England, who had wronged Bruce more deeply than any other man in Scotland, was compelled, whether he liked it or not, almost as soon as Bruce appeared in the Highlands, to sue for pardon. These facts speak for themselves, but it may be pointed out as a further indication of the real attitude of the north, that from 1297 to 1303 Scotland north of the Spey had been absolutely independent. In the latter year Edward in person crushed all resistance in the north, but the very men he had appointed to govern in his name had, most of them, been prominent on the patriotic side down to 1303. Like the vast majority of Scotsmen elsewhere, they had no choice but to become Edward's men when in 1303-1304 Scottish Independence seemed at last to be finally crushed. But the English conquest took no firm hold of the north, for the people were not 'Lowland Scots in origin mainly of English descent,' and they had all the old Celtic preference for a king of their own race. Bruce was in their eyes the rightful King of Scotland. He claimed the throne by virtue of his descent from the old Celtic kings; his mother was a Celtic princess in her own right, and his own earldom of Carrick was a Celtic earldom. And to crown all, only three years had elapsed since the north had last met England in battle. Then the north had been beaten but not subdued. And, as we have seen, there were not wanting patriotic spirits to keep the fire smouldering. The results of the adherence to Bruce of Scotland from Caithness to the Tay were far-reaching. With the north behind him Bruce was able to proceed with the task of wresting the Lowlands and Argyle from English hands. Between November 1308 and March 1309 he subdued the latter, while his brother Edward secured Galloway. Affairs proceeded so favourably that on 16th March he was able to hold his first Parliament, that Parliament which met at St. Andrews, and drew up the letter to the King of France declaring that Bruce was now King of Scotland. The record of that Parliament is exceedingly interesting. Three of the great Celtic Earls were present in person, the Earls of Ross, Lennox, and Sutherland, while the other Celtic earldoms of Fife, Menteith, Mar, and Buchan, and the earldom of Caithness, whose heirs, the record states, were in ward, were represented. Bruce's tried and trusted friends, his brother Edward, James the Steward, Donald of Isla, Gilbert de Haya, Robert de Keith, Thomas Randolph, Sir James Douglas, Alexander de Lindesay, 1 Acts of Parl. i. 459. William Wiseman, David de Berkeley, and Robert Boyde, are also specifically mentioned, while the names of Alexander of Argyle, Hugh, son and heir of the Earl of . . . (Ross?), and John de Menteith, and the Barons of the whole of Argyle and Innisgall and the inhabitants of the whole Kingdom of Scotland,' complete the record. Thus, of the twenty-four names mentioned specifically in the document, no less than fourteen are representative of the ancient Celtic Kingdom of Scotland, while several of the others are more or less connected with the north. Some doubts have been expressed as to the trustworthiness of the record, but the names it gives are confirmed in a striking manner by the events I have narrated. The Earls of Ross and Sutherland, Hugh, son and heir of the Earl of Ross, William Wiseman, and David de Berkeley, are all mentioned in the contemporary documents from which I have compiled my narrative, as having been, by 31st October, 1308, of Bruce's party, while of the remaining names that of Alexander of Argyle is the only one doubtful. The events I have just narrated, and the names I have given, prove, I think, that Celtic Scotland had declared itself for Bruce at the crisis of his fate, and three years before he made any headway in the Anglicized Lowlands. He could only have made. the headway he did in Celtic Scotland in so short a period by the support of the people of the country. It follows that the people who won the War of Independence were not, as Mr. Lang says, Lowland Scots (in origin mainly of English descent) fighting under standards of leaders, more or less Norman by blood,' but the inhabitants of the Celtic part of Scotland fighting under leaders, many of them Celtic, and under a king whose mother was a Celtic countess, and who claimed the crown by virtue of his descent from a Celtic king. And I do not think it can be disputed that, if Bruce had not secured the support of the north in 1308, the independence of Scotland would not have been won. From the north he obtained men and staunch support when he needed both most. From Celtic Scotland in the west his armies raided England. From Celtic Scotland in the north and west he captured one by one the strongholds of the Scottish Lowlands. For it cannot be denied that it was not until he had Celtic Scotland behind him that the strongholds of the south fell. Lanark was held for England as late as October 1310, while in 1312 the whole of the Lothians and a large part of Scotland south of the Forth were in English hands. There were English garrisons in Berwick, Roxburgh, Edinburgh, Stirling, Bothwell, Linlithgow, Dunbar, Yester, Luffenok, Dirleton, Kirkintilloch, Selkirk, Jedburgh, Livingston, Lochmaben, Buittle, Dalswinton, Dumfries, Caerlaverock, and Cavres, as well as in Perth and Dundee, and English sheriffs still ruled in Berwick, Roxburgh, Edinburgh, Haddington, Linlithgow, Stirling, and Perth.1 It is interesting to observe that the narrative as I have told it is borne out by Barbour, in a passage often quoted, but always with the comment that nothing is known of events in the north. The passage is as follows (the poet has just described the Hership of Buchan): The King than till his pess has tane Swa that be north the month war nane. Then thai his men war euirilkane. His Lordschip wox ay mar and mar. Towart Anguss syne gan he far; And thoucht sone to mak all fre That wes on the north halff the Scottis Se.' An interesting sidelight on the views I have advanced is that the only two parliaments which Bruce held prior to Bannockburn met in the old kingdom of Celtic Scotland, the one at St. Andrews in 1309 and the other at Inverness in 1312.2 The latter was an exceedingly important parliament, and one which would in ordinary circumstances have been held in the capital of the kingdom. It was the parliament at which Bruce in person met the envoys of the King of Norway and ratified with great solemnity the treaty made between the Kings of Norway and Scotland in 1266. As befitted the occasion, Bruce was attended by a great retinue, the most important members of which were witnesses to the treaty. They were the Bishops of Aberdeen, Moray, Ross, and Caithness, and the Earls of Ross, Athol, and Moray. Though the Earl of Moray was Thomas Randolph, the witnesses unmistakably are all representative of Celtic Scotland. I do not desire to exaggerate the part played by the north of Scotland in the War of Independence, nor to lay myself open to the charge of holding a special brief for the Celts. But 1 See Bain, vol. iii., for various entries relating to these places. the facts I have stated show how important was the part played by Celtic Scotland in the War of Independence, and that it was the old kingdom of Celtic Scotland which really maintained and ultimately won that struggle. For I think I have shown that there is sound historical evidence for the view that in the north of Scotland, Bruce found his earliest and staunchest supporters; that the north declared for and stood by Bruce while the Lowlands were as yet lukewarm or hostile; and that, therefore, to the north was his ultimate success due. EVAN M. Barron. An Edinburgh Account-Book of Two Hundred Years Ago N or about May 12th, 1699, while William of Orange was still on the throne-five years before Blenheim and eight before the Union-there died in her house in Blackfriars Wynd, Edinburgh, Anna Broun, widow of John Wilson, merchant there, daughter of Robert Broun, stationer, and halfsister of Charles Broun of Gleghornie. This was a small estate near North Berwick, famous as the birthplace of John Major or Mair, scholar, historian, and philosopher, who had among his pupils John Knox and George Buchanan. As nearest relative Charles now took charge, and issued the following invitation to the funeral: Sir, the favour of your presence to accompany the corps of my sister Anna relict of Ja. Wilson mert. in Edr from her dwelling house in Blackfrier Wynd to her burial place in the Greyfrier Church yeard on Munday ye 15 instant at seven o'clock at night is earnestly intreated. Coaches shall attend you.' With some slight alterations, such as the substitution of 'remains' for 'corps,' and change of the appointed hour, the invitation might have been issued yesterday.3 It will be noticed that the hour appointed for the funeral was 1 The intromissions of the curator on this estate are contained in a number of sheets, amongst the Colstoun papers now in my possession. J. G. A. B. 2 The said Charles afterwards married a distant cousin, Jean Broun, who succeeded to the estate of Colstoun on the death of her father and two brothers by drowning, as told elsewhere.-Blackwood's Magazine, July 1907. 3 The word 'relict' still survives in Scottish obituary notices, and perhaps in legal documents, though there is no apparent reason for its continued existence. It was in use in the sixteenth century, but cannot compare in point of antiquity with 'widow,' nor indeed in any other way. 'Widow' arouses sympathy and respect, not so 'relict,' which seems to denote something of no importance, a mere appanage of the husband, not worth taking with him. The word no doubt came to Scotland from France, as did many others to which no objection can be taken. |