspondence between the nature of the country from Glen-Dochart to Loch-Awe, and the particulars of the route described by Blind Harrie, as having been pursued by Wallace from the latter place to the hold where he encountered MacPhadian: it is still farther avouched by the exact conformity between the description of the scene of battle in the poem, and that marked as its site by the tradition. Immediately after passing Loch-Dochart, and consequently leaving that glen, the Minstrel describes the host of Wallace as entering a moss of such an extent and difficulty, that it prevented the farther march of the horses, and obliged the men to dismount and pursue their way on foot.
“Yan Wallace ost upon yair fute yai lycht,
Yair hors yai left yocht yai war neuir so wycht:
For moss and crag yai mycht na langer dre
Yan Wallace said quha gangs best let se.”
Book vii. l. 803.
“A short distance beyond the west end of Glen-Dochart, there is a high and wide tract of moss and moor, called ‘The Churan Beag,’ which occupies the most considerable extent of the space between Glen-Dochart and Glen-Urcha, the entrance to Loch-Awe. It is difficult to conceive a more desolate spot, nor one which could more correspond with the moss noticed by Blind Harrie. Its whole extent is a vast waste of swamps, gullies, and broken peat-bags; and its outlets and entrances are by rugged and steep declivities, embarrassed with fragments of rocks, and torn into vast chasms by the torrents which rise on the moss above. Through this miserable region lies the shortest path from Glen-Dochart to Glen-Urcha; and though impassable for horses, yet, in the olden time, when these were little used by the Highlanders, it was the most common thoroughfare between the above-mentioned places, and is still used, on account of its brevity, by the shepherds of the country, and foot-travellers who require expedition. It is several miles shorter than the way by Straith-Phillan and Glen-Lochie; for this reason, and also for its utter solitude, it is highly probable that it should have been the route chosen by Wallace in preference to the other. In addition to the proofs offered in its favour, by the correspondence of its features with those of the road mentioned by Blind Harrie, there is the negative confirmation, that no place of the same nature occurs within the neighbourhood of Glen-Dochart, in any direction by which it is probable that the march of Wallace could have been destined. For this reason, it is, as I have before hinted, impossible that he could have passed through Straith-Phillan; for in the whole way from Glen-Dochart to Glen-Urcha by that road, there is neither moss nor muir, but plain straith and narrow glen. From all these circumstances, it seems very conclusive, that it was through the moss of ‘the Churan Beag’ that Wallace took his march, after his junction with Sir Niel Campbell in Glen-Dochart. But to return to the relation of the Minstrel.
“Previous to the entrance of Wallace upon the muir, he mentions that Gillemichel had been again sent forward to reconnoitre the route. He had not been long entered the moss, when he met a scout of MacPhadian, doubtless sent to discover the approach of Wallace. At the appearance of Gillemichel, the foeman fled; but his speed was not sufficient to enable him to outstrip the fleet foot of his pursuer, and he was overtaken and slain. Delivered from this danger of a discovery, the host of Wallace effected their march through the Churan in perfect secrecy, and reached the hold of MacPhadian before their approach was even known. It may, perhaps, be remarked, that the paucity of the Minstrel, in his relation of this part of the march of Wallace, is inconsistent with the description of the country through which tradition supposes it to have been made; since the poem makes no mention of the progress of the expedition through the intermediate space of ten miles, which lies between the Churan and the pass of Brandir, but, from declaring Wallace’s delivery from the moss, immediately proceeds to communicate his entrance to the hold, without taking any notice of his arrival on the shore of Loch-Awe. But it is to be observed, that, through the whole march of Wallace, it describes those situations only, the circumstances of which affect the incidents of the story. The space from the Churan being destitute of any feature dangerous or advantageous, and the grand interest of the episode being the hold of MacPhadian, the Minstrel appears to have been absorbed in that object, and to have passed without regard the intervening way. This is palpably the fact, by the certain evidence, that, wherever the post of MacPhadian was situated, there was between its entrance and the moss passed by Wallace, a space of water which has not been mentioned by the Minstrel.
* * * * *
“Then Wallace said quha gangs best let se,
Throuchout ye moss deliverly yai zeid,
Syne tuk ye hauld quharof yai had maist dreid,
Endlong ye schoir ay four in front yai past,” &c.
Book vii. l. 806.
“From this notice of the shore, it is here evident that Wallace arrived on the banks of some water immediately previous to entering the position of his enemy, and that Blind Harrie has neglected to mention the circumstance. His omission of the mention of Loch-Awe in his description of the march of Wallace, is therefore no objection that the latter was not made in the route affirmed by tradition.
“From the arrival of Wallace in the hold of MacPhadian, the account of Blind Harrie corresponds entirely with the accounts of the oral record, and the nature of the pass of Brandir. The place in which the old people of the country point out the site of the battle, is that narrow stripe of open space which lies near the northern extremity of the pass, between the foot of Cruächan and the narrowing of the lake to the rock of Brandir. The Minstrel coincides with this account.
“Endlong ye schoir ay four in front yai past,
Quhill yai within assemblyt at ye last.”
Ib. l. 810.
“From this narrowness of the column, and the number of Wallace’s men, the whole host could not have entered within the pass, till the head had arrived as far as the space before mentioned. The description of the straitened situation of the position also agrees with the pass of Brandir:
“Her is na gait to fle zone pepil can,
Bot rockis heich and wattir depe and wan.”
Book vii. l. 814.
“As soon as the men of Wallace arrived at the post of their enemies, they fell upon them with the utmost fury. Their scout having been slain, as before mentioned, MacPhadian’s followers were completely surprised and taken at disarray. Undismayed, however, by this ill fortune, they snatched up their arms, and rushed to defend the pass with the boldest resolution. At the first onset, the Scots bore back their enemies over five acres of ground; and Wallace, with his iron mace, made a fearful havoc among the enemy. Encouraged, however, by MacPhadian, the Irish came to the rescue; the battle thickened with more stubborn fury; and for two hours was maintained, with such obstinate eagerness on both sides, that neither party had any apparent advantage; and, says the Minstrel, the fiercest found ‘eneuch’ of fighting. At length the cause, and the valour of Wallace, prevailed. The Irish gave way and fled; and the Scots of their party threw down their arms, and, kneeling for mercy, Wallace commanded them to be spared for their birth sake, but urged forward the pursuit upon the Irish. Pent in by the rocks and the water, the latter had but little hope in flight. Many were overtaken and slain as they endeavoured to climb the craigs; and two thousand were driven into the lake and drowned. MacPhadian, with fifteen men, fled to a cave, and hoped to have concealed himself till the pursuit was over; but Duncan of Lorn having discovered his retreat, pursued and slew him with his companions; and having cut off the head of the leader, brought it to Wallace, and set it upon a stone high in one of the craigs, as a trophy of the victory.”
·.· Before the writer met with the work whence the preceding extract is made, he entertained the belief that he was the first who had studied the topography and tradition of this romantic district, with a view of illustrating the labours of the Minstrel, and hence bringing into notice a portion of our history hitherto overlooked by all, save that ill-requited author. Under this impression, he was arranging the materials he had collected, when he became aware of his being anticipated by a more able hand. On comparing his notes with the details of Mr Allan, the similarity of their views appeared too striking to be supposed accidental; and unwilling to incur the charge of appropriating to himself the merits of another, he has suppressed his own observations, in deference to the ingenious author of the “Bridal of Caölchairn.”
F.
MEMOIRS OF JOHN, EARL OF WARREN—LORD HENRY DE PERCY—AND LORD ROBERT DE CLIFFORD.
I. WARREN.
[Page 220.]
It is presumed the writer will not be far wrong, if he anticipates a little curiosity on the part of the reader, respecting the personal history of so conspicuous a character as the conqueror of Dunbar; and as our English neighbours consider it a matter of difficulty, for a Scotsman to be impartial when the conduct of an enemy of his country happens to be the subject of his investigation, we shall, without either denying or admitting the truth of this allegation, endeavour to escape from the charge, by giving the following biographical notice in the elegant language of one of their own countrymen:[149]
“John Earl of Warren and Surrey was the son of William Earl of Warren and Surrey, by his second wife, Maud, widow of Hugh Bigot, Earl of Norfolk, and sister and coheiress of Anselm Marshal, Earl of Pembroke. In 1240, being then five years of age, he succeeded his father in his dignities. In 1247 he married Alice, daughter of Hugh le Brun, Count of March, and uterine sister of King Henry the Third; and in the following year, though he could not have been above thirteen years of age, he is said to have attended the Parliament which met at London in the octaves of the Purification. During the reign of Henry the Third, he is stated to have filled those stations which, from his high rank, naturally devolved upon him, and at the battle of Lewes he served in the van of the royal army with Prince Edward; but, together with the Earl of Pembroke, disgracefully deserted him at the commencement of the action, and fled first to Pevensey Castle, and from thence to France. Their flight is thus quaintly alluded to by Peter de Langtoft:[150]
“The Erle of Warenne, I wote, he scaped over the se,
And Sir Hugh Bigote als with the Erle fled he.
“In May following he returned, and claimed the restitution of his possessions, which, notwithstanding his treachery to the Prince, the rebellious Barons had declared to have been forfeited. The refusal of his demand induced him once more to change sides, and he confederated with the Earl of Gloucester for the restoration of the King’s power, and was present with the royal forces at the battle of Evesham. Thus his interest, rather than his honour, seems to have been his sole rule of action; and unfortunately, such conduct was then far too general to entail upon those who adopted it either punishment or reproach. In 1268 he had a dispute with Henry Earl of Lincoln; and about the same time became involved in a serious affray with Alan Lord Zouche, relative to some lands. This affair was attended with great violence; for, finding that he must submit to the judgment of a court of law, he abused his adversary and his son in the strongest terms, and then assaulted them in such an outrageous manner in Westminster-Hall, that he nearly killed the baron, and severely wounded his son. Neither his power nor influence could save the Earl from the vengeance of the laws he had so flagrantly violated; and, though he retired to his Castle at Ryegate, he was closely pursued by Prince Edward with a strong force, and, finding that opposition would be useless, he met the Prince on foot, and implored the royal clemency with great humility. For his offence he was fined ten thousand marks; but this sum was afterwards reduced to eight thousand four hundred, and he was permitted to pay it by annual instalments of two hundred marks each.
“Immediately after the solemnization of the funeral of Henry the Third at Westminster, the Earl of Warren and the Earl of Gloucester proceeded to the high altar, and swore fealty to his son and successor, King Edward the First. In the 3d Edward I. he received that monarch at his castle of Ryegate in so honourable a manner, upon his return from Gascony, that Edward was induced to remit him one thousand marks of the sum which he had been fined for the affair with Lord le Zouche.
“The next circumstance recorded of the Earl, is one in which that proud and sturdy spirit for which he was celebrated, was displayed in a manner so consonant to the feelings of the present day, that this nobleman has always been a favourite character in English biography; and the pencil was on one occasion employed to perpetuate his independent conduct. After the enactment of the statute of quo warranto, the Earl of Warren was, under its provisions, questioned by what title he held his lands; to which inquiry, first unsheathing an old sword, he is said to have replied, ‘Behold, my Lords, here is my warranty. My ancestors coming into this land with William the Bastard, did obtain their lands by the sword; and with the sword I am resolved to defend them against whomsoever that shall endeavour to dispossess me. For that King did not himself conquer the land and subdue it, but our progenitors were sharers and assistants therein.’
“In the 23d Edward I., the Castle of Bamburgh was intrusted to his custody; and, in the 24th Edward I., he commanded the forces sent to reduce Dunbar Castle, which, after a siege of three days, surrendered to him; and having met the Scotch army which came to its relief, he defeated them on Friday the 27th April, and pursued them several miles from the field of battle, when the enemy sustained a loss of 10,000 men. Soon after this event, the Earl was appointed Regent of Scotland; and in the following year was constituted general of all the English forces north of the Trent. But his previous good fortune now deserted him; and his army sustained a signal overthrow at the battle of Stirling, in September 1297.
“His misfortune did not, however, lessen him in Edward’s esteem, for he was immediately afterwards reappointed to the command of the English forces; and, in the 28th Edward I., was made Governor of Hope Castle, in the county of Derby. In that year, also, he commanded the second squadron at the siege of Carlaverock, at which time he must have been about sixty-five years of age.
“In the 29th Edward I., the Earl was appointed, jointly with the Earl of Warwick and others, to treat with the agents of the King of France, relative to a peace between England and Scotland; and in the same year he was a party to the letter from the barons to Pope Boniface VIII., in which he is only styled “Comes Warenne,” though on his seal he is also properly called Earl of Surrey.[151] On the 5th calends of October, 32 Edward I., i. e. 27th September 1304, being then, according to Peter de Langtoft,[152] employed in Scotland, he died.
“The moneth of September yolden was Strivelyn,
Edward may remembre the travaille and the pyn.
With many grete encumbre of in hard stoure,
At Brustwick opon Humbre there he mad sojoure.
Sir Jon of Warenne that ilk tyme gan deie,
His body was redy then in grave for to leie,
After the enterment the King tok his way,
To the south,” &c.
“But according to the registry of the Priory of Lewes, the Earl died that day at Kennington, having, says Dugdale, been Earl of Surrey no less than fifty-four years; though, as he succeeded his father in 1240, it is evident he must have borne that title sixty-four years. He was buried in the midst of the pavement, in the quire of the Abbey of Lewes, before the high altar, and the following epitaph was engraved upon his tomb.
“Vous qe passez on bouche close.
Priez pur cely ke cy repose:
En vie come vous estis jadis fu,
Et vous tiel serretz come je su.
Sire Johan Count de Gareyn gyst ycy.
Dieu de sa alme eit mercy:
Ky pur sa alme priera,
Trois mill jours de pardon avera.”
“Of the subject of this article, but little that is favourable to his memory can be said; though his faults, or more properly his vices, were those of the age in which he lived. His treachery at the battle of Lewes has, to apply the beautiful expression of a distinguished statesman of the present day, ‘left indelible stains upon his character, which all the laurels of’ Dunbar ‘cannot cover, nor its blood wash away;’ whilst his subsequent conduct was invariably marked by a turbulent and intractable spirit. Not only was he frequently embroiled in disputes both with his compeers and his sovereign, but, with almost unparalleled hardihood, he dared, in a court of justice, to use personal violence towards a baron of the realm. That he should acquire renown in the field, and consequently become possessed of the King’s esteem, is perfectly consistent with that impetuous temper for which he is celebrated. Bravery is, however, but one redeeming trait in a picture, where all besides is dark and repulsive; and even the bold answer relative to his right to his lands, when properly considered, affords no room for praise; for the same resolute opposition to such an inquiry would, there is no doubt, be as readily evinced to defend any part of his property, if it had been acquired by the most flagrant injustice on his part, instead of on that of his ancestors.
“A proof of the estimation in which the Earl was held by Edward the First, is afforded, in Dugdale’s opinion, by the fact, that the King issued precepts, directed to the Bishops of Canterbury and London, and to several Abbots, commanding them to cause masses to be said for his soul; but this testimony of the royal consideration might have arisen from the near connection between the Earl and his Majesty, as is shown by the annexed table:—
King John == Isabel, daughter, and heiress == Hugh le Brun,
| of Aymer, Count of | Count of March,
| Angoulesme. | 2d husband.
+----+ +---+
| |
King Henry III. == Alice == John Earl of
| | Warren.
+----------+ +
|
King Edward I.
|
+
“By the said Alice le Brun, who died on the 9th February 1291, the Earl of Warren had issue, William, who died in his father’s lifetime, leaving his wife enceinte with John, his son and heir, who succeeded his grandfather in his honours. Alianor, who married, first, Henry Lord Percy, by whom she had Henry Lord Percy, spoken of in the poem, (i.e. Caerlaverock Castle), as the Earl’s ‘nevou;’ and, secondly, the son of a Scotch Baron; and Isabel, wife of John Baliol, King of Scotland.”[153]