WALLACE AGAIN TAKES REFUGE IN THE WOODS.--ORGANIZES A SYSTEM OF
WARFARE.--HARASSES THE ENGLISH IN THEIR CANTONMENTS.--CONFLICT OF
BEG.--BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES OF HIS EARLY COMPANIONS.--HIS DRESS AND
ARMOUR.--ANECDOTE OF THE RELATIVE PERSONAL PROWESS OF WALLACE AND BRUCE.
Wallace, who had been stigmatized by the English as an outlaw and a
robber, found it necessary, after the battle of Dunbar, to withdraw
to his former mountainous retreat, from whence he would, no doubt,
observe the gaudy pageant of the feudal power of England, as it
traversed the devoted land in all the insolent security of conquest.
And while the national distress deepened around, and every tale that
reached him was fraught with tidings of the misery of his enslaved and
degraded countrymen, the resources of the enemy, and the possibility
of emancipating the beloved land of his nativity, formed the subject
of his unceasing reflections. He had observed, that the reverses
which the Scots had sustained in the field, arose more from a want
of subordination and discipline among themselves, than from any
superior valour on the part of their enemies. He was aware of, and
deeply lamented, the jealousy and treachery which existed among the
nobility, and their readiness to stoop in the most servile manner[63]
to the will of the Usurper, if they might thereby obtain even a
temporary exaltation for their party; and he justly conceived, that by
banding together a few resolute spirits, allied to no faction, but,
like himself, attached to the general good, that more could be done
toward the restoration of his country’s independence, than by all
the tumultuous hordes which the treacherous and disunited chieftains
could bring together. Fully impressed with this conviction, his days
and nights were passed in extending the number of his followers,
and in organizing a system of warfare, which was soon destined to
spread terror and dismay among the invaders. The _elite_ of every
district were instructed and disciplined in a manner peculiarly his
own. With the simple, but well-known sounds of his bugle-horn, he
could regulate all their operations. At the appearance of danger, he
could disperse them, to seek more secure retreats,--or rally them
around him, as circumstances might require. This mode of discipline,
either by himself or his most trusty associates, he secretly extended
over a great part of the Lowlands of Scotland; so that either amidst
the fastnesses of Carrick, the deep recesses of Cartland, or on the
shores of the Lomond, the rallying note of their country’s liberator
was followed by the prompt appearance of well-armed warriors at their
respective places of muster.
The prowess which he had displayed in his encounters with the
English--his almost miraculous escapes--and the prediction given out
in the name of the Seer of Ercildowne,[64] of his being destined to
deliver Scotland from the tyranny of England,--all conspired to excite
the hopes, and gain him the confidence, of the less wealthy classes of
his countrymen.
His tactics were admirably fitted for harassing the foes he had to
contend with. The fortresses in their possession were surrounded by
secret enemies, ever on the watch to discover and convey to their
leader any information that might enable him to way-lay their convoys,
or surprise them in their strongholds. It was in vain the warders
kept watch on their lofty stations: distant as the eye could reach,
no enemy appeared, no foreboding sound met their ear, to warrant
them in disturbing the tranquillity of the revellers within. Far in
the woodlands, the sound of a horn might be heard; but it passed
away unregarded, as proceeding from some lonely forester going his
rounds. The drawbridge is let down to admit fuel or provisions for the
garrison;--the loads are thrown in, the entrance of the gate;--the
porter knocked on the head, and the burden-bearers bristle into
resolute or well-armed assailants;--the wine-cup is dashed from the
hands of the astonished governor, who is only made sensible of his
situation by the carnage that ensues;--the castle demolished, and the
spoil divided among his followers, who are now allowed to return home.
Wallace, meanwhile, attended perhaps by a few select worthies, pursues
his way, to call forth the avenging swords of his adherents, in some
more remote part of the kingdom.
Such were the fruits of that admirable system of warfare which Wallace
was engaged in explaining and enforcing at the meetings of his
nonjuring countrymen, during the winter of 1296, and which it has been
thought proper to allude to at this stage of the history, in order that
the reader may be able to comprehend the possibility of certain of
those exploits which afterwards obtained for the heroic champion of the
Scots, the applause and admiration of mankind.
The spring of 1297 had scarcely set in before the _guerrilla_-parties
thus formed began to molest the invaders; and so persevering and
successful were their attacks, that in a very short time, throughout
the whole range of the forest of Clydesdale, Wallace and his followers
held undisputed sway; and, emerging from parts least expected by the
enemy, surprised and cut off their convoys. The English garrison which
occupied Bothwell Castle made several attempts to drive them from
their concealments in the woods, but all their efforts had ended in
discomfiture and disgrace; while the prisoners left in the hands of
the Scots were hung up at different parts, along the skirts of the
forest, as a warning to all hostile intruders. These proceedings of
the insurgents alarmed and perplexed the English, as it kept them in
profound ignorance of the numbers they had to cope with. Left to their
own conjectures, their heated imaginations peopled the impenetrable
recesses of the woods with swarms of fierce and merciless enemies,
headed by a chief against whose sword the strongest of their armour
afforded but a feeble protection.
While the Scots were thus engaged, their leader received advice that
a strong convoy was on its way from England for the supply of the
garrison of Ayr, under the command of Fenwick, the person who headed
the attack so fatal to Sir Malcolm Wallace. Roused by the hopes of
avenging the death of his father, our hero determined to way-lay the
party. For this purpose he selected fifty of those on whose strength
and courage he could place the greatest reliance; and thus attended,
he set forward to occupy a position on the road the enemy had to
pass. It was night when the little band of patriots reached the spot
from whence they meant to make their attack; but hearing nothing of
the advance of Fenwick, he ordered his men to take shelter for the
night in a neighbouring wood. The morning was pretty far advanced,
when two scouts, whom Wallace had sent forward at day-break, returned
with the intelligence that the enemy was at hand. Having arranged his
men for the onset, his friend, John Blair, offered up prayers for
their success, which were scarcely over before the English came in
sight. Fenwick, on observing the small body of Scots that awaited his
approach, felt perfectly assured of taking them, and the far-famed
chieftain, whom he suspected to be their leader, prisoners with him to
Ayr; and congratulated himself on the satisfaction which the capture
of the bold outlaw would afford to his superiors. This pleasing
reverie was, however, disturbed by a rapid movement of the Scots, who,
charging with their long spears, threw his advance into confusion,
and, following up their advantage with the most daring intrepidity,
carried disorder to the very centre of his squadron; where, undismayed
by the superior numbers that surrounded them, Wallace and his brave
companions fought with all the fury of exasperated lions. The repeated
charges of the English were repulsed and returned with such increasing
vigour and resolution as alarmed and confounded their commander.
Wherever he turned his eyes, the sword of the Scottish chief seemed
clearing a path toward him; helmet after helmet disappeared beneath
his ponderous weapon; and the whole exertion of his mighty arm seemed
directed towards the hated Fenwick. Conscious of the justice of that
vengeance which inspired our hero with more than usual ferocity, the
English chief would gladly have avoided a personal rencounter. His
attempts to escape, however, were in vain,--the brand of the vengeful
Scot reached him at last; and the blow, though broke by the intervening
sword of a trooper, fell with sufficient force to strike him from the
saddle. Falling on the opposite side of the horse, Wallace had not the
satisfaction of giving the deathblow;--this was an honour reserved for
Robert Boyd, one of his most intimate companions. Although Fenwick
was thus slain, yet the conflict continued with great obstinacy. The
English, under one Bowmond, who was second in command, made great
efforts to retrieve the advantages they had lost. The Scots, however,
maintained their ground with inflexible resolution, while the sword
of their chief was rapidly increasing the gaps in the ranks of their
enemies. Adam Wallace, the promising heir of Riccardtoun,[65] had the
good fortune to come in contact with the leader of the English; and,
after an obstinate engagement, the intrepid Bowmond fell beneath the
hand of the youthful Scot. Deprived of their leaders, the English now
fled in the utmost confusion, leaving one hundred of their companions
on the field. The Scots pursued them only so far as to make their
victory certain; and, returning to the spoil, found their labours amply
rewarded. A numerous train of waggons, loaded with flour, wine, and all
sorts of provisions, with warlike stores in abundance, and two hundred
draught-horses, besides money and other valuables, fell into the hands
of the victors, who, after dividing their booty, and appropriating part
of it to the relief of the oppressed inhabitants in the neighbourhood,
departed to secure the remainder in their inaccessible retreats among
the then extensive forests of Clydesdale.
The result of this affair with Fenwick was not less encouraging to the
Scots, than prejudicial to the English. The valuable convoy, which the
latter had been thus deprived of, was a subject of serious regret to
Percy; more particularly, as it appeared irretrievable--his foraging
parties having already exhausted the district under his controul, and
reduced the inhabitants to the most wretched expedients, in order to
maintain their miserable existence. The fields remained in a great
measure uncultivated; and those among the commons who were fortunate
enough to possess a cow, endeavoured to conceal her as their only
resource. The poor starveling was bled as often as nature would
permit; and the blood, boiled to a consistency, formed almost the sole
repast of the unhappy owners. Percy, already aware of the impoverished
situation of the country, had husbanded the resources of the garrison,
in order to make them hold out till the arrival of the expected
supplies. Under these circumstances, his disappointment may be easily
conceived, when the disordered remains of Fenwick’s party arrived at
Ayr without a leader, to give an account of their disaster, every man
being at liberty to tell his own story; and, as might be expected,
all of them agreed in exaggerating the number of the Scots, and the
gigantic stature and strength of their chief. Percy, even from the
most favourable view of the affair, could only see the embarrassing
situation in which he was placed. The uncertainty of procuring supplies
by land was but too evident; and to bring them by sea was equally
precarious, as the Scottish ships were still numerous on the coast, and
had not acknowledged the sovereignty of Edward, but in the unsettled
state of the country, continued to capture all the English vessels that
came in their tract.
In this battle, which was fought at a place called Beg,[66] above
Allanton, in the parish of Galston, few of any note among the Scots
were slain. Of those present on the occasion, the following names have
been handed down--Sir Andrew Murray, Sir William Douglas, Robert Boyd,
Alexander Scrimgeor, Roger Kilpatrick, Alexander Auchinleck, Walter
Newbigging, Stephen of Ireland, Hugh Dundas, John Kneland or Cleland,
Ruthven, Sir David Barclay, Adam Curry, John Blair and Thomas Gray.
In justice, therefore, to these brave and early confederates of our
hero, we shall appropriate the remaining part of this chapter, to such
notices of them as our scanty materials may afford. The following
account of the first of those worthies is taken from the Peerage and
Baronage of Scotland.
_Sir Andrew de Moravia, dominus de Bothwell_, succeeded his brother
Sir William Murray, in the Lordship of Bothwell. This Sir William was
chamberlain to Alexander III., and a man of singular merit; but dying
without issue in 1294, he was succeeded by his no less meritorious
brother, who also filled the office of chamberlain under the short
reign of Baliol. Sir Andrew married a daughter of Sir John Cumin, Lord
of Badenoch, by whom he had two sons, Sir Andrew and Sir William, the
former of whom was associated in the command of the Scottish army when
led by Wallace to the invasion of England. He also was chamberlain
to Bruce, and regent of the kingdom in the minority of David II. He
married Lady Christian Bruce, sister of the immortal King Robert, by
whom he had two sons, John and Robert. His brother William was the
progenitor of the Murrays of Abercairnie. The present “Sir Andrew sat
in parliament in 1290, and appears to have sworn fealty to Edward 1291.
When Sir William Wallace raised the standard of national independence,
and when the other powerful barons deserted the cause, he was the only
person of consequence who adhered to Wallace.”
_Sir William Douglas_, designated the Hardy, succeeded his brother
Hugh. He was also known by the name of _Long Leg_, and reckoned to be
a very handsome and powerful man, surpassing most of his countrymen in
stature. He appears to have been present in the Parliament at Brigham
in 1289, as his name is appended to the letter addressed by “the
community of Scotland,” to Edward I., as “_Guillame de Duglas_.” He
swore fealty to Edward in the Chapel of Thurston, 5th July 1291. His
first wife was Elizabeth, a near connection of the Steward of Scotland,
who died shortly after her marriage. His second was Eleanor, the widow
of William de Ferrier. She being a ward of the English crown, had an
assignation of the manors of Stubbings and Woodham Ferriers in Essex
(part of her husband’s lands), until she should have her dowry set
forth; which, being soon after assigned to her, she came to Scotland,
there to obtain her right to such lands as her husband had possessed
in that kingdom. But being at Tranent, (the manor-house of Helen la
Zusche), expecting the like assignation, Sir William de Duglas came and
forcibly carried her off.[67] As the lady had made oath before she left
England, not to marry without the royal consent;--to save appearances,
and to preserve her property, a complaint was made of the aggression,
and Edward sent his precept to the sheriff of Northumberland, to seize
all the goods and chattels of the said William de Duglas which were
in his bailiwick; but shortly after, in 1291, in consequence of a
fine of 10_l._ to the King, his permission was obtained. In 1296, Sir
William had the command of the Castle of Berwick, which he surrendered
to the English, being allowed to march out with the honours of war,
after taking an oath never to bear arms against England. Such oaths,
however, in that age it was reckoned more dishonourable to keep than to
break. The following account of some of his exploits is from Hume of
Godscroft’s History of the House of Douglas:
“When he” (Sir William) “heard that William Wallace was risen up,
and had taken open banner against the English, he joined with him;
by which accession of forces, Wallace’s army was much increased and
strengthened. Yet they were not always together; but, according to
the occasion, and as opportunity did offer, they did divide their
companies, and went to several places, where they hoped to get best
advantage of the enemy, and where there needed no great army, but some
few companies at once. In these adventures, Lord William recovered from
the English the castles of Desdier and Sanquhair.
“The manner of his taking the castle of Sanquhair is said to have been
thus:--There was one Anderson that served the castle, and furnished
them with wood and fuel, and had daily access to it upon that occasion.
The Lord Douglas directs one of his trustiest and stoutest servants to
deal with him, or to find some means to betray the castle to him, and
to bring him within the gates only.
“Anderson, either persuaded by entreaty, or corrupted with money, gave
my Lord’s servant, called Thomas Dickson, his apparel and carriages,
who, coming to the castle, was let in by the porter for Anderson.
Dickson stabbed the porter, and gave the signal to his Lord, who lay
near by with his companions, set open the gates, and received them into
the court. They, being entered, killed the captain and the whole of the
English garrison, and so remained masters of the place. The captain’s
name was Beauford, a kinsman of his own Lady Ferrars, who had oppressed
the country that lay near him very insolently. One of the English
that had been in the castle, escaping, went to the other garrisons
that were in other castles and towns adjacent, and told them what had
befallen his fellows, and withal informed them how the castle might
be recovered. Whereupon, joining their forces together, they came and
besieged it. Lord Douglas, finding himself straitened, and unprovided
of necessaries for his defence, did secretly convey his man Dickson out
at a postern, or some hidden passage, and sent him to William Wallace
for aid. Wallace was then in Lennox, and, hearing of the danger Douglas
was in, made all haste he could to come to his relief. The English,
having notice of Wallace’s approach, left the siege, and retired
towards England; yet not so quickly but that Wallace, accompanied by
Sir John Graham, did overtake them, and killed five hundred of their
number before they could pass Dalswinton. By these, and such like
means, Wallace, with his assistants, having beaten the English from
most part of their strengths in Scotland, did commit the care and
custody of the whole country, from Drumlanrig to Ayr, to the charge of
the Lord Douglas. Now, however, there be no mention of these things
in our chronology; yet, seeing the Book of Wallace (which is more
particular in many things) speaks of them, and the charter of the house
of Symington, descended lineally of the said Thomas Dickson, who, for
this and his other like services done to the Lord, and afterward to his
good son Sir James, got the twenty merk land of Hesle-side, which his
posterity doth still enjoy, holding of the Lords of Douglas and Angus;
and there is no doubt to be made, but he hath done much more in his
assistance he gave Wallace, than is recorded or extant any where; there
being no likelihood that, in these so busy times, these two valiant and
brave warriors did lie idle, although the particulars lie buried in
deep silence.” The above account is fully confirmed by the manuscript
history of the House of Douglas, written by Thomas Chambers, who adds,
that “Sir William, before the battle of Falkirk, was betrayed into the
hands of the English, and conveyed to Berwick, and from thence to York,
where he was keeped close prisoner in the castle until his death, which
took place in 1302, and was buried in a little chapel (now decayed)
at the south end of the bridge.” The banner of Douglas was “_azure a
chiffe sylvir_.”[68]
_Sir Robert Boyd_, or _Boyt_.--This bold and hardy warrior was also
one of those who swore fealty to Edward I., when he overran Scotland
in 1296; but throwing off his disgraceful allegiance in 1297, he
became ever after the inseparable companion of Wallace. His father,
in consequence of the gallantry he displayed at the battle of Largs,
obtained a grant of lands in Cunningham from Alexander III., and was
the near neighbour of Sir Raynald Crawford of Crosby,[69] the uncle of
Wallace; the castles of the two families could communicate by signals
with each other.
_Kneland_, or _Cleland_, _Edward Little_ and _Thomas Haliday_, all
near relatives of Wallace, whose names are frequently mentioned with
applause by the authors who write of this period.
_Stephen of Ireland._--This brave and useful soldier, is sometimes
called Stephen Ireland; but this is only by modern writers. Blind
Harry, and other ancient authors, invariably designate him as
_of Ireland_. It is highly probable that he was one of those
self-expatriated Irish noblemen, whose love of liberty induced them to
seek, in foreign countries, what they could no longer hope for at home.
Whatever his birth may have been, he appears to have come to Scotland
at an early period, perhaps in the reign of Alexander III., and seems,
from his being occasionally employed as a guide in the expeditions of
Wallace, to have had such a knowledge of the country, as could only be
acquired by a long residence in it. Through all the variety of fortunes
which attended Sir William Wallace, and amid the desertions of some
of his opulent countrymen, Stephen of Ireland adhered to him with
inflexible fidelity, and also induced others of his countrymen to come
over to the assistance of the Scots.
_John Blair_ and _Thomas Gray_.--The former of these worthy
ecclesiastics has already been mentioned as the schoolfellow of our
hero. After quitting Dundee, he went to finish his studies at Paris,
where, under the most eminent masters of the day, his progress did not
belie the early promise of his genius; and he returned to Scotland a
confirmed patriot, and an accomplished scholar. The latter had the
pastoral charge of Libertown, yet considered it no dereliction from his
duties to attend and assist in the emancipation of his country. Of his
literary talents we have reason to form the highest opinion, from the
circumstance of John Blair admitting him into the honour of assisting
in composing the history of their far-famed friend. This work, though
it now goes all under the name of Blair, was then known to have been
the joint composition of these worthies. Where Thomas Gray received
his education, is a matter of uncertainty; but it is highly probable
that he also finished his studies along with his friend at Paris, and
returned with him to Scotland; as we hear nothing of him previous to
the rencounter with Fenwick. It is not unlikely that, on this occasion,
John Blair was installed in his office of chaplain; and that he got
this preference from the circumstance of the other being already
provided for, as they both appear, from their learning and patriotism,
to have been equally deserving of the affection and confidence of their
countrymen.
_Alexander Scrimgeor._--This faithful patriot was the representative
of an ancient and respectable family in the neighbourhood of Dundee;
and as he most probably received his education along with Wallace,
he would no doubt have been one of the association already alluded
to. He enjoyed, in right of his ancestors, the honour of carrying the
banner of Scotland; and for his faithful discharge of this duty, he
was afterwards appointed by Wallace to the office of Constable[70]
of Dundee; which honour being hereditary, remained in the family
till after the restoration of Charles II., when the representative
of the family was created Earl of Dundee; on whose death, without
immediate issue, the heirs were unjustly deprived of their honours and
immunities. The family, however, continues to be represented by the
Scrymgeours of Birkhill, now the Wedderburns of that Ilk.--_Stat. Acc._
vol. viii. p. 239.
_Walter Newbigging_, otherwise _Gualter de Somerville_.--This gentleman
was of English extraction, and the son of William de Somerville, Baron
of Linton, and Margaret Newbigging, heiress of that Ilk, the daughter
of Walter Newbigging, which lands he inherited in right of his mother.
This accounts for his being called Walter Newbigging, or of Newbigging.
His father, William de Somerville, distinguished himself at the battle
of Largs, and was a constant attendant at the court of Alexander
III., with whom he was in high favour, and held the office of grand
falconer, a place at that time of considerable importance. Walter, the
subject of our present inquiries, received from his father a _ten merk
land_ within the barony of Linton, which enabled him to make an early
appearance at court, where his good qualities and noble deportment
attracted the notice of Alexander, from whose hand he received the
honour of knighthood, and distinguished himself at the tournament
held shortly after in honour of the marriage of Prince Alexander with
the daughter of the Earl of Flanders, at Roxburgh Castle. While in
attendance at court, he formed an acquaintance with Sir David Barclay
of Towie, in Aberdeenshire, whose sister Effie, or Euphemia, he
afterwards married in 1281; and at Aberdeen, the same year, he entered
into a bond of manrent, or manred, as it was sometimes called, with his
brother-in-law. These obligations were very common among the gentry of
Scotland, and often productive of great disorder in the country. By
this marriage he had a son named David, whom he devoted to the cause
of his country’s independence, when he himself joined the standard of
Wallace. This youth we shall afterwards have occasion to notice. It may
not be improper to remark, that Somerville, the author of “The Chase,”
was a scion from the English stock of this ancient and respectable
family.
_David de Barclay._--Abercromby mentions a Sir Fergus Barclay, as being
one of the early adherents of Wallace; but there is reason to believe
he is partly in error. Sir David Barclay, as we have already seen, was
brother-in-law to Sir Walter Newbigging, with whom he had entered into
a bond of manrent, by which they were mutually bound to appear in arms
in support of the same cause, provided it was not against the royal
prerogative. When we find both the surnames associated together on
this occasion, we may reasonably suppose they are the same persons who
contracted the obligation, and had thought the present a very proper
opportunity for acting upon it.[71]
“_Hugh de Dundas_ was the son of Serle de Dundas, who swore fealty
to Edward I. in 1296 and in 1300. His son, Sir Hugh, was a man of
singular merit and fortitude, and joined the brave Sir William Wallace
in defence of the liberties of Scotland, and embraced every opportunity
to exert his courage against the enemies of his country. He died in the
reign of King Robert Bruce, and was succeeded by his son.”--_Douglas’s
Scottish Baronage._
* * * * *
After the foregoing brief notices of the early companions of Wallace,
the curious reader may not be displeased, if, before concluding this
chapter, we present some account of the dress and armour in which our
hero appeared at the battle of Beg. The following description is from
the Minstrel, and is given with a minuteness which induces a belief
that it is a literal translation from the work of Blair, so often
mentioned;--it is at least of value, not only from its containing the
ideas entertained on the subject by a man of no mean genius, upwards
of three hundred years ago, but as it also agrees with the description
elsewhere handed down of the kind of armour in use at the period:--
“A habergione vndyr his goune he war,
A steylle capleyne in his bonet but mar;
His glowis of plait in claith war couerit weill,
In his doublet a closs coler of steyle;
His face he kepit, for it was euir bar,
With his twa handis, the quhilk full worthi war.”
_Buke Thryd_, p. 31.
The “_habergione_” was a piece of defensive armour early in use among
the Scots, and even worn by some Highlanders and Isles-men so late as
the 17th century. It was a sort of chain or ringed mail, extremely
light and flexible, allowing the greatest freedom to the motions of
the wearer, and was equally well adapted for combat on foot or on
horseback. It was variously constructed according to the prevailing
taste. The most approved were those brought from Asia by the crusaders,
in the early part of the reign of Alexander III. They consisted of four
rings joined to a fifth, and all rivetted;--they were sometimes double.
Towards the end of the 13th century, this description seems to have
been in general use, both in England and Scotland. They had the form of
shirts, and were quite impervious to an arrow.
The “_goune_” which the Minstrel alludes to, as covering the
“habergione,” we conceive to mean the surcoat, or coat of arms,--a
fashion introduced into Britain in the 13th century. It is thus
described by Dr Meyrick:--“The surcoat, which had been adopted by the
crusaders in the 13th century, to prevent their armour from being
heated by the sun’s rays, a mode still continued by the Mamelukes in
Egypt, was at first of merely variegated patterns, but soon became
embellished with the same armorial bearings as the shield;--hence, the
expression ‘coat of arms.’ It was a long loose dress, without sleeves,
open before and behind, for the convenience of riding, and girted round
the waist by the _cingulum militare_, or belt. It was put on over the
hauberk, and reached to the neck; and when the hood was placed on the
head, it was covered by it as far as the shoulders. The front and back
were emblazoned alike.”
This piece of dress appears to have been the same as the tabard. It is
thus taken notice of by Thomas Hearne: “_Tabard_, a jacket, jerkin,
mandilion, or sleeveless coat, worne in times past by noblemen in the
warrs; but now only by heralds, and is called their coat-of-arms
in service.” Verstegan tells us, in his _Restitution of Decayed
Intelligence_, “That _tabert_ was anciently a short gown, that reached
no further than the mid-leg, that it remaineth for the name of a gown
in Germanie and in the Netherlands, and that in England, it is now
the name only of _a herald’s coat_.” But what Stowe tells us, in his
_Survey of London_, is more remarkable, where, talking of several
fair inns in Southwark, he takes occasion to speak of the Tabard Inn
as the most ancient of them, and thereupon writes thus: “Amongst the
which innes, the most ancient is the Tabard, so called of the signe,
which, as wee now term it, is of a jacket, or sleevelesse coate,
whole before, open on both sides, with a square collar, winged at the
shoulders: a stately garment, of old time commonly worne of noblemen
and others, both at home and abroad in the wars; but then (to-wit, in
the warres) their armes embroidered, or otherwise depict upon them,
that every man by his coate of armes might bee knowne from others: But
now these tabards are onely worne by the heralds, and bee called their
coates-of-armes in service.” Allusion is also made, by Wyntown, to the
tabard of John Baliol, who, on being stript of the ensigns of royalty
by his _magnanimous_ conqueror, the “_pelure_” or fur, was also torn
from his tabard. The passage is curious:--
“This Jhon the Balliol on purpos
He tuk, and browcht hym til Mwnros;
And in the castell of that Town,
That than wes famows in renown,
This Jhon the Ballyol dyspoylyd he
Of all hys Robys of Ryaltè.
The Pelure thai tuk off hys Tabart,
(Twme Tabart he wes callyt eftyrwart.)”
_Wyntown_, vol. ii. p. 88.
The “_steylle capleyne_,” it is very likely, may have been taken from
the “_chapelle de fer_,” or “iron hat,” which, the same writer says,
had a rim and convex crown, and was worn over the capuchon or hood.
“After being placed on the head, it was kept from turning round, when
struck, by cords, with which it was fastened to the shoulders. The
effigy of Sir Roger de Trompington not only gives its form, but shows
that it was sometimes held to the body by means of a chain. It was
ornamented in front with a cross fleury, the transverse bar of which
was pierced with occularia, or openings for the sight.” That worn by
Wallace, however, does not appear to have had this advantage, for
“_His face he kepit, for it was euir bar,
With his twa handis._”
The limbs were usually defended at this time, by being encased in
boiled leather, on which knee-plates of iron, and guards for the
shin-bones, were fixed; these, with a round or triangular shield,
painted with the armorial bearings of the wearer, formed the defensive
armour of the period.
Wallace’s favourite weapon appears to have been a long and ponderous
two-handed sword, which his prodigious strength enabled him to wield
with the greatest ease.[72] The mace and spear were also at times
used by him; and for close rencounters in castles, peels, and other
confined situations, he was furnished with a dagger for each hand, of a
particular kind, having guards, which extended above the wrist, between
which the hand passed; and grasping a transverse bar about an inch
from the spring of the dagger, the weapon projected from the centre of
the first, like the horn of an unicorn. This sort of dagger was often
attached, by a kind of hinge, to the arm-plate, and could be folded
back under the arm between the wrist and the elbow when not in use, and
secured and concealed in that position by the cloth gloves, which our
hero appears to have worn over his “glowis of plate.”[73]
Having said thus much of the dress and equipment of Wallace, the
following anecdote respecting his strength and personal appearance, may
not be unacceptable to the reader; it is translated from Hector Boëce
by the learned editor of Morrison’s edition of Blind Harry, who thus
introduces it. “Though this author (Boëce) in general is not much to be
credited, yet it would be hard not to believe him in an instance which
happened near his own time, and in which, if he had spoken falsely, he
could immediately have been detected. The anecdote in another respect
is curious, as it affords an example of longevity, not unsimilar to
that of the Irish Countess of Desmond, who attained a still more
advanced age.
“The date is the year 1430. At that time, James I. was in Perth; and
perhaps having heard _Henry the Minstrel_[74] recite some of Wallace’s
exploits, found his curiosity excited to visit a noble lady of great
age, who was able to inform him of many ancient matters. She lived
in the castle of Kinnoul, on the opposite side of the river, and was
probably a widow of one of the Lords of Erskine, a branch of whose
family continued to be denominated from the barony of Kinnoul, till
about the year 1440. It was Boëce’s manner to relate an event as
circumstancially as if he had been one of the parties, and engaged
in it; I shall therefore give the anecdote in his own manner, by
translating his words:
“‘In consequence of her extreme old age, she had lost her sight,
but all her other senses were entire; and her body was yet firm and
lively; she had seen William Wallace and Robert Bruce, and frequently
told particulars concerning them. The King, who entertained a love
and veneration of greatness, resolved to visit the old lady, that he
might hear her describe the manners and strength of the two heroes,
who were admired in his time, as they now are in our’s. He therefore
sent a message, acquainting her that he was to come to her next day.
She received the message gratefully, and gave immediate orders to her
handmaids to prepare every thing for his reception in the best manner,
particularly that they should display her pieces of tapestry, some
of which were uncommonly rich and beautiful. All her servants became
busily employed, for their work was in some degree unusual, as she had
not for a long time been accustomed to receive princely visitors. The
next day, when told the King was approaching, she went down into the
hall of her castle, dressed with as much elegance and finery as her old
age and the fashion of the time would permit; attended by a train of
matrons, many of whom were her own descendants, of which number some
appeared more altered and disfigured by age than she herself was. One
of her matrons having informed her that the king was entering the
hall, she arose from her seat, and advanced to meet him so easily and
gracefully, that he doubted of her being wholly blind. At his desire
she embraced and kissed him. Her attendant assured him that she was
wholly blind; but that, from long custom, she had acquired these easy
movements. He took her by the hand and sat down, desiring her to sit
on the same seat next to him. And then, in a long conference, he
interrogated her respecting ancient matters. He was much delighted with
her conversation. Among other things, he asked her to tell him what
sort of a man William Wallace was? what was his personal figure? what
his courage? and with what degree of strength he was endowed? He put
the same questions to her concerning Bruce. Robert, she said, was a man
beautiful, and of a fine appearance. His strength was so great, that he
could easily have overcome any mortal man of his time:--But in so far
as he excelled other men, he was excelled by Wallace, both in stature
and in bodily strength; for, in wrestling, Wallace could have overcome
two such men as Robert was.
“‘The King made some inquiries concerning his own immediate parents,
and his other ancestors; and having heard her relate many things,
returned to Perth, well pleased with the visit he had made.’” (_Boeth.
Hist._ i. xvii.)