we see that the men who made Scotland independent were almost all 'Lowland,' 'Anglo-Norman,' and (whether they had Celtic ancestors or not) were men of English speech, bred under English institutions.

The most eminent and serviceable Celts who joined Bruce were Donald of Islay, Sir Niall Campbell, the Knight of Lochow, whose clan, till the days of the gleyed marquis, was true to the Crown, and Angus Og, to whom, I think, Bruce owed his Highland and Island contingent at Bannockburn. Without these Celts the Macdowalls would have been too heavy for Bruce, and these Celts played a noble part in shaking off the English yoke. But surely no southern historian has denied to the Celts their share in the glory? Again, the followings of the Lowland or Anglicised nobles, knights and bishops of the north (present at Inverness in 1312) must have been, to a large extent, of Celtic origin. they were brought into the cause by their leaders, men of English speech, bred in English institutions.

But

I no more hold a special brief' against the Celts than Mr. Barron holds a brief for them. It was not 'unpatriotic' for the western Celts to be old enemies of Anglicised Scotland, as they proclaim themselves in their dealings with Henry VIII. Their king was the Lord of the Isles, or any Macheth or Macwilliam, their ally was England, their cause was the retention of their land and institutions, and recovery of the territory from which the English had been driving them for many centuries. Their Bannockburn was Nechtan's Mere: their defeat was Harlaw. They were not to be successful; they had little education, had scarcely a truly Celtic town, and they had no horses fit for cavalry use.

ANDREW LANG.

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE. Mr. Evan Barron's complaint that Scottish historians have given undue credit to the people of Lowland Scotland for their share in winning independence for the realm, raises a somewhat invidious question which, in the interest of civil harmony, it might perhaps have been wiser to allow to slumber. He attributes Bruce's success 'to the support he obtained in the north and in other parts of Celtic Scotland.'

Now Celtic Scotland, roughly speaking, consisted in the fourteenth century of the Highland counties (not including Caithness, Orkney, and Shetland, where the population was chiefly Scandinavian), the Western Isles and Galloway. In these districts, owing to their physical character, Bruce and his adherents most naturally sought shelter in times of stress. He found in the Celtic and semi-Celtic north several powerful territorial lords, chiefly of Norman or Flemish descent-Frasers, Hays, Keiths, Morays, Lindsays, etc., who brought out their feudal retainers in his cause. That the people at large-the burgesses, kindly tenants and adscripti glebae cared little of which king they were subjects we may surely believe; as little as did the Atholl clansmen whom Lord Tullibardine had to burn out of their houses to make them fight for Prince Charlie in 1745. Ensign Small, employed on secret service in the Highlands in 1750 no doubt reported

truly that 'The gentry are fond of a rising; the commoners hate it'; and so it must ever be in dynastic war. In the southern uplands of Galloway, a thoroughly Celtic district, the chiefs and their people were all for Norman Balliol and entertained a deadly hatred for Bruce.

Most of the hard fighting, from Stirling Bridge in 1297 to Bannockburn in 1314, went on in the lowlands; the burden of defence lying especially and constantly upon the English-speaking countries of Lothian and the Border. What forces could Bruce have reckoned on had the stout pikemen of Annandale and the Upper Ward of Lanarkshire failed him? How would his cause have been affected by defection of the Knight of Liddesdale's border riders or the bowmen of Ettrick and Teviotdale?

Turning to the ethnology of the most prominent champions of independence, the preponderance is certainly not Celtic. Besides Robert Bruce (himself, like John Balliol, of Norman descent, but born of a Celtic mother) there occur to mind Wallace, his colleague young Andrew Moray, Randolph, Earl of Moray, Sir James Douglas, Sir Christopher Seton, Malcolm, Earl of Lennox, Sir Robert Keith, who commanded the small force of cavalry at Bannockburn, Walter the Steward, who shared with Douglas the command of the left wing at the same battle, Sir Simon Fraser, Bishop William Fraser of St. Andrews, and Bishop Robert Wishart of Glasgow. Of these, Wallace may be claimed as a Brythonic Celt-le Waleys, the Welshman-a native of Strathclyde, part of ancient Cumbria or Wales, but in no sense a Scottish Highlander. Of the rest, Randolph was descended from the Galloway Pict, Dunegal of Straithnith, but he was no Highlander, deriving all his influence from the lands of his family in Nithsdale. Lennox certainly was a Highland chief, but Andrew Moray and James Douglas were probably of common descent from Freskin the Fleming, whom David I. had planted in the turbulent district of Moray 150 years earlier. Wyntoun admits that the pedigree could not be clearly traced, but cites the similarity of their armorial bearings as confirming the tradition.

Of Murrawe and the Douglas,
How that thare begynnyng was,
Syn syndry men spekis syndryly
I can put that in na story.
But in thare armeyis bath thai bere
The sternys set in lyk manere ;
Til mony men it is yhit sene
Apperand lyk that thai had bene
Of kyn be descens lyneale,

Or be branchys collaterale.

[Cronykil, B viii. c. 7.]

It will be remembered that, previous to Sir James Douglas's mission with the heart of Bruce, the arms of Douglas consisted only of the Moray's silver stars' set on a chief azure.

The other leaders mentioned above were all of Norman or English descent. In this brief note I cannot pursue the analysis further, and can only direct attention to some of the chief enemies of Bruce among the

Scots-the Comyns; Patrick Dunbar, Earl of March; Sir Dougal Macdouall of Galloway, who captured Thomas and Alexander Bruce, brothers of the King, and sent them to the gallows at Carlisle; John of Lorn, who brought his 800 gilly-lightfoots to hunt Bruce out of Glentrool. All these were pure Celts.

I cannot claim to have given the question raised by Mr. Barron much attention, nor can I consider it of very great importance, having regard to the large number of Norman and Flemish barons holding sway in the Scottish Highlands. I submit that, allowing full credit to the Highlanders for the hospitality shown to Bruce from time to time, and to the Lowlanders for having borne the brunt of the fighting, not only in Bruce's day but for two hundred years after it, the verdict on the part played by Celt and Saxon in the struggle for independence should be 'Honours easy!' HERBERT MAXWELL.

[The editor of the Scottish Historical Review has shown Mr. Barron a proof of Mr. Lang's and Sir Herbert Maxwell's papers, and has heard from Mr. Barron that he is no way convinced by the above replies. He states, that in his original article in the January number he put forward the theory that Bruce's success was due to the support which he had obtained in Scotland, north of the Forth, at the most critical period of his career, and in support of that theory he related a number of facts which had never before been put together as a whole; while Mr. Lang, and Sir Herbert Maxwell also, in the above notes have argued that Scotland, north of the Forth, was not so Celtic as they think Mr. Barron believes; into that question Mr. Barron says he did not enter at all. His contention is that Bruce's ultimate success was made possible, not by the support obtained from the Lowland Scots or in the Lowlands, but by the support he obtained in the North and other parts of Celtic Scotland, and he is prepared to prove that his contention is not in any way shaken by the arguments of Mr. Lang and Sir Herbert Maxwell, many of which he regards as either inaccurate or irrelevant.

The editor regrets that the space at his disposal precludes him from finding room for a more full discussion of this matter, for the present at least.]

DID THE EARL OF CASSILLIS AND THE EARL OF EGLINTON DESERT MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS? In Mr. Andrew Lang's History of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 237, dealing with the events which happened during Lennox's Regency, and Argyll's deserting Mary and making terms with Lennox, August 12th, 1571, the following sentence occurs, 'Cassillis, Eglintoun, and Boyd also turned their coats.

On turning to the Scots Peerage, edited by the Lord Lyon King of Arms, vol. ii. p. 472 (article Cassillis'), I find that Gilbert, fourth Earl of Cassillis, held out from complete allegiance to the new Government until the spring of 1571, when he was forced by Lennox at the head of a large force to surrender and suffer imprisonment (in Dumbarton Castle)

until about 25th August, 1571, when he joined the King's party and his forfeiture was not carried out. See Acta Parl. Scot. iii. p. 63, where the escheats of Argyll, Eglinton and Boyd are also remitted.

Further details of Cassillis' surrender are given in Bain's Calendar of Scottish Papers, iii. pp. 488, 503, 509, 510, 517, 518, 531, 535, 584, 643, also in Register of the Privy Council Addenda, vol. xiv. pp. 90, 323, 324. There is also in the Culzean Charter Chest a letter from Mary Queen of Scots to Cassillis dated at Sheffield, 6th May, 1571, excusing him for having been constrained to concur with her adversaries for fear of loss of his goods (Family of Kennedy, Printed 1849, Appendix, pp. 24, 25).

On turning to Scots Peerage, vol. iii. pp. 440, 441 (article 'Eglinton'), I find that the third Earl of Eglinton (like Cassillis) was 'one of the first to join Queen Mary's standard after her escape from Lochleven, and after the battle of Langside he was among the last to go over to the King's party.'

'He was compelled to join by being thrown into ward in Doune Castle 1571, and on 12th August he and the Earls of Argyll and Cassillis with Lord Boyd, bound themselves to serve the King and Regent.'

As a matter of fact, Cassillis and Eglinton had had their estates ravaged by Lennox and Glencairn at the head of not only a large Scots army, but also of a large English force lent by Elizabeth for the purpose of ruining Mary's followers.

On looking at Scots Peerage, v. p. 159 (article 'Boyd'), I find that the fifth Lord Boyd, at the meeting of nobility at Dunblane, 17th July, 1571, is recorded as having endeavoured to bring all to the Queen's side; but on 12th August he, together with the Earls of Argyll, Cassillis and Eglinton considering the calamite quahairwith this realme, thair native cuntre, is plagit,' and that the Queen was detained in England, came to an agreement with the Earls of Morton and Mar to serve the King (Calendar of Scottish Papers, iii. pp. 631, 635).

Surely the term of turning their coats is not applicable to these devoted adherents of the unfortunate Queen, who held out for so long after Langside, and who were at last compelled to desist because they saw 'Now all is done that men can do,

And all is done in vain.'

CASSILLIS.

ROBERT HAMILTON, merchant, burgess of Edinburgh, 1577, died before 20th April, 1608 (Testaments, Commissariot of Edinburgh), leaving five daughters, heiresses portioner, namely: Barbara, Elizabeth, Marioun, Margaret, and Beatrix (Reg. P. C. Scot. vol. ix. p. 537). The three younger daughters seem to have been under age, and James Hamilton, 'servant to Sir Thomas Hammiltoun of Byris, Secretary of this Kingdom,' was appointed tutor-dative (Ibid.).

Barbara Hamilton married, 30th July, 1607, John Mein [Meane or Meyne] (Edinburgh Marriage Register). According to Wodrow (Analecta, vol. i. p. 64) it was 'the constant belived tradition that it was Mrs. Mean, wife to John Mean, merchant in Edinburgh, that cast the first stool when

the Service-Book was read in the Neu Kirk, Edinburgh, 1637.' John Mein, elder, merchant, burgess of Edinburgh, and Barbara Hamilton, his spouse, died before 23rd November, 1654 (Testaments, Commissariot of Edinburgh). Elizabeth Hamilton was was the second wife of Richard Dickson, minister of Kinneil (Scott's Fasti, vol. i. p. 171). She survived her husband, and died in 1667 (Reg. of Interments, Greyfriars, Edinburgh). Beatrix Hamilton married as his first wife, the Rev. Robert Blair, A.M., minister of St. Andrew's, who, in right of his wife, entered burgess of Edinburgh, 16th July, 1626. She died in July, 1632, aged 27, leaving two sons and a daughter (Scott's Fasti, vol. ii. p. 390). Information wanted as to the ancestry of Robert Hamilton. A. W. GRAY-BUCHANAN.

HERIOTS OF TRABROUN (S.H.R. iv. p. 231). Mr. Robert Heriot of Lymphoy does not seem to have been of the Trabroun family. He is described in 1550 as 'son of the late John Heriot,' and as a 'kinsman or cousin' of Henry Sinclair, Bishop of Ross (see Mr. J. C. Gibson's Lands and Lairds of Larbert and Dunipace, pp. 128, 171). John Heriot was probably a rentaller in the Barony of Glasgow, and may be identical with a John Heriot, witness to protocols, 1503 to 1511 (Diocesan Registers). He had three sons: Allan, Mr. Robert, and Gilbert. Allan was rentalled, 31st December, 1518, in Ramishorn and Medwflat, and in the twa part off Gardarrow (Cardarroch) afftyr his modyr deses and off hir consent' (Diocesan Registers, i. p. 76), failing him his two brothers to succeed (Ibid. i. pp. 76, 77). Allan died before 4th October, 1531, when his widow, Marion Flemyng, pleaded the privilege of 'Sanct Mungo's wedo' (Glasgow Protocols, iv. No. 1096), but probably without success. Mr. Robert Heriot was occupier of the four merk land of Cardarroch, and the 33s. 4d. land of Rammishorn and Medow Flat' in 1545 (Diocesan Registers, i. p. 128), and he and his wife, Helen Swynton, are again mentioned, 9th November, 1555 (Ibid. i. p. 161). He was dead before 1558-9, his relict, Helen Swynton, being permitted, 27th February, 1558-9, to marry Mr. Edward Henderson, and to 'bruk' the lands of Ramshorn and Meadowffat (Ibid. i. p. 172).

A. W. GRAY-BUCHANAN.