hinny, and Tyrbagger, and, though out of place, visible at Esslie the smaller. If we include the Auld Kirk of Tough as having only within the last twenty years or so been bereft of its Recumbent Stone, it is evident that this third type is the type of this district. In this third typical group, also, there exist remains of at least one interior stone-setting. The next result is, that in the circles having the Recumbent Stone, the position of that stone varies in its orientation from a point S.E. of the centre to S. and S.W. Further, its position in relation to the stones on the cir cumference is variable. In the great Auchquhorthies example it stands well within the circumference; in all the others, unless we except Esslie (the greater) as presenting difficulties not now lightly to be explained, the Recumbent Stone is placed on the circumference, though not always upon so well-defined a ridge as that upon which the free stones stand. Again, the intervals between the stones are far from regular; assuredly, they have not been placed with exact spacing, such as would have been employed if, e.g., we suppose that the circles were erected in mediaval times or by people influenced by post-Roman science. I have not yet found any intentional gaps between any two stones, for instance on the N.E. are 1 or the S. W. are; and, in addition to this, these circles exhibit a want of exactness in the relation of the two stones which mark the extremes of the main diameters. These diameters are in scarcely any instance ‘oriented' to any point of the compass as we understand the term. For even in such examples as possess two stones practically at the north and the south points, the line between them so rarely bisects the circle, that we may safely conclude that the position of the stones was accidental.

There does exist one feature, however, in several of the circles which the measurements of this survey emphasise: this is, that the stones rise in height as they approach the Recumbent Stone a feature already noted by the Rev. James Peter in the circle at Aikey Brae, Old Deer. (See Proc., xix. p. 375.) How far this rise in height is intentional, and

1 Mr A. L. Lewis, who has examined many stone circles, claims this as a feature directly connected with their use as astronomical observatories,

how far it is regular, are moot points, perhaps; but the evidence suggests that at anyrate the Recumbent Stone was of the highest importance, the four stones nearest being usually the largest and most prominent. What precise meaning or purpose, practical or symbolic, governed the placing of this particular stone, we are not yet in a position to explain; and the theories already so lavishly propounded appear to me so intercontradictory, and the majority of them to be built upon so very slim a foundation of fact, that we rise from a perusal of them, interested, possibly, but not convinced.

The types of stone circle found in the north-eastern portion of Scotland may, after all, be quite distinct from the types of those existing, say, in Inverness and Perthshire, or in Galloway; and without competent examination we cannot assume that their meaning and purpose and character are the same everywhere. Yet, so far as direct evidence has been obtained through rightly conducted excavations, the outstanding feature of all the Scottish stone circles that have been thus investigated is the presence within them of interments of the Bronze Age.2 Any other use or purpose of these stone-encircled areas has yet to be proved. And I would submit, that, with a view to the ascertainment of the over-ground phenomena,'3 waiving excavation in the meantime, the right method to be employed is to institute a complete survey of these fast vanishing remains, in order that we may become possessed of a foundation of facts as trustworthy as possible. As portions of this subject upon which we still want definite information, we may state these

That the Recumbent Stone was, e.g., the lintel of the doorway to a broch (Miss Maclagan's Hill Forts); that it was an altar upon which Druid priests offered human and other sacrifices (Stukeley, Aubrey, and their school); that the circles were Viking temples of Odin and Courts of Justice (Macculloch, Hibbert, Barry, and, alas! Sir Walter Scott); that they are but the rim-stones of Cairns (Lukis); that they were sun temples and observatories (Lewis and other writers).

We have no record of any excavation having been made in seven of the sites above described. But regarding eight other sites in which excavation was rightly conducted, we possess distinct descriptions of remains found; and these remains indicate burnt burials, sometimes in cists, at other times without cists.

Scotland in Pagan Times.

items: What is the geographical distribution of the true stone circle,
i.e., an area more or less circular enclosed by free standing pillar
stones? To what extent do circles of this type possess, within their
area, in addition (as I have shown many in the district under notice do
possess), one or more approximately circular stone settings? In what
proportion to the simple circles of free standing stones do the circles
with the Recumbent Stone stand? Is the interior of the circle some-
times on a higher level than the level of the ground outside of the
pillar stones, as notably at Craighead, and in a special manner at Tomna-
gorn? Is the feature of the rising in height of the pillar stones, as they
approach the Recumbent Stone, a constant one? In short, we require
definite information on the mere external details of the various types of
stone circles to such an extent as to render any attempt at making a
proper classification of them at present impossible.

TABULAR SUMMARY OF THE STONE CIRCLES ABOVE DESCRIBED.

Locality.

County.

Diameters.

Peculiar Features.

Relics found.

75 x 75

53 8" - 49

89 × 73 6′′
42 10" x 33"

159-79′′
90 × 20
80 × 70

33-33

61'× 56'

II.

NOTICE OF AN ORIGINAL LETTER OF INSTRUCTIONS FOR SIR WILLIAM FLEMING, BY KING CHARLES II., DATED AT BREDA, 22ND MAY 1650. By A. G. REID, F.S.A. Scot.

I lately purchased, at an auction sale in Edinburgh, an odd volume, being the 2nd of the Miscellany of the Maitland Club. In going over the Wigton Papers in that volume, I discovered an original paper bearing the superscription of King Charles II., entitled "Instruction for Sr William Fleming, Knt." "Given at Breda, th day of May 1650." It is of considerable historical interest. His Majesty states that he had heard a report of a fight between Lieutenant-General David Lesley and the Marquis of Montrose, wherein the forces of the Marquis were totally routed and defeated; and that on Sir William Fleming's arrival in Scotland, if he should find this to be the case, he should carefully conceal the letter directed to the Committee of Estates; but in the event of the news being untrue, the letter should be delivered. These instructions do not form part of the Wigton Papers published in the Miscellany, and so far as known have not been printed.

Sir James Balfour states: "Saturday, 25th May 1650: A letter from the King's Majesty to Parliament, dated from Breda, 12th May 1650, showing that he was heartily sorry that James Graham had invaded this Kingdom, and how he had discharged him from doing the same, and earnestly desired the Estates of Parliament to do himself that Justice as not to believe that he was accessory to the said invasion in the least degree,-read.

"Also a double of His Majesty's letter to James Graham, dated 15th of May 1650, commanding him to lay down arms and secure all the ammunition under his charge, read in the house.

"The House remits to the Committee of Despatches to answer His Majesty's letter to the Parliament."

1 Balfour's Annals, vol. iv. p. 24.

The terms of the letter from the King to the Parliament,' dated 18th May 1650, are quite different from those in the letter of the 12th as given by Sir James Balfour. He expresses no regret that Montrose has invaded the Kingdom, and he does not disclaim his having been accessory thereto. He merely states that he had given satisfaction to the Commissioners, and laid the foundation of a happy agreement and perfect understanding between them and him "for the time to come, being resolved to cast ourselfe on the affections of that our ancient Kingdom of Scotland, and to endeavour the good and peace thereof in all things to the uttermost of our power," and that he had accordingly given orders for the disbanding of the Forces, and for their withdrawing out of the Kingdom.

Private instructions were given to Sir William Fleming, dated 19th May 1650, to see Montrose, and if the prevailing party in Scotland were not satisfied with the concessions he had granted to them, that Montrose should not lay down arms; that if His Majesty's friends in Scotland did not think fit that Montrose should lay down arms, "then as many as can may repair to him, and if Sir William Fleming should see if the Marquis have a considerable number of men, and if he have, you must use your best indevor to get them not to be disbanded, but if Montrose be weke then he should disband."

From these documents it is clear that Sir William Fleming's instructions were, if he found Montrose still in strength, His Majesty's letter should not be produced to Parliament, but, if otherwise, that the letter should be produced.

These instructions were given before hearing of the discomfiture of Montrose at Corbiesdale, and there is no dubiety about their import. Those now exhibited were written after his disastrous defeat, and by them Sir William Fleming was carefully instructed, in the event of his finding the news to be true, or that the Marquis should not be within the Kingdom of Scotland, the letter to Parliament should not be delivered and be carefully concealed; but that if he found the news

1

Wigton Papers,” Miscelloan of the Maitland Club, vol up 17. 2 46 Wigton Papers," xli.