and made within this realm,' it was ordered that no citizen or his servants 'shall wear in their attire or garment any fur, fringe, lace, silk, or any woollen or linen save such as shall be wrought within this city or realm.' The economic situation was very like that of our own day in Ireland. It would be manifestly absurd to accuse the modern Sinn Fein party, who urge the use of Irish fabrics, of having brought Irish commerce to ruin by their previous spendthrift extravagance in dress. The question was really the violent capture of the market by the dominant partner, then in a very dominating mood. 2. Dr. Lawlor accuses me of quoting, or rather misquoting, the rule against defaming a man by calling him Irishman. I did not quote or misquote, but gave a summary which I see no reason to alter. The ordinance was made in 1384, and may have been taken from two Statutes passed some few years before, in 1357 and 1366, forbidding quarrels between Englishmen born in England or in Ireland. Whether there were enough new in-comers of English birth in 1384 into Waterford to make such a rule necessary I cannot say. It would seem at least possible that in the common use of ordinary people the phrase came to fit the facts, and was used to forbid quarrels and defamations between men of English and mixed Irish blood. If the rule took this wider meaning in Waterford (as I think it must inevitably have done in Galway) then it shows more fusion of races than was contemplated or desired in the Statute of Kilkenny. 3. As to Irish as well as English freemen carrying arms (1470) I quoted the words 'be he never so simple,' because in the circumstances of the capture and settlement of Waterford, it is probable that the class described 'be he never so simple,' would contain Irishmen. I think my sentence as it stands is liable to mistake, and I alter it to the statement that every freeman, Irish or English, 'be he never so simple,' was bound to carry arms. 4. Dr. Lawlor objects to my saying that 'their language was secured to the Irish.' The ordinance of 1492 decreed that freemen and foreigners were to plead in English in the courts, the foreigner having a man that can speak English to declare his matter, except one party be of the country; then every such dweller shall be at liberty to speak Irish.' This seems to me to give what I contend for, that no Irishman was forced to speak English in court. How much Irish was used in the courts depended on how many Irishmen there were in the town. 5. In his suggestion that Irishmen were put under a special disability by the town's requiring them to have their liberty of the king' Dr. Lawlor overlooks the conditions of the case. The rule that a man of Irish blood must have his freedom from the king before he was received into the city does not imply any distrust or hostility of the towns to the Irish. By English law Irishmen, unless enfranchised by special charters, were not admitted to the benefit and protection of the laws of England; and they were therefore disabled from bringing actions in court, and so far out of the protection of the law that it was often adjudged no felony to kill a mere Irishman in time of peace. (See Davies, Discovery, 77-101; Berry, Stat. 211; H.M.C. Rep. x. app. v. 308.) Now by the rules of Waterford, as distinguished from the laws of the English government, the slaying of a man, English or Irish, was punished under one law (H.M.C. Rep. x. app. v. 309-7); and all pleas were tried in the same court. It was thus essential that every Irish citizen should be openly admitted to the use and protection of the common law, to preserve the order of the city, and to prevent legal complications. The English government, if we believe Davies (p. 86), intended to make a perpetual separation between English and Irish. The city rulers, on the other hand, united them on terms of complete equality in the courts, which, I think, was a reasonable and friendly relation. 6. Again, Dr. Lawlor says I do not seem to refer' to the ordinance against selling materials for a boat to any idle-man of the surrounding counties which law, he says, 'is hardly consistent with relations entirely friendly with the neighbouring Irish.' Dr. Lawlor takes idle-men to be Irishmen Mr. Dunlop in the Quarterly Review assumes them to be Englishmen. In any case I have pointed out on p. 182 that ordinances of this kind were the usual medieval precautions taken by towns everywhere against the smuggling competition of outland or country men. Waterford had a large traffic throughout the counties of Waterford, Kilkenny, Tipperary, Wexford, and Carlow, for frieze, timber, and victuals, much of it river-borne. A considerable timber trade in the fifteenth century was carried in boats, the number of men to each boat, and their wages being fixed, and all sworn to be true to the king and the city (H.M.C. Rep. x. app. v. 296, 299, 325). No doubt the monopoly of boat traffic was jealously guarded, not only against the Irish smugglers of the surrounding counties but against the English interlopers also. So far for my curious method of dealing with the evidence regards the towns. I still adhere to my belief, founded on many illustrations which I have given, that in the towns as in the country there were friendly relations and a gradual fusion of the two races. It is such instances that prove to me the belief I have expressed that all the wrong-doing was not on the side of the English. (See p. 233.) Where the English and Irish settled down together to do their common business, and take share alike in the development of the country, they did well enough. An 'exploiting' government from London, and 'adventurers' flocking over to grab the land and expel the 'natives,' made another story. Finally, Dr. Lawlor confounds me as to the culture of Ireland by a single effort. He says I have made too much of Waterford School. Here is a list of my assumptions. I state that in 1518 the scholars were numerous, because I presume that unless there had been a good many 'scholars' who bought wax to make their own candles, the town would not have troubled to forbid that practice. In 1469 there were a large number of Irish gentlemen's children boarded in Waterford, and considering the general love of education in Ireland, and the universal speaking of Latin as a second tongue, I believe they went to school to learn it. In such a centre of commerce is it conceivable that some of these for business purposes learned somehow English, French, or Spanish? We have later evidence that it was the custom of the Irish gentry to send their children to town schools for training. In reply to an imaginary assertion that the Irish lived as far as possible from the towns-'the new Irish and the old dwell in the same places,' said Lynch. 'If the character of the townsmen were so depraved, then the whole nobility of Ireland, both of the ancient and of the newer stock, would not send their children among them to be instructed both in letters and in polite manners.' I further presume the school was a sufficient one, because Peter White, bred at Waterford, had gone thence to Oxford and was lecturing there on metaphysics in 1563. Other Waterford men, Walshe and Quemerford, were at Oxford in 1530 and 1535. I suppose they had some education first. And I venture to guess they learned Irish geography and history, because Richard Stanihurst, pupil of Peter White the Waterford man, had learned something of these studies, and neither master nor pupil would have gained any such knowledge at Oxford. I suppose Peter White picked up something of them at Waterford. These are my suppositions. Dr. Lawlor may prefer other suppositions, that these Waterford Englishmen learned nothing, having too petty and narrow a trade to need even Latin, and taught nothing to the Irish who came among them. Does therefore the whole evidence I have given of learning in Ireland fall to the ground? Is there nothing worthy of attention in the cumulative argument I have offered in some 150 pages? Will it be possible in future to write of Ireland on the unquestioned assumption that its people were barbarous in customs, incapable of manufactures, and recalcitrant to learning? I have not space to notice a number of other points to which I should have liked to call attention, and I can only in conclusion urge that Celtic history shall be taken up on all sides with new vigour, by men earnest to open up fresh fields of enquiry and knowledge. It is ardently to be hoped that Scotch students will pursue the study of Celtic Scotland on better lines than those of Skene, and will collect what may still be known of its medieval trade and culture, and its relations in both these directions with Ireland. ALICE STOPFORD GREEN. I have read Mrs. Green's remarks with care, and with all readiness to be convinced. But I see no reason to modify or to withdraw anything that I said in my notice of her book; and it seems to me that no good purpose would be gained by examining afresh the points raised in her reply. I content myself, therefore, with an attempt to remove a misconception by which it appears to be in large measure inspired. Mrs. Green describes me as an Englishman in Ireland jealous for the honour of my ancestors, 'the stainless colonists,' and arguing (so she insinuates) with corresponding prejudice. But 'very many of her most confident assertions will be found to have little or no evidence to support them,' and in the present case I am unable even to guess the grounds on which her assumption rests. I should have supposed that my surname would have led one so well versed in Irish affairs to a different view of my nationality. The fact is that I am an Irishman; and I have good reason to believe that there flows in my veins not a drop of the blood of the 'colonists,' except such as may have filtered through generations of men Hibernis ipsis Hiberniores. But I am a seeker for historic truth, and I have yet to learn that I should be more likely to attain the object of my search if I allowed myself to be guided by anti-English animus. H. J. LAWLOR. CELTIC SCOTLAND IN THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE. The thesis of Mr. Evan M. Barron, in The Scottish Historical Review, vol. vi. pp. 129-139) is that 'the old Celtic kingdom of Scotland really maintained and ultimately won that struggle.' What is or was 'the old Celtic kingdom of Scotland'? If Mr. Barron means as much of Scotland as was held, say, by Duncan (the gracious Duncan,' or the usurper properly punished by Macbeth, as you please), nobody will differ from him. Again, all over Scotland in the time of Robert Bruce, the people, even when they had long been English in speech and in institutions, must have had in their veins a good deal of the blood of ancestral Celts or, at least, of ancestors who spoke a Celtic language. Mr. Barron's argument, however, is that the part played by the North of Scotland in the War of Independence has been consistently ignored by Scottish historians.' This would suggest that Southern Scots alone have written the history of Scotland. Why have the northern men been so indolent? But the fact seems to me to be that Mr. Barron conceives of the north of Scotland' and 'Celtic Scotland' as synonymous terms, while he also appears to regard the Lowlanders' as necessarily the people of the south. By the Lowlands, when I write of the Lowlands, I mean 'the low countrie,' as the bereaved lady sings in 'I wish I were where Goudie rins.' I mean the fertile low country which is found all along the east coast and in the hinterland of the east coast in Fifeshire, Angus, Aberdeenshire, Kincardineshire, the county of Moray, Ross-shire, and the shire of Inverness, and so on. By Bruce's time in the greater part of this territory burghs were established whose inhabitants were English in language, ideas and institutions, while the seigneurs were usually English, Anglo-Norman, or, even when of Celtic origin, Anglicised in name, speech, and manners. Take the names of the leaders who, at one time or another, sided with Bruce, north of Forth. David de Moravia is not a Celtic name: we all know that the higher clergy were either English or Anglicised by the time of Bruce, like Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews. Does Mr. Barron suppose that the Bishop of Moravia preached a 'Holy War'-in Gaelic, and that in Gaelic the preachers of the North-Eastern Lowlands addressed their flocks, including, for example, the writer of the well-known letter from Forfar? 1 I shall be happy to consider any evidence to this effect. 1 Bain, ii. p. 513. We may ascertain the speech, and to some extent the race of the leaders of northern Scotland from Perth to Elgin, by the inspection of the portion of Ragman's Roll for that district. Out of more than eighty names of signatories, I find only six at most which, I think, may possibly be Celtic. Fitzcan, perhaps, is Macan (?), but I have not observed a 'Mac' in the northern list. Now, no fewer than fortyfive clan names with 'Mac' occur in the volume of Bain's Calendar which contains Ragman's Roll. I am not denying that many of the gentlemen and burghers who sign may have had Celtic blood, more or less, but they were Anglicised in names, speech, and ideas. Mr. Barron's Frasers, Cheynes, Hays, Berkeleys, Wisemans, Fentons, are non-Celtic names; non-Celtic is the great Alexander Pilche, like the famous cricketer Fuller Pilch. Again, Mr. Barron must be aware that the landowners of Aberdeenshire and Angus were ancestors of the men who, at Harlaw, when 'Donald came branking down the brae,' repulsed the truly Celtic warriors that had trysted their galleys in Loch Aline. They were Lowlanders, the cavalry who when 'Rode the ranks sae rude As they would among the fern,' 'Hielands and Lowlands might mournful be, For the sair fecht o' Harlaw.' The regions where the leading men were Celtic are the west and the Isles. Their policy, as far as they were united in a policy, was alliance with England against Anglicised Scotland, against the Scottish Crown. This policy endured till the fall of the Lords of the Isles, and appears in the Treaty of Ardtornish and Westminster. The north of Scotland did to Bruce knight's service, who denies it? He was superior of the Earldom of Garioch, and natural guardian of the young Earl of Mar, as Mr. Barron says. He had these claims on the north, and I have shewn irrefutably that, in the north, the leading men were Anglicised Lowlanders in an enormous proportion. Their followings, Celt or English, followed them. Bruce won the towns more rapidly than in the south, because they were more remote from the English base, and the burghers and knights were Anglicised, were Lowlanders. When we add to the northern leaders of non-Celtic names, Douglas, Keith, Lindsay, Wallace, Stewart, Ramsay, Thomson, Boyd, |