_Than demyt he, the fals Sotheroun amang,_
_How thai best mycht the Scottis barownis hang._
_For gret_ bernys _that tyme stud in till Ayr,_
_Wrocht for the king, quhen his lugyng wes thar;_
_Byggyt about, that no man entir mycht,_
_Bot ane at anys, nor haiff off othir sicht._
_Thar ordand thai thir lordis suld be slayne._--V. 23.
Here the Minstrel introduces his account of the savage transaction
ascribed to Edward I., in causing the greatest part of the barons of
the west of Scotland to be hanged, without trial, under the semblance
of peace; and of the vengeance taken by Wallace, in what has been
usually called “the burning of the BARNS OF AYR.”
Before examining this account, I may observe, that instead of _For gret
bernys_, as in MS., Edit. 1594 reads, _Four_ greit barnis; and that
of 1620, to the same purpose, _Foure greit barnes_. Perhaps I ought
to have adopted this reading, especially as the conjunction _for_,
with which ver. 25 commences, does not seem necessary as marking the
connection with the words preceding.
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 enterprize, for he was killed at Falkirk,
22d July, 1298;” and that “it is not probable that Wallace would have
undertaken such an enterprize 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 with that of 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 Cranford als Schyr Ranald wes,
And Schyr Bryce als the Blar,
_Hangyt in till a berne in Ar_.
_The Bruce_, III. 260. V. Note.
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 many bald barroun._
_Wallace_, VII. 334.
The testimony of the _Complaynt of Scotland_, a well known national
work, written A. 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 Inglis
men contrar thar natyue cuntreye, ther craggis 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.
Schir Ranald _fyrst, to mak fewté for his land,_
_The knycht, went in, and wald na langar stand._--
Schyr Bryss _the_ Blayr _next with his eyme in past;_
_On to the ded thai haistyt him full fast._--V. 205.
_Schir Ranald_ is Sir Reginald Craufurd of Loudoun, maternal uncle
to Wallace. He was heritable sheriff of the county of Ayr. The
granddaughter, the heiress of the property, was married to Sir Duncan
Campbell, the son of Sir Donald of Redcastle, from whom the noble
family of Loudoun is descended. Reginaldus de Craveford is one of the
persons chosen on the part of Robert Bruce to judge between him and
John Baliol, as to their respective claims, A. 1292. V. Fœdera, II.
555. But whether this was the _Ranald_ here mentioned, or his father,
who was then alive, is doubtful; because our author gives the name of
_Ranald_ to his father, while others call him _Hugh_. _John_ and _Hugh_
de Craufurd are mentioned in two rescripts of Edward I., as barons
received under his protection, A. 1255. Ibid. I. 559. 567.
_Schyr Bryss the Blayr_ was the ancestor of the Blairs of that ilk
in Ayrshire. There was a _Bryce_ Blair of Blair in the seventeenth
century; whence it appears that this ancient christian name was
retained in the family. V. Crawfurd’s Renfrew, p. 203. Nisbet, I. 211.
It deserves observation, that these are the two persons particularly
named by Barbour, among those who suffered that cruel martyrdom for
liberty which was inflicted by the English tyrant. _Syr Brice_ is the
reading of Edit. 1594 and 1620: and I am now convinced that the name
ought to have stood _Bryce_ in the Bruce, B. III. ver. 265; as it is
corrected in the extract made in the preceding Note. But I was misled
by the appearance of the letter _y_ in the MS., which differs so much
from its usual form, as at first view to resemble _u_.
Sir D. Dalrymple remarks; “Barbour says that Sir Brice Blair was
executed in company with Sir Reginald Crawfurd; but he erroneously
supposes this to have happened in Scotland.” Ann. II. 19, N. Kerr
follows him in this assertion. Hist. Bruce, I. 284.
But our worthy senator is so averse to give credit to anything that
tends to confirm what he calls “the famous story of _the Barns of
Air_,” that he prefers the single testimony of Matthew of Westminster
to that of Barbour; not to mention the later but concurrent one of
the Minstrel. The English historian says that Reginald de Crawfurd,
with Thomas and Alexander _de Brus_, “brothers of the pseudo-king,”
having been defeated and taken prisoners, were presented to Edward at
Carlisle, “wounded and half-dead, and that he immediately ordered their
execution;” and that “to this their heads bare witness, being placed on
the castle and gates” of that city. Hist. p. 458.
It is surprising, however, that the difference of the dates did not
make Sir David hesitate to oppose the united testimony of our oldest
Scottish writers on this point; especially as the account given by
Matthew of Westminster is, by his own confession, at variance with that
of Robert of Langtoft. The butchery at Ayr is said to have taken place,
A. 1298; this at Carlisle in the year 1306–7, about nine years after.
The fact seems to be, that the Reginald he refers to was the son of the
other Reginald who had suffered in “the blac parlament” at Ayr. It was
he who left a daughter, his only child and heir, who, as is mentioned
above, was married to Sir Duncan Campbell. V. Nisbet’s Ragm. Roll. p.
18.
_The third entrit, that peté was for thy,_
_A gentill knycht, Schyr_ Neill _off_ Mungumry.--V. 213.
_Worthi_ occurs in the line; but this word being under-doted, _gentill_
appears on the margent. The latter is the reading of Edit. 1594, and of
1620. This person seems to have been one of the family now represented
by the Earl of Eglinton. One of this family had the same christian name
in the reign of James IV. V. Nisbet, I. 375.
_Kerlé turnyt with his mastir agayne,_
_Kneland and_ Byrd, _that mekill war off mayne._--V. 249.
All the editions have _Boyd_. It appears, however, from ver. 287, that
Boyd was left in the town:
_‘Der wicht,’ he said, ‘der God, sen at thou knew_
_‘Gud Robert_ Boid, _quhar at thou can him se.’_
Besides, the name _Byrd_ occurs B. VIII. 233, where the person thus
denominated is conjoined with Boyde: