in a better position than they desired, at the point of the sword. But the truth is, he was no better than his time in thought or feeling. He was simply the highest type in England, perhaps in Europe, had not Rudolph of Hapsburg been his contemporary, of an arrogant feudal lord, who could not bear resistance to his will, who was exasperated by the very appearance of opposition, who was dominated, besides, by a restless lust of power, and who had a spontaneous delight in revenging himself in the blood of any man who stood pre-eminently in the way of his imperious temper. He could, doubtless, be politically clement; but it was greatly against the grain. When, in the beginning of 1304, he showed himself in some degree merciful to the Scots-always excepting the patriot Wallace, the very type of popular resistance to his purpose-it was a mere matter of policy forced on him by experience of the temper of the people, and of the difficulty of carrying out his assumed prerogative by violence and terrorism. His true character was thoroughly shown by the especially barbarous execution of Sir Simon Fraser, when no purpose was to be served except the gratification of limitless revenge. It was when this new and temporary policy of clemency proved as futile as that of violence which had preceded it, that the natural temper of the man blazed out with a lurid fire. Feeling that death was coming on in the midst of his great and overwhelming demonstration against the Scots, he willed that his body should not be buried until Scotland was subdued, that the flesh should be stripped from the bones, and the skeleton carried at the head of the aggressive army into Scotland. The conception was

too revolting and atrocious for any survivor to carry out, even in an age when feudal devotion was the supreme law of life. But it proved that the man who could, while dying, entertain and cherish it, was one in whom the idea of great, enlightened, and beneficent purpose was certainly subordinate to personal exasperation and revenge. "The greatest of the Plantagenets" died at Burgh le Sands, on his progress to Scotland, on 7th July 1307.1 On his tomb he appropriately bears the proud distinction of his life-" Malleus Scotorum."

It may no doubt be said, regarding the execution of Fraser, that he had more than once violated his oath of allegiance or fealty to Edward, and that he suffered as a traitor. This, again, is to treat the actions and obligations of the thirteenth century as if we were dealing with a settled government of the nineteenth. The feudal oath which Fraser took was, as all feudal oaths, a purely conditional one. The overlord was bound to protect, and the vassal to serve, so long as the protection lasted. Anything that occurred in Scotland to the overthrow of Edward's power in the country, would have set his vassal there free. And if the vassal himself, as in Fraser's case, sought to shake off his feudal obligations to Edward, it must be kept in mind that any oath he ever took was a forced oath. It was exacted from him by pressure of exile, loss of liberty, loss of estate, peril of life. And further, this pressure had been brought by Edward upon Fraser, the subject of another kingdom, through his fraudulent and violent attempt to gain the supremacy of that kingdom. Fraser had a perfect right to resist

1 Burton, ii. 358.

Edward from the beginning of the whole proceedings, as was virtually held by the Papal Court, the arbiter of international disputes in Europe at the time. The compulsion which he exercised over Fraser did not better Edward's right to exact the oath. Will casuists tell us how far such an oath is binding ?-how far the element of obligation enters into a compulsory oath, and one exacted by a fraudulent pretender from a person absolutely in his power? When this question is settled, we shall be able to appreciate the fact, or estimate the degree of Fraser's personal demerit in the matter of the swearing.

But the truth is, the moral sense of the time was such that an oath of this sort was not regarded as anything more than a temporary expedient, or acknowledgment of a passing turn in the order of political supremacy. Absolution in the thirteenth century was regularly given by the Church for the violation of such an oath. Edward I. himself secretly sought and got from the Court of Rome absolution from his oath regarding the Forest Charters. He played fast and loose with his feudal oaths to the King of France. Yet we hear nothing of his perjury, from the admirers of "the greatest of the Plantagenets." And the men of the period who swore most of those oaths, and who violated most, were the ecclesiastics highest in office. William of Lamberton, the most patriotic churchman, and, indeed, Scot of the day, swore more oaths of allegiance to Edward, and broke more than probably any other man, lay or clerical, in the kingdom. This was the example of men of the highest religion and morality of the time, and how could a layman be better than his supreme spiritual guides and advisers?

Sir

Sir Simon Fraser left two daughters, coheiresses. Gilbert Hay of Lochquharret, or Locherworth, near the head of the Esk and the Tyne, married Mary, the elder daughter. With her he got the Oliver and Neidpath estates in Tweeddale. Sir Gilbert Hay was a man well worthy of the daughter of Sir Simon Fraser. He had evidently imbibed a large portion of her father's spirit. Along with Sir Alexander Seaton and Sir Neil Campbell, he entered into a solemn bond, 1308, to defend the liberties of the country and the rights of King Robert Bruce against all mortals, French, English, and Scots.1 The son of this marriage, Sir Thomas, father of Sir William Hay of Locherworth, was taken prisoner at the battle of Durham in 1346. A remoter descendant married, during the regency of Albany, Jean, eldest daughter of Hugh Gifford, of Yester. His grandson became Lord Yester in the fifteenth century. The family thus united the estates of the Giffords in East Lothian and the Frasers in Tweeddale. John, the eighth Lord Yester, was made, by Charles I., Earl of Tweeddale, 1st December 1646. He obtained possession of the ancient estate of the Tweedies of Drummelzier, on the ruin of that family. This estate he bestowed on his second son, William Hay, whose descendants held it for a considerable period. John, second Earl of Tweeddale, was made Marquis of Tweeddale, 26th December 1694. His son was influential as a statesman, and active in promoting the union between the two kingdoms. He had the soul of a poet, and his song of "Tweedside" is the first indication we have of the beauty of the Tweed having, at 1 Nisbet's Heraldry, ii. 23.

least in comparatively modern times, penetrated the heart of a dweller on its banks. The daughter of the first Marquis, Lady Margaret, married Robert, Earl of Roxburgh. She was the subject of a song, entitled "John Hay's Bonnie Lassie." This was said to be the composition of a joiner lad on the Tweed, who had the mis: fortune to be smitten by the charms of the high-born Lady Margaret. The Hays must have had about them. a remarkable atmosphere of poetry. The Tweeddale family sold their estates in Peeblesshire, in 1686, to the first Duke of Queensberry.

The younger daughter of Sir Simon Fraser married Sir Patrick Fleming or Fleeming (Flandrensis), of Biggar, and son of Robert Fleming, who had strongly sided with Bruce in his struggles for the crown. The son of Sir Malcolm, the elder brother of Sir Patrick, was made Earl of Wigton, in 1342, for his eminent services to the family of Bruce. This branch of the family became extinct, the last of the line having sold the estate and earldom of Wigton, in 1371-72, to Archibald Douglas, Lord of Galloway. Eventually Fleming of Biggar was made Lord Fleming, and then Earl of Wigton, by James VI., 19th March 1606. The Biggar family continued to represent the main line of the Flemings and the junior branch of the Frasers for several hundred years. It is now merged in that of the Lords Elphinstone. The statement, made by some writers, that the last Sir Simon Fraser of Oliver left a son who founded the northern houses of Lovat and Saltoun, is wholly without historical foundation.