Chapter XVII: Appendix: A (2)

“The Earl of Lincoln closed a long and active career in 1312, at Lincoln’s Inn,[98] in the suburbs of London, being then about sixty-three or sixty-four years of age, and he is reported to have called his son-in-law, the Earl of Lancaster, to him, upon his death-bed, and, after representing how highly “it had pleased God to honor and enrich him above others,” he told him that “he was obliged to love and honor God above all things;” and then added, “See’st thou the Church of England, heretofore honourable and free, enslaved by Romish oppressions, and the King’s wicked exactions? See’st thou the common people, impoverished by tributes and taxes, and, from the condition of freemen, reduced to servitude? See’st thou the nobility, formerly venerable throughout Christendom, vilified by aliens, in their own native country? I therefore charge thee, by the name of Christ to stand up like a man for the honor of God and his church, and the redemption of thy country, associating thyself to that valiant, noble, and prudent person, Guy, Earl of Warwick, when it shall be most proper to discourse of the public affairs of the kingdom, who is so judicious in counsel, and mature in judgment. Fear not thy opposers who shall contest against thee in the truth, and if thou pursuest this my advice, thou shalt gain eternal honour!” This patriotic speech, which is attributed to him by Walsingham, who wrote in the fifteenth century, is worthy of attention, as conveying the view taken of the affairs of the period by a monk about one hundred years afterwards; for it would require extraordinary credulity to consider that it was really uttered by the dying Earl, whose whole life does not appear to present a single action indicative of the sentiments there attributed to him. His body was buried in the eastern part of St Paul’s Cathedral in London, between the chapel of our Lady and that of St Dunstan.

“The Earl of Lincoln was twice married, first to Margaret de Longespee before-mentioned, by whom he had a son, Edmond de Lacy, who was drowned in a well in a high tower, called the Red Tower, in Denbigh Castle, in his father’s lifetime; and a daughter, Alice, the wife of Thomas Earl of Lancaster, who was his sole heiress, and, at the Earl’s death, was twenty-eight years of age. His second wife was Joan, sister and heiress of William Baron Martin, who survived him, and was remarried to Nicholas Baron Audley.

“Alice, Countess of Lancaster, whose romantic life has been made the subject of a popular novel, styled herself, as sole inheritrix of the extensive possessions of her father and mother, Countess of Lincoln and Salisbury. She was thrice married; first to the Earl of Lancaster; secondly, to Eubolo le Strange; and, thirdly, to Hugh le Frenes; but died without issue on the Thursday next after the feast of St Michael, 22d Edward III., _i. e._ 2nd October 1348, when the representation of the powerful house of Lacy became vested in the descendants of Maud, the sister of Henry Earl of Lincoln, who married Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester.”

_Siege of Carlaverock._

K.

MEMOIRS OF RICHARD SIWARD, AND WALTER DE HUNTERCOMBE.

Page 97.

We shall here insert some account of Richard Siward and Walter de Huntercombe, two characters who appeared on this occasion. The latter, besides being at the siege of Carlaverock, where he attracted the notice of the poet, who mentions him as the handsome Huntercombe, bearing “ermine with two red gemmells,” was also governor of Edinburgh castle, and engaged in almost every campaign which Edward made in Scotland. The following notice, therefore, abridged from Mr Nicolas, will be useful in supplying that information respecting him which it has been inconvenient to give in the course of the narrative. It is also the more necessary, from the circumstance of the writer being pledged, in the advertisement of the “Life of Wallace,” to furnish “biographical notices of contemporary English and Scottish warriors” who figured in the contest between the two countries.

RICHARD SIWARD.--“Though this individual is frequently spoken of in the records of his day, yet very few particulars are known that can throw much light on his family pedigree. It has been conjectured, that he was descended from Syward, the great Saxon Earl of Northumberland; but of this, however, there is little certainty. His importance appears to have been considerable; for we find that, on 18th November 1292, he was appointed by Edward I. (in his character of Umpire on the question of the Succession) to act as Governor of the Castles of Dumfries, Wigton, and Kirkcudbright. On the 22d April, 1294, he obtained a grant of the marriage of the widow of Simon Fresel, or Frazer; and on the 15th October, in the same year, he was summoned to attend the English monarch, with all his retainers, in the expedition to Wales. Towards the end of 1295, he affected to unite with the Scottish Barons in their attempt to restore their King to the dignity of an independent sovereign, and, in consequence, had the defence of the Castle of Dunbar assigned to him. How he conducted himself on that occasion, has already been noticed. His subsequent confinement in the Tower, has been adduced by some writers as a powerful argument against the charge of treason brought against him by his countrymen. We cannot, however, see it in that light. His treachery was of the most profligate description. By negociating the surrender of a fortress, which, from its strength and importance, was reckoned in those days the key of the kingdom, and also using it, at the same time, as a trap to ensnare the greater part of the nobility, was conduct that required the exercise of some _ruse_ in order to lessen the odium it was calculated to excite even in the estimation of the English nobility, who must otherwise have looked with disgust on a man who could have acted in so base a manner towards his own countrymen. By the following lines of Peter Langtoft, Siward appears to have had for some time a private understanding with the enemy:--

“A knycht was tham among, Sir Richard Seward,
Tille our faith was he long, & with kyng Edward.
Tille our men he com tite, & said, ‘the Scottis wilde
Thre dayes haf respite, & than the castelle zelde.
To the Baliol suld thei send, ther castelle to rescue,
Bi that bot he vs mend with for zow to remue
The castelle ze salle haue, without any delay.’”

Vol. ii. p. 274-5.

“For the performance of this agreement, hostages were given to the English, and a messenger despatched to acquaint Baliol that a truce had been obtained; which he was instructed to say, was effected entirely by the dexterity of Siward, and his personal influence with a number of the English nobles. Baliol was also advised to advance and attack the English army while “at meat,” and that, at the same time, Siward would make a sally to assist him in destroying the enemy--which the messenger spoke of as a matter of certainty, and moreover counselled Baliol to proceed immediately afterwards and plunder Northumberland.

“On the third day, Siward, from the battlements of Dunbar, discovered the Scottish army rapidly approaching towards him; he therefore hastily sought the English head-quarters, and proffered to go personally and retard the advance of the Scots till the expiry of the time stipulated for by the agreement. The English, however, were not inclined to believe that he would carry his treason quite so far, and refused him permission to proceed to the Scottish lines.[99]

“Siward, on being relieved from his confinement in the Tower, rose high in the confidence of Edward. On 26th September 1298, 7th May and 16th June 1299, he was summoned, by the title “Baron,” to serve in Scotland. His name appears on several occasions in the Wardrobe Account of 28th Edward I. In that year he received 41_l._ 5s. for the services of himself and his followers in the garrison of Lochmaben. Also an allowance of 2_l._ 13s. 4d. for the value of a horse killed at Kirkcudbright; eight merks for a winter dress (robe); and the like sum appears to have been paid to him for a summer dress. In the same year he was again summoned for the Scottish war, and also in 1301. He was made sheriff of Dumfries-shire in 1305, and was also aiding in the suppression of Robert Bruce in 1308; in which year he was appointed to the charge of a district in Galloway, under Edward II. In 1309 he was governor or constable of Dumfries, and is supposed to have died in 1310.

By his wife Mary he had two sons, Richard and John. They both attained the age of manhood; and John, in particular, appears to have followed the crooked anti-patriotic policy of his father. He accompanied the Earl of Pembroke in his invasion of Fife, as has been already mentioned, and was rewarded by Edward with an appointment as Governor of Perth. Little appears to have been known of Richard. He was married to Elizabeth ---- in 1296. The arms of Siward, as has been already noticed, were sable, a cross fleury, argent.

“WALTER DE HUNTERCOMBE succeeded his father in his lands in the 55. Henry III., at which time he was of full age; and shortly afterwards married Alice, third daughter and co-heiress of Hugh de Bolebec, and who, in the 2d Edward I., was found to be one of the co-heirs of Richard de Muntfichet, in right of her grandmother Margery, his sister. In the 5th Edward I. he paid 50_l._ for his relief of the barony of Muschamp; and on the 12th December in that year, was summoned to serve with horse and arms against the Welsh: he received similar writs tested 6th April and 24th May, 10th Edward I., and 14th June, 15th Edward I. He was one of the peers who were present in parliament in the 18th Edward I., when a grant was made to the King, for the marriage of his eldest daughter, of the same aid as had been given to Henry III. for the marriage of his daughter the Queen of Scotland; and shortly afterwards the Isle of Man was intrusted to his charge, but which he only held three years, as, in obedience to the King’s commands, he surrendered his trust to John de Baillol in the 21st Edward I. In the 19th Edward I., by writ tested the 16th April at Darlington, he was ordered to be at Norham, equipped for the field by the ensuing Easter; and obtained a charter of free-warren in all his demesne lands in the county of Northumberland before the end of that year. On the 26th June 1294, Huntercombe was ordered to join the expedition then made into Gascony. His military services, during the remainder of the reign of Edward I. were incessant, for he was in the Scottish wars in the 25th, 26th, 28th, 31st, and 34th years of that monarch; was Governor of Edinburgh Castle in the 26th; Lieutenant of Northumberland in the 27th Edward I.; and afterwards Warden of the Marches there. In the 28th Edward I. we find that he was at the siege of Carlaverock; and in the next year he was a party to the letter to Pope Boniface, in which he is called “Walter Lord of Huntercombe.” It appears from the Wardrobe accounts of the 28th Edward I., that he was allowed 10_l._ as a compensation for a black nag which was killed by the Scots at Flete, on the 6th August 1299. But the nature and extent of Huntercombe’s services are best shown by his own statement of them in his petition to the King in the 35th Edward I., praying a remission of his scutage for the expeditions in which he had been engaged, with which prayer the crown complied. He says, that he had been in all the wars of Scotland up to that time; namely, in the first war at Berwick with twenty horse; then at Stirling with thirty-two horse, in the retinue of the Earl of Warren; then at Le Vaire Chapelle with thirty horse in the retinue of the Bishop of Durham; afterwards at Gaway with sixteen horse; and that he sent eighteen horse to the last battle, though he was not present himself, being then Warden of the Marches of Scotland and Northumberland. From that year nothing more is known of this Baron, excepting that he was summoned to parliament from the 23d June, 23d Edward I., 1295, to the 16th June, 14th Edward II., 1311, and died in 1312; but after the 25th Edward I. he was probably prevented by age from taking an active part in public affairs, for even allowing him to have been but twenty-one in the 55th Henry III., he must have been above sixty in 1307; which calculation makes him to have been about fifty when he was at Carlaverock, and sixty-four at his decease. Though he was twice married he died without issue. His first wife was Alice de Bolebec, before mentioned; but we only know that the Christian name of his second was Ellen, and that she survived him. Nicholas Newbaud, his nephew, son of his sister Gunnora, was found to be his heir.

“The arms of Huntercombe were ermine, two bars gemells, gules.”

L.

MEMOIR OF SIR SIMON FRASER.

Page 113.

This warrior appears to have been most actively engaged in the battle of Roslin; and the renown which has in consequence attached itself to his name, will perhaps render the following notice of him acceptable.

* * * * *

_Simon de Fraser_ was the eldest son of Simon de Frazer, the ancestor of the baronial houses of Saltoun and Lovat; and is supposed to have been a near connexion of William Frazer, Bishop of St Andrew’s, whose politics he appears in his early years to have adopted; for, when he was taken prisoner on the surrender of the castle of Dunbar in 1296, he swore fealty to Edward, and remained faithful to the English interest till 1302. He was repeatedly summoned to fight against his countrymen, particularly on 26th September 1298, and 7th May 1299. He also figured at the siege of Carlaverock in 1300 as a Baron;--in the same year, he was appointed Warden of the Forest of Selkirk, and, by that designation, the truce between the two countries was announced to him on the 30th October. In the same year, the sum of 64_l._ 18s. is charged in the Wardrobe Account, as having been paid him as the wages of himself and a retinue of three knights and twelve esquires, from 13th July till 3d September, at which time his horses were valued, and hire for 59 days allowed him. There is also an allowance of 17_l._ 6s. 8d. for the maintenance of his wife Lady Mary, her daughters and family, living in the castle of Jedworth, by the grant of the King, from Christmas till St John Baptist’s day, 26 weeks, at a merk per week, as per agreement with the Steward of Berwick-upon-Tweed.[100] On his withdrawing from Edward, he joined Comyn, and gained the battle of Roslin, as has already been observed. When the English afterwards succeeded in subduing Scotland, a severe penalty was inflicted upon him; he was banished from all the territories belonging to, or under the influence of England, for three years, and his rents for that time forfeited. In 1306 he joined Bruce; but having unfortunately fallen into the hands of the enemy, he was conveyed to London and ordered by Edward for execution;--after being drawn and quartered, his head was fixed upon London Bridge. “But,” says Mr Nicholas, “a much more minute and curious account is given of the tragical termination of Frazer’s life in a fragment of an inedited chronicle in the British Museum of the 15th century,[101] from which Mr Ritson printed the subjoined extract in illustration of a poem which will be more fully noticed.

“The fryday next before assumpcioun of oure lady, King Edeward mette Robert the Brus bisides seynt Johns toune in Scotland and with his companye, of whiche companye King Edewarde quelde sevene thowsand. When Robert the Brus saw this myschif, and gan to flee, and hovd hym that men mygte nougt hym fynde, but S^r Simond Frisell pursuede hym socore, so that he turnede ayen and abode bataille, for he was a worthy knyght and a bolde of body, and the Englisshe men pursuede hym sore yn every syde, and quelde the stede that S^r Symond Frisell rood uppon, and ther toke hym and lad hym to the host. And S^r Symond began for to flater and speke faire, and saide, Lordys, I shall yeve you iiij thousand marke of sylver, and myne hors and harneys, and all my armure and vicome. Tho answerd Theobaude of Pevenes, that was the Kinge’s archer, Now God me so helpe hit is for nougt that thou spexte, for alle the gold of Engelonde I wold the noght lete gone withoute commaundement of King Edeward. And tho was he lad to the King. And the King wolde not see hym, but commaunded to lede hym awey to his dome to London on our Ladyes even nativite, and he was honge and drawe, & his heede smyten of, and honged ayene with chynes of jren oppon the galwes, and his hede was sette oppon London brug on a sper. And ayens Cristesmasse the body was brent, for enchesoun that the men that kepte the body by nyghte sawe menye devellis rampande with jren crokes, rennynge uppon the gallews, and horribliche tormented the body; and meny that ham sawe, anoon after thei deied for dred, or woxen mad, or sore sykenesse thei had.”

In one of the Harleian manuscripts,[102] there is a ballad written on the subject, a few years after the circumstance took place, and which was published by Ritson.[103] The following stanzas are so extremely interesting, from the manner in which Frazer is alluded to, that, notwithstanding the length to which they extend, it is impossible to avoid inserting them. After noticing the capture and the fate of his unfortunate companions, the poet says:

“Thenne saide the iustice that gentil is ant fre,
Sire Simond Frysel, the Kynges traytour hast thou be,
In water ant in londe that monie myhten se,
What sayst thou thareto, how wolt thou quite the?

Do say.
Sa foul he him wiste,
Nede waron truste
Forto segge nay.

Ther he was ydemed, so hit wes londes lawe,
For that he wes lordswyk furst he wes to drawe,
Upon a retheres hude forth he wes ytuht,
Sum while in ys time he wes a modi knycht,
In huerte.
Wickednesse and sunne
Hit is lutel wunne,
That maketh the body smerte.

For al is grete poer yet he wes ylaht,
Falsnesse and swykedom al hit g’eth to nacht,
Tho he wes in Scotlond lutel wes ys thoht,
Of the harde iugement that him wes bysocht
In stounde.
He wes foursithe forswore
To the King ther bifore,
And that him brohte to grounde.

With feteres and with gyves ichot he wes to drowe,
From the tour of Londone, that monie myhte knowe,
In a curtel of burel aselkethe wyse,
Ant a gerland on ys heued of the newe gwyse,
Thurh Cheepe
Moni mon of Engelonde,
For to se Symond,
Thideward con lepe.

Tho he come to galewes furst he wes an honge,
Al quick byheueded, thah him thohte longe,
Seth the he wes yopened, is boweles ybrend,
The heued to Londone brugge wes send,
To shonde:
So ich ever mote the
Sum while wende he
Thes lutel to stonde.

He rideth thourh the site as y telle may,
With gomen and wyth solas, that wes here play,
To Londone brugge hee nome the way,
Moni wes the wyves chil that ther on laketh a day,
Ant seide alas
That he was ibore,
And so villiche forlore,
So feir mon ase he was.

Now stont the heued above the tubrugge,
Faste bi Waleis, soth forte sugge,
After socour of Scotlond longe he mowe prye,
Ant after help of Fraunce, met halt hit to lye,
Ich wene.
Betere him were in Scotlond,
With is ar in ys hond,
To pleyen othe grene.

Ant the body hongeth at the galewes faste
With yrnene claspes longe to laste,
Forte wyte wel the body, and Scottysh to garste,
Foure and twenti the beoth to sothe ate laste,
By nychte,
Yef eny were so hardi
The body to remny,
Also to dyhte.”

Fraser left two daughters, his co-heirs, one of whom married Sir Patrick Fleming, ancestor of the Earls of Wigton; and the other named Mary, was the wife of Sir Gilbert Hay, ancestor of the Marquess of Tweedale. From Alexander Fraser his brother the Barons Saltoun and Lovat descended.

The arms of Simon Frazer were, sable, semée of roses argent; but the descendants of his brother bear, azure, three cinque foils argent.

After this notice of so distinguished a leader among the Scots, the reader may reasonably be supposed to feel some curiosity respecting the English general,

SIR JOHN SEGRAVE.

From the researches of Mr Nicolas, it appears that this eminent Baron was the eldest son of Nicholas Baron Segrave; and at his father’s death, in the 23d Edward I., was thirty-nine years of age. In the 54th Henry III., he married Christian, daughter of Hugh de Plessets, knight, and at the same time, his sister Amabil became the wife of his brother-in-law, Sir John de Plessets. Soon after the accession of Edward I., he was engaged in the wars of Scotland, and in the 13th Edward I. he attended the King in his expedition into Wales. In the 19th Edward I. he was with his father in the Scottish wars; and in the 24th Edward I. executed the office of Constable of the English army.

Dugdale asserts, that in the 25th Edward I., John de Segrave was, by indenture, retained to serve Roger le Bigot, Earl of Norfolk, the Earl Marshal, with six knights, including himself, as well in peace as war, for the term of his whole life, in England, Wales, and Scotland, with the following retinue:--In time of peace, with six horses, so long as the Earl should think fit, taking _bouche of court_ for himself and six knights; and for his esquires hay and oats, together with livery for six more horses, and wages for six grooms and their horses. He was also to receive two robes for himself, as for a banneret, yearly, as well in peace as in war, with the same robes for each of his five knights, and two robes annually for his other bachelors. In war, he was bound to bring with him his five knights and twenty horses, in consideration of which, he was to receive for himself and his company, with all the said horses, xl s. per diem; but if he should bring no more than six horses, then xxij s. per diem. It was further agreed, that the horses should be valued, in order that proper allowance might be made, in case any of them should happen to be lost in the service; and, for the performance of this agreement, he had a grant from the Earl of the manor of Lodene in Norfolk.

The preceding document has been cited nearly in Dugdale’s own words, because at the same time that it affords much information with respect to the retinue by which Segrave was attended to the field, it proves that he was intimately connected with the Earl Marshal, which tends to explain his having in the same year, namely, on the 12th August, 25th Edward I. 1297, been appointed by the Earl to appear in his name before the King, in obedience to a precept directed to him and the Constable, commanding them to attend him on the subject of a body of armed men which had assembled in London. The record states, that on the appointed day, the Earl of Hereford as Constable, and “Mons^r John de Segrave, qui excusa le Comte Mareschal par maladie,” came accordingly.[104] In the 25th Edward I., this baron was also summoned to accompany the King beyond the sea, and afterwards at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, with horse and arms; and, in the next year, was present when the English army gained the victory of Falkirk. In the 28th Edward I., he was again summoned to serve in the wars of Scotland, in which year, when he must have been about forty-five years old, he was at the siege of Carlaverock. The account given of him by the poet, that he performed the Earl Marshal’s duties upon that occasion, because that nobleman was prevented from attending, is not only strongly corroborated by the preceding statement of his having acted as deputy of the Earl Marshal in the year 1297, but also by the following extract from Peter de Langtoft’s chronicle (p. 309.), when speaking of the expedition into Scotland in 1300.

“After Midesomers tide thorgh comon ordinance,
No lenger suld thei bide, bot forth & stand to chance.
Norreis & Surreis, that seruice auht the kyng,
With hors & harneis at Carlele mad samnyng.
The erle Marschalle Rogere no hele that tyme mot haue,
He went with his banere Sir Jon the Segraue,
To do alle tho service that longed the office tille,
& mayntend alle the prise, ther he sauh lawe & skille.”

After Carlaverock castle surrendered, Segrave’s banner, from his having acted as Marshal during the siege, was displayed on its battlements. In the 30th of Edward I., he was a party to the Letter from the Barons to the Pope, in which he is styled “John Lord of Segrave;” and about that time was appointed Governor of Berwick, and Warden of Scotland. In the same year, whilst riding out of Berwick with a small escort, he was surprised by an ambuscade of the Scots, wounded, and taken prisoner; which event is thus noticed by Langtoft (p. 319.)

“Our men in Scotland with sautes sodeynly,
The Segrave myght not stand, Sir Jon tok the gayn stie.
His sonne & his brother of bedde als thei woke,
& sextene knyghtes other, the Scottis alle them toke.”

His captivity was however, it appears, of short duration; for, on Edward’s return to England, Segrave was left as his Lieutenant of Scotland. At different periods during the reign of Edward I., he obtained grants of free warren and other privileges in several of his manors, and possessed that elevated place in his sovereign’s confidence and esteem, which his long and zealous services so justly merited. Nor was he less distinguished by his successor, for soon after the accession of Edward II., he was constituted Governor of Nottingham castle, which had belonged to Piers de Gaveston, and was likewise appointed to his situation of Justice of the Forests beyond the Trent, and Keeper of all the Rolls thereto belonging; but he resigned these offices in the following year, when they were conferred upon Henry de Percy. In the 2d Edward II., he was again appointed Warden of Scotland; in the 6th Edward II. he was taken prisoner at the battle of Bannockburn, and about twelve months afterwards Thomas de Moram and several other Scots, then prisoners in the Tower of London, were delivered to Stephen de Segrave, son and heir of the Baron, to be exchanged for him. In the 8th Edward II., commissioners were appointed to hear and determine all disputes relative to the taking up of carriages by him or his agent, in consequence of his offices of Keeper of the Forests beyond the Trent, and of the castles of Nottingham and Derby. He was summoned upon several occasions to serve in the Scottish wars during the early part of the reign of Edward II., and to Parliament from the 26th August, 24th Edward I., 1296, to the 6th May, 18th Edward II., 1325. In the 10th Edward II., in recompence of his great services, and of his imprisonment in Scotland, he received a grant of L.1000; but what was then due to the crown for money received by him from the time of his appointment of Warden of the Forests beyond the Trent and Governor of Nottingham Castle, was to be deducted from that sum.

The tide of royal favour at last turned, and he accidentally fell a victim to the displeasure of his sovereign. Having, in 1325, excited Edward’s anger by the escape of Roger Lord Mortimer from the Tower, he sent Segrave and the Earl of Kent into Gascony, under the pretence of defending that province, where he was attacked with a disease then prevalent there, of which he shortly afterwards died, aged about seventy years, leaving John de Segrave, his grandson, son of his eldest son Stephen, who died in his lifetime, his heir.

The preceding unadorned narrative of John de Segrave’s services forms a splendid monument of his fame: for, whilst the impossibility of colouring the biography of his contemporaries with meretricious ornaments of language, is strongly felt when their actions are few or obscure, the absence of such assistance tends to the advantage of those who need no other eulogy than the simple record of the occasions upon which they were present in the field, or were selected to execute high and important duties.

John de Segrave, the next Baron, added to the honours of his ancestors in an unprecedented manner, by marrying Margaret, the daughter and heiress of Thomas de Brotherton, Marshal of England, younger son of King Edward I. Through the marriage of Elizabeth, their daughter and heiress, with John Lord Mowbray, that family attained the Marshalship of England. The present representatives of John Baron Segrave, the subject of this article, are the Lords Stourton and Petre and the Earl of Berkley. The arms of John de Segrave were sable, a lion rampant, argent, crowned or.

M.

EXTRACTS FROM THE WARDROBE ACCOUNTS.

Page 120.

This, of course, is mere conjecture on the part of the author; but that he has, at least, probability on his side, may be inferred from the extraordinary outlay attending the Scottish expeditions, as proved by the following extracts from the Wardrobe Accounts--exhibiting the Revenue and Expenditure of Edward for the year 1300, and including the disbursements occasioned by the invasion of Scotland during that year:--

Total amount of receipts, p. Exchequer, for this
present 28. year of Edward I. -- L.49,048 19 10

Fines levied, and proceeds of stores, horses, &c.
sold 9,106 16 2½
---------------
Per fo. 15. L.58,155 16 0½
===============
Charges on Scottish War.

For royal garrisons and castles in Scotland,

fo. 154. L.18,638 1 8

... replacing horses killed or destroyed in King’s
service, belonging to knights, and officers,
and gratification to messengers, servants,
&c. fo. 187. 4,386 4 5

... annual fees to knights of King’s household,
wages of bannerets and simple knights, &c.
fo. 210. 3,077 19 0

... wages of engineers, archers, sergeants-at-arms
of King’s household, esquires, &c.
fo. ix. Observ. on W. A. 1,038 10 7

... wages of foot-soldiers, crossbow-men, archers,
artificers and workmen, fo. 270. 4,446 9 11½

... wages of seamen belonging to the fleet of the
Cinque Ports and other towns, employed
in the King’s service, fo. 279. 1,233 9 8
-------------
Amount of charges for the year L.32,820 15 3½

* * * * *

Separate Disbursements.

Alms and charitable donations of the King and
his family, fo. 47. L.1,166 14 6

Necessaries for the King’s household, travelling
expenses, ambassadors, messengers to Court
of Rome, wages of King’s servants _not_ on
the Marshall’s roll, &c. (Observ. on W. A.
fo. viii.) 3,338 19 3

Expenses of messengers and others, despatched
on King’s business, fo. 303. 87 11 1

Falconers, huntsmen, &c. fo. 309 77 6 11½

Allowance to bannerets, knights, clerks, and
other servants of the King’s household for
their winter and summer robes, fo. 331. 714 3 4

Expenses of sundry furnishings for the Royal
household, including separate expenses of the
Queen and her household, amounting to
L.3668, 2s. 9d., and Chancellor’s fee, amounting
to L.581, 9s. 9d. fo. 360. 15,575 18 5½

“The account then states the payments contained
in this book to amount to L.53,178 15 0

“To which are added the expenses of the household
contained in a separate account, amounting
to L.10,969 16 0½
---------------
And “the whole of the national expenditure,
within this department, during one entire
year,” is stated at L.64,105 0 5
==============
It is added, “The account is corrected and
approved by the comptroller in every page;
but the balance is not struck. If we take,
however, the sum told of the money received,
which amounted to L.58,155 16 2

And deduct it from the money paid, we shall
find a balance due to the accountant, amounting
to 5,949 4 3”
=============

On data furnished by the ascertained difference in the value of silver in 1300, which is stated to be “_thrice_ as much” as it was in 1700, and the comparative value of certain provisions, estimated, as being in 1300, “_five_ times as cheap” as in 1700. Bishop Fleetwood “makes the difference of the value of a shilling between the two periods to be fifteen;” and it is added, “supposing this calculation to be well-founded, computations might be made, so as to form a judgment of the difference between the latter of those periods and the present time.”--(_Vide_ p. xii. Observations on Wardrobe Account, 1787.)

An estimate of the expense of the Scottish war, according to this mode of computation, would therefore present the following result, for (1700) the period alluded to by Bishop Fleetwood:--

Charges on Scottish war for 1300 L.32,820 15 3½
For difference in the weight of silver 3
--------------
L.98,462 5 10½
For the variation in the value of money 5
--------------
L.492,311 9 4½

being an increase of the sum of 32,820_l._ 15s. 3½d. of the year 1300, to 492,311_l._ 9s. 4½d., or nearly _one-eighth_ of 3,895,205_l._, the revenue of the kingdom in the reign of William III., according to Sir John Sinclair:--while, from a statement by the same respectable authority, the whole revenue of the kingdom under Edward I. is estimated at 150,000_l_; the disbursements for the Scottish war will therefore be found to exceed, within one department of the national expenditure, _one-fifth_ of the national income.

N.

TRIAL OF WALLACE.

Page 158.

“William Wallace, which had oft-times set Scotland in great trouble, was taken and brought to London, with great numbers of men and women wondering upon him. _He was lodged in the house of William Delect, a citizen of London, in Fenchurch Street._ On the morrow, being the eve of St Bartholomew, he was brought on horseback to Westminster-hall; John Segrave and Geoffrey, knights, the mayor, sheriffs, and aldermen of London, _many, both on horseback and on foot_, accompanying him; and in the great hall at Westminster, _he being placed on the south bench_, crowned with laurel, for that he had said in times past that he ought to wear a crown in that hall, as it was commonly reported; and being appeached as a traitor by Sir Peter Malorie, the King’s Justice, he answered _that he was no traitor to the King of England_; but for other things whereof he was accused, he confessed them, and was, after, headed and quartered.”--_Stow. Chron._ p. 209.

O.

ON THE MARTYRDOM OF WALLACE.

Page 159.

The following account is given by Langtoft of the capture, sentence, and execution of Wallace:

“A! Jhesu, when thou wille how rightwis is thi mede?
That of the wrong has gilt, the endying may thei drede.
William Waleis is nomen, that maister was of theues,
Tething to the Kyng is comen, that robberie mischeues.
Sir Jon of Menetest sewed William so nehi.
He tok him whan he wend lest, on nyght his leman bi.
That was thorght treson of Jak Schort his man,
He was the encheson, that Sir Jon so him nam,
Jak brother had he slayn, the Waleis that is said,
The more Jak was fayn, to do William that braid.
Selcouthly he endis the man that is fals,
If he trest on his frendes, thei begile him als.
Begiled is William, taken is & bondon,
To Inglond with him thei cam, & led him vnto London,
The first dome he fanged, for treson was he drawen.
For robbrie was he hanged, & for he had men slawen,
& for he had brent abbies, & men of religion,
Eft fro the galweis quik thei lete him doun,
& boweld him alle hote, & brent tham in the fire.
His hede than of smote, suilk was William hire;
& for he had mayntend the werre at his myght,
On lordschip lended thore he had no right,
& stroied those he knewe, in fele stede sers
His body thai hewe on foure quarters,
To hang in foure tounes, to mene of his maners
In stede of Gonfaynounes, & of his baners.
At London is his heued, his quarters ere leued, in Scotland spred,
To wirschip her iles, & lere of his wiles, how wele that he sped.
It is not to drede, traytour salle spede, als he is worthi,
His lif salle he tyne, & die thorgh pyne, withouten merci.
Thus may men here, a ladde for to lere, to biggen in pays;
It fallis in his iye, that hewes ouer hie, with the Walays.”

Vol. ii. p. 329. 330.

“The martyrdom of Wallace,” says the editor of Wyntoun’s Chronicle, “is thus described, in a ballad written about a year after, when the head of Sir Simon Frazer, one of the heroes of Roslin, was set up beside those of Wallace and Lewellyn, the last sovereign of Wales.

“To warny alle the gentilmen, that liueth in Scotlonde.}
The Waleis wes to drawe seththe he wes anhonge, } to abyde.
Al quic biheueded, ys boweles ybrend, }
The heued to Londone brugge wes send

* * * * *

Sire Edward oure Kyng, that ful ys of pietè, }
The Waleis quarters sende to is oune contre, } Ant drede.”
On four half to honge, huere myrour to be, }
Ther-apon to thenche, that manie myhten se, }

_MS. Harl. No. 2253, f. 59, b. Trivet._ p. 340.

“Thus did Edward glut his vengeance on the dead body of this worthy man, whose living soul all his power never could subdue.

“Some of the English historians have stained their pages with low invectives against Wallace. Carte, in particular [Hist. v. ii. p. 290.], labours hard to prove him a traitor to King Edward, whose _mercy_ he praises. That he was a traitor, he proves from his being a native of Galloway, _or_ the Cambrian territories, which, _he says_, the kings of Scotland held in vassalage of the crown of England, and because the subvassals were, in cases of rebellion, subject by the feudal law to the same forfeitures and penalties as the immediate vassal.

“A man must feel himself very much pinched for arguments, when he has recourse to such as are confessedly not founded on reason, and to quibbles and perversion of facts. Clydesdale, the ancient kingdom of Strathcluyd, one of the first independent kingdoms established in Britain by the expulsion of the Romans, which for many centuries withstood the attacks of the Angles, Pichts, Scots, and Norwegians, and had the honour to produce STEWART, DOUGLAS, and WALAYS, was never pretended to be any part of the territories of which the kings of England claimed the superiority. So the pretence that Walays was a traitor, in consequence of the place of his birth, falls to the ground; and the pretence of rebellion is equally unfounded, unless the noble exertions of a free people against the unjustifiable attempts of a neighbouring prince to subject them to his dominion, are to be branded with the name of rebellion. Well may the spirit of the noble Walays forgive those writers for accusing him of inhumanity and rebellion, who have extolled the clemency of Edward I.”--_Notes to Wyntoun’s Chronicle_, vol. ii. p. 503.

The inclination to detract from the merits of Wallace, does not appear to have become entirely extinct among the historians of England. Dr Lingard thus expresses himself respecting our hero: “It may perhaps offend the national partiality of some among my readers, but I greatly suspect that Wallace owes his celebrity as much to his execution as to his exploits. Of all the Scottish chieftains who deserved and experienced the enmity of Edward, he alone perished on the gallows; and on this account his fate called forth and monopolized the sympathy of his countrymen.”--Vol. iii. p. 227.

On this Mr Tytler remarks, “It is not true, that of all the Scottish chieftains who deserved Edward’s enmity, Wallace was the only one who perished on the gallows. Sir Nigel Bruce, Sir Christopher Seton, John Seton, the Earl of Athol, Sir Simon Fraser, Sir Herbert de Morham, Thomas Boys, Sir David Inchmartin, Sir John de Somerville, Sir Thomas and Sir Alexander Bruce, both brothers of the king, and Sir Reginald Crawfurd, were all hanged by Edward’s orders in the course of the year 1306, within a year of the execution of Wallace. So much for the accuracy of the ground on which Lingard has founded his conjecture, that Wallace owes his celebrity ‘to his execution.’”

Respecting the inaccuracies of Dr Lingard on this subject, we shall give another extract from the same authority. “He,” Dr Lingard “observes, that after the surprise of Ormesby the Justiciary, by Wallace and Douglas, other independent chieftains arose in different counties, who massacred the English, and compelled their own countrymen to fight under their standards. These other independent chieftains are brought in ‘for the nonce’ by Dr Lingard. They are utterly unknown to the contemporary historians, English and Scottish. But they do not appear upon the stage without a use. On the contrary, they first multiply like Falstaff’s men in buckram, ‘into numerous parties,’ and then act a principal part in the next sentence; for the historian goes on to observe, ‘that the origin and progress of _these numerous parties_ had been viewed with secret satisfaction by the Steward of Scotland, and Wishart the Bishop of Glasgow, who determined to collect them into one body, and to give their efforts one common direction. Declaring themselves the assertors of Scottish independence, they invited the different leaders to rally around them; and the summons was obeyed by Wallace and Douglas, by Sir Alexander Lindsay, Sir Andrew Moray, and Sir Richard Lundy,’ vol. iii. p. 305. This last sentence is one of pure and gratuitous invention, without a shadow of historical authority to support it. The numerous and independent parties and chieftains who rose in different counties--the silent satisfaction with which they were contemplated by the Bishop of Glasgow and the High Steward--their determination to collect them into one body, and to give them one common direction--their declaring themselves the assertors of Scottish independence--their summons to the different leaders to rally round them, and the prompt obedience of this summons by Wallace, Douglas, and the rest--are facts created by the ingenuity of the historian. They seem to be introduced for the purpose of diminishing the reputation of Wallace; and the impression they leave on the mind of the reader, appears to me to be one totally different from the truth. The Steward and the Bishop of Glasgow are the patriot chiefs under whom Douglas and Wallace, and many other independent chieftains consent to act for the recovery of Scottish freedom; and Wallace sinks down into the humble partisan, whose talents are directed by their superior authority and wisdom. Now, the fact is exactly the reverse of this. The Steward and Wishart, encouraged by the successes of Wallace and Douglas, joined their party, and acted along with them in their attempt to free Scotland; but neither Fordun, nor Wynton, nor Bower gives us the slightest ground to think that they acted a principal part, or any thing like a principal part, in organizing the first rising against Edward. On the contrary, these historians, along with Trivet and Walsingham, Tyrrel and Carte, ascribe the rising to Wallace alone, whose early success first caused him to be joined by Douglas, and afterwards by the Bishop and the Steward, along with Lindsay, Moray, and Lundy. Indeed, instead of playing the part ascribed to him by Lingard, the patriotism of the Steward and the Bishop, was of that lukewarm and short-lived kind which little deserves the name. It did not outlive eight weeks; and they seized the first opportunity to desert Wallace and the cause of freedom. The attack upon Ormesby the Justiciary took place some time in May 1297; and on the 9th of July of the same year, did Bishop Wishart, this patriot assertor of Scottish independence, negociate the treaty of Irvine, by which he and the other Scottish barons, with the single exception of Wallace and Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell, submitted to Edward. Lingard’s other hero, the High Steward, who is brought in to divide the glory with Wallace, was actually in the English service at the battle of Stirling; and although he secretly favoured the Scottish cause, he did not openly join his countrymen till he saw the entire destruction of Surrey’s army. I may remark, in concluding this note, that the idea of an attack upon Wallace, and an eulogy on the clemency of Edward, has probably not even the merit of originality. It appears to be borrowed from Carte, vol. ii. p. 290; but it is only the idea which is taken. The clumsy and absurd argument of Carte is discarded, and a far more ingenious hypothesis, with a new set of facts, is substituted in its place. On reading over Hemingford again, I find one expression which may perhaps have suggested this theory of Lingard. Hemingford says, speaking of Bruce, p. 120, that he joined the Bishop of Glasgow and the Steward, ‘qui tocius mali fabricatores exstiterant.’ Yet this is inconsistent with his own account in p. 118, and is not corroborated, so far as I know, by any other historian.”

Among other singular passages in the work of the learned Doctor, we cannot omit taking notice of the following: “The only great battles in which Wallace is known to have fought, are those of Stirling and Falkirk. In the first he was victorious; but he must share the glory of the action with Sir Andrew Murray, who was certainly his equal in command, perhaps his superior. In the second he was defeated, and the defeat was the most disastrous that Scotland ever experienced. In the history of the next five years, his name is scarcely ever mentioned.” Scottish historians never pretended that there was any battle of equal importance to those of Stirling and Falkirk, in which Wallace was engaged. But where Dr Lingard could get his information, that Sir Andrew Murray held a superior, or even an _equal command_ with him, it is not easy to conjecture. In Scottish authors, evidences to the contrary are innumerable; and if Dr Lingard had not preferred substituting his own “perhaps,” in place of historical record, he might have proofs in direct opposition to the statement he has made, and that even from English authors, with whom he appears to be familiar.

At the treaty of Irvine, for the submission of the Scottish barons, when all deserted Wallace but Sir Andrew Murray, it is mentioned in the instrument as having been notified to Wallace “Escrit à Sire Willaume,” and the name of Sir Andrew is not even alluded to. This would certainly not have been the case, had he held even an equal command, much less a superior.--_Fœdera, T._ ii. p. 774.

In the Chronicle of Langtoft, page 297, we have an account of the battle of Stirling, which is thus introduced:--

“The rascail of ther route bigan to werre alle newe,
Now Edward is oute, the barons be not treue.
The suffred, as it sais, the Scottis eft to rise,
& William the Walais _ther hed & ther justise_.
Thorgh fals concelement William did his wille,
Our castels has he brent, our men slayn fulle ille.”

The chronicler, after telling us that Wallace was the _head and justice of the Scots_--expressions which embrace a pretty extensive prerogative--proceeds to narrate the operations of the day, in which he speaks of Wallace as the only commander opposed to Warren: nor does he even hint of any individual who had a right to “divide the glory” of the victory with him: on the contrary he says,

“The Inglis were alle slayn, the Scottis bare them wele,
The Waleis had the wayn, als maistere of that eschele.”

Sir Andrew Murray is not even mentioned by Langtoft. That he fought bravely, and died nobly in defence of his country, is what no one will attempt to deny, and the same might be said of many more who were present on that occasion; but being the only man amongst a timid and backsliding aristocracy, who acted with patriotism and spirit in so trying a time, his name has been handed down to the grateful remembrance of posterity.

“In the next five years,” adds Dr Lingard, the “name” of Wallace “is scarcely ever mentioned.” When Scottish affairs are concerned, and more particularly when the character of her deliverer is the subject adverted to, a reference to authorities appears to be extremely irksome, or attended with too much trouble to our learned author. In the present instance, however, we shall not ask him to go farther than the pages of his own work, where he will find matter that might lead him to suspect the truth of the above assertion, as well as the correctness of the view he has taken of the grounds on which our patriot’s popularity is founded. We are informed (vol. iii. p. 227), “The only man whose enmity could give him” (Edward) a “moment’s uneasiness, was Wallace, and in few months he was brought captive to London.” And again, vol. iii. p. 329, “If the fate of Wallace was different from all others, it proves that there was something peculiar in his case which rendered him less deserving of mercy.” If we are to credit our author’s statements, Edward must have been a more nervous character than he has ever been supposed to be, if he could feel “uneasiness” at “the enmity” of a man who had been thus buried in obscurity, and whose “name had scarcely been heard of for five years,”--one who, in the only great battle in which he was successful, held but a subordinate command, and acted during the insurrection in the humble character of a mere partisan, under the direction of others. Surely there was nothing peculiarly aggravating in the case of such a man, to have “rendered him less deserving of mercy” than his more guilty superiors, particularly from _one_ whom our author informs us “was _not_ a blood-thirsty tyrant.” It is strange that it did not appear to Dr Lingard, as a very high degree of praise, that after Wallace had been deprived, by the severe and sanguinary policy of Edward, of all resources save what arose from his own dauntless heart and irresistible arm, that he should still continue to be the only man _whose_ “enmity” could give the oppressor of his country “a moment’s uneasiness.” From this circumstance, and from this alone, arose that “something peculiar” in his case which rendered him obnoxious to the tender mercies of Edward. In conclusion, we cannot help remarking, that the Doctor’s method of substituting, where his prejudices happen to be interested, his own theoretical conjectures, in opposition to the authentic records of the country, is rather an indirect way to the confidence of his reader.

P.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF WALLACE.

P. 162.

From the following passage in the Minstrel it would seem, that a portrait of Wallace had been taken during his short stay in France, and forwarded to his friends in Scotland. What afterwards became of this precious relic, cannot now be discovered. Though there are many likenesses of him to be met with in the country, yet the pretensions to originality of all those we have yet seen, are extremely questionable. It would be difficult for a blind man to give his ideas of a picture in more appropriate language than the following.

“The wyt off Frans thocht Wallace to commend;
In to Scotland, with this harrold, thai send
Part off his deid, and als the discriptioune
Off him tane thar, be men off discretioun,
Clerkis, knychtis, and harroldis, that him saw;
Bot I hereoff can nocht reherss thaim aw.”

The description of Wallace, in the following lines, places the genius of Henry in a very favourable light. It is evidently the effort of a master, and might be studied to advantage by the artist who intended to commit his ideas of the hero of Scotland to canvas:--