OUR PROGRESS
Although very unwilling to encroach upon the enlarged space which we have this week afforded to our numerous and increasing contributors, we may be permitted to refer to the fact of our having felt it due to them to find such additional space by giving an extra half-sheet, as a proof at once of the growing interest in our Journal, and of its extended utility.
We trust too that the step which we have thus taken will be received as a pledge of our intention to meet all the requirements which may arise from our Journal becoming more generally known, and consequently, as we are justified by our past experience in saying, being made greater use of, as a medium of intercommunication between all classes of students and men of letters.
Our last and present Number furnish proofs of its utility in a way which when it was originally projected could scarcely have been contemplated. We allude to its being made the channel through which intending editors may announce the works on which they are engaged, and invite the co-operation of their literary brethren. Nor is the readiness with which such co-operation is likely to be afforded, the only good result to be obtained by such an announcement. For such an intimation is calculated not only to prevent the unpleasantness likely to arise from a collision of interests—but also to prevent a literary man either setting to himself an unprofitable task or wasting his time and research upon ground which is already occupied.
One word more. When we commenced our labours we were warned by more than one friendly voice, that, although we should probably find no lack of Queries, we should oftentimes be "straited for a Reply." This, however, as our readers will admit, has not been the case; for though, as Shakspeare says, with that truth and wisdom for which he is proverbial—
"The ample proposition that Hope makes,
In all designs begun on earth below,
Fails in its promis'd largeness,"
the observation in our Introduction, that "those who are best informed are generally most ready to communicate knowledge, and to confess ignorance, to feel the value of such a work as we are attempting, and to understand that if it is to be well done they must help to do it," has, thanks to the kind assistance of our friends, grown, from a mere statement of opinion, to the dignity of a prediction. We undertook our task in faith and hope, determined to do our best to realize the intentions we had proposed to ourselves, and encouraged by the feeling that if we did so labour, our exertions would not be in vain, for—
"What poor duty cannot do,
Noble respect takes it in might not merit."
And the success with which our efforts have been crowned shows we were justified in so doing. And so, gentle reader, to the banquet of dainty delights which is here spread before you!
NOTES
CAPTIVITY OF THE QUEEN OF BRUCE IN ENGLAND
I perceive, in one of the recent interesting communications made to the "NOTES AND QUERIES," by the Rev. Lambert B. Larking, that he has given, from a wardrobe roll in the Surrenden collection, a couple of extracts, which show that Bruce's Queen was in 1314 in the custody of the Abbess of Barking. To that gentleman our thanks are due for the selection of documents which had escaped the careful researches of Lysons, and which at once throw light on the personal history of a royal captive, and illustrate the annals of a venerable Abbey. I am glad to be able to answer the concluding query as to the exact date when the unfortunate lady, (Bruce's second wife,) left that Abbey, and to furnish a few additional particulars relative to her eight years' imprisonment in England. History relates that in less than three months after the crown had been placed upon the head of Bruce by the heroic Countess of Buchan, sister of the Earl of Fife (29th March, 1306), he was attacked and defeated at Methven, near Perth, by the English, under Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke. After this signal discomfiture, the king fled into the mountains, accompanied by a few faithful followers: his Queen, daughter, and several other ladies, for awhile shared his misfortunes and dangers; but they at length took refuge at the Castle of Kildrummie, from whence they retreated, in the hope of greater security, to the sanctuary of St. Duthae, at Tain, in Ross-shire. The Earl of Ross, it is said, violated the sanctuary, and delivered the party up to the English, who (as sings Chaucer's contemporary, Barbour, in his not very barbarous Scottish dialect) straightway proceeded to
—"put the laydis in presoune,
Sum in till castell, sum in dongeoun."
Among the captives were three ecclesiastics, who had taken a prominent part at the king's coronation—the Bishops of Glasgow and St. Andrews and the Abbot of Scone, arrayed in most uncanonical costume.1 Peter Langtoft pathetically bewails their misfortune:—
"The Bisshop of Saynt Andrew, and the Abbot of Scone,
The Bisshop of Glascow, thise were taken sone;
Fettred on hackneis, to Inlond ere thei sent,
On sere stedis it seis, to prison mad present."
An instrument in Norman French, printed in Rymer's great collection (Foedera, vol. i. part ii. p. 994, new ed.), directs the manner in which the prisoners were to be treated. As this document is curious, I will give that portion which refers particularly to Bruce's wife, the "Countess of Carrick:"—
"A.D. 1306. (34 Edw. 1.) Fait a remembrer, qi, quant la Femme le Conte de Carrik sera venue au Roi, ele soit envee a Brustewik [on Humber], & qe ele eit tieu mesnee, & sa sustenance ordenee en la manere desouz escrite: cest asavoir,
"Qe ele eit deux femmes du pays oversqe li; cest asaver, une damoisele & une femme por sa chambre, qi soient bien d'age & nyent gayes, & qi eles soient de bon & meur port; les queles soient entendantz, a li por li servir:
"Et deux vadletz, qi soient ausint bien d'age, & avisez, de queux l'un soit un des vadletz le Conte de Ulvestier [the Earl of Ulster, her father], cest asaver Johan de Benteley, ou autre qil mettra en lieu de li, & l'autre acun du pays, qi soit por trencher devant li:
"Et ausant eit ele un garzon a pee, por demorer en sa chambre, tiel qi soit sobre, & ne mie riotous, por son lit faire, & por autres choses qe covendront por sa chambre:
"Et, estre ce, ordenez est qeele eit un Vadlet de mestier, qe soit de bon port, & avisez, por port ses cleifs, por panetrie, & botellerie, & un cu:
"Et ele deit ausint aver trois leveriers, por aver son deduyt en la garrene illueques, & en les pares, quant ele voudra:
"Et qe ele eit de la veneison, & du peisson es pescheries, selene ce qe master li sera:
"Et qe ele gisse en la plus bele maison du manoir a sa volunte: Et, qe ele voit guyer es pares, r'aillois entor le manoir, a se volunte."
These orders are apparently not more severe than was necessary for the safe custody of the Queen; and, considering the date of their issue, they seem to be lenient, considerate, and indulgent. Not so, however, with the unfortunate Countess of Buchan, who was condemned to be encaged in a turret of Berwick Castle ("en une kage de fort latiz, de fuist & barrez, & bien efforcez de ferrement;" i.e. of strong lattice-work of wood, barred, and well strengthened with iron2), where she remained immured seven years. Bruce's daughter, Marjory, and his sister Mary, were likewise to be encaged, the former in the Tower of London, the latter in Roxburghe Castle. The young Earl of Mar, "L'enfant qi est heir de Mar," Bruce's nephew, was to be sent to Bristol Castle, to be carefully guarded, "qil ne puisse eshcaper en nule manere," but not to be fettered—"mais q'il soit hors de fers, tant come il est de si tendre age."
In 1308 (1 Edw. 2.), the Bailiff of Brustwick is commanded to deliver up his prisoner, to be removed elsewhere, but to what place it does not appear. A writ of the 6th Feb. 1312, directs her to be conveyed to Windsor Castle, "cum familia sua." In October of the same year, she was removed to "Shaston" (Shaftesbury), and subsequently to the Abbey of Barking, where she remained till March, 1314, when she was sent to