{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_40267/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_40267","id":"gutenberg_40267","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40267","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - British","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Celtic Magazine","Clans -- Scotland -- Periodicals","Scotland -- Periodicals"],"text":"THE CELTIC MAGAZINE.\n\nNo. IV.          FEBRUARY 1876.\n\n\n\n\nTHE STATE OF THE OSSIANIC CONTROVERSY.\n\n[CONCLUDED.]\n\n\nIN prosecuting the geological and geographical confirmation of Ossian on\nwhich we have lately been engaged, the most convincing proofs and the\ngreatest difficulties alike are to be found in the Frith of Clyde. The\nlevels of the water in that frith penetrating far inland, by Paisley,\nRutherglen, and Kilsyth, assumed unconsciously as matter of fact in the\ntext of Ossian, are in such obvious harmony with every word of the poems\nwhich relate to that region, that the poems in question cannot otherwise\nbe understood; and we therefore cannot help believing not only that the\npoems themselves are genuine, but that they represent a geological\nphenomenon hitherto unsuspected in the world--are, in fact, a revelation\nin science. On the other hand, the levels thus assumed are so very far\nbeyond anything admitted by geologists within the era assigned, as to\nseem not only extravagant but incredible; and if they cannot be\nmaintained, their assumption as a fact will destroy the credibility of\nthe poems in which the assumption is made. As regards the authenticity\nof these poems, however, the assumption itself is conclusive; for the\ntranslator did not see it, and could therefore never have fabricated the\npoems in which it appears. Such poems must have been written by some\neye-witness of the fact, who did not require to exaggerate; and the only\nquestion as regards reliability now to be settled, is whether he did\nexaggerate or no? Was the Clyde a sea to Rutherglen, as he seems to\naffirm? Was the Kelvin a fiord to Kilsyth, or nearly so, as he implies?\nWas the Leven an estuary to Loch Lomond, as we are bound to conclude?\nWas the Black Cart a marine canal to Ardrossan in the days of Agricola?\nIf so, the Clyde must have been from 60 to 80 feet above its present\nlevel at the date supposed--and then, where was the Roman Wall? Traces\nof that wall upon the Clyde at a much lower level, it is said, still\nexist; and the old fortifications between Dunglass and Kilpatrick\nonly 50 feet or thereby above the present level, put an end to the\nreliability, if not to the authenticity of Ossian. This is the\ndifficulty now to be disposed of; and of which, in passing, we need only\nsay, that if Macpherson had seen it he would certainly have avoided it;\nand therefore, that whoever was the author of the poems in which it\noccurs, Macpherson was not.\n\nBut it is with the difficulty itself we are now concerned, and not with\nthe authorship. I. First then, suppose any statement, direct or\nindirect, had occurred in any Greek or Roman writer of the time--C\u00e6sar,\nTacitus, Dion Cassius, or Ptolemy--affirming, or even implying, such a\nlevel in the Clyde at the date in question, notwithstanding the Roman\nWall, would the testimony of such authors have been rejected? If not,\nhow would our geologists have disposed of it? or how would they have\nreconciled it with existing matters of fact? One can imagine the\njealousy with which such texts would have been criticised; the assiduity\nwith which every crevice on the coast would have been surveyed, not to\ncontradict but to confirm them; and the fertility of invention with\nwhich theories would have been multiplied to harmonise them. Strange as\nit may appear, however, facts and statements amounting very nearly to\nthis do occur, and have hitherto been overlooked, or purposely omitted\nin silence. The Roman Wall, for example, stops short with a town at\nBalmulzie on one side of the Kelvin, and begins again with another town\nat Simmerton, nearly a mile distant, on the opposite side of the Kelvin;\nbut why should such a gap be there, if the Kelvin, which flows between,\nhad not been something like a fiord at the moment? Again, it is\ndistinctly affirmed by Herodian that the marshes of Clydesdale south of\nthe Wall were constantly--end of the third, or beginning of the fourth\ncentury--emitting vapours which obscured the sky. But how could this be\nthe case, if volcanic heat had not already been operating underneath,\nand the waters of the frith were then beginning to subside from their\noriginal higher levels?\n\nOn the other hand, not only do statements to the effect alleged occur\nfrequently in Ossian, but whole poems are founded on the assumption of\ntheir truth, and cannot be understood without them. Why then are not\nthese taken into account by our geologists as contemporaneous testimony,\nin the same way as similar statements, if they had occurred in C\u00e6sar or\nin Tacitus, would have been? Because Ossian hitherto has been looked\nupon by men of science as a fable; as a witness utterly unfit to be\nproduced in court, and no more to be cared for or quoted in an\nordnance survey, or in a professor's chair, than the Arabian Nights'\nEntertainments are in a pulpit. By which very oversight or contempt, the\nmost important revelations have been lost, and the most elaborate\ntheories will soon be rendered useless. Ossian, in fact, is as much an\nauthority as either C\u00e6sar, or Tacitus, or Ptolemy; and in estimating the\nphysical conditions of the world to which he refers, and which he\ndescribes, can no longer be either ignored or doubted. If his text seems\nto be at variance with existing facts, it must be more carefully\nstudied; and if new theories are required to harmonise details they must\nbe accepted or invented. We have had theories enough already, which have\nperished with the using; something more in harmony with facts, or that\nwill better explain the facts, must now be forthcoming.\n\nII. But the Roman Wall itself, which is supposed to be the greatest\nbarrier in the way of our accepting Ossian, has actually a literature of\nits own, little understood, in his favour. The three forts farthest\nwest, and on which so much reliance has been placed as indicating the\nlevels of the Clyde when they were built and occupied, are those at\nChapel Hill, near Old Kilpatrick, at Duntocher, and at Castlehill a\nlittle farther to the east; all under the ridge of the Kilpatrick Hills,\nand all--one of them very closely--overlooking the Clyde. But in\nexcavating the remains of Roman architecture in these forts, stones have\nbeen found with symbolical sculptures upon them which are still in\nexistence, or which have been accurately copied for public use. On one\nof the stones at Chapel Hill, farthest west, we have the figure of a\nwild boar in flight; on one at Duntocher we have another wild boar, on\ntwo more there we have sea-dogs or seals and winged horses; on two more\nat Castlehill we have another boar, and another seal, and an osprey or\nsea-eagle on the back of the seal; but beyond this to the eastward,\nalthough a boar still occurs, not another seal appears. How then is all\nthis descriptive or symbolical sculpture, so plain and so significant,\nto be accounted for, if the Frith of Clyde had not then been a sea\nflowing up into the recesses of the land, as high almost as Duntocher\nand Castlehill? The wild boar is traceable throughout, for he inhabited\nthe woods on the Kilpatrick range, as far eastward, perhaps, as\nSimmerton; and we find him eating acorns, even beyond that. On the other\nhand, no seal is represented at Chapel Hill, for the water there was too\ndeep, and the banks too precipitous. It appears first at Duntocher, and\nagain at Castlehill, because the sea flowed up into quiet bays and\ninlets there, where such amphibia could bask--of which, more hereafter;\nbut it totally disappears beyond that, because the salt water ceased in\nthe distance. The winged-horse, or pegasus, is more difficult to account\nfor, and has greatly perplexed the learned antiquarians who have\ncommented on him; but if the Roman Legionaries who built and occupied\nthese western stations ever heard the Caledonian harp, or listened to a\nCeltic bard, or received an embassy, as we are expressly told they did,\nfrom men like Ossian as ambassadors--the difficulty requires no farther\nexplanation. The Romans were neither blind nor senseless, and knew well\nenough how to represent the poetical genius of the country which they\nwere attempting in vain to conquer, as well as the wild boars of its\nwoods, and the sea-dogs in its estuaries; and have thus left behind\nthem, in rude but significant sculpture, as true a picture as could be\nimagined of the men on the soil, and the beasts in the field, and the\nfish so-called in the sea, and the bird in the air--between Simmerton\nand Duntocher, in absolute conformity with the text of Ossian. Nor is\nthere any possible reply to this by our antiquarian friends. The Roman\nWall itself, to which they constantly appeal, supplies the evidence, and\nthey are bound, without a murmur, to accept it.\n\nIII. But the levels of the Wall, it may be said, as now ascertainable by\nactual survey--what other sort of evidence do _they_ afford? This\nquestion implies--(1) A range of observation from the Kelvin at\nSimmerton westward to Duntocher in the first place, and then to Chapel\nHill between Old Kilpatrick and Dunglass. The intermediate forts on that\nline are separated by equal distances, nearly as follows:--From\nSimmerton to New Kilpatrick, 1\u00be miles; from New Kilpatrick to Castlehill,\n1\u00be miles; from Castlehill to Duntocher, 1\u00be miles; the lowest point\nin which range at Duntocher is from 155 to 200 feet above the level\nof the Clyde, leaving sufficient room, therefore, for the Wall above\nthe highest level assumed in the text of Ossian. From Duntocher to\nChapel Hill there is a distance of 2\u00bd miles, with no trace whatever\nof the Wall between. Chapel Hill is considerably lower than Duntocher,\nundoubtedly; but why is there so great a gap there, and no trace of a\nwall in the interval? Either, because there never was a wall so close to\nthe tide; or because the tide itself washed the wall away, having been\nbuilt too close to its confines; or for some other more probable reason\nyet to be assigned. The fort at Chapel Hill itself, indeed, is the most\nindistinct of them all; and if a regular fort of any importance ever\nexisted there, it must have suffered either partial inundation, or some\nother serious shock, unquestionably.\n\n(2) It implies also a corresponding survey of the ground intermediate\nbetween the Wall and the river. Now the intervening ground along the\nbanks of the Clyde, from Chapel Hill to the Pointhouse at Glasgow, is a\nlow-lying flat with a gradual rise inland, at the present moment, of not\nmore than 25 or 30 feet. But according to Professor Geikie's latest\nsurvey, the Clyde must have been about 25 feet higher in the time of the\nRomans than it now is--and Professor Geikie, we presume, is an authority\non such subjects, who may be quoted along with Hugh Miller and Smith of\nJordanhill:--therefore the whole of that strath, and the strath on the\nopposite side, from Renfrew to Paisley, on this assumption, must have\nbeen submerged at the same time; and there could be no dwelling-place\nfor human beings--neither local habitation nor a name--within the entire\ncompass of that now fertile and populous region. But two or three Gaelic\nnames survive on the northern verge of it, which not only indicate the\npresence of the sea there, but fix the very limits of its tide. Dalmuir,\nfor example, which means the Valley of the Sea; and Garscadden, which\nmeans the Bay of Pilchards or of foul herring, must, in fact, have\ncarried the waters up their respective streams to within less than a\nmile of the Roman Wall at Duntocher and Castlehill. It was in such\nretreats, then, that both salmon and herring (as the name of one of them\nimports) would take refuge in the spawning season; it was into such\nretreats also, they would be pursued by the seals; it was on the shore\nof such inlets the seals themselves would bask, when the Romans saw\nthem; and it is at the two forts respectively at the head of these\ninlets--Duntocher and Castlehill--that they have been actually\nrepresented in Sculpture. Could anything be more conclusive as to the\nproximity of the tide, and very character of the shore, within a bowshot\nor two of the Wall in that neighbourhood, where there is now a distance\nof more than two miles between it and the river? and yet even more\nconclusive, in connection with this, is the fact that on the southern\nverge of the strath, right opposite to these, are other Gaelic names\nequally significant--such as Kennis, the Head of the island; Ferinis,\nthe Hero's island; and Fingal-ton, which speaks for itself--at the same\nor a similar level with Dalmuir and Garscadden, that is from 100 to 200\nfeet above the present level of the Clyde, which seems to demonstrate\nbeyond doubt that the whole intervening space of seven miles in breadth,\nwith the exception of such small islands as those named above, was then\nan arm of the sea to the depth of 50 feet at least, if not more.\n\n(3) Our survey is thus narrowed to a single point--the existence and\nalleged position of the fort at Chapel Hill, between Old Kilpatrick and\nDunglass, on the banks of the river; and here it should be observed as\nbetween the two extremities of the Wall, east and west, that where it\ntouches the Frith of Forth at Carriden the height of its foundation\nranges from about 150 to 200 feet above the level of the sea, and where\nit approaches the Clyde at Duntocher it is nearly the same--which was\nprobably its terminus. There is scarcely a vestige of it now traceable\nbeyond that, and that it was ever carried farther in reality is a matter\nof acknowledged uncertainty. But scattered fragments of masonry, as we\nhave seen, and the dimmest indications of a fort deep down in the earth\nhave been discovered or imagined at Chapel Hill to the westward, which\nseems to be about 50 feet above the level of the Clyde--leaving still a\nvery large margin beyond Professor Geikie's estimate; and a great deal\nof conjecture about what might, or might not have been there, has been\nindulged in by antiquarians. For the present, however, until proof to\nthe contrary has been shown, let us accept as a fact that some military\nstation had really been established there in connection with the\nWall--then, how have its fragments been so widely scattered? how has it\nbeen so completely entombed that it can only be guessed at under the\nsoil? and how has the connection between it and the Wall, more than two\nmiles distant, been obliterated? No other fort on the line, that we know\nof, is now in the same condition; and therefore, we repeat, either the\nRomans were foolishly contending with the tide, by building too close to\nits confines, and the tide drove them back and overthrew their works; or\nthe fort itself was originally on a higher level, and the shock of an\nearthquake, or a landslip from the mountains, or both together, carried\nthe whole mass of masonry and earthwork at this particular point down to\ntheir present level, where they would be washed by the tide and silted\nup in their own ruins. This is a view of the matter, indeed, which no\nantiquarian, so far as we are aware, has hitherto adopted; but any one\nwho chooses to look with an unprejudiced eye, for a moment, at the\nenormous gap in the hills immediately behind, reaching down to the shore\nand including this very region, must be satisfied that the case was so;\nand recent discoveries--one of a quay-wall or foundation of a bridge at\nOld Kilpatrick, about 4 feet deep in a field; and another of a causeway,\nmore than 20 feet submerged and silted up under sea-sand, on the same\nside of the river, near Glasgow, will most probably confirm it.\n\nOne other question, however, yet remains, touching this mysterious fort,\nwhich we may be allowed to say only \"Ossian and the Clyde\" can enable us\nto answer--Why was such a fort ever thought of there at all? It was\neither to receive provisions and reinforcements from the sea; and if so,\nthen it must have been on the very verge of the frith, and the water\nmust have been sufficiently deep there. Or it was to watch the estuary\nof the Leven, and to prevent the native Caledonians either landing from\nthe sea, or coming down from the hills to turn the flank of the Wall at\nDuntocher, and so surprising the Romans in the rear; and this, beyond\ndoubt, was its most important purpose as a military station on the line.\nBut we have elsewhere explained (in the work above alluded to) that\nthere was a regular route for the Caledonians from Dunglass to Campsie,\nwhich still bears the name of Fingal; and Fyn-loch, the very first\nrendezvous on that line, is on the top of the hill immediately above the\nfort in question. The Romans, who must have been fully aware of this,\nmade their own provision accordingly. In sight of that fort, therefore,\nFingal and his people might embark or disembark on their expeditions\nthrough Dumbartonshire at pleasure; but it would require to be at a\nreasonable distance westward, on the sides of Dumbuck or in the quiet\ncreek at Milton, if they wished to escape the catapults and crossbows of\nthe conquerors of the world. Now the earthquake, which extended up the\nwhole basin of the Clyde, seems to have changed all that. The fort was\nsunk or shattered, as we suppose, and the frith began to fall; and\nantiquarians who do not believe in Ossian, or who do not keep such\nobvious facts in view, have been puzzled ever since, and will be puzzled\never more, attempting to account for it.\n\nIV. In adducing this evidence--partly antiquarian and partly\ngeological--we have restricted our survey exclusively to the Roman Wall,\nfor it is on this important barrier between the Forth and Clyde that\nthose who object to the geography of Ossian are accustomed to fall back.\nBut the sort of testimony it affords might be easily supplemented by a\nsurvey of the Clyde itself, which can be shown, and has been shown, by\nincontestable measurement on the coast of Ayrshire, to be sinking at the\nrate of \u00be of an inch annually for the last forty or fifty years at\nleast; and if such subsidence has been going on for fifteen hundred\nyears at the same rate, the level of the frith in the days of the Romans\nmust have been even higher than we now allege. A critic in the\n_Scotsman_, who, himself, first demanded such a survey, and to whom the\nsurvey when reported in the same paper--August 30th, 1875--was\ntroublesome, appeals boldly in an editorial note to the authority of\nHugh Miller, and again demands that the survey be transferred from\nGirvan to Glasgow, because \"the height to which the tide rises is a very\nfluctuating quantity\"--in Ayrshire, we presume. As for Hugh Miller, we\ncan find nothing whatever in his pages to the purpose; and if such a\ndistinguished authority is to be relied on in the present controversy,\nwe must insist on his very words being quoted. As for the fluctuation of\nthe tide, if it fluctuates in one place more than another, what is the\nuse of appealing to it at all? and as between the Ayrshire coast, and\nthe Renfrewshire or Lanarkshire coast, on the same side of the frith,\nunless \"the moon and one darn'd thing or another\" have special\ndisturbing influence in Ayrshire, what difference can there be in the\nregularity of flow between Girvan and Glasgow? This learned adversary in\nthe _Scotsman_ must surely have been at his wit's end when he took\nrefuge in such an absurdity, and we may safely leave him where he is, to\nrevise his own calculations and recover his composure.\n\nAll this might be insisted on anew; but the object of the present\nargument is simply to show to the readers of the _Celtic Magazine_ that\nthe Ossianic controversy must of necessity be removed to another and a\nhigher sphere than ever. There are certain points, indeed, on which\nphilological inquiries may still be of the utmost importance as regards\nthe Gaelic original, and these we cheerfully consign for discussion to\nthose whom they most concern; but these will never decide the question\nof authenticity in its proper form, or establish Ossian in his proper\nplace as a witness-bearer of the past. The sense of Macpherson's\ntranslation, as it stands, must be honestly ascertained; its testimony\nverified, or otherwise, by direct appeal to the subject matter of its\ntext; and its value in the literature of the world determined, on the\nsame principles, and by the very same process as that of any other\npublic record would be in the history of the world. Such investigation\nhas now become indispensable. In Ossian's name alike, and in that of\nscience, as well as of common sense, we demand it, and will never be\nsatisfied until it has been accorded.\n\n                                                    P. HATELY WADDELL.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nWe direct the reader's careful attention to the following interesting\nstatistics regarding occupiers of land in Ireland:--The agricultural\nstatistics of Ireland recently completed for 1873 show that in that year\nthere were in that country 590,172 separate holdings, being 5,041 less\nthan in the preceding year. The decrease was in the small holdings. The\nnumber of holdings not exceeding one acre fell to 51,977, a decrease of\n908, and the number above one acre and not exceeding 15 acres, shows a\ndecrease of 3,777. The holdings above one acre can be compared with the\nnumbers in 1841. Since that date the total number has decreased 22 per\ncent. The number of farms above one and not exceeding five acres has\nfallen to 72,088 (in 1873), a decrease of 76.8 per cent.; the number of\nfarms above five and not exceeding 15 acres has diminished to 168,044, a\ndecrease of 33.5 per cent.; the number above 15 and not exceeding 30\nacres has risen to 138,163, an increase of 74.1 per cent.; and the\nnumber above 30 acres has increased to 159,900, an increase of 228.8 per\ncent. Of the total number of holdings in 1873, 8.8 per cent. did not\nexceed 1 acre; 12.2 per cent. were above 1 and not exceeding 5 acres;\n28.5 per cent., 5 to 15 acres; 23.4 per cent., 15 to 30 acres; 12.4 per\ncent., 30 to 50 acres; 9.4 per cent., 50 to 100 acres; 3.7 per cent.,\n100 to 200 acres; 1.4 per cent., 200 to 500 acres; 0.2 per cent., above\n500 acres. More than 60 acres in every 100 of the land comprising farms\nabove 500 acres are bog or waste. As the farms diminish in size, the\nproportion under bog and waste decreases until it amounts to only 7.1\nper cent. on the smallest holdings. The average extent of the holdings\nnot exceeding 1 acre is 1 rood and 32 perches, and of farms above 500\nacres 1,371 acres and 19 perches. As in many instances landholders\noccupy more than one farm, it has been considered desirable to ascertain\nthe number of such persons, and it has been found that in 1873 the\n590,172 holdings were in the hands of 539,545 occupiers, or 2,293 fewer\nthan in the preceding year. There were in 1873 50,758 occupiers whose\ntotal extent of land did not exceed 1 acre; 65,051 holdings above 1 and\nnot exceeding 5 acres; 150,778 holdings above 5 but not exceeding 15\nacres; 124,471 holdings above 15 but not exceeding 30 acres; 65,991\nholdings above 30 and not exceeding 50 acres; 50,565 holdings above 50\nbut not exceeding 100 acres; 20,764 holdings above 100 but not exceeding\n200 acres; 8,799 holdings above 200 but not exceeding 500 acres; and\n2,368 holdings above 500 acres. The whole 590,172 holdings extended over\n20,327,196 acres, of which 5,270,746 were under crops, 10,413,991 were\ngrazing land, 13,455 fallow, 323,656 woods and plantations, and\n4,305,348 bog and waste. The estimated population of Ireland in the\nmiddle of the year 1873 was 5,337,261.\n\n\n\n\nNEW YEAR IN THE OLD STYLE IN THE HIGHLANDS.\n\n\nOld Mr Chisholm sat at his parlour fire after a hearty New Year dinner.\nHis wife occupied the cosy arm-chair in the opposite corner; and\ngathered round them were a bevy of merry grand-children, enjoying New\nYear as only children can. Their parents were absent at the moment, and\nthe family group was completed by a son and daughter of the old couple.\n\nMr Chisholm was in a meditative mood, looking into the bright blazing\nfire. \"Well,\" he observed at last with an air of regret, \"The New Year\nis not observed as it was when we were children, wife. It's dying out,\ndying out greatly. When these children are as old as we are there will\nbe no trace of a Christmas or a New Year holiday. What did you say you\nhad been doing all day Bill?\" he asked, turning to his son.\n\n\"Shooting,\" said Bill, \"and deuced cold I was. Catch me trying for the\n'silver medal and other prizes' another New Year's Day.\"\n\n\"Shooting may be interesting\" said Mr Chisholm, \"but as you say it is\ncold work. We had sometimes a shot at a raffle in my young days, but\nusually we had more exciting business. Shinty my boy, shinty was our\ngreat game,\" and Mr Chisholm looked as if he greatly pitied the\ndegeneracy of the latter days.\n\n\"I have played shinty myself\" said Bill, \"and I see it is still played\nin Badenoch and Strathglass, and among wild Highlanders in Edinburgh.\nBut it's too hard on the lungs for me, and besides we never play it\nhere.\"\n\n\"The more's the pity, Bill. There's no game ever I saw I could compare\nto shinty. Talk about cricket, that's nothing to it. Shinty was suited\nto a New Year's day; it kept the spirits up and the body warm. I should\nlike to have a turn at it yet--wouldn't I run?\" And the old man's heavy\nframe shook as he chuckled at the idea. \"However, there's no use\nspeaking; is tea ready wife?\"\n\n\"No, and it won't be for half-an-hour yet, perhaps longer\" said Mrs\nChisholm. \"You know we have to wait Bella and John,\" indicating her\nmarried daughter and her husband.\n\n\"Then,\" said the old man, \"come here bairns and I shall tell you how I\nspent one of my early New Year's days.\"\n\n\"Yes, do, grandfather,\" shouted a happy chorus; \"now for a story.\"\n\n\"Not much of a story\" replied Mr Chisholm, \"but such as it is you shall\nhave it. I was born and bred in the country, you know, my father being a\nsmall farmer. The district was half-Lowland, half-Highland, and we mixed\nthe customs of both. At that time shinty was a universal winter game,\nand greatly we prided ourselves on our smartness at the sport. And it\nwas a sport that required a great deal of smartness, activity, strength,\npresence of mind, and a quick sure eye. Many a moonlight night did the\nlads contend for the honour of hailing the ball. On this particular day\nthere was to be a match between two districts--twenty men a-side, and\nthe stake \u00a35 and a gallon of whisky. Our leader was a carpenter, named\nPaterson, who was the hero of many a keenly contested shinty match.\n\n\"The eagerly expected morning at last arrived. The New Year was taken in\nby the young folk trying for their fortune in 'sooans.' Bless me bairns,\ndon't you know what 'sooans' is? No; then the thin sooans was made for\ndrinking like good thick gruel; the thick was like porridge, but that we\nnever took on a Christmas or New Year morning. About four o'clock I came\ndown to the kitchen, and there found my mother superintending the\nboiling of the 'sooans,' and the place filled with the servants, girls,\nand men, and some of our neighbours. My friend Paterson, who had an eye\nto one of the servants (a pretty country lassie) had walked four miles\nto be present. Wishing them all a happy Christmas I sat down to share\nthe 'sooans' with the rest.\n\n\"'Well Paterson,' said I, 'how do you feel this morning? Nothing, I\nhope, to interfere with your running powers.'\n\n\"'No thank ye, Willie,' said he, 'I'm as supple as a deer.'\n\n\"'Supple enough,' said one of the men with a grin; 'he was here first\nthis morning. Wasn't he, Maggie?'\n\n\"''Twould be lang afore ye were first,' retorted Maggie; 'the laziest\nloon on the whole country side.'\n\n\"By this time the 'sooans' were ready, and we were all unceremoniously\nturned out of doors. In our absence ten bowls were filled. In two of\nthese a ring was placed, signifying, of course, speedy marriage; a\nshilling put into two others represented the old bachelor or old maid;\nand a half-crown in another represented riches. Called in, we had each\nto choose a dish, beginning at the youngest. Great was the merriment as\nwe drained our dishes, but at the last mouthful or two we paused, as if\nafraid to peer into dark futurity.\n\n\"'Here goes,' exclaimed Paterson first of all, and he emptied his dish.\nAt the bottom lay a shilling, which he exhibited amidst a general shout\nof laughter.\n\n\"'What have _you_ got Maggie,' was the next exclamation. With a titter\nMaggie produced a ring.\n\n\"'And here's the other ring' cried Jock, the 'laziest loon in the\ncountry side.' 'Maggie, you're my lass for this year anyway.'\n\n\"Maggie tossed her head in superb disdain.\n\n\"'I'll try my luck now,' said I, and drained my dish. My luck was to get\nthe second shilling. So you see wife, though I got you I was intended to\nbe a bachelor. The half-crown, I think, fell to a man who could never\nkeep a sixpence in his purse.\n\n\"After breakfast we started for the place of meeting. Our men joined us\none by one, and many more came to see the game. As we passed the\ncottages the girls called to us to see that we supported the honour of\nthe place, and returned victorious, to which we replied 'ay, that we\nwill,' and flourished our clubs with vigour. Before we reached the\nappointed ground the procession had greatly increased in numbers, and a\nlarge crowd at the spot welcomed us with tossing up of bonnets and\nrounds of cheering. Soon afterwards our opponents arrived, headed by a\npiper, and their leader Jack Macdonald. Their appearance also excited\nhearty cheering, and preliminaries were soon arranged.\n\n\"The sides were very equally matched. Macdonald was an active young\nploughman, who came neatly dressed in a velveteen jacket and corduroy\ntrousers, the latter adorned with rows of buttons. Paterson, of course,\nwas our mainstay; and besides him, we had an innkeeper, as stout and\nround as one of his own barrels, who, singular to say, was a capital\nshinty player. Our opponents had the assistance of an enthusiastic\nschoolmaster, who, even in those days, encouraged sports among his\npupils, in spite of the remonstrances of some of the wiseacres. Our\nclubs were carefully selected. Some preferred a sharp square crook,\nsome a round one, just as they happened to excel in hitting or\n'birling'--that is, in getting the ball within the bend, and running it\nalong upon the ground. The ball, composed of cork and worsted, was at\nonce strong and elastic.\n\n\"The hails, four hundred yards apart, were duly measured out and marked\nby upright poles. Then the players ranged themselves in the centre of\nthe field, Macdonald and Paterson hand to hand; and at the understood\nsign the ball was thrown down and the strife commenced. I don't know\nwhether the rules were the same in all places, but with us no kicking or\nthrowing of the ball was allowed. We could stop it by any means we\npleased, but we could strike it forward only with our clubs. The players\nwere ranged in opposing ranks; and it was against all rule for a player,\neven in the heat of contest, to turn round to his opponents' side,\nthough he might, by so doing, obtain a more convenient stroke. Should\nsuch a thing happen, the roar of \"Clipsides ye\" from a dozen throats,\nand the thwack of two or three clubs on his legs would soon apprise the\nunlucky individual of his fault.\n\n\"As long as the ball was in the midst of the players there was great\nscrambling and confusion. The lads pushed and shouted; club stuck fast\nin club; and the ball was tossed from side to side without any advantage\nto either party. Paterson watched his opportunity, and cleverly picking\nthe ball from the other clubs, he gave it a hasty stroke which brought\nit close to me, eagerly waiting for it outside the thick of battle. In a\nmoment I had caught it, and sped along the field, 'birling' rather than\nhitting, followed by the whole troop, cheered by my friends and stormed\nat by my opponents. Macdonald, rushing fast and furious, first came up\nand seized my club with his as I was about to administer a stroke. For a\nsecond or two we were both helpless; Macdonald first succeeded in\nextricating his weapon, and struck the ball backwards two or three\nyards. The other players were almost upon us, when I struck up\nMacdonald's club, caught the ball again and shot a-head. Macdonald\novertook me with a few bounds, for he was now thoroughly roused and\nheated; but stretching too far to hit the ball he fell on his knee. The\nschoolmaster, however, was now upon me, and the ball was hurled back by\nhim among the troop of players. Macdonald had sprung to his feet almost\nin an instant, and darted back to the contest.\n\n\"Again the scene of confusion recommenced. Backwards and forwards,\nbackwards and forwards, swayed the excited crowd, every face flushed,\nand every muscle strained to the utmost. Shins and arms received some\nawkward blows in the strife, but no one cared as long as the injuries\nwere unimportant. Macdonald at last succeeded in pulling out the ball,\nand getting it for a moment into a clear space, he delivered a\ntremendous blow, which drove it far on the road to hail. There was a\nrace who should reach it first. Paterson succeeded, and drove the ball\nfar down the field, but out of the direct way and into a whin bush.\n'Hands,' shouted his nearest opponent; and at this call the stout\ninnkeeper, who was nearest the bush, caught up the ball and brought it\ninto the open field.\n\n\"'High or low' said the innkeeper, holding his club in his right hand\nand the ball in his left.\n\n\"'High,' said his opponent.\n\n\"The ball was immediately thrown into the air and both tried to strike\nit as it fell. The innkeeper was successful, but the blow was\nnecessarily a feeble one, and carried the ball but a few yards.\n\n\"The contest continued during the greater part of the day, neither side\nbeing able to claim a decided advantage. During a momentary pause\nPaterson flung off his boots, sharp frost as it was, and was followed by\nMacdonald, the innkeeper, and myself. The innkeeper freely regaled\nhimself from his pocket-flask, and actually became more eager and\nactive. Late in the afternoon he got a-head with the ball, and skipped\nforward, sometimes 'birling' and sometimes hitting it, until he was\nwithin twenty yards of hail. Another blow would have finished the match,\nwhen Macdonald caught the ball and ran back with it, most wonderfully\neluding all the clubs, now wielded by arms for the most part greatly\nfatigued. Paterson, thrown off his guard by the suddenness of the\nmovement, was left behind. The innkeeper pursued Macdonald closely--so\nclosely, indeed, that his bulky body obstructed all movements but his\nown. Macdonald was in high spirits, when, running against an opponent in\nfront, he turned round for a moment to our side to secure a better\nstroke. The innkeeper, foaming with rage and disappointment, roared out\n'Clipsides ye,' and administered a blow to Macdonald's leg that caused\nhim to halt for an instant. That halt was fatal. I darted past and\nhoisted the ball to Paterson, who seized it and carried it easily\nthrough the now scattered ranks of our opponents. Once out into the open\nfield it was a direct chase. Paterson had better wind than any man on\nthe field, and having got so far ahead he made the most of his\nadvantage. Macdonald pursued him hotly. Twice he came up with Paterson,\ntwice he struck at the ball, and both times struck the ground just as\nthe object of his pursuit was carried forward by our leader's weapon.\nAfter that all was over. Paterson took the ball to within twenty yards\nof hail, and then with a well-directed blow sent it between the winning\nposts. A loud shout rent the air. In the excitement of the moment I\nattempted leapfrog over the stout innkeeper, and both came to the\nground.\n\n\"After this the whisky was broached, and mutual healths followed. The\ngame had been so well contested that there was no ill-feeling; and we\npromised to give our opponents an opportunity of revenge another day.\nLate at night we returned to my father's house, where a good supper was\nspread for us in the barn. A hearty dance followed, and so New Year's\nDay, old style, came to a close. Don't you think it was a jovial day?\"\n\n\"Not a doubt about it\" said Bill, \"only the sport was rather rough. Do\nyou really mean to say that you threw off your boots for the play?\"\n\n\"That we did my boy in the heat of the match, and it was not so unusual\nas you may suppose. Highlanders were tough lads in those days, and they\ndidn't fear a blow or a bruise.\"\n\n\"Did many accidents happen?\" asked Bill. \"When clubs were swinging about\nfreely I should think heads were in danger.\"\n\n\"Serious accidents were rare\" replied Mr Chisholm. \"Ankles and legs and\nhands did get some smart knocks, but heads generally escaped. In the\nthick of the strife there was no use swinging clubs in the air. We could\nonly push and thrust, and pull the ball out with the crook. In a race we\nstruck as we ran, giving short rapid strokes; and when a player\ndelivered a sweeping blow, he had generally space for the swing of his\nclub. I remember a boy getting his face laid open by an awkward fellow;\nbut such an occurrence was rare among experienced players. We could\nhandle our clubs as you handle your guns--scientifically. There are not\nusually many casualties at a shooting match--eh Bill?\"\n\n\"But, grandfather, what came of Paterson?\" asked little Mary. \"Did he\nmarry Maggie?\"\n\n\"Oh, that's the subject of interest to you, lassie. No, he didn't. Women\nare always contrary. Maggie married the 'lazy loon' Jock; he made the\nmost of his good fortune in getting the ring, and the marriage was long\ncited as a proof of the unfailing certainty of the oracle.\"\n\n\"Grandfather,\" cried Henry, \"have you made us the totum? Didn't you used\nto play the totum on New Year's Day?\"\n\n\"That we did boy\" said Mr Chisholm. \"The youngsters thought it a capital\ngame, and the elders did not refuse to join in it. Yes, Harry, I made\nyou the totum, and by-and-bye we shall have a game.\"\n\n\"Let us have it now\" cried the children springing up in eager\nexcitement. \"Let us have it now; we have all brought our pins.\"\n\nMr Chisholm cheerfully acquiesced. The group gathered round a little\ntable, each with a stock of pins displayed, to be staked on the game now\nabout to be commenced. Look at the totum as Harry takes it up and\nbalances it between the thumb and second finger of the right hand. It is\nonly a piece of wood about half an inch long, cut away to a sharp point\nbelow, and having a slender spike thrust in at the top to serve as a\nhandle. It is four square, and a letter is carved on each side--namely,\n\"T,\" \"D,\" \"N,\" and \"A.\" Each player stakes a single pin, and each in\nrotation gets his chance of whirling the totum. If, after whirling, the\ntotum falls with the letter \"A\" uppermost, all the stakes become the\nprize of the player; if \"T\" is the uppermost letter he only takes one;\nif \"N\" appears he gets nothing at all; while \"D\" obliges him to\ncontribute a pin from his private stock to the heap in the centre.\nEvery whirl comes to be watched with as much eagerness as if a fortune\ndepended on the result.\n\nThe nature of the game having been made sufficiently plain, Mr Chisholm\nleads off with a whirl which sends the totum spinning round so fast as\nto be almost invisible; but gradually relaxing its speed it falls at\nlast, exposing upon its upper surface the letter \"N,\" carved, if not\nwith elegance, at least with sufficient plainness to show that it is a\nveritable \"N\" and no other letter of the alphabet.\n\n\"Nickle nothing,\" shout the children, as they clap their hands with\ndelight.\n\nThen Harry takes his turn. He holds the totum very carefully between his\nfinger and thumb, poising it with intense gravity; then looks at the\nletter next him, twirls the toy backward and forward, and finally\npropels it by a sudden jerk from his fingers. It whirls like a top for a\nfew seconds, watched by eager faces, and ultimately falls with the\nletter \"D\" uppermost.\n\n\"D put down\" bursts from the merry group; and the boy looks very\ndisappointed as he withdraws a pin from his private stock and places it\namong the general deposit. Grandfather enters into the fun with as much\nenthusiasm as the children, and the spirit of gambling has taken\npossession of the New Year party.\n\nThe smallest girl--four years old--next takes the totum. She places it\nbetween the thumb and forefinger, screws her mouth to make an effort,\nand placing the point on the table gives it a whirl. It goes round three\nor four times with a convulsive staggering motion, and at last falls,\n\"A\" uppermost, amidst a general shout of laughter and applause.\n\n\"A, take them all--Lizzy has got the pins\"--and the surprised and happy\nchild, proud of her success, gathers the heap to her own stock, while\nthe others each replace a stake.\n\nSo the lively little game proceeds amidst varying success. Possessions\ngrow and diminish as the totum makes its rounds; and before the game\nends Mr Chisholm is reduced to his last pin. He holds it up with rueful\ncountenance, confessing himself a ruined man, while the children clutch\ntheir treasures, and boast of their success.\n\n\"Grandfather is beaten--is beaten at the totum\" cried Mary as her father\nand mother at length arrived. \"He showed us how to play, and look at the\npins we have gained.\"\n\n\"May you always be as happy with your gains,\" said the old man resuming\nhis paternal attitude. \"Now you know how we spent our Old New Years.\nSooans and shinty, and the totum--they were all simple maybe, but there\nwas pleasure in them all. Many a heart was lost at the 'sooans'; many a\nhand made strong at shinty; and many a little head got its first notion\nof worldly competition from the totum. Take your seats, boys and girls,\nfor here's the tea!\"\n\n                                                             KNOCKFIN.\n\n\n\n\nCUMHA----MHIC-AN-TOISICH.\n\n\n      Why shrouded in gloom is Clan Chattan?\n            Clan Chattan! Clan Chattan!\n      Tears circle the crest of Clan Chattan!\n            Clan Chattan! Clan Chattan!\n      Ochone! our light is reft,\n            Burning too brief,\n      Ochone! the darkness left,\n            Fills us with grief.\n      Streamlets are singing woe,\n      Torrents in sorrow flow,\n      Flow'rets on ev'ry leaf,\n      Bear the red dew of grief.\n    Ochone! the Beam of Clan Chattan is low.--\n\n      Deep-bosomed the woe of Clan Chattan!\n            Clan Chattan! Clan Chattan!\n      Far rings the lament of Clan Chattan!\n            Clan Chattan! Clan Chattan!\n      Ochone! our joy-lit star,\n            Sunk in the night.\n      Ochone! his soul afar,\n            Swiftly took flight:\n      Hero-sires welcomed him,\n      Pealing their deathless hymn,\n      Loud on their happy shore,\n      Angels the p\u00e6an bore:\n    Ochone! the Pride of Clan Chattan sleeps on.--\n\n      Still brightly he smiles on Clan Chattan!\n            Clan Chattan! Clan Chattan!\n      His spirit is guarding Clan Chattan!\n            Clan Chattan! Clan Chattan!\n      Ochone! his mem'ry lives,\n            Ever in bloom.\n      Ochone! its beauty gives\n            Light to his tomb:\n      Matrons and maidens mourn,\n      Life in its glory shorn,\n      Stalwart sons, fathers grey,\n      Dash the sad tear away.\n    Ochone! the _Love[A] of Clan Chattan ne'er dies_.\n\n                                           WM. ALLAN.\n\n    SUNDERLAND.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[A] \"Love\" here means the Chief.\n\n\n\n\nTHE GAME LAWS.\n\n\n    [The conductors of the _Celtic Magazine_ in their prospectus, and in\n    their first number, state that \"they will at all times be ready to\n    receive contributions from both sides on any question connected with\n    the Highlands, and of interest to Highlanders.\" In whatever light\n    the subject of the following remarks may be viewed, it will readily\n    be admitted that it has an interest for Highlanders sufficient to\n    entitle it to temperate discussion in these pages]:--\n\nThe Game Laws in Scotland, as our readers are aware, consist chiefly of\nvarious statutes designed to secure to landed proprietors what the\ncommon law, while it leaves them without the means of effectually\nsecuring, declares them entitled to, the exclusive possession and use of\ntheir land. The common law maxim, that an owner is entitled to the sole\nenjoyment of his own ground, the legislature has practically given\neffect to from time to time by passing various enactments pointing to\nthat end. These somewhat numerous statutes are almost identical in\neffect in the three kingdoms, to which some of them extend; nor does the\ncommon law throughout materially vary. It is not our intention, however,\nto emulate Sir Roger de Coverley, whose explanations of the Game Acts\nused to gain great applause at quarter sessions, by entering upon a\nminute analysis of them here. We mean to confine ourselves simply to a\ncritical examination of the various attacks to which they have been\nsubjected, and an endeavour to make a brief and impartial survey of\ntheir effect on the prosperity of the Highlands.\n\nIn entering upon the consideration of adverse criticisms, we find that\nthey are easily resolved into two classes:--First, there are those as to\nwhat opponents term the unnecessary severity and injurious influence of\nthe Game Laws upon poachers; and secondly, the injury indirectly\neffected by them upon tenant-farmers, agricultural and pastoral.\n\nSympathy for the poacher is frequently proclaimed by anti-game law\nagitators. They will tell you that the disposition to pursue game is\ninherent in human nature; that the indulgence of this irrepressible\npropensity ought to be regarded with a lenient eye: that game cannot be\nidentified as property, and that the man who takes it should not be\nconsidered or treated as a thief; dilating the while on the sad\nmisfortunes that an occasional lapse into the fields in search of a hare\nor a rabbit may bring upon an agricultural labourer and his family,\nultimately it may be involving them in ruin. These arguments, however,\nthough at first sight appearing to have some foundation in reason, do\nnot satisfactorily stand the test of serious scrutiny. They are such as\ncould be brought to bear for what they are worth against the operation\nof almost all repressive laws in the kingdom. Smuggling, for instance,\nis not generally looked upon as a breach of the moral law, nor does it\npresent itself to common eyes in an odious light; yet it is a crime\npunishable by penal laws for the sake of increasing revenue. The man\nwho takes his own agricultural produce and converts it into a wholesome\nand refreshing beverage for his own domestic use is liable to a very\nmuch heavier penalty than he who steps on to his neighbour's property\nand puts out his hands to take what he has neither laboured for nor\npurchased. In the one case we can imagine an honest industrious\nlabourer, actuated only by a desire for the comfort of himself and his\nfamily, manufacturing his own goods into nourishing and sustaining ale,\nheavily punished for his untaxed enjoyment of the bounties of\nProvidence; whereas, in the other case, the poacher, as a rule, is a\nperson with a turn for idleness, an aversion to all honest and steady\nlabour, and a taste for luxurious indulgences above his means, who\npersists in illegally invading another's property in the pursuit and\nseizure of its produce.\n\nThis character is specially applicable to the poaching class in the\nHighlands. Any one familiar with prosecutions in poaching cases there\nmust see that the offenders brought up for trial form a limited list\nof mean-spirited cringing creatures, upon whom any sort of sympathy\nwould be sadly thrown away, whose faces are well known to the\nprocurator-fiscal as they appear in rather regular succession in the\ndock. It may be said that almost nine poaching prosecutions out of ten\nare instituted against old and habitual offenders, who calculate, like\nblockade runners, that a few successful raids will enable them\ncheerfully to pay the fines inflicted on the occasions of their capture.\nAs deer-stalking and grouse shooting, to be effective, require\nday-light, and pheasant breeding is the exception not the rule in the\nnorth, cases of night poaching, the worst and most severely punishable,\nare of unfrequent occurrence, while fines of two pounds, the highest\nthat can be inflicted for day poaching, in the most aggravated cases, is\nnot heavy enough even when coupled with costs to make habitual and\nsystematic poaching an altogether unprofitable occupation. We have no\ndifficulty therefore in saying that the Game Laws do not press with\nundue severity upon the labouring classes in the Highlands, by whom, on\nthe whole, poaching is now an offence rarely committed; and we believe\nthat in saying so we express the opinion of those classes themselves.\nAny complaints that have been made have not proceeded from them but from\nthird parties who have endeavoured to range themselves as pretended\nfriends to compass their own ends. There is just one direction in which\nwe might hint that improvement is possible. We would wish to see a\nsliding scale of fines legalised, by which lighter penalties would be\nexigible for first offences and repeated transgressions less leniently\npunishable than at present.\n\nWe have now to consider that more vexed and intricate portion of our\nsubject, the operation of the Game Laws upon the position of the\ntenant-farmer. This we have stated to be indirect, because, in reality,\nmany of the results complained of might be continued in existence\nindependently of the operations of these laws. The points at issue\nbetween landlord and tenant, over which such torrents of discussion have\nbeen poured, are really questions of contract been individuals, which\ncould and would arise, were the Game Laws abolished. But as complaints\nare coupled with a demand for the abolition of these laws as a panacea,\nwe cannot avoid briefly examining their relation to the interests of\nagriculture. Whether owing to bucolic trust in the friendly intentions\nof a Conservative Government, or to hopelessness of there being any\nadvantages derivable therefrom, it is worthy of observation that the\nrecent agitation on this question, as well as on the kindred subjects of\nunexhausted improvements and hypothec denominated by Mr Hope in his\nobservations in \"Recess Studies,\" \"Hindrances to Agriculture,\" have now\nentered upon a quiescent phase. A few years ago an agricultural dinner\nwas no sooner eaten by the assembled agriculturists than the Game Laws\nwere tabled with the toddy, and both hotly, and in some cases ably\ndiscussed. But a change for the better is now noticeable in the\natmosphere of Cattle Club Meetings and Wool Fair dinners whereat the\nvoices of game preservers may even be heard amid applause. Monotony was\nthe rock on which the agitation was in danger of being shipwrecked, and\nas the results did not appear to be commensurate to the labour, as the\nstone seemed to be rolled up the hill in vain, so far as concerned the\npassing of any favourable parliamentary measure, swords have again been\nturned into more useful ploughshares, and spears into less ornamental\npruning hooks. The opportunity is therefore not an unfavourable one for\na calm survey of the situation.\n\nIt is a well-known principle in jurisprudence that a contract between\ntwo parties capable of contracting in respect to a subject matter known\nto both, if adhered to by either, is inviolably binding; and with the\nfree action of this principle as between parties, except in a matter of\nlife and death, the legislature always has had, and we confidently\nbelieve, always will have a delicacy in interfering. If there is no\nvital principle, or specialty in a contract between landlord and tenant\nin regard to an heritable subject, such as an arable farm, that\nnecessarily takes it out of the list of ordinary contracts, no\nGovernment would seriously entertain or assist the passing of a measure\nfor imposing fetters upon one of the parties to that contract,\nexceptional legislation to obtain an advantage for the lessee to the\ndetriment of the lessor. Are there then such specialties? Tenant-farmers\nallege (1) that land is not an ordinary subject of contract owing to the\nextent being limited, and is a possession the owners of which stand in\nthe relation merely of national trustees, bound to administer in the way\nmost beneficial to the people; (2), that tenants are not capable of\ncontracting on equal terms with their landlords, and that the weaker\nparty should receive legislative protection in the shape of an\ninalienable right to ground game; and (3), that in being compelled to\nsign game preservation clauses, the subject matter of that part of their\nagreement is one the full extent of which must, from its nature, be\nunknown to them. To this reply is made--(1), That the possession of land\nis no more a monopoly than the possession of cattle or any other\ncommodity, that is continually in the market and sold to the highest\nbidder; that the fact of the supply being limited, and necessarily in\nthe hands of the few, in comparison with the many who wish to use it, is\nno reason why exceptional restrictions should be placed on its being let\nout for hire, but rather the reverse; as well might the possessors of\nmoney, who are few in comparison with those who wish to borrow it, be\nstatutorily bound to lend it out at less than it would otherwise bring;\nand that those who invest money in land, having no contract with the\nState, cannot be interfered with by the State in the management of it in\nthe way they believe most advantageous to themselves; (2), that farmers\nas a rule, and particularly those who make the greatest noise about the\nGame Laws, are quite capable of attending to their own interests in any\ncontract with proprietors as to leasing of land; that if they are glad\nto obtain it on the proprietors' terms, that is occasioned by the\nlegitimate operation of the laws of supply and demand, which equally\naffect all other contracts; and that to give them an inalienable right\nto ground game, which they would immediately convert into money value by\nsub-letting, would simply amount to confiscation of part of the\nenjoyment of property, and in effect amount to depriving proprietors of\na considerable part of the equivalent for which they gave their money;\nand (3), that when a tenant makes an acceptable offer for a farm, he\ndoes so after the fullest investigation as to its capabilities and\ndisadvantages, and with a good knowledge of the amount of game on the\nground, and the damage likely to be occasioned thereby; and, as thus,\nthe amount of rent offered is fixed by him after all these points have\nreceived due consideration at his hands, he is precluded from afterwards\ncrying out against the one-sidedness of his contract. It will thus be\nseen that there is just as much to be said on the one side as the other;\nand clamour notwithstanding, we believe, the day is still distant when\nthe legislature will step in to interfere with free contract between\nlandlord and tenant, by laying down conditions which even both parties\nwith their eyes open, and of mutual consent, will not be allowed to\nalter. In other words, in an age when the cry is for freedom from all\nspecial advantages to owners of land, such as hypothec and entail, so as\nto place it on an open footing with all other subjects, it would be\nstrange, indeed, were exceptional legislation required for the lessees\nof land to give them the special advantages which the spirit of the age\ndenied to their landlords. Are we to have landlord right levelled down\nwhile tenant right is to be levelled up? We have yet to see it. It\ncannot, however, in fairness be denied that there are certain\ncircumstances in which the tenants' third complaint above-mentioned is\njust and reasonable. While a tenant is strictly tied down under the\nconditions of his lease to a certain rotation of cropping, and various\nother regulations regarding his use of the land, the proprietor is left\npractically unfettered as to the extent of increase of game that he may\nallow to take place. Immunity in such an event is secured to the latter,\neither by a clause to that effect in the lease or by the prudent\nreluctance of the tenant to pursue his landlord through court after\ncourt in the knowledge that even the extra-judicial expense of such\nprocedure would quickly amount to more than the ultimate damages\nawarded, if awarded at all, and that the feelings engendered by the\ncontest would stand in the way of a renewal at the expiry of the lease.\nThere is here, undoubtedly, a manifest hardship to the tenant, for which\nthe legislature would be justified in passing a remedial measure. It\nwould quite consist with the acknowledged and equitable principles of\njurisprudence that cheap and speedy redress for the tenant against such\nuncontemplated and undue increase of game should be provided by\nlegislative enactment. All wrongs have their remedies; but the remedy in\nsuch a case is not the giving an inalienable right to ground game to the\ntenant, as that would amount to a wronging of the landlord, who might\nwish to reserve such right at any cost of compensation to the tenant for\ndamage really inflicted. What is desirable is, that such damage should\nbe assessable, and the value thereof recoverable with the least possible\ntrouble and expense to the tenant. We think that this could be most\neffectually secured by the statutory appointment in each county of a\ncompetent, impartial, and reliable assessor whose duty it would be to\ninspect and record the amount of game existing on every farm in that\ncounty at the entry of the tenant, and who would be bound at any future\nseason on the application, either of the proprietor or of the tenant, to\nre-inspect that farm and report as to whether there was any appreciable\nincrease in the stock of game thereon, and if so to issue an award and\nvaluation of the amount of damage thereby occasioned, the amount of\nwhich the tenant would be legally entitled to deduct at payment of the\nnext half-year's rent. The expense of this inspection, according to a\nfixed scale of charge, should be payable by the landlord where damages\nwere found exigible; but, otherwise, where the tenant's claim was\ndecided to be unfounded, the whole expense would, in equity, be payable\nby him to the assessor. Of course, there are objections that can be\nraised to the adoption of this, as of any other proposed compromise; but\non a careful consideration they will not be found insuperable.\nEnthusiasts there are and will remain who will demand that an\ninalienable right to ground game be gratuitously conferred upon them.\nBut by the great majority of agriculturalists who think temperately it\nis agreed that the only possible settlement of the ground game question\nis one of compromise. We have been credibly informed that in the\ncounties of Forfar and Caithness, farmers, to whom the right to ground\ngame had been made over, after short experience of the unexpected\ntrouble and expense connected with the due keeping down of hares and\nrabbits, had entreated their landlords to relieve them of the burden,\nwhich they had at first unreflectingly and gladly assumed.\n\nThe damage done by game on agricultural farms in the Highlands is\naltogether inconsiderable in affecting the agricultural prosperity of\nthe country. Our opinion is that if the truth were fairly told farmers\nwould confess that where the shoe pinches is in the pressure of high\nrents caused by their own mutual competitions for farms, rather than the\ntrifling damage done by game. The bringing forward of the game question\nhas been merely the trotting out of a stalking horse. There were no\ncomplaints of game or game laws in the good old times when the rents\nwere low. Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers were rejoiced to\nfurnish the laird with a good day's sport, in the fruits of which they\ngenerally participated. Game must have done as much harm then as now,\nbut farmers in those days did not feel pushed to meet the rent day. They\ncould live on a smaller income; they did not seek or require the same\nluxuries, and had less outlay in labour. Of course, a great deal has\nhappened since then, but it cannot be said that for this the lairds are\nentirely to blame. Then to rent a farm was synonymous with making money;\nnow it as often means losing it. With higher rents, the result of a\nkeener demand, a farmer's profits have been sadly diminished, and he too\noften exerts his ingenuity in discovering grounds of deduction from a\nrent he feels to be burdensome. On the sound enough principle of\nabolishing special privileges of all kinds he can fairly advocate the\nabolition of hypothec, but when in the same breath he turns his back\nupon that principle by calling for the creation of the extraordinary\nprivilege of an inalienable right to ground game, he asks too much and\nhas every probability of getting too little.\n\nThere is no necessity for saying anything in reply to the attacks of a\nfew pastoral tenants or large sheep farmers. It is now matter of history\nthat by repeated and uncontradicted assertion a comparatively small and\nuninfluential sheep-farmer clique had thoroughly convinced themselves,\nand almost persuaded a portion of the public, that deer forests were\nresponsible for all the misery and poverty in the Highlands, for all the\ncruel evictions which were carried out to make room, not for deer, but\nfor those very farmers who made such a noise. Having succeeded in\ninfecting some impressionable people, including not a few writers in the\npress who knew as little of a deer forest and its surroundings as they\ndid of the great Sahara, there was at one time some danger of the outcry\nbecoming general; but the report of the Parliamentary Commission so\ncompletely exposed the nakedness of the land, so thoroughly demonstrated\nthe absence of anything like reasonable foundation for complaint, as to\nconvince even the most extreme politician of the utter absurdity of the\nposition assumed. The cry never did find an echo in the heart of the\nHighlander. He knew too well that the same justice had been meted out to\nhim and his by the predecessors of those very farmers, as they\nthemselves were then receiving at the hands of the wealthy Sassenach. He\nknew that the evil of depopulation had been accomplished in the\nHighlands, not by the introduction of deer, but of sheep on a large\nscale by Lowland farmers before ever deer forests had come to be\nconsidered a source of revenue. It was, therefore, somewhat amusing to\nthe Highland people to witness the descendants of these Lowland _novi\nhomines_ smitten upon the thigh and roaring lustily. The only bribe they\npromised allies was the offer of mutton a twentieth of a penny per pound\ncheaper, and Highlanders refused to be bought over at that price,\nespecially as its payment was more than doubtful. The deer forest\nagitation has died a natural death. Peace to its ashes.\n\nWe have hitherto confined ourselves to discussing the so-called\ndisadvantages of the Game Laws: we have yet to consider the facts on the\nother side of the question, by which those disadvantages are altogether\noverbalanced. As the space allotted to us in this Magazine, however, has\nits limits, we will meanwhile content ourselves with enumerating\n_seriatim_ a few of the manifold benefits accruing to the Highlands from\nGame Laws and game. These are--(1), The great increase of rental from\nland, which is manifestly beneficial, not only to the proprietors, but\nto all classes in the country in which they spend their incomes; (2),\nThe residence in the Highlands for so many months yearly of wealthy\nsportsmen, who, if game were unpreserved and consequently non-existent,\nwould have no inducement so to reside; (3), The remunerative employment\nafforded by those sportsmen to the labouring classes; (4), The profits\nmade by shopkeepers and others in the various Highland towns, by\nsupplying the requirements of such sportsmen; (5), The opening up of the\ncountry by railways, which could not have been remuneratively effected\nfor years yet to come in the Highlands without the traffic afforded by\nthe conveyance of sportsmen and their belongings; (6), The advancement\nof civilization in the north, by the opening up of roads and the\nbuilding of handsome Lodges in remote localities, and the circulation of\nmoney involved in the execution of these improvements.\n\nThis enumeration might be extended to various minor details, but we\nthink we have said enough to satisfy every candid and impartial reader\nthat a very serious blow would be inflicted upon the prosperity of the\nHighlands by the abolition of the Game Laws--laws which are by no means\nthe antiquated and useless remains of feudalism so strongly denounced by\nRadicalism run mad. The truth of this need not be altogether left to\nabstract speculation. We have a crucial instance in the case of the\nAmerican Republic, where the absence of such laws was felt to be so\nprejudicial to the general welfare that game regulations were passed\nmuch more stringent than in this country, and where, at present, as Mr\nJ.D. Dougall in his admirable treatise on \"Shooting\" informs us, \"there\nexist over one hundred powerful associations for the due prosecution of\nGame law delinquents, and these associations are rapidly increasing, and\nappear to be highly popular.\" \"Here,\" he adds, \"we have one struggling\nAnti-Game Law League: in the States there are over one hundred\nflourishing Pro-Game Law Leagues. The cry of a party here is:--Utterly\nexterminate all game as vermin; leave nothing to shoot at. The\nincreasing general cry across the Atlantic is:--Preserve our game and\nour fish for our genuine field sports.\" So long as our Game Laws\ncontinue to increase the prosperity of the country without infringing\nupon the liberty of the people, they stand in little need of defence;\nare not much endangered by attack.\n\n                                                       EVAN MACKENZIE.\n\n\n\n\nA REMARKABLE FEUDAL CUSTOM.\n\n\nIt is happy for the present age that the ancient manners and customs,\nwhich were practised in the Highlands and Islands under the Feudal\nsystem, have long since fallen into oblivion. It would fill volumes to\nrelate the numerous practices which were then resorted to by the feudal\nlords, many of which were cruel in themselves, and entailed great\nhardships on their submissive vassals who were bound to obey. As the\nchiefs had full power over the life and death of their retainers, such\nof them as betrayed any disobedience or opposition to the stern demands\nof their superiors, rendered themselves liable to the severest\npunishment, and frequently to nothing less than the penalty of death.\nThe national laws of Kings and Queens had then but little influence in\nchecking or counteracting the peremptory enactments of Feudalism.\n\nThe following striking instance of the remarkable practices alluded to\nwill furnish a specimen to the readers of the _Celtic Magazine_, of what\ntook place in Skye, not much more than a century and a half ago.\n\nNo sooner did the death of a tenant take place than the event was\nannounced to the laird of the soil. The Land-Stewart, or ground-officer,\nincurred the displeasure of his master unless that announcement were\nmade no later than three days after it had occurred. Immediately after\nthe deceased farmer had been consigned to the grave, the disconsolate\nwidow, if he had left one, was waited upon by a messenger from the\nlandlord, to deliver up to him the best horse on the farm, such being\nreckoned then the legal property of the owner of the soil. This rule was\nas unalterable as the laws of the Medes and Persians. On large and\nextensive farms the demand was submitted to without much complaint, by\nthe widow, children, or heirs of the deceased, but it pressed hard upon\nthe occupiers of small tenements of land, and particularly so on\nhelpless widows. But whoever refused, or attempted to evade this\nheartless enactment, forfeited every right to their farms in future, and\nbecame liable to have all their goods and chattels confiscated to the\nlaird. It frequently happened that a poor farmer had but one horse, yet\neven this circumstance did not mitigate the cruelty of the practice; for\nthe solitary animal was taken away, and frequently so to the great\ndistress of the younger branches of the orphan family, who mourned\nbitterly, and often shed tears for the loss of their favourite animal.\n\nA circumstance took place in the parish of Strath, which was, it is\nsaid, the means of abolishing this abominable rule. About the beginning\nof the seventeenth century a farmer, of the name of Mackinnon, was\ngathered to his fathers in the parish, and after his interment the\nlaird's messenger visited the afflicted widow, and, as usual, demanded\nthe best horse on her little farm. Her husband having been a kinsman of\nthe laird, and expecting, in her distress, to receive some sympathy from\nher chief, and at all events, some relaxation of that rule which had\nbeen all along so resistlessly put in force, she showed much reluctance\nto part with the animal. Seeing this, the officer became more and more\ndetermined to have it. The widow, in the same manner, became more and\nmore determined in her refusal, and appealed to him in vain to submit\nthe case to the decision of her chief. The officer was inexorable, and\nbecoming incensed at the woman's pertinacity he turned from words to\nblows, and inflicted some severe wounds on the helpless female to the\neffusion of blood. She, however, retaliated, and through desperation,\nassuming more courage, addressed her little son, a boy of four, that\nstood weeping by her side, and said to him in her own emphatic\nvernacular:--\n\n    \"Cha mhac mar an t-athair thu, a' Lachlainn Oig,\n    Mar diol thu le fuil droch caithreamh do mh\u00e0thar;\n    'S mar sm\u00e0il thu gu b\u00e0s, le di\u00f2ghaltas air ch\u00f2ir,\n    Am borb-fhear fiadhaich so, am m\u00f2rtair gu'n n\u00e0r!\"\n\n                    _Literally translated:--_\n\n    \"Thou art not a son like the father, my young Lachlan,\n    Unless thou requite with blood the ill-treatment of thy mother;\n    And unless thou dash to death, with due revenge,\n    This fierce and savage fellow--this bare-faced murderer!\"\n\nThe mother's charge to her boy cannot be said to be tempered with much\nChristian feeling or principle, yet it was according to the generally\ncherished practices of the system under which she lived. Then it was\nthat might was right, and revenge bravery. But to return to the\nsubject--the widow's cries and tears, excitement and eloquence, were all\nin vain. The officer made off with the horse and delivered it to his\nchief.\n\nMatters went on in this way, in various quarters, for a considerable\ntime, until at length, and about twenty years thereafter, the same\nofficer appeared on the same errand at a neighbouring widow's door, and\ndeprived her as usual of her best horse. The circumstance was brought\nunder the notice of Lachlan Og, and having been, no doubt, frequently\nreminded of the cruelty inflicted by that official on his mother, was\ndetermined to embrace the present befitting occasion for displaying his\ndire revenge. It may be stated that young Lachlan was noted in the\ndistrict for his great agility and muscular strength. He made no delay\nin pursuing the officer, and having come up to him at the distance of\nsome miles, he seized him by the neck and sternly demanded the widow's\nhorse, reminding him, at the same time, of the treatment inflicted by\nhim on his mother twenty years before. The officer stood petrified with\nfear, seeing fierceness and revenge depicted so very unmistakably in\nyoung Mackinnon's face. Yet still he grasped the animal by the halter,\nand would not permit his youthful assailant to intermeddle with it. The\nstrife commenced, and that in right earnest, but in a few moments the\nofficer fell lifeless on the ground. Mackinnon, seizing his dirk,\ndissevered the head from the body, and washed it in a fountain by the\nwayside, which is still pointed out to the traveller as \"_Tobar a'\nchinn_,\" or \"The Well of the Head.\" He then, at once, mounted the horse,\nand galloped off to the residence of his chief, carrying the bloody head\nin his left hand on the point of his dirk. His appearance at the main\nentrance, with the ghastly trophy still bleeding in his hand, greatly\nalarmed the menials of the mansion. Without dismounting he inquired if\nMackinnon was at home, and being told that he was, he said, \"Go and tell\nmy Chief that I have arrived to present him with the head of his officer\n'Donnuchadh Mor,' in case that he might wish to embalm it and hang it up\nin his baronial hall as a trophy of heartlessness and cruelty.\" The\nmessage was instantly delivered to the laird, who could not believe that\nsuch a diabolical deed could be perpetrated by any of his clan, but\nstill he came out to see. On his appearance in the court, Lachlan Og\ndismounted, did obeisance to his chief, and prominently exhibited the\ndripping head, by lifting it up on his dirk. \"What is this, Lachlan,\nwhat murder is this?\" asked the excited chief. Lachlan explained the\nwhole in full detail, and related the circumstances of the present\ntransaction, as well as of the inhuman treatment which his mother had\nreceived when he was a child. The chieftain pondered, paused, and\ndeclared that these cruelties had been practised unknown to him. He\ngranted a free pardon to Lachlan Og, appointed him his officer in room\nof Donnuchadh Mor, and issued an edict over all his estate that\nthereafter neither widow nor orphan, heir, nor kindred, would ever be\ndeprived by him of their horse, or of any other part of their property.\n\n                                                          SGIATHANACH.\n\n\n\n\nGENERAL SIR ALAN CAMERON, K.C.B.,\n\nCOLONEL 79TH CAMERON HIGHLANDERS.\n\n[CONTINUED].\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nThese acts of loyalty by the Highlanders in recognition of their Stewart\nPrinces were not long concluded when the same virtue was called into\naction to defeat the intentions of _other rebels_ (as they were rudely\ntermed) from disputing the authority of the British Sovereign, or\ndismembering any portion of his territory in the American colonies. An\nabridged outline of what came to be the War of Independence may not be\nout of place or uninteresting even at this distant date.\n\nNorth America had been chiefly colonised by the British people--the\nsettlements of the Dutch and French were few and unimportant. The\ncolonists were in the enjoyment of liberal institutions, and the country\nbeing fertile, the population rapidly increased; while, at the same\ntime, immigrants from Europe continued to arrive annually on its shores.\nThe mother country being oppressed with debt, it was proposed to make\nher Transatlantic subjects contribute a portion towards her relief. This\nresulted in the imposition of a stamp duty on various articles. The\nAmericans would neither afford assistance, nor would they sanction the\ntaxation proposed to be placed on tea, &c.; and at a meeting of Congress\nresolutions of separation were adopted, followed by the Act of\nDeclaration of Independence. George III. and his Parliament determined\non chastising the recusants, and hence the commencement of the American\nCivil War. Jealousy of Great Britain, and a desire to humble her,\ninduced France to join the Americans, as also did Spain. Against the\ncombined efforts of these allies, however, the British sustained\nunsullied their ancient renown. The war continued with alternate\nsuccesses, and disappointments to the contending parties for about six\nyears, at the end of which honourable peace was concluded between them,\nand America was henceforth declared an Independent State; and in\nacknowledgment of the able services rendered to her, the colonists\nelected General Washington as the first president of the new Republic.\n\nDuring the progress of the war the Americans were guilty of many acts of\ncruelty to whomsoever fell into their hands, some of which fell to the\nshare of Alan Cameron. The Royal Highland Regiment, to which he was\nattached, was stationed in Quebec when Canada was threatened with\ninvasion by General Arnold at the head of 3000 men. The colonel of\nAlan's regiment (Maclean) who had been detached up the river St\nLawrence, returned by forced marches and entered Quebec without being\nnoticed by Arnold. The fortifications of the city had been greatly\nneglected, and were scarcely of any use for the purposes of defence. The\nstrength of the British within its walls was under 1200, yet they\nrepulsed the repeated attacks of the American generals. Here it was that\nAlan Cameron came for the first time into hostile contact with the\nenemy, and both his regiment and himself acquitted themselves with\ngreat gallantry--on one occasion in particular, when an assault was made\nby Generals Arnold and Montgomery, in which the latter was killed and\nthe other wounded. Arnold foiled in this attempt, established himself on\nthe heights of Abraham, thus blockading the town and reducing the\ngarrison to great straits; but this was all he succeeded in, as he was\nbeaten in every attempt to gain possession of the lower town, by the\nintrepid gallantry of Colonel Maclean and his Highlanders.\n\nOn the approach of spring General Arnold despairing of success, withdrew\nhis forces, raised the siege, and evacuated the whole of Canada.\nReleased from this defence the battalion entered on enterprises in\ndifferent parts of the province, and to enable it to do so more\neffectually, Colonel Maclean transformed a limited number of it into a\ncavalry corps, for out-post duties and otherwise acting as _scouts_.\nOf this body Alan Cameron got the command. Daring and sometimes\nover-zealous, he often led himself and his company into situations of\ndesperate danger. On one occasion they were surrounded by a strong force\nof the enemy, from which they escaped with the utmost difficulty, and\nonly by the personal prowess of each individual and the fleetness of\ntheir steeds. The Americans communicated with the British commander to\nthe effect that \"this fellow (Alan) and his men had been guilty of the\n_un_military proceeding of tampering with the native Indians in their\nloyalty to American interests,\" stating a determination of vengeance as\nthe consequence. It is not known whether Alan was apprised of this\ncharge or not; at any rate he continued his incursions for some time.\nThe threat was not unintentional, as the succeeding events proved, and\nan unfortunate opportunity enabled the enemy to give it effect. Alan and\nnearly one-half of his company were seized. The latter they made\nprisoners of war, but committed him to the jail of Philadelphia as a\ncommon felon, where he was kept for two years and treated with the most\nvindictive harshness. This proceeding was denounced by the British\nGeneral as \"contrary to all military usage,\" but his representations\nproved unavailing.\n\nThe ardent nature of the imprisoned Highlander chafed under restraint,\nand finding no hope of release he was constant in vigilance to procure\nhis escape. This he was at last enabled to effect through his jailer\nhaving neglected to fasten the window of his place of confinement, which\nwas on the third storey. His ingenuity was put to the severest test. He,\nhowever, managed to tie part of the bed-clothes to the bars of the\nwindow, and descended with its aid. The blanket was either too short, or\nit gave way; anyhow Alan came to the ground from a considerable height,\nand being a heavy man, in the fall he severely injured the ankles of\nboth feet. In this crippled state he was scarcely able to get away to\nany great distance, but somehow managed to elude the search of his\nenemies.\n\nAlthough the Americans, as a nation, were in arms against Great Britain,\nstill among them were many families and individuals who were slow to\nforget their ties of kinship with the people of the \"old country,\" and\nPhiladelphia contained many possessing such a feeling. Alan, on his\nfirst arrival in that country, became acquainted with and obtained the\nfriendship of more than one of these families. To the house of one of\nthem, in his emergency, he decided on going. This was a Mr Phineas Bond\n(afterwards Consul-General in that city) who received the prisoner\nwithout hesitation, and treated him with the utmost consideration. Alan,\nhowever, before he would accept shelter and hospitality, explained to Mr\nBond his condition and how he became a prisoner, adding that he merely\ndesired rest for a day or two to enable him to escape towards the\nBritish cantonments. Mr Bond made him welcome and promised him every\nassistance. Both were fully impressed with the danger and delicacy of\ntheir position, and Alan like an honourable soldier was now more anxious\nabout that of his host than his own. He, therefore, embraced the very\nfirst opportunity of relieving his chivalrous friend of so undesirable a\nguest.\n\nWithout entering into details as to the nature of his escape, it is enough\nto state that after frequent chances of being recaptured, he arrived at a\nstation where some British troops were quartered. Among these were some\nofficers and men with whom he had served in the early part of the\ncampaign, but he had become so altered in condition that they scarcely\nbelieved him to be the Alan Cameron they knew. His relative (Colonel\nMaclean) sent his aide-camp to have him conveyed to head-quarters, on\narrival at which he was most attentive to do everything that could be\ndone. Medical inspection however, pronounced Alan unfit for active service\nfor at least a year. This was disappointing news to him, as he feared his\ncareer in the army was likely in consequence to come to an untimely end.\nColonel Maclean recommended him to repair at once to Europe and procure\nthe most skilful advice for the treatment of his wounds and broken limbs.\nAlan concurred and returned to England on sick leave, where he arrived in\n1780.\n\nHe had not been many months at home when news arrived of the conclusion\nof the war; and with that happy consummation Colonel Maclean's corps was\nreduced, the officers were placed on the \"provincial list\"--a grade not\nknown in the army at the present day--Government, in addition to their\npay, giving them and the other men grants of lands in the following\nproportions--5000 acres to a field officer; 3000 to a captain; 500 to a\nsubaltern; 200 to a sergeant; and a 100 to each soldier. These\nconditions were applicable only to those who remained in or returned\nwithin a given time to the colony. In the case of absentees one-half of\nthe above number of acres was the extent of the grants, but they were\nallowed to sell their lots. As Alan had been promoted to the rank of\nCaptain he had 1500 acres which he turned into cash. This capital and\nhis pay was the only means possessed by this \"provincial officer.\" He\nwas, however, only one of many similarly situated on the termination of\nthe American War.\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nThe transport ship brought home other invalids besides Alan Cameron, one\nof whom, Colonel Mostyn, and himself came to be on terms of warm\nfriendship. This gentleman, descended from one of the best families in\nWales, and having many relatives resident in London, was of considerable\nservice to Alan in the matter of introductions to the society of these\nrelations and other friends. \"American officers,\" as those returned from\nthe war, were termed, were welcomed wherever met with. Among them Alan was\nnot the least distinguished, perhaps the more so on account of his\nunfortunate adventure with his Lochaber adversary in the duel; and his\nsubsequent distinguished career in America.\n\nAt the house of one of Colonel Mostyn's relatives, Alan met a young lady\nwho was destined not many months after to become his wife. This was the\nonly child of Nathaniel Philips of Sleebeich Hall, Pembrokeshire. The\nheiress of a wealthy squire was beyond Alan's expectations; besides he\nunderstood there were more than one aspirant for her hand, who were\nthemselves possessors of many broad acres, therefore it could scarcely\noccur to the mind of the \"provincial officer\" to enter the lists against\nsuch influential competitors. However that may be, Alan's success with\nthe lady may have been much the same as that of another with Desdemona:\n\"Her father bade me tell the story of my life, the battles, sieges, and\nfortunes I had passed. I ran it through, even from my boyish days; of\nthe moving accidents by flood and field; of the hair-breadth 'scapes and\nthe imminent deadly breach; and of being taken by the insolent foe. To\nthese things would Desdemona seriously incline, and devour up my\ndiscourse. When I did speak of some distressful stroke, that I had\nsuffered, she gave me a world of sighs. She wished she had not heard it;\nbut bade me, if I had a friend that loved her, I should teach him how to\ntell my story, and _that_ would woo her.\" Duke--\"I think this tale would\nwin my daughter too.\"\n\nAlan Cameron became the favoured suitor of Miss Philips, but both felt\nthe barrier of the Squire's consent to be insurmountable. Nor was there\nany circumstance likely to arise in favour of Alan's worldly position to\nmake him acceptable to Mr Philips as his son-in-law. Honourable conduct\nacted on Alan's feelings, and directed the proper course to be pursued.\nHe made his visits to the house of their mutual friend less often and at\ngreater intervals. Squire Philips was at the time, and had for some few\nyears, been a widower; and it was reported and believed that he was\ncontemplating a second marriage. Moreover, the intended spouse was\nscarcely yet out of her teens, while he was past middle age, and his\ndaughter was also her senior. Her father's intentions created\ndisappointment, if not dissatisfaction in Miss Philips' mind, which, it\nis alleged, was one of the causes that moved her not to view elopement\nwith serious objection. There is no record of the occurrence to guide\nfurther reference than that Alan Cameron and Miss Philips had betaken\nthemselves to Gretna Green without the knowledge or consent of her\nfather, where marriages were solemnised without the preliminary\nformalities necessary at Hanover Square. Notwithstanding that a pursuit\nensued either by the parent or other friends, it was not successful in\ninterrupting the marriage of the runaway pair.\n\nInstead of returning to London with his bride, Alan went towards the\ncapital of his native country, where he and his wife remained for\nseveral months. It now, however, became almost a necessity that he would\nget into some office, the emoluments of which would add to his slender\nincome. After some delay he was fortunate in getting an appointment\nthrough the intercession of a friend with whom he had served in America.\nThis appointment was on the militia staff of one of the English\ncounties. Alan retained it until the fortune of events reduced the\ndispleasure of the father-in-law to that state when mutual friends\nthought they could do something to induce the Squire to forgive and\nforget. These friends did not fail to take advantage of this state of\nfeeling, and embraced the opportunity to obtain for Alan an interview\nwith his wife's father, which resulted, as desired by all, in full\nforgiveness to both son and daughter. This reconciliation, like the\nwooing of Miss Philips, was also somewhat after the manner of that of\nDesdemona's father, who replied, \"I had rather adopt a child than get\nit. Come hither. I do give thee that with all my heart, which--but thou\nhast already--with all my heart, I would keep from thee. For your sake I\nam glad I have no other child, thy escape would teach me tyranny.\" This\nact of grace was important to Alan, as the allowance to his wife, which\nfollowed, enabled them to live in affluence in comparison with their\npast state.\n\nSquire Philips had not married at the time rumour had formerly assigned,\nbut he did enter into that state, and that after he had become a\nsexagenarian. By the second marriage the Squire--unlike the father in\nthe play--\"had another child.\" This child is yet living, in the person\nof the venerable Dowager Countess of Lichfield, herself the mother of a\nnumerous family of sons and daughters, including the present peer, as\nalso the wife of the noble lord the member for the county of Haddington.\n\n_(To be Continued)._\n\n\n\n\n    HIGHLAND MELODIES.--The Gaelic Society of London finding that regret\n    has been frequently expressed that the plaintive melodies of the\n    Highlands should be allowed to pass away, have, we are glad to\n    learn, taken steps to preserve them in a permanent form, and are now\n    preparing for publication a selection of the best and most popular\n    airs. The verses will be given in Gaelic and English, and the\n    pianoforte accompaniments are arranged with special attention to\n    their distinctive characteristics by Herr Louis Honig, Professor of\n    Music, London; while slight variations are introduced to render the\n    melodies more acceptable to the general taste. Editions of the Dance\n    Tunes of our country are numerous, but the Gaelic vocal airs, set to\n    music, have not hitherto been attainable. The issue is limited to\n    250 copies, which the Society are patriotically supplying at cost\n    price--namely, 10s 6d per copy; or free by post to the Colonies for\n    12s. We feel assured that this want has only to be known to secure\n    the necessary number of subscribers for the few remaining copies.\n\n\n\n\n_LITERATURE._\n\n\n_THE \"ARYAN ORIGIN OF THE CELTIC RACE AND LANGUAGE.\"_\n\nThe above is the title on the outside of a book by the Rev. Canon\nBourke, president of St Jarlath's College, Tuam, Ireland. The book is in\nevery respect a wonderful and interesting one to the Celt, at home and\nabroad, whether he be Scotch or Irish. Time was when the Scottish Celt\nlooked with great suspicion on his Irish cousin, while the Irishman had\nno great love for his Scottish neighbour. Even yet a good deal of this\nfeeling prevails, particularly among the uneducated.\n\nOur own experience, however, has been that the Irish Celt is not behind\nthe Scotch Gael in generosity and all the other virtues which are the\nspecial characteristics of the race. The book before us is in several\nrespects calculated to strengthen the friendship which is being rapidly\nformed, and which ought to subsist among the intelligent of each of the\ntwo great branches of the Celtic family--Scotch and Irish. Frequent\nreferences of an appreciating and commendable kind are made in this work\nto the labours of Scotchmen in the field of Celtic literature. Canon\nBourke, like a true-hearted son of Ireland, with that magnanimity\ncharacteristic of the race, holds out his right hand to every Scottish\nscholar in the field of Celtic or Keltic research, and says in\neffect--_Cia mar a tha thu? Buaidh gu'n robh air d'obair!_\n\nAlthough the \"Aryan Origin of the Celtic Races and Language\" is all the\ntitle on the cover, inside the book, the title is much more comprehensive,\nconsisting, as it does, altogether of 27 lines. But even this large and\ncomprehensive title-page does not give anything like an adequate idea of\nthe extent and variety of the contents of the book. Taking it up with the\nexpectation of finding a learned treatise on the Aryan origin of the\nCeltic race and Celtic languages one will be disappointed; but no one will\nbe disappointed with the work as a whole, for though its contents do not\nbear throughout on the above subject, they are all thoroughly Celtic; and\nas a collection of Celtic gleanings, will well repay a perusal. It is,\nindeed, a sort of Celtic repository--the writer's Celtic reading for many\nyears being apparently thrown into a crucible, and having undergone a\ncertain process there, are forged out into the handsome and bulky volume\nbefore us. It has, however, all the appearance of having been very hastily\ngot up. Indeed, in the preface, which is dated, \"Feast of the Nativity of\nthe B.V.M., 1875,\" we are told that a mere accident has given the first\nimpulse to the composition of the work, and that accident appears to have\nbeen that at a social meeting of Irish clergymen in 1874 the subject of\nconversation turned on the language and antiquities of Ireland.\n\nAfter doing justice to the \"Four Masters,\" of whom Irishmen are, with\ngood reason, so very proud, the decay of the Gaelic language in Ireland\nis alluded to, and the cause of that decay described at some length, and\nit is pointed out that, in consequence of this neglect, when an Irish\npatriot appeals to the sentiment of his race, the appeal must be made,\nnot in the language of old Ireland, but in the language of the\nconquering Saxon. Father Mullens in his lament for the Celtic language\nof his countrymen \"must wail his plaint in Saxon words and Saxon idiom,\nlest his lamentation should fall meaningless on the ears of Ireland.\"\nAnd this decay Father Mullens pathetically describes:--\n\n    It is fading! it is fading! like the leaves upon the trees,\n    It is dying! it is dying! like the Western Ocean breeze,\n    It is fastly disappearing as the footsteps on the shore,\n    Where the Barrow and the Erne, and Loch Swilly's waters roar;\n    Where the parting sunbeam kisses the Corrib in the west,\n    And the ocean like a mother clasps the Shannon to its breast:\n    The language of old Eire, of her history and name,\n    Of her monarchs and her heroes, of her glory and her fame;\n    The sacred shrine where rested through her sunshine and her gloom\n    The spirit of her martyrs as their bodies in the tomb!\n    The time-wrought shell, where murmured through centuries of wrong\n    The secret shrine of freedom in annal and in song,\n    Is surely fastly sinking into silent death at last,\n    To live but in the memory and relics of the past!\n\nIn Ireland as in some other countries (perhaps we may say with some\ndegree of truth in our own Highlands of Scotland) the simple uneducated\npeasants are, in the law courts, treated with the greatest display of\nharshness because they cannot give evidence in the English tongue. Canon\nBourke refers to a case of this nature that occurred during the last\nyear in Tuam. A witness, Sally Ryan, who appeared to have understood\nEnglish, but could not speak it, and consequently would not give her\nevidence in that language, was removed as an incompetent witness! Is\nthat justice? We know that in the courts in Scotland a good deal of\nharshness is occasionally used towards witnesses who cannot speak\nEnglish.\n\nThe fact remains, that in the Highlands there are many whose only\nlanguage is Gaelic, and if their Saxon rulers have a desire to\nadminister the law justly they must learn to deal more gently with such\nas are ignorant of the English language. We also know from personal\nobservation that Gaelic witnesses frequently give evidence by means of\nvery incompetent interpreters, thoroughly ignorant of the idiom of the\nlanguage, and are thus very often misrepresented. A bungling interpreter\nbungles a witness, and nothing is more calculated to invalidate evidence\nthan being given in a loose incoherent manner. On this point we are at\none with the learned Canon Bourke.\n\nConsiderable space is devoted to the pronunciation of the word\nCeltic--the question being whether it should be pronounced Keltic or\nSeltic. Professor Bourke argues, and gives good reasons, that it should\nbe written Keltic and pronounced Keltic. He is unquestionably right in\nhis contention for the pronunciation, but as we have no K in the Scotch\nor Irish Gaelic alphabet it is difficult to agree with him as to the\nspelling, but the fact remains that it is almost universally pronounced\nSeltic and written Celtic, and has in that form taken such a root that\nit can scarcely be ever altered. What then is the use of fighting over\nit? In the compass of this necessarily short review it is quite\nimpossible to give an adequate idea of the work before us. While the\nwork exhibits great learning and research, we think the rev. author\nmight have bestowed more care on such a valuable work. Several\ntypographical errors present themselves, and in many cases the\nProfessor's composition exhibits clear evidence of undue haste in the\nwriting and arrangement. But _humanum est errare_. Nothing is perfect,\nand the book before us is no exception to the general rule. The Celtic\nstudent will, however, find it invaluable, and no one who takes an\ninterest in Celtic philology, antiquity, manners, and customs (indeed\neverything and anything Celtic), should be without a copy; for it is a\nperfect store of Celtic learning.\n\n\n\n\n_THE SCOTTISH GAEL, OR CELTIC MANNERS AS PRESERVED AMONG THE\nHIGHLANDERS. By the LATE JAMES LOGAN, F.S.A.S. Edited with Memoir\nand Notes by the_ REV. ALEX. STEWART, \"Nether Lochaber.\" _Issued in 12\nParts at 2s each. Inverness: Hugh Mackenzie, Bank Lane. Edinburgh:\nMaclachlan & Stewart. Glasgow:_ John Tweed.\n\nWe have before us the first and second parts of this valuable work. The\nFrontispiece is a coloured plate of two Highland Chiefs dressed in the\nStewart and Gordon tartans; and the other engravings, which are well got\nup, are in every case _fac-similes_ of those in the original Edition,\nwhich had become so scarce that it was difficult to procure it even at a\nvery high price. Logan's _Scottish Gael_ has long been held as the best\nauthority on the antiquities and national peculiarities of Scotland,\nespecially on those of the Northern or Gaelic parts of the country where\nsome of the peculiar habits of the aboriginal race have been most\ntenaciously retained.\n\nThe valuable superintendence and learned notes of \"Nether-Lochaber,\"\none of our best Celtic scholars and antiquarians, will very materially\nenhance the value of the work, which is well printed in clear bold\ntype, altogether creditable to the printer and to the editor, but,\nparticularly so, to the public-spirited publisher. We have no hesitation\nin recommending the work to all who take an interest in the Literature of\nthe Gael.\n\n\n\n\nSONG OF THE SUMMER BREEZE.\n\n_Dedicated by permission to the_ REV. GEORGE GILFILLAN.\n\n          When balmy spring\n          Has ceased to wring\n    The youthful bud from the old oak tree,\n          And the sweet primrose\n          No longer glows\n    On the glad hill-side by the sunfilled sea;\n          When the Cuckoo's wail\n            Has ceased to go\n          O'er hill and dale\n            In a pensive flow,\n          And the deepest shade\n          In the woods is made,\n    And the brightest bloom on the fields is laid;\n          When the lord of light\n            With a lover's pride\n          Pours a beauty bright\n            O'er his blushing bride,\n          That lies below\n          His glowing gaze,\n    In a woodland glow, and a flowery blaze;\n          When winter's gloom\n            Of wind and rain\n          Is lost in the bloom\n            Of the flower-lit plain,\n          And his ruins grey\n          Have died away\n    In the love-sent breath of the smiling day;\n          When the beauteous hours\n          Of the twilight still\n    With dewy tears in their joy-swelled eyes\n          See the peaceful flowers\n          On the cloudless hill\n    Send scented gifts to the grateful skies;\n          And the wave-like grain\n          O'er the sea-like plain\n    In peaceful splendour essays to rise;--\n    From my silent birth in the flowery land\n          Of the sunny south\n          At time's command.\n    As still as the breath of a rosy mouth,\n    Or rippling wave on the sighing sand,\n    Or surging grass by the stony strand,\n    I come with odour of shrub and flower\n    Stolen from field and sunny bower\n    From lowly cot and lordly tower.\n    Borne on my wings the soul-like cloud--\n    That snowy, mountain-shading shroud\n          That loves to sleep\n            On the sweet hill's crest,\n          As still as the deep\n          With its voice at rest,--\n    Is wafted in dreams to its peaceful nest;\n          At my command\n          The glowing land\n    Scorched by the beams of the burning sun,\n      Listing the sounds of the drowsy bees,\n    Thirsting for rain, and the dews that come\n      When light has died on the surging seas,\n    Awakes to life, and health, and joy;\n      I pour a life on the sickening trees,\n    And wake the birds to their sweet employ,\n      Amidst the flowers of the lowly leas;\n          From the sweet woodbine\n          That loves to twine\n    Its arms of love round the homes of men,\n          Or laugh in the sight\n          Of the sun's sweet light\n    'Midst the flower gemmed scenes of the song-filled glen,\n    And the full-blown rose that loves to blush\n          'Midst the garden bowers\n          Where the pensive hours\n    Awaiting the bliss of the summer showers\n    List to the songs of the warbling thrush,--\n    I steal the sweets of their fragrant breath;\n          From the lily pale\n          That seems to wail\n          With snow-like face\n          And pensive grace\n    O'er the bed that bends o'er the deeds of death,\n          I brush the tears\n            That she loves to shed\n          For the early biers\n            Of the lovely dead.\n    When still twilight with dew-dimmed eye\n    Sees the lord of light from the snow-white sky,\n          Descend at the sight\n          Of the coming night,\n    'Midst the waves of the deathful sea to die!\n          When glowing day\n          Has passed away\n    In peace on the tops of the dim-seen hills,\n    That pour from their hearts the tinkling rills\n          That dance and leap\n          In youthful pride,\n    To the brimming river, deep and wide,\n    That bears them in rest to their distant sleep;\n          And the gladsome ocean\n          That ever presses\n    The bridal earth in fond caresses,\n    Rages no more in a wild commotion;\n    When the distant hills appear to grow\n    At the touch of evening bright,\n    And the sunless rivers seem to go\n    With a deeper music in their flow,\n    Like dreams thro' the peaceful night,\n          I fade away\n          With the dying day,\n    Like the lingering gleam of the sun's sweet ray!\n\n                                DAVID R. WILLIAMSON.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER'S NOTES\n\nThe spellings \"ahead\" and \"a-head\" are both used in this text.\n\nThe following amendments have been made to the text:\n\np. 106 \"wont\" changed to \"won't\";\n\np. 114 \"familar\" changed to \"familiar\";\n\np. 115 \"buccolic\" changed to \"bucolic\";\n\np. 122 \"Soverign\" changed to \"Sovereign\";\n\np. 124 \"similiarly\" changed to \"similarly\";\n\np. 129 \"errane\" changed to \"errare\";\n\np. 130 full stop added after \"DAVID R\".","title":"The Celtic Magazine, Vol I, No. IV, February 1876: A Monthly Periodical Devoted to the Literature, History, Antiquities, Folk Lore, Traditions, and the Social and Material Interest of the Celt at Home and Abroad.","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":17454}