Chapter XVIII: Appendix: A (3)

“Wallace statur, off gretness, and off hycht,
Was jugyt thus, be discretioun off rycht,
That saw him bath dissembill and in weid;
Nyne quartaris large he was in lenth indeid;
Thryd part lenth in schuldrys braid was he,
Rycht sembly, strang, and lusty for to se;
Hys lymmys gret, with stalwart paiss and sound,
Hys browys hard, his armes gret and round;
His handis maid rycht lik till a pawmer,
Off manlik mak, with naless gret and cler;
Proportionyt lang and fayr was his wesage;
Rycht sad off spech, and abill in curage;
Braid breyst and heych, with sturdy crag and gret,
His lyppys round, his noyss was squar and tret;
Bowand bron haryt, on browis and breis lycht,
Cler aspre eyn, lik dyamondis brycht.
Wndir the chyn, on the left syd, was seyn,
Be hurt, a wain; his colour was sangweyn.
Woundis he had in mony diuerss place,
Bot fayr and weill kepyt was his face.
Off ryches he kepyt no propyr thing;
Gaiff as he wan, lik Alexander the King.
In tym off pes, mek as a maid was he;
Quhar wer approchyt the rycht Ector was he.
To Scottis men a gret credens he gaiff;
Bot knawin enemyss thai couth him nocht disayff.
Thir properteys was knawin in to Frans,
Off him to be in gud remembrans.”

Book ix. 1909-1942.

The subjoined extract, from Fordun, fully corroborates the statements from the Minstrel:--

“Erat staturâ procerus, corpore giganteus, facie serenus, vultu jocundus, humeris latus, ossibus grossus, ventre congruus, lateribus protelus, aspectu gratus, sed visu ferus; renibus amplus, brachiis et cruribus vigorosus; pugil acerrimus, et omnibus artubus fortissimus et compactus. Insuper sic eum Altissimus et ipsius vultum varium quâdam hilaritate favorabili insigniverat, ita dicta et facta illius quodam cœlesti dono gratificaverat ut omnia fidorum corda Scotorum solo aspectu sibi conciliaret in gratiam et favorem. Et nec mirum: erat enim in donis liberalissimus, in judiciis æquissimus, in consolatione tristium compatientissimus, in consilio peritissimus, sufferentia patientissimus, in locutione luculentissimus,--super omnia falsitatem et mendacia prosequens, ac proditionem detestans; propter quod fuit Dominus cum eo, per quem erat vir incunctis prosperé agens; ecclesiam venerans, ecclesiasticos reverens, pauperes et viduas sustentans, pupillos et orphanos refovens, oppressos relevans, furibus et raptoribus insidians, et sine pretio super eos, justitiam exercens et rigorem. Cujuscemodi justis operibus, quia quam maximé Deum gratificabót ipse propterea omnia ejus opera dirigebat.”--_Lib._ x. cap. 28.

Q.

REMINISCENCE OF WALLACE.

Page 163.

Among the few speeches of Wallace which we have on record, the following is mentioned by English writers, as having been addressed by him to the Scottish schiltrons, on the eve of the battle of Falkirk:--“I haif brocht you to the ring, hap gif you cun.” Respecting the meaning of these words, however, there is no agreement between Scottish or English writers. Walsingham has it, “I haif brocht you to the King, hop gif you cun;”--on which Lord Hailes very properly remarks:--

“This speech of Wallace has generally been related and explained in a sense very different. I must therefore give my reasons for having departed so widely from the common opinion. _Walsingham_, p. 75, says, ‘Dicens eis patriâ linguâ,--_I haif brocht you to the_ King, _hop gif you cun_.’ This short speech has always appeared to me as utterly inconsistent with the character of Wallace. It is commonly understood to mean, ‘I have brought you to the King, hope if you can hope.’ To say nothing of the impropriety of the appellation of _King_, bestowed by Wallace on Edward, the sentiment, ‘hope, if you can hope,’ seems only fit for the mouth of a coward or a traitor. Abercrombie, perceiving this, has given a more plausible interpretation of the word _hop_. He renders the phrase thus, ‘_Fly_ if you can;’ as if Wallace had meant to say, ‘_Fight_, for you cannot fly.’ There is nothing incongruous in this sentiment; but surely it did not merit to be recorded: Neither was it strictly true; for the Scottish army might have retired with unbroken forces into the forest which lay in the rear. The only satisfactory interpretation of Wallace’s address to his troops, is to be found in _W. Westm._ p. 451, ‘Ecce adduxi vos ad _annulum_ charolate (chorolate) sive tripudiate vos, sicut melius scitis.’ _King_, in Walsingham, ought to be _ring_. The words of Wallace were, ‘I haif brocht you to the ring, hap gif you cun.’ _The ring_ means the dance _à la ronde_. _Douglas_ translates ‘Exercet Diana _choros_,’ Æneid ii., thus, ‘Ledand _ring-dances_,’ p. 28. l. 42. ‘Te lustrare _choros_,’ Æneid vii., thus: ‘To the scho led _ring-sangis_ in karoling,’ p. 220, l. 31. Elsewhere, in his own person, he says, ‘Sum sang _ring-sangis_,’ Prologue, xii. B. p. 402, l. 33. That _hap_ or _hop_ is understood of dancing, is also plain from _Douglas_. He thus paraphrases ‘Hic exultantes Salios,’ Æneid, viii.

‘The dansand Preistis, clepit _Salii_,
_Happand_ and singand.’ P. 267, l. 21.

“I need not prove, that ‘gif you cun’ implies ‘if you have skill,’ or, ‘according to your skill.’ The verb is obsolete; but the noun and the adjective are still remembered. ‘Let my right hand forget its _cunning_,’ ‘a _cunning_ artificer,’ ‘a _cunning_ man.’ _Langtoft_, vol. ii. p. 305, as translated by Brunne, reports the words thus: “To the renge ere ye brouht, hop now if ye wille.” But he does not seem to have understood the import of the words.”

The above is all learned enough; but his lordship has stopped short in his explanation, and left his readers as much in the dark, as any of his predecessors, respecting the meaning or propriety of such a phrase in the mouth of a general, on the commencement of a great battle. Some of our readers perhaps require to be told that _schiltron_ means a body of men drawn up in a circle.[105] The war-dance of the Scots and other northern nations, as is well known, was performed round a large fire. Each warrior’s hand was firmly clasped in that of his neighbour. Their motion was at first slow, and gradually increased, till their rapidity almost rivalled the velocity of the whirlwind. When arrived at this state of fury, if any luckless wight slipped his hold, or otherwise became unsteady, the impetus which he and his fellows had acquired, pitched him headlong amid the flames, when his endeavours to extricate himself from the blaze, and regain his place, formed the chief sport of his companions. To render the schiltron the most formidable figure for defensive operations, steadiness was all that was requisite. When Wallace, therefore, on the rapid advance of the English, addressed his soldiers in the manner alluded to, he gave utterance to the happiest thought, in the fewest words, that perhaps ever presented itself to the mind of genius in a case of emergency. The striking similarity between their form of battle and their favourite dance, was apparent to all; and the impending conflict became instantly stript of its terrors, by a playful allusion to an amusement with which they were familiar, while it flashed upon their minds with all the conviction of experience, that on the preservation of their ranks their safety depended. The behaviour of the schiltrons on that fatal day showed that they understood the address of their leader better than any of its subsequent commentators.

R.

WALLACE’S DESCENDANTS.

Page 167.

Wallace appears to have left a daughter, whose legitimacy has been called in question, but on very slender grounds. In Chalmers’s Caledonia, vol. i. p. 579, we find the following passage:--“It has been said that Wallace left no legitimate issue; but he had a natural daughter, who married Sir William Baillie of Hoprig, the progenitor of the Baillies of Lamington.” It has never been disputed, that the lady by whom Wallace had this daughter was the heiress of Lamington, in right of her father, Sir Hew de Bradfute; it would therefore have been satisfactory, if the learned author above mentioned had explained how the Baillies of Hoprig came to the possession of Lamington. If the daughter of Wallace was legitimate their succession appears the natural consequence of the marriage of Sir William Baillie; if not, the manner in which they became possessed of that property requires elucidation. That Wallace and the heiress of Lamington were lawfully married, is asserted by Henry, who draws the following picture of their connubial happiness:--

“Quhat suld I say, Wallace was playnly set
To luff hyr best in all this warld so wid;
Thinkand he suld off his desyr to get;
And so befell be concord in a tid,
That sho [was] maid at his commaund to bid;
And thus began the styntyn aff this stryff:
Begynnyng band, with graith witnes besyd,
_Myn auctor sais, sho was his rychtwyss wyff_.
Now leiff in pees, now leiff in gud concord!
Now leyff in blyss, now leiff in haill plesance!
For scho be choss has bath hyr luff and lord.
He thinkis als, luft did him hye awance,
So ewynly held be favour the ballance,
Sen he at will may lap hyr in his armyss.
Scho thankit God off hir fre happy chance,
For in his tyme he was the flour off armys.
Fortoune him schawit hyr fygowrt doubill face,
Feyll syss or than he had beyne set abuff:
In presoune now, delyuerit now throw grace,
Now at vness, now in to rest and ruff;
Now weyll at wyll, weyldand his plesand luff,
As thocht him selff out off aduersité;
Desyring ay his manheid for to pruff,
In cairage set apon the stagis hye.
The werray treuth I can nocht graithly tell,
In to this lyff how lang at thai had beyne:
Throuch natural course of generacioune befell,
A child was chewyt thir twa luffaris betuene,
Quhilk gudly was, a maydyn brycht and schene.”

_Buke Sext_, 41-69.

According to the above authority, the offspring of this marriage was first united in the bands of wedlock to an Esquire of the name of Shaw. Whether this was any connection of William de Shaw, mentioned at page 106, vol. i. of this work, as witnessing the charter of James, Lord High Steward of Scotland, along with some other friends of Wallace, we have no means of ascertaining. We are told, however, that

“Rycht gudly men come off this lady ying.”

Whether these were the issue of the marriage with Shaw, or of that afterwards contracted with Baillie of Hoprig, or of both, it is difficult to determine. It is probable, as Sir William Baillie is designated, of Hoprig, and his descendants as proprietors of Lamington, that they may have succeeded to the inheritance, after the offspring of the first marriage had become extinct. It has also been advanced, as an argument against the legitimacy of the daughter of Wallace, that she inherited none of the property of her father. Those, however, who started this objection, would have done well to have shown, that Wallace possessed property to which she could have succeeded. It does not appear that he was ever personally invested in any of the lands belonging to the family. And mention is made of his brother Malcolm having left a son of the name of John, in whom the succession was prolonged, till it merged in the family of Craigie. In Langtoft’s Chronicle, vol. ii. p. 338, we have an account of the capture and execution of a Sir John de Wallace, who is there called a brother of Sir William. This is evidently a mistake, and might very easily arise from the closeness of the connection between the two parties. Another “John Walays of Elryslà” (Elderslie) is taken notice of as among the witnesses to the charter of Robert, Duke of Albany; and, from the family title being preserved, it is highly probable that the stock of Sir Malcolm Wallace had not then become extinct.

S.

ON THE TREACHERY OF MENTEITH.

Page 169.

In the account of the capture of Wallace, we have thought it advisable to follow, in a great measure, the statement given by the Minstrel. It is, we conceive, the only rational one we are possessed of; and as the authority of the author has been supported by the Tower records, and other incontrovertible muniments, in matters of comparatively trifling importance, it would be unfair to doubt his veracity on so important a part of the history of his hero, particularly when all the notices we have in other writers, tend more or less to confirm the truth of what he asserts. Lord Hailes, however, has attempted to remove the odium which has for these five hundred years been attached to the memory of Menteith; but his efforts to exculpate the Judas of Scotland, have been viewed by the generality of his countrymen in rather an unfavourable light. In the remarks his Lordship has made on the subject, we cannot discover that acuteness which frequently appears in his other writings. Dr Jamieson has thus replied to him:

“The account given of the treachery of Menteth, is one of those points on which Sir D. Dalrymple shows his historical scepticism. He introduces it in language calculated to inspire doubt into the mind of the reader; observing, that ‘the popular tradition is, that his _friend_, Sir John Menteth, betrayed him to the English.’--_Annals_, i. 281. It is rather strange that he should express himself in this manner, at the very moment that he quotes the Scotichronicon on the margent; as if this venerable record, when a modern should be disposed to adopt a theory irreconcileable with its testimony, were entitled to no higher regard than is due to ‘popular tradition.’

“He adds,’Sir John Menteth was of high birth, a son of Walter Stewart, Earl of Menteth.’ I can perceive no force in this remark, unless it be meant to imply that there never has been an instance of a man of noble blood acting the part of a traitor. On the same ground, we might quarrel with all the evidence given of the conspiracies formed against Robert Bruce; and even call in question the murder of that amiable and accomplished prince, James I.

“But ‘at this time,’ we are told, ‘the important fortress of Dumbarton was committed to his (Menteith’s) charge by Edward.’ Here, it would seem, the learned writer fights the poor Minstrel with his own weapons. For I find no evidence of this fact in the Fœdera, Hemingford, or the Decem Scriptores; and Lord Hailes has referred to no authority; so that there is reason to suspect, to use his own language, that he here ‘copies’ what ‘is said by _Blind Harry_, whom no historian but Sir Robert Sibbald will venture to _quote_.’ If Harry’s narrative be received as authority, it is but justice to receive his testimony as he gives it. Now, in the preceding part of his work, he represents Menteth as holding the castle of Dunbarton at least with the consent of Wallace, while acknowledged as governor of Scotland. It would appear, indeed, that the whole district of the Lennox had been intrusted to him.

“In the Leynhouss a quhill he maid repayr;
Schyr Jhon Menteth that tym was captane thar.”

B. viii. 1595.

“But even at this time there was something dubious in the conduct of Menteth. While he retained the castle, the English held the town under Edward.

“In peess thai duelt, in trubyll that had beyn,
And trewbut payit till Ingliss capdanis keyn.
Schyr Jhon Menteth the castell had in hand:
Bot sum men said, thar was a prewa band
Till Sotheroun maid, be menys off that knycht,
In thar supplé to be in all his mycht.”

B. ix. 1393.

“It is perfectly conceivable, that, although it was known to Wallace that Menteth had some secret understanding with the English, this artful man might persuade him that he only wished an opportunity of wreaking the national vengeance on them, or at least of more effectually serving the interest of Wallace when he saw the proper time. Although Wallace had been assured that Menteith had taken an oath of fealty to Edward, he would have had no more reason for distrusting him than for distrusting by far the greatest part of the nobility and landholders of Scotland, who, as they believed, from the necessity of despair had submitted to the usurper.

“John de Menteth is designated by Arnold Blair, _immanis proditor_; and the writer proceeds to curse him as if with bell, book, and candle.--_Relations_, p. 8.

“Sir David aims another blow at this account, in the following words;--‘That he had ever any intercourse of friendship or familiarity with Wallace, I have yet to learn.’ But the truth is, the worthy Judge does not seem disposed to _learn_ this. It is difficult to say what evidence will satisfy him. The incidental hints, in the preceding part of the poem, in regard to Wallace’s connection with Menteth, all perfectly agree with the mournful termination. Such confidence had he in him, according to the Minstrel, that he not only resided in Dunbarton Castle for two months, while Menteth had the charge of it, but gave orders for building ‘a house of stone’ there, apparently that he might enjoy his society.

“Twa monethis still he duelt in Dumbertane;
A houss he foundyt apon the roch off stayne;
Men left he thar till bygg it to the hycht.”

B. viii. 1599.

“But, independently of the testimony of Blind Harry, Bower expressly asserts the co-operation of Menteith with Wallace, Graham, and Scrymgeour, in the suppression of the rebellious men of Galloway. ‘In hoc ipso anno (1298), viz. xxviii. die mensis Augusti, dominus Wallas Scotiæ custos, cum Johanne Grhame et _Johanne de Menteth_, militibus, necnon Alexandro Scrimzeour constabulario villæ de Dundee, et vexillario Scotiæ, cum quinquagentis militibus armatis, rebelles Gallovidienses punierunt, qui regis Angliæ et Cuminorum partibus sine aliquo jure steterunt.’

“These words, which seem to be a quotation, in the Relationes of Blair, from the Scotichronicon, are not found in the MSS. from which Goodall gave his edition. They appear to have formed the commencement of the xxxii. chapter of the eleventh book, one of the two chapters here said to be wanting. Now this, whether it be the language of Bower, or of Blair, could not have been borrowed from the Minstrel, for the circumstance is overlooked by him. It seems to refer to that period of the history of Wallace, in which he is said to have made a circuit through Galloway and Carrick.

“Fra Gamlis peth the land obeyt him haill,
Till Ur wattir, baith strenth, forest, and daill.
Agaynis him in _Galloway_ hous was nayne.”

B. vi. 793-5.

“It is to be observed, that John Major expressly affirms the treachery of Menteth, as acting in concert with Aymer de Valloins, Earl of Pembroke. He says, that Menteth was considered as his most intimate friend; ‘ipsi Vallacco putatus amicissimus.’ Hist. Fol. lxxiii. Now, although he rejects many of the transactions recited by Blind Harry ‘as false,’ so far is he from insinuating the slightest hesitation as to this business, that he formally starts an objection as to the imprudence of Wallace in not being more careful of his person, and answers it by remarking, that ‘no enemy is more dangerous than a domestic one.’ He differs from the Minstrel in saying that Wallace was ‘captured _in_ the city of Glasgow.’

“It may be added, that Bower expressly asserts that Wallace, ‘suspecting no evil, was fraudulently and treacherously seized _at_ Glasgow by Lord John de Menteth.’ _Scotichron._ xii. 8. Bower again refers to the treacherous conduct of Menteth towards Wallace when afterwards relating a similar plan which he had laid for taking King Robert Bruce prisoner, under pretence of delivering up to him the Castle of Dunbarton, on condition of his receiving a hereditary right to the lieutenancy of the Lennox; v. Lib. xii. c. 16, 17, Vol. ii. 243. These two chapters are not in all the MSS., but are found in those of Cupar, Perth, and Dunblane. Now, Bower was born anno 1385; _Ibid._ ii. 401. The date assigned to the Scotichronicon, as published with his Continuation, is 1447, and that to the Minstrel’s Poem, 1470; v. Pinkerton’s Maitland Poems, Intr. lxxxvi-lxxxix. It is therefore impossible that Bower could have borrowed the account given of Menteth from Blind Harry. Bower was born, indeed, only eighty or eighty-one years after the fact referred to; and, considering the elevation of the character of Wallace, and the great attachment of his countrymen even to this day, as well as the multitude of his enemies, it is totally inconceivable that a whole nation, learned and unlearned, should concur in imputing this crime to one man, _without_ the most valid reasons.

“Wyntown finished his ‘_Cronykil_,’ anno 1418. He, it is generally believed, was born little more than fifty years after the butchery of our magnanimous patriot. Sir David Dalrymple could not, one would suppose, reasonably object to his testimony. Let us hear it.

A thousand thre hundyr and the fyft yhere
Eftyr the byrth of oure Lord dere,
Schyre John of Menteth in tha days
Tuk in Glasgw Willame Walays,
And send hym in-til Ingland swne.
Thare wes he quartaryd and wndwne
Be dyspyte and hat Inwy:
Thare he tholyd this Martyry.

_Cron._ viii. c. 20.

“I shall only add an important proof from the Lanercost MS., referred to in the _Preliminary Remarks_.[106] ‘_Captus_ fuit Willelmus Waleis per unum Scottum, scilicet per dominum Johannem de Mentiphe, et usque London ad Regem adductus, et adjudicatum fuit quod traheretur, et suspenderetur, et decollaretur, et membratim divideretur, et quod viscera ejus comburentur, quod factum est; et suspensum est caput ejus super pontem London, armus autem dexter super pontem Novi Castri super Tynam, et armus sinister apud Berwicum, pes autem dexter apud villam Sancti Johannis, et pes sinister apud Aberden.’ Fol. 211. _Mentiphe_ is obviously an _erratum_ for _Menteith_.”

Mr Tytler, in the “Notes and Illustrations” to the first volume of his History of Scotland, has also handled this subject with considerable ability. We shall select the following, as affording additional arguments to those already advanced by Dr Jamieson. In alluding to the evidence afforded by the Lanercost MS., that intelligent writer observes, “We cannot be surprised that Lord Hailes should have been ignorant of this passage, as he tells us, Annals, vol. ii. p. 316, he had not been able to discover where the MS. of Lanercost was preserved.

“The same excuse, however, will not avail him as to the next piece of evidence, of Menteth’s having seized Wallace. It is contained in Leland’s extract from an ancient MS. Chronicle, which Hailes has elsewhere quoted; I mean the Scala Chronicle, preserved in Corpus Christi Library, Cambridge. In Leland’s Collect., vol. i. p. 541, we have this passage from the Chronicle. ‘_Wylliam Waleys was taken of the Counte of Menteth about Glaskow_, and sent to King Edward, and after was hangid, drawn, and quarterid at London.’ This is only Leland’s abridgment of the passage, which in all probability is much more full and satisfactory in the original. Yet it is quite satisfactory as to Menteth’s guilt.

“The next English authority is Langtoft’s Chronicle, which Hailes has himself quoted in his Notes and Corrections, vol. ii. p. 346. It is curious, and as to Menteith’s guilt perfectly conclusive.

‘Sir Jon of Menetest serwed 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.’ p. 329.

“We learn from this, that Sir John Menteth prevailed upon Wallace’s servant, Jack Short, to betray his master, and came under cover of night, and seized him in bed, ‘his leman bi,’ and when he had no suspicion of what was to happen. How Hailes, after quoting this passage, which was written more than two centuries before Blind Harry, should have represented this poor minstrel as the only original authority for the guilt of Menteth, is indeed difficult to determine.”

“Having given these authorities, all of them prior to Blind Harry, it is unnecessary to give the testimony of the more modern writers. The ancient writers prove incontestably, that Sir John de Menteth, a Scottish baron, who had served along with and under Wallace against the English, deserted his country, swore homage to Edward, and employed a servant of Wallace to betray his master into his hands; that he seized him in bed, and delivered him to Edward, by whom he was instantly tried, condemned, and hanged. It was natural that the voice of popular tradition should continue from century to century, to execrate the memory of such a man. Whether Menteth was the intimate friend of Wallace, or what precise degree of familiarity existed between them, it is now not easy to determine, nor is it of any consequence as to his guilt. Indeed it is impossible to regard, without a smile the weak and inconclusive evidence, if it deserves so grave a name, on which Hailes has founded what he calls his Apology for Menteth, which, after all, seems to be borrowed from _Carte, vol. ii. p. 289_. Lord Hailes also remarks, “It is most improbable, that Wallace should have put himself in the power of a man whom he knew to be in an office of distinguished trust under Edward;” and almost in the same breath paraphrases the lines of Langtoft, in which it is stated that his capture was effected through the treason of Jack Short, whose brother Wallace is said to have slain. Surely the confidence was as imprudent in the one case as it would have been in the other. It may be observed, however, that if there had been a possibility of rescuing the name of Menteith from the execrations of his country, the task would not have remained for the learned annalist to perform. The great family interest which he possessed, was sufficient to protect him from punishment, not only for his treachery to Wallace, but also for his subsequent perfidy to Bruce. Yet though that interest was powerfully exerted to screen him from the consequences of his demerits, not a single effort was made to remove the dishonourable stain from his character.

The following transaction, which has already been alluded to, is quite consistent with the conduct ascribed to him by the Minstrel. It will also account for the impunity which attended his crimes.

“About this time, there happened a passage not unworthy to be related, in regard to the variety of providences, in a narrow compass of time. John Menteith, who betrayed his friend Wallace to the English, and was therefore deservedly hated by the Scots, received, amongst other rewards, the government of Dumbarton castle from the English. When other forts were recovered, that only, or but very few with it, held out for the English. And because it was naturally impregnable, the king dealt with the governor, by his friends and kindred, to surrender it. He demanded the county or earldom of Lennox, as the price of his treachery and surrender. Neither would he ever so much as hear of any other terms. In this case the King wavered and fluctuated in his mind what to do. On the one side, he earnestly desired to have the castle; yet, on the other, he did not so much prize it, as for its sake to disoblige the Earl of Lennox, who had been his fast and almost his only friend in all his calamities. But the Earl of Lennox hearing of it, and coming in, soon decided the controversy, and persuaded the King, by all means to accept the condition. Accordingly the bargain was made as John Monteith would have it, and solemnly confirmed. But when the King was going to take possession of the castle, a carpenter, one Roland, met him in the wood of Colquhoun, about a mile from it; and having obtained liberty to speak with the King, concerning a matter of great importance, he told him what treachery the governor intended against him; nay, and had prepared to execute it. It was this:--In a wine-cellar concealed, and underground, a sufficient number of Englishmen were hid, who, when the rest of the castle should be given up, and the King secure, were to issue forth upon him as he was at dinner, and either to kill, or take him prisoner. This being thus related, the King, upon the surrender of the other parts of the castle by John, being kindly invited to a feast, refused to eat; till, as he had searched all other parts of the castle; so, he had viewed that wine-cellar also. The governor excused it, pretending that the smith, who had the key, was out of the way, but that he would come again anon. The King, not satisfied therewith, caused the door to be broke open, and so the plot was discovered. The Englishmen were brought forth in their armour, and being severally examined, confessed the whole matter; and they added also another discovery, viz. that a ship rode ready in the next bay to carry the King into England, The complices in this wretched design were put to death; but John was kept in prison, because the King was loth to offend his kindred, and especially his sons-in-law, in so dangerous a time: for he had many daughters, all of them very beautiful, and married to men rich enough, but factious. Therefore, in a time of such imminent danger, the battle drawing near wherein all was at stake, lest the mind of any powerful man might be rendered averse from him, and thereby inclined to practise against him, John was released out of prison, upon this condition, (for the performance whereof his sons-in-law undertook), that he should be placed in the front of the battle, and there, by his valour should wait the decision of Providence. And indeed the man, otherwise fraudulent, was in this faithful to the King; for he behaved himself so valiantly, that that day’s work procured him not only pardon for what was past, but large rewards for the future.”--_Buchanan’s Hist._ vol. i. p. 310.

It may here be mentioned, that, since the Note on page 152 was printed off, we have learned from one, whose researches, and connection with the name, entitle him to express an opinion, that the M’Kerlies of Wigtonshire are descended from Kerlé, or Kerlie, who, with Sir William Wallace and Stephen of Ireland, carried by assault the Fort of the Black-Rock of Cree, or Cruggleton Castle, and who was the last friend that clung to the fortunes of his master. Although the records of the burgh of Witham furnish no information on the subject, being all of a date subsequent to the Reformation, it is still handed down by tradition, that the M’Kerlies were once proprietors of Cruggleton Castle.

T.

SINGULAR LEGEND.

Page 169.

This monkish legend Henry has carefully preserved; and as it affords a specimen of the superstition of the age, we shall give it a place for the gratification of the curious among our readers.

“Wyss clerkyss yeit it kepis in remembrans,
How that a monk off Bery abbay than,
In to that tym a rycht religiouss man;
A yong monk als with him in ordour stud,
Quhilk knew his lyff was clene, perfyt, and gud.
This fadyr monk was wesyd with seknace,
Out off the warld as he suld pass on cace,
His brothyr saw the spret lykly to pass;
A band off him rycht ernystly he coud ass.
To cum agayn and schaw him off the meid,
At he suld haiff at God for his gud deid.
He grantyt him, at his prayer to preiff,
To cum agayn, gyff God wald geiff him leiff.
The spreyt, changyt out off this warldly payn,
In that sammyn hour cum to the monk agayn.
Sic thing has beyn, and is be woice and sycht.
Quhar he apperyt, thar schawyt sa mekill lycht,
Lyk till lawntryns it illumynyt so cler,
At warldly lycht thar to mycht be no peyr,
A woice said thus:--‘God has me grantyt grace
That I sall kep my promess in this place.’
The monk was blyth off this cler fygur fayr;
Bot a fyr brand in his forheid he bayr,
And than him thocht it myslikyt all the lawe.
‘Quhar art thou spreyt? Ansuer, sa God the sawe.’
‘In purgatory.’--‘How lang sall thow be thair?’
‘Bot halff ane hour to com, and litill mair.
Purgatory is, I do the weill to wit,
In ony place quhar God will it admyt.
Ane hour of space I was demed thar to be;
And that passis, supposs I spek with the.
Quhy has thow that, and all the layff so haill?’
‘For off science I thocht me maist awaill.
Quha prydys tharin, that laubour is in waist,
For science cummys bot off the haly Gaist.’
‘Eftir thi hour, quhar is thi passage ewyn?’
‘Quhen tym cummys,’ he said, ‘to lestand hewin.’
‘Quhat tym is that? I pray the now declar.’
‘Twa ar on lyff mon be befor me thar.’
‘Quhilk twa ar thai?’ The verité thow may ken,
‘The fyrst has bene a gret slaar of men.
Now thai him kep to martyr in London toun
On Wednyssday, befors king and commoun.
Is nayn on lyff at has sa mony slayn.’
‘Brodyr,’ he said, ‘that taill is bot in wayn;
For slauchtyr is to God abhominabill.’
Than said the spreyt, ‘Forsuth this is no fabill.
He is Wallace, defendour off Scotland,
For rychtwyss war that he tok apon hand.
Thar rychtwysnes is lowyt our the lawe;
Tharfor in hewyn he sall that honour hawe.
Syn a pure preyst, is mekill to commend;
He tuk in thank quhat thing that God him send.
For dayly mess, and heryng off confessioun,
Hewin he sall haiff to lestand warysoun.
I am the thrid, grantyt throw Goddis grace.’
‘Brothir,’ he said, ‘tell I this in our place,
Thai wyll bot deym, I othir dreym or ráwe.’
Than said the spreyt:--‘This wetnes thow sall hawe.
Your bellys sall ryng, for ocht at ye do may,
Quhen thai hym sla, halff ane hour off that day.’
And so thai did, the monk wyst quhat thaim alyt
Throuch braid Bretane, the woice tharoff was scaylyt,
The spreyt tuk leyff at Goddis will to be,
Off Wallace end to her it is peté;
And I wald nocht put men in gret dolour,
Bot lychtly pass atour his fatell hour.”

Book xi. 1238-1304.

U.

VERSES ON THE DEATH OF WALLACE.

Page 170.

The verses on the death of Wallace, which have been attributed to John Blair, stand thus in the original:--

Invida mors tristi Gulielmum funere Vallam,
Quæ cuncta tollit, sustulit:
Et tanto pro cive cinis, pro finibus urna est,
Frigusque pro lorica obit.
Ille quidem terras, loca se inferiora reliquit:
At fata factis supprimens,
Parte sui meliore solum cœlumque pererrat;
Hoc spiritu, illud gloria.
At tibi si inscriptum generoso pectus honesto
Fuisset, hostis proditi
Artibus, Angle, tuis, in pœnas, parcior isses,
Nec oppidatim spargeres
Membra viri sacranda adytis. Sed scin quid in ista,
Immanitate viceris?
Ut Vallæ in cunctas oras sparguntur et horas
Laudes, tuumque dedecus.

Abercrombie, who confounds John Blair with Arnold Blair, doubts of the above lines being composed by him. Arnold, in his _Relationes_, has certainly given nothing of his own, his brief details, as we have already observed, being merely extracts from the Scotichronicon; and it is more than probable, that as he borrowed from Fordun in the one instance, he might also be inclined to take the same liberty with Blair in the other. The verses are evidently the effusion of a superior mind, brooding over a recent calamity. They are attached to the end of Arnold Blair’s Relationes, to which the date of 1327 is affixed,--thus bringing them to within 22 years of the execution of Wallace;--that they were composed soon after that event becomes therefore a matter of certainty.

The writer entertained the hope of being able to gratify his readers with some specimens of the chansonnettes, said to have been composed in honour of Wallace by the Troubadours of France. He is sorry, however, that his applications have not been followed by the success anticipated. He will, therefore, conclude his labours with the following lines from an unpublished manuscript:--

ON THE BIRTH-DAY OF WALLACE.

May this day be blest, ‘mid the days of the year,
May the sweet smile of heav’n ever brighten its dawn,
And the music that wakes when its first rays appear,
Swell joyously on till those rays are withdrawn.

May the bee’s tiny bugle be heard ’round the brier--
Or when in the midst of his favourite rose;
May the breeze full of fragrance around him expire
In sighings too soft to disturb his repose.

While autumn in splendour o’er mountain and vale,
Displays her refreshing enchantment to view;
And each motionless ship, with her white hanging sail,
Is seen to repose on a mirror of blue.

To this sweet scene of peace, all so tranquil and bland,
May the heart-stirring spirit of music be given;
And the joy-song from each flow’ry nook of the land,
Meet and rise in one grand halleluja to heav’n.

For this was the day gave to Scotland a name,--
A hero,--a patriot,--the boon was divine.
The gleam of his sword led her back to her fame,
And brighten’d her pathway to liberty’s shrine.

Hail pattern of heroes! thy deeds they shall stand,
Deep-engrav’d on the hearts of the brave and the free,
Till the adamant mountains that girdle the land,
Dissolve as their snows, and run down to the sea.

Like a comet, he came irresistibly forth,
Spreading woe ’mong the foes of his dear native land;
He _set_--yet his _light_ lingers still in the _north_,
To rouse and direct ev’ry patriot brand.

THE END.

PRINTED BY J. HUTCHISON,
FOR THE HEIRS OF D. WILLISON.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Langtoft tells an improbable story of the Scots having induced him to surrender, by a promise of returning to the allegiance of Edward. Twenge must have been a noted simpleton indeed, if he could have been so easily imposed upon.--See Langtoft, vol. ii. p. 300.

[2] Fordun à Goodall, vol. ii. p. 170.

[3] See Appendix, A.

[4] See Appendix, B.

[5] Of this army the Campbells and M’Gregors formed a part, and no doubt a number of the Perthshire clans were included.

[6] Fordun states, that the Scots army remained in England from All Saints day till Christmas, 31st October till 25th December. Wyntown also agrees with him, and thus expresses himself on the subject.

“And syne frá the Alhalowmes
In Yngland till Yhule he bydand wes.
All Allyrdáyle as man of Were
That tyme he brynt wyth his Powere:
And wyth gret Prayis owt of that Land,
Come eftyr the Yhule in-til Scotland.”

_Wyntown_, B. viii. c. 13. v. 177-182.

[7] In the invasion of England, one Grimesby acted as guide to the Scottish army. This person we have alluded to at page 109, vol. i. as carrying the banner of St John of Beverley, in the army of Edward. He was afterwards rewarded by the Usurper with the promise of the first benefice of twenty merks or pounds which should become vacant in Scotland. This prospect of preferment, however, did not prevent him from joining the liberator of his country. He appears to have been long in the service of England, and was most probably one of those 30,000 Scots who were sent by Alexander III. to the assistance of Henry III., when opposed by his barons. Though it be uncertain if he accompanied Edward to the Holy Land, it is however pretty evident that he attended him in his various expeditions to France; and, in his character of pursuivant, he obtained a very intimate acquaintance with the localities of that country, as well as of England. His intimate knowledge of the latter rendered his services of much importance to his countrymen. Henry represents him as a steady and useful adherent to Wallace, and describes him to be of great stature, and as having acquired among the English the name of Grimesby, on account of his grim or stern visage. This, however, is more fanciful than correct. _Grimesby_ is of Danish origin, and though among the Scots he was called Jop, his real name appears to have been Gilbert Grimesby. He acted as herald, as well as guide; and often marshalled the Scottish battalions on the eve of battle.

[8] Hexham.

[9] See Appendix, C.

[10] See Appendix, D.

[11] It is probable that some of our readers may be displeased with our passing over the interview which Wallace is said to have had with Queen Margaret, during the time his army was encamped in the north of England; but we always wish to have some authority for what we commit to our pages; and as we can find nothing in support of it, either in English or Scottish records, we are inclined to look upon it as a minstrel’s tale, introduced for the purpose of effect. The subject excited the inquiries of the learned Dr Jamieson, who has been at considerable pains to ascertain whether or not such an interview actually took place; and all his researches tend rather to throw discredit on the affair, in addition to the doubt which naturally arises from the silence of history. Henry, in whose work the tale is only to be found, represents Edward as being then in Britain, while it is agreed on all hands that he was, at the time, prosecuting the war in Flanders. Though the Minstrel be a favourite with us, still we like to see his statements corroborated; and we conceive, that the English Queen appearing in the Scottish camp in the manner he describes, was a circumstance too flattering to the national pride of the Scots, to be left to the pen of one solitary narrator.

[12] See Appendix, E.

[13] Respecting these two meritorious individuals, few particulars appear to be known. Guthrie is said to have been the ancestor of the Guthries of that Ilk, and was frequently employed as the confidential agent of his countrymen.

Bisset is also mentioned as the progenitor of the Bissets of that Ilk; and according to Henry, he was killed on this occasion by the hand of Siward, who, in his turn, was cut down by Wallace. By the chamberlain’s accounts it appears, that one John Bisset, a poor monk of Haddington, received from King Robert Bruce a pension of 20s. per annum for clothing. Whether this was given in consequence of any relationship to the gallant patriot of that name, is not stated.

The battle of Blackironside appears to have been a protracted forest-fight for the greater part of the day; and the heat of the weather induced the combatants at times, as if by mutual consent, to pause amid the deadly strife.

On one of those occasions, Wallace it is said unclasped the helmet of a dead Englishman, and, repairing to a neighbouring fountain, still unstained with the carnage of the day, he dipped it into the stream, and continued to carry the water along the ranks of his fainting soldiers. When he had in this manner allayed their thirst, he afterwards partook himself; and declared, that the cooling beverage was more grateful to his palate, than the richest wines he had ever tasted. The effect which this mark of attention produced on the minds of his followers, was evinced by the vigour they displayed in the charge which they soon afterwards made on the enemy.

[14] For the satisfaction of the reader, we will here give the charter referred to, as it is preserved in _Anderson’s_ Diplomata et Numismata Scotiæ, (Edin. 1739)--from the original at that time in the possession of Mr David Watson, writer, Edinburgh. An engraving from the seal of Baliol, attached to this charter, forms the Frontispiece to our first volume.

CHARTA.

_Domini Gulielmi Wallace, Custodis Scotiæ, nomine Johannis Balliol Regis, cum sigillo ejusdem Johannis._

“Willelmus Walays miles, Custos Regni Scocie, et Ductor exercituum ejusdem, nomine preclari Principis Domini Johannis, Dei Gracia Regis Scocie illustris, de consensu communitatis ejusdem Regni. Omnibus probis hominibus dicti Regni ad quos presens scriptum pervenerit eternam in Domino, salutem. Noverit universitas vestra, nos, nomine predicti Domini nostris Regis Scocie, per consensum et assensum magnatum dicti regni, dedisse et concessisse, ac ipsas donationem et concessionem presenti carta confirmasse Alexandro dicto Skirmischur sex marcatas terre in territorio de Dunde, scilicet, terram illam que vocatur campus superior, prope villam de Dunde ex parte boreali, cum acris illis in campo occidentali que ad partem regiam spectare solebant prope villam de Dunde ex parte occidentali, et etiam pratum regium in predicto territorio de Dunde, et etiam constabulariam castri de Dunde, cum suis pertinenciis, libertatibus et asyamentis sine aliquo retinemento, pro homagio predicto Domino Regi et heredibus suis vel suis successoribus faciendo, et pro fideli servicio et succursu suo predicto regno impenso portando vexillum regium in exercitu Scocie tempore confectionis presentium, tenenda et habenda predicto Alexandro et heredibus suis de predicto Domino nostro Rege et heredibus suis vel suis successoribus, libere, quiete, integre, pacifice et honorifice in perpetuum, cum omnibus pertinenciis, libertatibus et asyamentis ad dictam terram et pratum prenominatum, et prefatum constabulariam spectantibus vel quoquo modo spectare valentibus in futurum, faciendo inde annuatim Domino Regi et heredibus suis vel suis successoribus, scilicet pro predictis terra, prato, et constabularia cum suis pertinenciis, libertatibus, et asyamentis, servicium quod pertinet ad dictam constabulariam tantum pro omnibus que de predictus exigi poterunt in futurum. In cujus rei testimonium, sigillum commune predicti Regni Scocie presenti scripto est appositum. Datum apud Torpheichyn vigesimo nono die Marcii, Anno Gracie millesimo ducentesimo nonogesimo octavo.”

From the above document, it will appear that Wallace was sole Regent; and that, when he associated the name of the younger Sir Andrew Murray along with his own, it may be considered as only a respectful compliment to the memory of the gallant and patriotic father, whose example the young warrior was thereby excited to emulate.

[15] This deed Baliol could have no great difficulty in executing; for though residing in the Tower, he enjoyed the full liberty of twenty miles round, and a princely retinue to attend him. That he transmitted a commission of Regency to Wallace, is not only highly probable, but placed almost beyond a doubt, not merely from the suspicions entertained by Edward, and the severe treatment which Baliol latterly experienced in consequence of his supposed duplicity, but also from the fact of Wallace _possessing_ and _using_, in his character of Regent of the kingdom, _the seal_ of the dethroned _monarch_; and that in the presence, and with the sanction of the assembled nobility. Evidence to this effect is furnished by the charter granted to Alexander Scrymgeour, given in the preceding note; and as the lands which were at that time conferred are declared to have belonged to the _crown_, the full and unrestricted authority with which Wallace was invested becomes thereby the more apparent.

[16] Lord Hailes, on the authority of Hemingford, says ‘Temple-liston,’ and thus condescends to notice a respectable writer:--“_Sir Robert Sibbald_, Comment. in Relat. et Blair, p. 31, says ‘at _Torphichen_,’ because _Blind Harry_ says so. It was an admirable fancy to correct W. Hemingford by _Blind Harry_! Had Edward fixed his head-quarters at Torphichen, his communication with Edinburgh and the Frith of Forth would have been speedily cut off.”

This is scarcely doing Sir Robert justice. It is more reasonable to suppose that he said so, after weighing the probabilities of the case. That Torphichen was a place of some importance, and possessed accommodation, appears certain, from the circumstance of Wallace having, only a few months before, assembled the Scottish Barons to a parliament there; and it was, as has been already mentioned, the station of a preceptory of the Templars, within the precincts of which Edward was more likely to fix his head-quarters, than in any part of the desolated country around him. During his stay, we also find him employed in conferring the honour of knighthood on a number of young esquires;--an idea very naturally produced by his residence in such a spot. That Edward’s communication with Edinburgh and the Frith of Forth became thereby liable to any interruption, is a supposition more to be admired for simplicity, than depth of reflection. The distance between Torphichen and Temple-liston, is but a very few miles. Edward was at the head of an army consisting of 7000 cavalry, and about 100,000 foot; a multitude that could find little more than tent-room in the space between the two places. Had the English monarch, therefore, been the most imbecile general that ever led men to the field,--with such a force he could have no difficulty in keeping open his communication to a much greater extent than what was required in such a position. That a portion of the English army was stationed at Temple-liston, is not to be doubted; and it seems equally certain, that Edward made the more convenient station of Torphichen his own head-quarters. Sir Robert, therefore, had reason, as well as the authority of Blind Harry, in support of his statement.

[17] See Appendix, F.

[18] These noblemen, it is said, were the Earls of Dunbar and Angus. With respect to the first, there is certainly a mistake, as he does not appear _ever_ to have joined the standard of Wallace, and the other, with more propriety, may be called an Anglo-Scot. What share he may have had in the treason, is uncertain. That the plans of Wallace were betrayed by those in his confidence, is evident; but who the guilty parties were, remains doubtful. The subsequent conduct of Comyn excites a strong suspicion against him.

[19] The banner of the Earl of Lincoln was of yellow silk, with a purple lion rampant. That of the Constable was of deep blue silk, with a white bend between two _cotises_ of fine gold, on the outside of which he had six lioncels rampant.--_Walter of Exeter._

[20] In an encampment, this ensign was placed near the royal tent, on the right of the other standards. It was intended to be expressive of destruction to the enemy, and of safety to the weary and wounded among the English. _Vide Illustrations of British History._

[21] See Appendix, G.

[22] Langtoft says, the Welsh, amounting to 40,000, would not act against the Scots at Falkirk.

“The Walsch folk that tide did nouther ille no gode,
Thei held tham alle bi side, opon a hille thei stode.
Ther thei stode that while, tille the bataile was don.”

_Vol. ii. p. 306._

[23] Langtoft, vol. ii. p. 305, 306.

[24] This warrior is thus described by Langtoft, who claims him as an Englishman:--

“Was no man Inglis maynhed no dede that day,
Bot a templer of pris, Sir Brian the geay
Maister templere he was on this half the se,
He folowed the Scottis pas, whan the bigan to fle
Fer in tille a wod; men calle it Kalenters,
Ther in a mire a mod, withouten help of pers,
Slank thei Sir Brian alone withouten mo.”

Vol. ii. p. 305, 6.

By Rymer, however, he is noticed as swearing fealty to Edward in Edinburgh Castle, July 1291, after the convocation of Brigham, and designated as _preceptor templi in Scotia_; and, by the same authority, it appears his example was followed by _John de Sautre_, and those under his control.

[25] Among the various documents which his Lordship appears to consider authentic, is the following, which he thus introduces:--“I have seen the title of a public instrument, which runs thus:--‘Acte contenant les responses faites par Pierre Flotte, Seigneur de Revel, commis par le Roy (de France) pour traitter et conferer avec les Ambassadeurs Anglois, touchant l’execution du traité de treve, et reparation des infractions d’icelle. Simon de Meleun l’arbitre nommé par le Roy, offrit au Roy d’Angleterre de delivrer tous les prisonniers Anglois en rendant par lui le Roy de Escosse et son fils, et les Escossois detenus en Angleterre et ailleurs, ou les mettant en la garde d’un prelat Francois qui les gardera soubs le nom du Pape pendant que le Pape jugera de leur differend.’ The original, if extant, says Lord Hailes, might serve to explain several circumstances respecting this treaty; particularly, that Edward Baliol was in captivity, together with his father, and that the Pope proposed himself as umpire between Edward I. and his disobedient vassal.”

Now, the above is all good modern French, and the orthography exactly as at present, with the exception of the following words, _responses_, _traitter_, _Escosse_, _soubs_, which appear to have had their spelling antiquated a little, to give the document a venerable air;--it has, on the whole, a very clumsy appearance, and shows that it cannot be older than the 17th century. If the “_full evidence_” referred to be liable to similar objections, it will not appear very surprising, that our early writers should have been so much in the dark respecting it.

[26] Vol. i. 311, 312.

[27] The son of Sir Chrytell, slain at Blackironside.

[28] “His Grace the Duke of Montrose (one of whose titles is Viscount Dundaff), possesses an antique sword, on which is the following inscription:--

‘SIR IONE YE GRAME, VERRY VICHT AND WYSE,
ONE OF YE CHIEFES RELIEVIT SCOTLAND THRYSE.
FAVGHT VITH YS SVORD, AND NER THOUT SCHAME,
COMMANDIT NANE TO BEIR IT BOT HIS NAME.’

“The Duke is also proprietor of Dundaff, where Sir John Graham of Dundaff’s castle is seen in ruins.

“The grave-stone of Sir John de Graham is in the churchyard of Falkirk, having the following Latin motto, with a translation:--

‘MENTE MANUQVE POTENS, ET VALLÆ FIDVS ACHATES;
CONDITVR HIC GRAMVS, BELLO INTERFECTVS AB ANGLIS.

XXII. JVLII ANNO 1298.’