370 On the Gross at Crosshall. By James Hardy. 



armour being a mere blur. As to Mr Robertson's conjecture, of the heathen 

 emblem of the dog, it is quite out of the question. I take it simply to mean 

 that the knight was not only a soldier (as indicated by the claighmor) , but 

 was fond of the chase, such being quite common in all sorts of monumental 

 stones in the West Highlands, where by far the finest of such memorials 

 remain. On these you have also deer hunts, otter, seal and salmon, also 

 falcons attacking other birds, pointing to the worldly pursuits and enj oyments 

 of those to whom such monuments were erected. 



I remember that the heraldry was very indistinct, and that I made it out 

 on one of the shields, as something like this [a pen and ink representation of 

 three cheverons on a shield, two above and one beneath) but I might decipher 

 it very differently now, as I had paid little attention to such subjects then, 

 merely sketching what was picturesque. Although the above (referring to 

 his rough sketch ) is not our way of placing three cheverons on a shield, yet 

 it may have been an early way, or by one unaccustomed to do heraldic work, 

 who was told to put three cheverons on a shield. Be that as it may it is a 

 capital specimen of its class. " 



The arms of the Souleses were not uniformly charged with 

 cheverons. The Sir William Soules, who died a prisoner in 

 Dumbarton Castle, " bore bars. See his seal, General Eegister 

 House, A.D. 1320. The arms of Sir John de Soules were a barry 

 of six with a bend. "* His seal is engraved in Mr Armstrong's 

 recent work, p. 170. 



Although the monument may be safe at present under the in- 

 fluence of public opinion, it has sometimes been regretted that it 

 has never been defended from any accident, by an enclosure. 

 Some correspondence as to the desirability of some protection 

 being accorded to it, took place in 1875, between some of the 

 Berwickshire County gentlemen and a former Marquis of 

 Tweeddale to whom Crosshall belonged, but nothing was accom- 

 plished. From a perusal of the papers I see that an iron railing 

 to secure it had been estimated at £30. Wire fences had not 

 then been in vogue. 



I see in the correspondence statements about some local tradi- 

 tion associating the name of the Soulis family with the pillar. I 

 may safely assert that any tradition to that effect is not older 

 than Mr Eobertson's paper, and that the " Sir Eoger " about to 

 be mentioned was no other than Mr Roger Eobertson himself, 

 whom the country people had confused with the Soulises whom 

 he had written about. 



It is Mr Hood who puts the story into form. " Tradition says, 

 it was in memory of a Sir Eoger de Soulis of Hermitage, of a 



* Armstrong's Hist of Liddesdale, (&c., Note, p. 129. 



