Chapter V: Disputed Succession. War of Independence

ON the death of the Maid of Norway the nation found itself without an heir to the throne in the direct line of succession, and the signs of a contest soon appeared. As soon as the tidings of the Queen’s death became known, the Earls of Mar and Athole began to muster their army, while Robert Bruce had surrounded himself with a body of his followers and was moving through the kingdom and intently looking for more supporters. At this crisis of the nation’s destiny William Fraser, Bishop of St. Andrews, thought fit to counsel Edward I., and distinctly suggested that he should interfere in the affairs of Scotland, and at once advance towards the Border. Fraser may have wished to prevent the shedding of blood in Scotland, as he said, but it is obvious that the bishop had utterly misunderstood the character of the man whom he assumed to advise.¹ Indeed, Edward I. needed no invitation; he had already resolved to decide the fate of Scotland, formed his scheme, chosen his own path, and directed his energy to its accomplishment with great deliberation, while the current of events seemed exceedingly favourable to him.

¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Number 70.

Edward I. issued writs commanding his barons to attend him with horse and arms at Norham on the 3rd of June, 1291; thus he prepared for any emergency which might arise; while he invited the Scotch nobles and clergy to a conference at Norham on the 10th of May, to which they agreed. As yet Edward was proceeding with well studied policy, smoothing his way, and the documents then sent into Scotland were couched in the most courteous terms. The conference assembled at the appointed time, and the business was opened by an address from the Chief Justice of England. His Lordship strongly asserted that Edward I. was the overlord of the kingdom of Scotland, and therefore he earnestly appealed to the Scots to acknowledge this, that the settlement of the great matter before them might be facilitated. The Scots replied that they were not aware if such a right of feudal superiority belonged to him, and requested time to consult with the absent nobles, the clergy, and the community of the kingdom, before giving an answer. Three weeks were allowed to them, and then all were to reassemble at Norham. A clear answer was to be given on the question of the superiority of Edward I., and all those demurring to it or in any way opposing it, were requested to produce the documents or other evidence on which they founded their objections. The adjournment was favourable to Edward, as it tended to bring into prominence the real difficulties associated with the case.

At the appointed time the meeting assembled on a green plain opposite the Castle of Norham, and eight claimants for the crown of Scotland appeared, namely, John Baliol, Lord of Galloway; Robert Bruce, Lord of Annandale; Lord John Hastings; John Comyn, Lord of Badenoch; Patrick of Dunbar; Earl of March; Florence Count of Holland; John Vesy for his father, Nicholas Soulis; and William Ross, and they were accompanied by many of the nobles and clergy. None of these claimants were very near in relationship to the royal line of the Scottish kings; the three first names in the list stood nearest and their claims were almost equal. Thus David, Earl of Huntingdon, was a grandson of David I., and a younger brother of Malcolm IV. and William the Lion. This Earl David, as stated in a preceding note,¹ had three daughters, Margaret, Isabella, and Ada, and John Baliol claimed as a grandson of Margaret, the eldest daughter; Robert Bruce claimed as a son of Isabella, the second daughter; and John Hastings claimed as a grandson of Ada, the youngest daughter. So it was seen, at an early stage of the proceedings, that the real contest for the crown would lie between these three claimants. An interesting and peculiar characteristic of the whole of these claims for the crown was that they had all originated from marriages with females, who were related to the royal family of Scotland, and it must be admitted that in the art of contracting marriages the Norman nobles were really great men.

¹ Under page 204.

The Bishop of Bath began the business of the meeting by reading the King’s speech, which, after referring to the unhappy state of Scotland, proceeded in a fine flowing style to characterise the benignity of the illustrious prince who had come to her rescue. He then said that his royal master had allowed three weeks to the nobles and clergy of Scotland to bring forward whatever they could to impugn King Edward’s right of superiority over that kingdom, and they had adduced nothing to invalidate it. But, in connection with this emphatic statement, one important fact has recently been brought to light, for a contemporary record proves that the community of Scotland lodged an answer in writing against Edward’s claim and demand of feudal superiority; although it was not deemed relevant by Edward, as it was more convenient for him and the claimants of the Crown to ignore the people. The claimants, in their feverish heat to reach the throne, seem to have utterly forgotten that there was a community in the kingdom. When all disturbing questions were brushed aside, Edward announced that his title of Lord Superior was indisputed, and therefore he intended to act in that character. Robert Bruce was then asked whether he was willing to prosecute his claim to the Crown of Scotland in the Court of the Lord Superior; and Bruce, in the presence of the meeting, expressly recognised Edward as Lord Superior, and agreed to abide by his decision. The same question was put to each of the claimants, and they all consented without reserve to the demand of Edward, and immediately sealed their consent by letters patent.¹

¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 227,
228; Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, pages 240‒245, 250.

None of the Scotch nobles or clergy entered any protest, and they appear to have acquiesced in the proceedings and the result of this meeting. The claimants then proceeded a step further in the pursuit of their object, and in order that justice might be done to their claims, they at once made Edward Lord Superior of Scotland in reality. Thus:――“Inasmuch as the aforesaid King of England, cannot such manner of cognisance make and accomplish with judgment, and that judgment ought not to pass without execution, and that execution he cannot do in due manner without possession and seisin of the same lands and castles; we will, concede, and grant that he, as Sovereign Lord to perform the things aforesaid, have seisin of all the lands and castles of Scotland till right be done and performed to the claimants.”¹ It appears that the claimants of the Crown, and the nobles and clergy present at the meeting, actually transferred, or rather sold, the kingdom to Edward I.

¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Number 71.

The new Lord Superior did not let his powers lie dormant. He immediately commanded that all the castles in the kingdom should be surrendered into his hands; he reconstituted the government of the country, and appointed an Englishman to advise it; and the old seal of Scotland was broken into four pieces, and a new one made, more suited to the changed circumstances. A herald then proclaimed the peace of King Edward, as Lord Paramount of the Realm.

He next commanded the guardians of Scotland to exact from the Scots the oath of allegiance to him as Lord Superior of the kingdom. Stations were fixed where attendance should be given, and the swearing-in process began on the 23rd of July, 1291, and was continued for fifteen days. Edward himself visited many of the stations, proceeding by Edinburgh, Linlithgow, Stirling, Perth, ♦Dunfermline, Kinghorn, and St. Andrews, and called upon all ranks to sign the rolls of homages as the vassals of their illustrious Lord Superior. All those who were refractory, were coerced by imprisonment and other punishments;¹ and Edward was silently rejoicing over the great victory which he had so easily gained.

♦ “Dumfermline” replaced with “Dunfermline”

¹ Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, pages 250, 252; Hailes’ _Annals_,
Volume I., pages 226‒229.

In 1291 eleven meetings were held, the first one in May and the last in August; and the places of meeting and all the proceedings were stated in the records with the greatest minuteness, so that everything connected with the cause, and especially the supreme position and the functions of the Lord Superior, should be placed beyond question. At the meeting held on the 3rd of August, Edward intimated that Bruce and Baliol should each select forty men as commissioners, while he should choose twenty-four or more if he thought fit; and these commissioners were directed to meet in a body and consider the claims of the candidates for the Crown, and report to the king. At this meeting twelve candidates for the Crown appeared and entered their claims; and Edward requested the commissioners to consider them all attentively, and render their report to the next meeting, to be held on the 2nd of June, 1292.¹

¹ Palgrave’s _Documents_.

This long adjournment was a fine politic move. As its apparent object was to give the commissioners ample time to consider the claims of the candidates in relation to the cause, while it answered the important purpose of accustoming the Scotch nobles and clergy to look to Edward as their great Lord Paramount. For similar reasons Edward welcomed all grades of claimants, and consequently several of those who came forward and claimed the Crown were illegitimate descendants of the kings of Scotland. But seeing that every claimant had a body of feudal followers, and as the first step of each claimant was to recognise Edward as his Lord Superior, and render homage to him as such, every new claimant thus strengthened Edward’s position.

When the commissioners re-assembled on the 2nd of June, 1292, a new claim was entered by Eric, King of Norway, the father of the deceased Maid of Norway; but his claim was not pressed, and judgment passed against him by default. Indeed, it was then well known that the real struggle was virtually between Bruce and Baliol, with a possible chance for Hastings. The proceedings of this meeting assumed the form of an admirable piece of acting planned by Edward I., and well performed by the Scotch commissioners. The king first asked the Scotch commissioners to inform the Court by what laws and customs judgment should be given. They answered that, owing to difference of opinion among themselves, and the importance of the cause, they were unable to come to a conclusion without deliberation, and therefore they sought the opinion of the English commissioners, but they also declined to commit themselves till enlightened by an English parliament. Edward then adjourned the meeting to the 15th of October, 1292, and declared that meanwhile he would consult the learned all over the world.¹

¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 777; Hailes’ _Annals_, Volume I.,
page 235.

The assembly which met at Berwick on the 15th of October settled some preliminary points, one of which was that the succession to the Crown of Scotland ought to be decided in the same manner as the succession to earldoms, baronies, and other indivisible inheritances. Bruce and Baliol were then heard in turn at great length in support of their claims. Bruce determinedly insisted that his right to the Crown had been recognised in the reigns of Alexander II. and Alexander III., and urged that his claim was supported by the custom of succession to the Crown of Scotland. Baliol’s claim was well and adroitly argued, and a touching reference made to the supremacy of the Lord Paramount’s court. After the two claimants were heard, Edward requested his council and the commissioners to answer this question:――“By the laws and customs of both kingdoms, ought the issue of an elder sister, but more remote by one degree, to exclude the issue of the younger sister, although one degree nearer.” The council answered in the affirmative, which was in favour of Baliol’s claim. Other meetings were held before the final decision was given, and at one held on the 6th of November, Edward announced that Bruce was out of the contest as a claimant against Baliol. John Hastings immediately advanced his claim for one-third of the kingdom, on the reasonable ground that it was divisible like any other feudal fief. Bruce then presented a second claim for a third of the kingdom of Scotland. Hastings and Bruce in turn pleaded against Baliol that the kingdom ought to be divided into three parts, the same as other feudal fiefs and baronies, and on this ground they argued their claims to an equal division of the kingdom amongst them at great length: and according to feudalism they were right. But the most peculiar feature of the proceedings was the complete elimination of any reference to the people of Scotland. It seems never to have occurred to the grasping claimants that there lived amongst the valleys and mountains of Scotland a strong-willed race, habituated to independence and freedom, whose spirit must be broken ere even the decision of the great Lord Superior could be of much avail.¹

¹ Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, pages 309‒356.

On the 17th of November 1292, in the castle of Berwick, and in the presence of a large assemblage, Edward delivered judgment in favour of Baliol. The vassal King then rendered homage to his Lord Superior, and orders were issued to invest him in his feudal fief. These points and formalities were performed and recorded with great care and minuteness, that the process and the rights of the Superior of the fief might be placed beyond question. Baliol then proceeded to Scone to be crowned, with a warrant from his Lord Superior authorising the ceremony, which was accordingly performed on the 30th of November. Shortly after he passed into England, and there concluded the last act of the drama by rendering homage to Edward I. as the invested vassal King of Scotland.¹

¹ _Ibid._, pages 357, 358; also _Ragman Rolls_.

When Baliol returned to his kingdom he found himself among a people little disposed to submit to him or his Lord Paramount. If at any moment he had fancied himself fortunate in attaining to the throne of Scotland, he was speedily and rudely disabused. It does not appear that he was gifted with much talent, while he was thwarted at every turn as an unwelcome master. Indeed, it was rumoured that the poor man was in terror of his life, as he was now far away from his great lord and benefactor; yet he seems to have begun his reign with proceedings intended to benefit the kingdom. He passed an Act in February 1293, which divided the district of Argyle for administrative purposes, and re-arranged the sheriffdoms thus:――The sheriffdom of Skye was to include the western portion of Ross (then north Argyle), the lands of Glenelg, the lands of Garmoran, and the isles of Eig and Rum. The sheriffship of Lorne was to include the lands of Ardnamurchan and Morven, the lands of the Lord of Lorne, and other lands; the sheriffdom of Cantyre was to include the lands of Cantyre and the island of Bute.¹ But Baliol’s prospects of a successful reign were soon blasted.

¹ Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, page 371; _Acts of the Parliaments
of Scotland_, Volume I., page 91.

The Lord Superior shortly had an opportunity of exhibiting his power, and he placed the vassal King in a most humiliating position. It had become known that the king’s courts were no longer supreme, as there was a higher authority which might reverse their decisions. A citizen of Berwick appealed to the Court of Edward I. against a judgment of the late administrators of Scotland; it was simply a dispute about money, and Baliol remonstrated and maintained that the appeal should not be entertained. But Edward returned a crushing reply to his vassal, and, in effect, told Baliol that he had determined to exercise direct dominion over the kingdom of Scotland whenever and wherever he thought fit. Edward was prepared to try all appeals from Scotland, and it was made a condition that Baliol should appear in person before the English courts. Macduff appealed to Edward against a judgment of the Scotch Parliament, touching lands of the Earl of Fife, and Baliol was summoned to appear and answer the statements of Macduff. The appeal came before the English Parliament on the 15th of October, 1293, and Baliol was then asked what defence he had to offer; but he declined to answer. “What means this,” said Edward I. “You are my vassal, you have done homage to me, you are here in consequence of my summons.” Still Baliol declined to make any answer to the appeal; so the Parliament declared that he was a contumacious offender, who had not shown due respect to this august assembly. Accordingly it was proposed to deprive him of the means of wrong-doing by taking three of the chief castles of Scotland into the hands of the Lord Superior, until his vassal, King John, should render proper satisfaction.¹ The hapless king crouched and returned to Scotland, where other stirring events soon followed.

¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume I. pages 377, 389;
_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I. page 89.

In 1294 a quarrel arose between the King of France and Edward I., touching their feudal relations. Philip IV. of France was then exerting all his energy to extend and consolidate his kingdom, and the occurrence of an opportunity to insult his feudal vassal, the King of England, was simply the first step towards the annexation of Edward’s possessions on the opposite side of the Channel to the Crown of France. Edward knew this very well, and summoned his army and prepared for war to the knife.¹ He also summoned his own vassal, King John, and the Scotch nobles, to assist him in the French war; but instead of obeying and joining his army, they held a Parliament at Scone. They dismissed all the Englishmen from the court, and appointed a committee of twelve members, consisting of four bishops, four earls, and four barons, by whose counsel the King was to conduct the government.

¹ Crowe’s _History of France_, Volume I., pages 306‒308.

The kingdom was rapidly drifting into a perilous position. Negotiations were opened with France, and in October 1295, a treaty between France and Scotland was concluded. A clause of the treaty provided for the marriage of Baliol’s son to a niece of Philip IV., and the King of France engaged to assist Scotland in the event of an English invasion by sending a French force or by making a diversion; while the Scotch King undertook to send an army across the border whenever England was at war with France. This was the commencement of a line of policy which had a considerable influence on Scotland for the three succeeding centuries.

The Scotch nobles by their disobedience and overt acts had broken their allegiance to their Lord Superior; and that clause of the new treaty touching the invasion of England was quickly put into operation. They mustered an army, which, under the command of Comyn, Earl of Buchan, invaded Cumberland in March 1296, and wasted the country; and shortly after they made another raid into Northumberland.¹ These raids in the circumstances of the kingdom were extremely unwise, as the Scots were thus placed in the position of aggressors. To wantonly provoke a contest with England, which under any circumstances must have been an unequal one, but specially so as the nation then stood, with a vassal king and a divided and disorganised nobility, was most deplorable policy. At the outset many of the feudal leaders of the people deserted, and thus left the people in a helpless and hopeless position; while Edward I. had not only a numerical superiority of fighting men, but also acted with great energy and decision.

¹ _The Chronicles of the Priory of Hexham_ contains an account
of these Scotch raids, accompanied with the usual
lamentation about the cruelty of the Scots.

In the spring of 1296, Edward I. marched northward with a large and well-equipped army; but he was anxious still further to increase its ranks, and on the 11th of April he issued a writ inviting all grades of men to join his army against Scotland. Criminals of every ♦description, homicides, murderers, and robbers, all were requested to place themselves under his banner. He had determined to pounce upon Berwick, then the richest town in Scotland. The citizens naturally resisted his attack, but they were soon overpowered, and without distinction of age or sex were put to the sword, eight thousand of the inhabitants being ruthlessly massacred. The town was utterly ruined. A party of thirty Flemings posted themselves in their factory, a strong building which the resident merchants of that nation were under obligation by their charter to defend against the English: and faithful to their contract these heroic men held out till evening against the English army, when their assailants, enraged by the determined defence, set the building on fire, and every one of its brave defenders perished amid the flames.¹

♦ “descripcription” replaced with “description”

¹ Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, pages 373, 374; Hailes’ _Annals_,
Volume I., page 258, _et seq._

Edward formed a ditch, and threw up defensive works round Berwick. On the 5th of April he received from the Abbot of Arbroath Baliol’s renunciation of his allegiance to his Lord Superior. This document enumerated the outrages and robberies inflicted on the subjects of Scotland on sea and land, and concluded with a declaration that Baliol had resolved to fight against Edward I. in defence of his kingdom. But John Baliol had little ability or energy, and he was placed in trying circumstances. Accordingly no effective resistance against the invader was offered at any point. From Berwick Edward proceeded towards Dunbar, the key of the eastern marches. A Scotch force had mustered to defend it, but on the 26th of April they were attacked, dispersed, and defeated, and many of them slain or taken prisoners. The castle of Dunbar then fell into the hands of the English, and the Earls of Athole, Monteith, and Ross, and a number of barons, submitted to Edward, and all the prisoners of rank were conveyed to England and imprisoned.¹

¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 26, 27;
Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, page 375.

Edward I. having destroyed Berwick, scattered the Scottish army, and taken the castle of Dunbar, now proceeded rapidly with his work. The castles of Roxburgh, Jedburgh, and others on the line of his march were surrendered to him. He reached Edinburgh on the 6th of June, and attacked the castle with all the appliances at his command, pelting it day and night for a week; after this it capitulated. He continued his triumphal progress to Linlithgow and onward to Stirling, crossed the Forth unopposed, and, proceeding by Perth, passed the Tay and entered Forfarshire. Baliol had fled northward before the advance of the conquering hero, and at the castle of Brechin, on the 10th of July, 1296, the vassal king came to his lord, like a criminal suing for mercy, and submitted to Edward’s pleasure. Then the documents considered necessary to degrade and dispossess him were drawn up and signed, and Baliol and his son were sent into England as prisoners. Edward continued his progress advancing northward by Aberdeen and Banff, till he reached Elgin on the 26th of July; thence he returned by a higher route, calling at Rothes, Kildrummy Castle, and on to Brechin. Throughout this progress Edward and his army were actively employed in taking the personal oaths of allegiance from all classes of the people, the barons, knights, and churchmen of all grades, being specially called upon to record their allegiance and render homage to the Lord Paramount. There was then no evasion of this exaction, and all those who wished to escape imprisonment or death had no alternative but to render their allegiance to Edward I.¹

¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 27,
59‒61; _Ragman Rolls_.

When returning south Edward took away the Coronation Stone――the venerated Stone of Destiny――from Scone as he was extremely anxious to efface every vestige of the national and patriotic feeling of the Scots. He then proceeded through Fife, along the northern banks of the Forth, and reached Berwick on the 22nd of August. A few days later he held a council at Berwick, in which a number of Scotch nobles and clergy submitted to him, and their estates were restored to them. He then made arrangements for the government of the kingdom, and appointed John Warrene, Earl of Surrey, guardian of Scotland, Hugh Cressingham, treasurer, and William Ormesby, justiciary. The chief castles of the kingdom were committed to the custody of English captains and garrisoned by English troops. Having thus settled everything, Edward proceeded home with the Stone of Destiny as a memorial of his conquest of Scotland, and a suitable offering to Edward the Confessor.¹

¹ _Ibid._, pages 30, 31; _Rotuli Scotiæ_, Volume I., pages
29‒35.

The seemingly complete subjection and depression of the Scots under the heel of the invader was the result of easily understood circumstances, which have already been indicated. Edward I. obtained a footing in the kingdom through the disputed succession, and thereby gained a commanding influence over the chief Scotch nobles. Thus it occurred that many of those nobles who should have come determinedly to the front at this national crisis, as the natural leaders of the people, had joined the enemy, and left the people helpless and forlorn. But the native race of Scotland keenly felt their position, and the demeanour of the English soldiers aroused their ire. Hatred sprung up between them, and bitter strife reigned in the land. Edward I. instructed his chief officials to make the utmost efforts to extinguish the rising spirit of rebellion, and not to be sparing in the distribution of the King’s favours and money. But Edward had misunderstood the character of those men whose spirit he wished to crush or corrupt; for his treasurer, Cressingham, replied to the King thus:――“Sir, you have told me not to be sparing of your favours. Sir, I neither am nor shall be, if God pleases, for few have asked for them, in consequence of the times, which have been troublesome.”¹ It appears that Edward’s favours and money would not answer the conditions which had arisen amongst the Scots.

¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
170‒172, 227.

At this perilous moment a hero arose to fight the battle of freedom and national independence. Wallace was the son of a small landed proprietor, one of those who had never sworn allegiance to Edward I. In his early years he was under the care of his uncle, an ecclesiastic in Stirlingshire, from whom he received the rudiments of a classical training, afterwards attending a school in Dundee for two years. He was gifted with rare mental faculties; tall in stature, with an athletic frame, and a commanding presence; his personal characteristics and sterling moral qualities won respect; while he was a military genius of a high order, and a man of remarkable political sagacity. He soon kindled in the heart of the nation an unquenchable spirit of resistance to oppression.

Wallace began his public career by attacking outlying parties of the English, and his followers increased with his success. Sir William Douglas, who had lands in Northumberland as well as in Scotland, was the first man of note to ally himself with the patriot. At length Wallace resolved to assail the English Justiciary, Ormesby, in his court at Scone. The Justiciary escaped with his life, but a rich booty, and some prisoners fell into Wallace’s hands. Wallace and Douglas continued their attacks on the invaders; and they were soon joined by others, amongst whom were Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell, the Stewart of Scotland, and Robert Wishart, Bishop of Glasgow: Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick, grandson of the claimant of the crown, after some hesitation, joined the national party. Edward I. soon made Douglas feel his displeasure, for on the 12th of June, 1297, he ordered that the lands and goods in Northumberland belonging to Sir William Douglas should be seized and sold for the use of the king.¹ After Edward’s government in the centre of Scotland had been thrown into confusion, Wallace and Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell crossed the Tay for the purpose of recruiting and organising an army in the north-eastern and northern counties.

¹ “The lands and tenements, the goods and chattels, in the
county of Northumberland, belonging to Sir William Douglas,
should be taken into our hands; if there be any corn or
cattle, or any other stock whatever, besides the growing
crop, to sell it without delay, and to enhance the price
thereof to our use as much as possible.” _Historical
Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 176, 177.

When Edward I. was told of the rising in Scotland he could not believe it, because so many of the nobles were with himself or in prison; he never even imagined that the Scots might attempt to act without nobles, and this lack of foresight to estimate the spirit of resistance among the people proved to be the missing link in Edward’s scheme of conquest from its inception to its termination. He sent Beck, the Bishop of Durham, into Scotland to extinguish the rising, but Beck soon had to beat a retreat, and narrowly escaped with his life. When Beck returned Edward commanded the whole military force north of the Trent to muster and crush the rebellion. An army of forty thousand foot and three hundred cavalry entered Scotland under Henry Percy, and marched through Annandale and on to Irvine, where Robert Bruce and other nobles were lying in arms. As usual, these nobles were wavering and undecided, and sought to parley with the enemy, at last they concluded a treaty with the English authorities, by which they preserved their estates, promised to give hostages for their future conduct, and then dispersed, without striking a single blow. The treaty was signed at Irvine on the 9th of July, 1297, and those who agreed to it were Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick; James, the Stewart of Scotland; his brother, John; Alexander Lindsay, Sir William Douglas, and the Bishop of Glasgow. A copy of it was sent to Wallace and Andrew Moray but they disregarded it.¹

¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
192‒194; Palgrave’s _Documents_, page 197.

Wallace was then recruiting and instructing men in the north-eastern counties beyond the Tay, and Andrew Moray of Bothwell was intently engaged in similar work farther north and in Strathspey. On the 17th of July 1297, Moray and his recruits, in a position protected by a bog and a wood in the valley of the Spey, repulsed the attacks and the utmost efforts of a body of Edward’s cavalry and soldiers to dislodge them. Wallace and Moray worked with great energy in conjunction with each other and soon organised an efficient army. Wallace then attacked the castles, and many of them shortly fell into his hands. The castles of Aberdeen, Forfar, Brechin, and Montrose, were successively captured.¹ He had just begun the siege of the castle of Dundee when tidings came that the English army was marching on Stirling. Wallace at once saw his opportunity, ordered the citizens of Dundee to continue the siege, and hurried off with his army to guard the passage of the Forth.

¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
211‒213.

Wallace posted his men on the rising ground which commanded the Bridge of Stirling. The English army, fifty thousand strong, under the command of John de ♦Warrene, Earl of Surrey, lay on the opposite side of the river. When the English general observed the position of his enemy he tried to temporise, and sent forward messengers of peace; but Wallace knew well the advantages of his position, and told the English envoys that he had resolved on battle,――“to set his country free.” On the 11th of September the enemy began to pass over the narrow bridge. When one half of the army had crossed it, Wallace, by a preconcerted movement, attacked the English in the rear, and intercepted between them and the bridge. When this was executed, the main body of the Scots instantly rushed down and assailed the forming lines of the English, throwing them into utter confusion; a panic seized the whole army, and a headlong rout ensued. Many were drowned in the river, and many slain in the flight. Surrey with the remnant of his army found shelter in the castle of Berwick where he remained for some months.¹

♦ “Warrence” replaced with “Warrene”

¹ _Scotland in 1298_, by H. Gough, Introduction, page 1,
_et seq._, 1888.

This battle had the effect of clearing the country of the enemy, and all the castles were recovered. The Battle of Stirling in other respects was an exceedingly important event, as it raised the spirit of the people and gave them confidence in themselves, at the most perilous and trying crisis which had ever occurred in the history of the kingdom; and its result continued to have an inspiriting influence upon the mind and feeling of the nation throughout all the subsequent stages of the struggle for national independence and liberty. Indeed, at Stirling Bridge, Wallace clearly read a significant lesson to the English as well as to the Scots; but unhappily the former were unwilling to learn it or even to recognise its meaning.

Wallace was anxious to promote peaceful ♦industry, as the following circumstance shows: A document dated 11th of October 1297, was despatched to Lubeck and Hamburg, in the names of Andrew Moray and William Wallace, generals of the army of the kingdom and community of Scotland, thanking the friends of the country for their services, which the state of the kingdom had prevented the due acknowledgment, and informed them that commerce with the ports of Scotland would now be restored: “As the kingdom of Scotland, thanks be to God, has been delivered by battle from the power of the English.”¹

♦ “indnstry” replaced with “industry”

¹ _National Manuscripts_, Part I.; _Documents illustrative of
Wallace_.

Shortly after the battle, Wallace retook the town of Berwick, but not the castle; and about the middle of October he advanced into Northumberland and plundered the country. The Scotch army remained in the north of England from the 18th of October to the 11th of November; and the English chroniclers described in a piteous strain the terror and misery which the Scots had caused amongst the inhabitants. As plunder was the object of the raid, no doubt the people of Northumberland and Cumberland had suffered severely. Wallace granted a protection in name of King John to the prior and convent of Hexham, which was to continue in force for three years; forbidding the Scots to injure any of the members of the convent under severe penalties. After the Scots retired, Lord Clifford led a raid into Scotland, and plundered Annandale, burned a hundred cottages, captured a few prisoners, and slew three hundred and eight of the Scots.¹

¹ _Chronicles and Annals of Hexham_, Preface, Volume I.,
pages 80‒85. “King Edward having gone to Flanders, and
in his absence, the rebellious Scots under the command
of the ribald William Wallace, ravaged Northumberland and
Westmoorland, ♦sparing neither age nor sex.” Hemingford’s
_Chronicles_, Volume II., pages 141‒146.

♦ “spearing” replaced with “sparing”

In the end of the year 1297 Wallace was chosen Guardian of the kingdom of Scotland and leader of its armies, in the name of King John, and with consent of the community. He adopted measures calculated to secure order, to promote peaceful industry, and the commerce of the kingdom; he also made the utmost efforts to improve the organisation and discipline of the army. The body of the people acquiesced in his government, and he received considerable support from the clergy: still the condition of the kingdom was such that no individual exertion or sagacity could have placed it in a position to meet the recurrent exigences of the time. For the feudal organisation then prevailed in Scotland, and it could not be changed in a day or a year; while, with the King banished, some of the chief nobles lurking out of the way, others in prison, and some of them actually opposing the Guardian, the feudal system of defence itself could not be effectively worked. Thus considering the state of the nation, and the circumstances above indicated, it is surprising that Wallace achieved so much under such conditions.

Since the battle of Stirling Bridge, Edward I. had been making preparation for a great invasion of Scotland to crush the rising under Wallace. On his return from the Continent in March 1298, his troops, drawn from all parts of England and Wales, were mustered and concentrated as they advanced towards the borders; and when Edward I. reached Roxburgh on the 3rd of July, his army numbered 88,000 men, of which 8000 were cavalry. He advanced towards the Forth and proceeded by Lauder, but his progress was slow, as provisions were scarce and the position of his army critical. Some of his ships, however, having arrived in the Forth, he halted at Kirk-liston, and rested his troops for a week. Wallace with his small army could not think of facing Edward’s vast host in the open field: his tactics were to protract the issue and render the advance of the enemy difficult; so he drove off everything which could be removed, and left the country behind him waste, in this way hoping to starve out the enemy. For a time he seemed likely to succeed; as we have seen above, the English army was suffering severely. At last, through treachery, Wallace was forced to give battle near Falkirk. As Edward received intelligence of the position of the Scots while his army was lying at Kirk-liston, he immediately marched rapidly ♦forward by Linlithgow, and on the morning of the 22nd of July he descried the Scots. The enemy was too near for retreat, as his eight thousand cavalry would have pursued and cut off the Scots, so that Wallace had no alternative but fight.

♦ “foward” replaced with “forward”

Wallace’s whole force was under thirty thousand men, not a third part of the number of the enemy; but he drew up his men in a form admirably fitted to resist cavalry charges. He formed his infantry into four solid circular bodies with their weapons pointing outward and crossing each other. His small company of archers, under the command of Sir John Stewart, were posted in the spaces between the circular divisions, and his one thousand cavalry were placed behind the circular bodies. After thus disposing his troops, Wallace was reported to have said to them: “I have brought you to the ring, do the best you can.” The English had one hundred and eleven banners at the battle, and their army was marshalled in four divisions. The first division was commanded by the Earl of Lincoln, assisted by the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk; the second division was led by the famous Beck, Bishop of Durham; the third division was commanded by the King in person; and the fourth by the Earl of Surrey. The Earl of March, Patrick of Dunbar, fought in the second division of the English army; and it was March and Angus who informed Edward of the position of the Scots before the march to Falkirk. The Earls of Lincoln and Hereford first advanced to the attack, Bishop Beck following. They furiously charged the Scots; but the compact circles of the spearmen repulsed the onset of the enemy; and the cavalry charges were many times repeated but always repelled. Sir John Stewart, who led the Scottish archers, was thrown from his horse and slain along with many of his men around him. The Scottish cavalry did not come into action; still the spearmen held their ground and presented an unbroken front to the enemy. Edward then suspended the cavalry charges, and ordered his slingers and bowmen to the front; and this multitude of men poured showers of stones and arrows upon the circles of the Scottish spearmen, which at length disorganised them. Then the cavalry charges of the enemy were recommenced, and the spearmen, being assailed on every side, were ultimately defeated. About ten thousand of the Scots fell on the field of Falkirk. Wallace retreated with the remnant of his army through the wood in the neighbourhood. Among the slain on the Scottish side, were Sir John Stewart of Bonkill, a younger son of the seventh High Stewart of Scotland, Sir John Graham of Dundaff, and Macduff, a grand-uncle of the Earl of Fife.¹

¹ _Scotland in 1298_, Gough, page 131, _et seq._, and
Introduction, pages 11, 12; Hemingford’s _Chronicles_,
Volume II., pages 176‒181.

Wallace continued his retreat by Stirling, thence the English slowly followed; and on the fourth day after the battle, they arrived and found the town deserted. Edward’s victory was fruitless, as he was compelled to retire with his starving host for lack of provisions; and after visiting at Ayr, he proceeded southward to Carlisle. Immediately after the battle, Edward I. granted presentations to upwards of thirty benefices in Scotland, which included bishoprics and churches in the counties of Lanark, Selkirk, Peebles, Haddington, Roxburgh, Fife, Perth, Kincardine and Aberdeen.¹ He also gave the island of Arran to Thomas Bisset, and promised his own barons extensive lands out of the territories of the Scottish nobles. After making these and other arrangements calculated to secure his hold on Scotland, Edward returned to London in the beginning of December.

¹ _Scotland in 1298_, Gough, pages 239‒246. This volume
contains a vast quantity of interesting information, much of
which is specially valuable to the genealogist.

Shortly after the battle of Falkirk Wallace resigned the Guardianship of Scotland. After he had rendered Stirling and Perth useless to the enemy, he returned with a body of his followers to the Torwood, and thence followed on Edward’s track. John Comyn of Badenoch and John de Soulis were elected Guardians, associated with William Lamberton, the Bishop of St. Andrews, who was a personal friend and supporter of Wallace, and Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick. Lamberton intimated to the King of France that Wallace’s protection at his court was requisite to the continuance of the alliance between the two kingdoms. Wallace proceeded to France on the service of his country, and endeavoured in every way to free the kingdom from the yoke of the invader and oppressor. It appears that he had intended to proceed to Rome to plead the cause of Scotland, as the following letter shows:――“Philip by the grace of God King of the French, to my loved and faithful agents, appointed to the Roman Court, greeting. We command you to request the Supreme Pontiff to hold our loved William Wallace of Scotland, Knight, recommended to his favour in those things which he has to transact with him;” dated on the 1st November 1298.¹ There is no direct evidence that Wallace actually went to Rome, but circumstantial evidence render it very probable that he had communications with the Pope touching the affairs and the position of Scotland.

¹ _National Manuscripts_, Part I.

Although Edward I. had made peace with France, he was somewhat embarrassed by the demands of his barons touching the great charter and the rights which they embraced every opportunity to claim; still he continued his attacks upon Scotland. In 1300 he invaded the country; but Wallace, who had returned from France, anticipated him, and marched from the Torwood into the southern counties, seized the castle of Tibbers, and other castles in Nithsdale. Edward took several castles in Dumfriesshire, and then besieged Caerlaverock castle, which, after a heroic defence against the whole English army, at last surrendered. He advanced into Galloway, but his foraging parties were often attacked and cut off by the Scots. After a campaign of five months, Edward returned to England without achieving any important result.

It was during this campaign that Edward I. was obliged to listen to one of the most severe and logical attacks which had as yet been made upon him, touching his claims of feudal superiority over the kingdom of Scotland. In the castle of Caerlaverock, about the end of August, the Archbishop of Canterbury acting as the Pope’s legate, placed a Bull from Boniface VIII. in the hands of Edward I., which was read in the presence of his assembled barons and knights. This remarkable document affirmed that Scotland owed allegiance to no one, save the Holy See. Boniface then charged Edward I. with violating all the liberties and the rights of Scotland, and proceeded to state――“that neither he nor any of his predecessors held over the kingdom any superiority; since, when in the wars between your father Henry and Simon de Montfort, he requested the assistance of Alexander III., King of Scotland, acknowledged by letters patent that he received such assistance, not as due to him, but as a special favour. Moreover, when you yourself invited King Alexander to attend your coronation, you made the request as a matter of favour and not of right. When the King of Scotland rendered homage to you for his lands in Tynedale and Penrith, he publicly protested it was rendered not for his kingdom but for these lands only, since, as King of Scotland, he was independent. Yea, further, when Alexander III. died, leaving an heiress to his Crown, a grand-daughter in her minority, the wardship of this infant was not given to you, which it would have been if you had been Lord Superior, but was given to certain nobles of Scotland elected for the office.” Touching the negotiations for the proposed marriage between the Prince of Wales and the Maid of Norway, the Pope reminded Edward I. that he had then acknowledged the independence of Scotland; and it was singular that he submitted to negotiate if he had a right to command. Regarding the changes lately made on the rights and the liberties of Scotland, with the consent of a divided nobility, or the person whom Edward had placed in charge of the kingdom, these ought not to continue, as all had been extorted by force and intimidation. The Pope exhorted Edward, in the name of God, to at once liberate the bishops and the clergy whom he had imprisoned, and to remove all the officers and officials whom he had thrust upon the Scottish nation. Finally, Boniface said, “if Edward imagined that he had any pretensions to the whole or any part of Scotland, let him send his proctors to me, and I will determine according to justice.” On the conclusion of the reading of the Pope’s letter, Edward started to his feet and exclaimed:――“I will not be silent or at rest, either for Mount Zion or Jerusalem, but, as long as there is breath in my nostrils, I will defend what all the world knows to be my right.”¹ The result, however, was that Edward soon disbanded his army, and summoned a parliament to meet in February 1301, which, having met, framed an answer to the Pope’s letter. In October 1300, he granted a truce to the Scots to continue till the middle of May 1301.

¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I.; _Walsingham_; _Book of Wallace_, Rogers,
Volume II., pages 182‒187.

The truce was not strictly observed by either side. Edward made arrangements to secure his hold in every place where he had any footing, strengthened the garrisons of the castles which he held throughout the kingdom, and instructed the English residents at Perth, Ayr, Dundee, and Banff, to remain in these places till the termination of the truce. He released the Bishop of Glasgow from imprisonment only after he had renewed his allegiance. Edward I. seems to have had great faith in oaths and homages, but he forgot that there might be circumstances in which they were not binding.

In the summer of 1301 Edward advanced into Scotland with a great army, but the Scots managed to avoid a battle, so that the campaign was ineffective. He did not cross the Forth, and his army suffered severely from the scarcity of provisions and forage. In October he concentrated his troops at Linlithgow and Falkirk, collected stores there, and fixed his head-quarters for the winter at Linlithgow, where he erected a castle. He expected that his presence would overcome the Scots. Owing to the severe winter he lost a large number of his war-horses, and he discovered that his campaign was attended with enormous expenditure. On the 26th of January, 1302, on the suggestion of France, Edward promised to grant a truce to the Scots, which was to continue till the 30th of the ensuing November; and in the beginning of February he left Linlithgow and marched southward. Before he departed he bound Sir Alexander Baliol to hold Selkirk forest against the Scots, and exacted pledges from the captains of the castles of Linlithgow, Ayr, Edinburgh, Jedburgh, Roxburgh, and Berwick, that they would continue to defend these castles till the ensuing summer. Edward vehemently objected to the Scots being described as the “allies” of France, and on the 30th of April he protested against the truce.¹

¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I.; _Book of Wallace_, Rogers, Volume II.,
pages 194‒199.

Edward exerted his ingenuity to the utmost to detach the King of France from giving any encouragement to the Scots, and he completely succeeded. Further he covertly arranged with the King of France to name those Scotsmen whose absence from the kingdom Edward considered to be most convenient for the success of his scheme of conquest, and accordingly Philip’s ambassadors named Bishop Lamberton of St. Andrews, the Bishop of Dunkeld, the Steward of Scotland, Sir John Soulis, John Comyn, Earl of Buchan, Sir Ingram Umfraville, and Sir William Baliol. But ere the Scotch ambassadors arrived, a truce was arranged between England and France, in which all reference to the Scots was excluded; and in the final treaty of peace, ratified at Paris in May 1303, no reference to the Scots occurred. Pope Boniface VIII. also deserted the cause of Scotland; and in August 1302, he reprimanded Bishop Wishart for opposing the English rule, and commanded him to desist from it. At the same time the Pope commanded the other Scotch bishops to make peace with Edward.¹ Having thus far succeeded, as he imagined, in debarring the Scots from all hope of external aid in any quarter, Edward proceeded to prepare for the complete conquest of the kingdom.

¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 972; Volume II., page 929.

The Scots held Stirling castle and the country north of the Forth, and Edward I. as yet had only a precarious hold on the southern division of the kingdom. In February 1303, an English army was mustered at Berwick, numbering twenty thousand men, which, under the command of Sir John Segrave, advanced into Scotland. Segrave marched his army northward in three divisions, not far apart from each other, in order to obtain quartering for his men and forage for the horses. John Comyn, Wallace, and Sir Simon Fraser, having learned the position of the enemy, on the morning of the 24th February, 1303, rapidly advanced from Biggar to Roslin with eight thousand men on foot, and surprised the English army. A severe contest ensued, but the three divisions of the English were defeated in detail, and sixteen knights and thirty esquires were taken prisoners.

But Edward I. was then free from embarrassment abroad and at home, and he made ample preparations for the final conquest of Scotland. Through craft, in which he was abetted by the King of France, the Scotch envoys were induced to remain at the French court by the most base and false professions imaginable. On the 25th of May, 1303, these deluded Scotsmen at the French court communicated with Sir John Comyn, the guardian, in the following words:――“Be not alarmed that the Scots are not mentioned in the treaty. The King of France will immediately send ambassadors to divert Edward from war, and to procure a truce for us until the two kings can have a personal conference in France. At that conference a peace will be concluded beneficial to our nation: of this the King of France has himself given us the most positive assurance.... Marvel not that none of us return home at present: we would all have willingly returned, but the King of France will have us to remain till we bring home intelligence of the result of this business; wherefore, for the Lord’s sake, despair not: but if ever you acted with resolution, do so now.... The French ambassadors will be empowered to treat of peace, as well as to negotiate a truce.”¹ The men thus detained at the French court were John Soulis, one of the guardians, the Steward of Scotland, the Earl of Buchan, and Ingram de Umfraville; thus, with these men absent, and the defection of the Earl of Carrick, there were few persons of ability and rank left in Scotland to offer resistance to the crafty and ruthless invader.

¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 955.

In the middle of May 1303, Edward I. commenced his march, having arranged his army in two divisions, one under himself and the other under the Prince of Wales. Edward advanced by Morpeth and reached Roxburgh on the 21st of May, where he was joined by the followers of the Earl of Carrick. The Prince of Wales entered Scotland by the western marches, but his advance was checked at several points by Wallace; he therefore deviated from his intended route and marched through Roxburghshire, advancing northward in the rear of his father. Edward reached Edinburgh on the 4th of June, marched by Linlithgow and thence to Stirling, crossed the Forth, and on the 10th of June entered Perth. He stayed in Perth till the middle of July, then proceeded to Dundee, and thence to Montrose. At this stage he summoned Sir Thomas Maule to surrender the castle of Brechin, but Sir Thomas declined to surrender it. Edward marched from Montrose to Brechin with his war engines, and besieged the castle. Sir Thomas made a heroic defence; but at last he was fatally wounded and expired, and the garrison then surrendered, but not till five waggon-loads of lead had been thrown into the castle.

At Brechin Edward was joined by the Prince of Wales, and, resuming his progress northward, he marched by the castle of Kincardine and arrived at Aberdeen on the 24th of August; thence he marched through Buchan and reached Banff on the 4th of September, whence marching northward, he crossed the Spey and advanced through Moray, reaching Kinross on the 20th of September. Edward advanced into Badenoch and occupied the castle of Lochindorb, one of the strongholds of the Comyns; and all the men of note in the locality were compelled to render homage to him. He returned by Kinross, and thence to the castle of Kildrummy. He next marched southward by Brechin, and fixed his headquarters at ♦Dunfermline, where he remained through the winter of 1304.¹

♦ “Dumfermline” replaced with “Dunfermline”

¹ _Fœdera_; Hemingford’s _Chronicles_; _Book of Wallace_,
Rogers, Volume II., pages 206‒208.

It then seemed that all was lost, although the spirit of the people had enabled them to struggle against fearful odds and to endure extreme privation; still human endurance has its limits, and the stage of hope appeared to be passed. Craft, force, and cruelty, had done their work; but it had yet to be seen whether these would ultimately triumph.

Negotiations with Comyn, the guardian, were begun in the latter part of December 1303, for his submission to Edward I. These negotiations were long and tedious, and while they were proceeding Comyn remained in his camp at Strathord, in Forfarshire. The conditions as first laid down by Edward as the basis for treating of the submission of Comyn and his adherents were extremely hard, and virtually implied the complete surrender of national liberty. The terms of submission were finally adjusted and agreed to on the 9th of February, 1304. It was stipulated that their lives should be spared, and that they should retain their lands, but subject to such fines as Edward might think fit to impose upon them. The following persons were specially excluded from the benefit of the above terms――Wishart, Bishop of Glasgow, Sir John Soulis, the Steward of Scotland, Simon Fraser, William Wallace, David de Graham, and Alexander de Lindsay. To all these men, except Wallace, the chance of preserving their lives was offered on certain terms, mostly stated periods of banishment from Scotland. “As for William Wallace it is covenanted that he shall render himself up at the will and mercy of the king, if it shall seem good to him.” It appears that Edward was earnestly requested to offer reasonable terms to Wallace, but he declined to listen to such a proposal. Shortly after the surrender of Comyn and his adherents, Edward summoned a parliament to meet him at St. Andrews in March; and he arrived at St. Andrews on the 11th of March and occupied the castle. In this meeting he intimated that he had summoned to the parliament Sir William Wallace, Sir Simon Fraser, and Sir William Oliphant, governor of Stirling Castle; and he then announced that seeing they had not attended, therefore they should be forfeited and outlawed. At his request parliament resolved that the siege of Stirling should be actively prosecuted.¹

¹ _Fœdera_, Volume II.; _Historical Documents of Scotland_,
Volume II., page 471; Palgrave’s _Documents_, pages 278‒284.

Preparations were at once begun for the siege of this fortress. Edward appealed to his English treasurer for money, and to procure from York the materials for producing Greek fire, namely, a horseload of cotton thread, a load of quick sulphur, a load of saltpetre, and a load of arrows feathered and ironed. By Edward’s orders the lead was stripped from the refectory at St. Andrews and from the churches at Perth and Dunblane. The Earl of Carrick, Robert Bruce, who had been serving Edward actively for the past year or two, promised to grant for use in the siege of Stirling Castle his great battering-ram which was lying at Inverkip. War engines, missiles, and materials of every description for the siege were in readiness, and Edward himself arrived at Stirling on the 21st of April, and summoned Oliphant, the governor of the castle, to surrender. But Oliphant declined to surrender and made a brave defence. The siege continued from the 22nd of April to the 20th of July, the King remaining at Stirling in order to urge on the operations. When the governor of the castle surrendered, the garrison only numbered one hundred and forty men, but Edward inflicted shameful indignities upon these brave and faithful men. The governor, Oliphant, was sent to the Tower of London, and the rest were despatched to various prisons in England.¹

¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 966; Rogers’ _Book of Wallace_,
Volume II., pages 218‒223.

Edward directed special attention to the capture of Wallace, as he was already proclaimed an outlaw. Immediately after the surrender of Stirling Castle the King exhorted the men lately admitted to his peace to exert themselves to the utmost to take Wallace, and promised that those who secured him should receive some distinctive marks of royal favour. Edward returned to England in December, 1304, but he continued to issue proclamations for Wallace’s capture, with offers of a reward. At the same time he carried on secret communications with those whom he thought best fitted to execute his purpose. The man actually instrumental, however, in the capture of Wallace was Sir John Menteith. He was engaged in the Battle of Dunbar in 1296, where he was taken prisoner, and confined in the castle of Nottingham; by consenting to serve under Edward I. abroad he was released in 1297, and after the Flanders campaign he returned to Scotland. He then joined the national party, and possibly he might have fought under Wallace at the Battle of Falkirk. At what time Menteith returned to Edward’s service has not been ascertained, but in a commission dated at St. Andrews on the 20th of March, 1304, he was then appointed Keeper of the Castle of Dumbarton and Sheriff of the County. After the surrender of Stirling Castle it appears that Wallace, with a single attendant, sought shelter in the unfrequented spots of the counties of Stirling and Lanark. Whether his refuge was within the sheriffdom of Dumbarton or not has not been ascertained; and it seems that Menteith had formed the idea of promoting his own interest by delivering Wallace into Edward’s hands. In the district of Cadder, on the north-eastern border of Lanarkshire, Wallace had taken shelter in a barn known as Robraystoun, and there on the 5th of August, 1305, he was surprised by a party of English soldiers, led by Menteith, at whose instance he was seized and fettered.¹

¹ _Book of Wallace_, Volume II., pages 226‒229. “Among certain
memoranda in the Chapter House are these:――4. Cause to be
remembered the forty marks which should be given to a valet
who had watched William Wallace. 5. Item of the sixty marks
that ought to be given to the others; it is the king’s
will that these be divided among those persons who were
at the capture of the said William. 6. Item of land for J.
de Menteith, valued at £100.” _Ibid._, page 236. “Menteith
received from Edward on the 16th of June, 1306, the revenues
of the Earldom of Lennox, also the temporalities of the
bishopric of Glasgow, in the county of Dumbarton, of which
Bishop Wishart had been deprived. When Robert the Bruce
was, in 1306, prosecuting his patriotic labours, Menteith
undertook jointly with Sir Hugh Bisset to cut off by a
fleet his retreat from the Western Isles; and in July of
the following year he is described as, with some others,
guarding, on Edward’s behalf, the town of Ayr.” _Ibid._,
page 231.

Securely fettered Wallace was immediately conveyed to London under a strong guard. Touching his trial and execution in London minute details exist, which have been often printed, and it is quite unnecessary to repeat them at length. He was tried for treason, which he never committed, seeing that he never gave allegiance to Edward I., whom he rightly regarded as a usurper and invader. Wallace was not allowed to make any defence, but condemned and sentenced to be hanged and drawn, with all the shocking and cruel formalities of the Norman law of treason. The sentence was executed on the 23rd of August, 1305, and that it might produce the desired effect “his body should be cut and divided into four quarters, and the head set on the Bridge of London, in sight of those passing both by land and water; and one quarter suspended on the gibbet at Newcastle-on-Tyne, another quarter at Berwick, a third quarter at Stirling, and a fourth quarter at Perth, for the dread and chastisement of all that pass by and behold them.” How far the intended end was served by such spectacles of extreme barbarity subsequent history tells. Indeed, the story of the heroic action and deeds of Wallace, heightened by his sacrifice in London, became embalmed in the heart of the Scottish people, and his memory was more intensely venerated as century after century passed. Recalling the traditional incidents associated with the Cartland Crags, it has been truly said:――

“Blest Freedom flourish’d in this wild,
When banish’d from each cultur’d spot.
Expiring Albin saw and smil’d
And all her wounds and woes forgot.”¹

Many poets have paid homage to Wallace, and the following simple lines embody the national sentiment:――

“A fair renown, as years wear on,
Shall Scotland give her noblest son;
The course of ages shall not dim,
The love that she shall bear to him.”²

¹ Dr. Jamieson, editor of Blind Henry’s _Wallace_.

² Baillie’s _Metrical Legends_, page 78.

Edward I. was intently engaged in arranging his new form of government for Scotland. He summoned a council of the Scotch nobles, clergy, and the burghal communities, which met at Perth in March, 1305, and this meeting was instructed to elect ten commissioners to represent Scotland in the English Parliament; thus, four to be chosen by the nobles, four by the clergy, and two by the burghal communities. These ten Scotch commissioners attended a Parliament which met at London on the 15th of September, 1305, and being joined by twenty-two commissioners from the English Parliament, this body, acting in concert, framed the royal ordinance for the government of Scotland. This document is elaborate, and presents evidence of considerable intelligence and judgment; but seeing that it never came into practical operation it is historically unnecessary to expound it.¹

¹ The Ordinance for the government of Scotland was printed in
the first volume of the _Scots Acts of Parliament_.

After twelve years of incessant craft, bloodshed, and oppression, closing with the execution of Wallace, Edward I. fancied that his conquest of Scotland was at last complete. But a worthy successor to Wallace immediately appeared upon the scene, and the shattered king, worn with the toil of years, lived to see it all passing from his grasp.