of Roslin; and the renown which has in consequence attached itself to
his name, will perhaps render the following notice of him acceptable.
* * * * *
_Simon de Fraser_ was the eldest son of Simon de Frazer, the ancestor
of the baronial houses of Saltoun and Lovat; and is supposed to have
been a near connexion of William Frazer, Bishop of St Andrew’s, whose
politics he appears in his early years to have adopted; for, when
he was taken prisoner on the surrender of the castle of Dunbar in
1296, he swore fealty to Edward, and remained faithful to the English
interest till 1302. He was repeatedly summoned to fight against his
countrymen, particularly on 26th September 1298, and 7th May 1299. He
also figured at the siege of Carlaverock in 1300 as a Baron;--in the
same year, he was appointed Warden of the Forest of Selkirk, and, by
that designation, the truce between the two countries was announced to
him on the 30th October. In the same year, the sum of 64_l._ 18s. is
charged in the Wardrobe Account, as having been paid him as the wages
of himself and a retinue of three knights and twelve esquires, from
13th July till 3d September, at which time his horses were valued, and
hire for 59 days allowed him. There is also an allowance of 17_l._
6s. 8d. for the maintenance of his wife Lady Mary, her daughters and
family, living in the castle of Jedworth, by the grant of the King,
from Christmas till St John Baptist’s day, 26 weeks, at a merk per
week, as per agreement with the Steward of Berwick-upon-Tweed.[100] On
his withdrawing from Edward, he joined Comyn, and gained the battle
of Roslin, as has already been observed. When the English afterwards
succeeded in subduing Scotland, a severe penalty was inflicted upon
him; he was banished from all the territories belonging to, or under
the influence of England, for three years, and his rents for that time
forfeited. In 1306 he joined Bruce; but having unfortunately fallen
into the hands of the enemy, he was conveyed to London and ordered by
Edward for execution;--after being drawn and quartered, his head was
fixed upon London Bridge. “But,” says Mr Nicholas, “a much more minute
and curious account is given of the tragical termination of Frazer’s
life in a fragment of an inedited chronicle in the British Museum of
the 15th century,[101] from which Mr Ritson printed the subjoined
extract in illustration of a poem which will be more fully noticed.
“The fryday next before assumpcioun of oure lady, King Edeward mette
Robert the Brus bisides seynt Johns toune in Scotland and with his
companye, of whiche companye King Edewarde quelde sevene thowsand. When
Robert the Brus saw this myschif, and gan to flee, and hovd hym that
men mygte nougt hym fynde, but S^r Simond Frisell pursuede hym socore,
so that he turnede ayen and abode bataille, for he was a worthy knyght
and a bolde of body, and the Englisshe men pursuede hym sore yn every
syde, and quelde the stede that S^r Symond Frisell rood uppon, and ther
toke hym and lad hym to the host. And S^r Symond began for to flater
and speke faire, and saide, Lordys, I shall yeve you iiij thousand
marke of sylver, and myne hors and harneys, and all my armure and
vicome. Tho answerd Theobaude of Pevenes, that was the Kinge’s archer,
Now God me so helpe hit is for nougt that thou spexte, for alle the
gold of Engelonde I wold the noght lete gone withoute commaundement of
King Edeward. And tho was he lad to the King. And the King wolde not
see hym, but commaunded to lede hym awey to his dome to London on our
Ladyes even nativite, and he was honge and drawe, & his heede smyten
of, and honged ayene with chynes of jren oppon the galwes, and his hede
was sette oppon London brug on a sper. And ayens Cristesmasse the body
was brent, for enchesoun that the men that kepte the body by nyghte
sawe menye devellis rampande with jren crokes, rennynge uppon the
gallews, and horribliche tormented the body; and meny that ham sawe,
anoon after thei deied for dred, or woxen mad, or sore sykenesse thei
had.”
In one of the Harleian manuscripts,[102] there is a ballad written on
the subject, a few years after the circumstance took place, and which
was published by Ritson.[103] The following stanzas are so extremely
interesting, from the manner in which Frazer is alluded to, that,
notwithstanding the length to which they extend, it is impossible to
avoid inserting them. After noticing the capture and the fate of his
unfortunate companions, the poet says:
“Thenne saide the iustice that gentil is ant fre,
Sire Simond Frysel, the Kynges traytour hast thou be,
In water ant in londe that monie myhten se,
What sayst thou thareto, how wolt thou quite the?
Do say.
Sa foul he him wiste,
Nede waron truste
Forto segge nay.
Ther he was ydemed, so hit wes londes lawe,
For that he wes lordswyk furst he wes to drawe,
Upon a retheres hude forth he wes ytuht,
Sum while in ys time he wes a modi knycht,
In huerte.
Wickednesse and sunne
Hit is lutel wunne,
That maketh the body smerte.
For al is grete poer yet he wes ylaht,
Falsnesse and swykedom al hit g’eth to nacht,
Tho he wes in Scotlond lutel wes ys thoht,
Of the harde iugement that him wes bysocht
In stounde.
He wes foursithe forswore
To the King ther bifore,
And that him brohte to grounde.
With feteres and with gyves ichot he wes to drowe,
From the tour of Londone, that monie myhte knowe,
In a curtel of burel aselkethe wyse,
Ant a gerland on ys heued of the newe gwyse,
Thurh Cheepe
Moni mon of Engelonde,
For to se Symond,
Thideward con lepe.
Tho he come to galewes furst he wes an honge,
Al quick byheueded, thah him thohte longe,
Seth the he wes yopened, is boweles ybrend,
The heued to Londone brugge wes send,
To shonde:
So ich ever mote the
Sum while wende he
Thes lutel to stonde.
He rideth thourh the site as y telle may,
With gomen and wyth solas, that wes here play,
To Londone brugge hee nome the way,
Moni wes the wyves chil that ther on laketh a day,
Ant seide alas
That he was ibore,
And so villiche forlore,
So feir mon ase he was.
Now stont the heued above the tubrugge,
Faste bi Waleis, soth forte sugge,
After socour of Scotlond longe he mowe prye,
Ant after help of Fraunce, met halt hit to lye,
Ich wene.
Betere him were in Scotlond,
With is ar in ys hond,
To pleyen othe grene.
Ant the body hongeth at the galewes faste
With yrnene claspes longe to laste,
Forte wyte wel the body, and Scottysh to garste,
Foure and twenti the beoth to sothe ate laste,
By nychte,
Yef eny were so hardi
The body to remny,
Also to dyhte.”
Fraser left two daughters, his co-heirs, one of whom married Sir
Patrick Fleming, ancestor of the Earls of Wigton; and the other named
Mary, was the wife of Sir Gilbert Hay, ancestor of the Marquess of
Tweedale. From Alexander Fraser his brother the Barons Saltoun and
Lovat descended.
The arms of Simon Frazer were, sable, semée of roses argent; but the
descendants of his brother bear, azure, three cinque foils argent.
After this notice of so distinguished a leader among the Scots, the
reader may reasonably be supposed to feel some curiosity respecting the
English general,
SIR JOHN SEGRAVE.
From the researches of Mr Nicolas, it appears that this eminent Baron
was the eldest son of Nicholas Baron Segrave; and at his father’s
death, in the 23d Edward I., was thirty-nine years of age. In the
54th Henry III., he married Christian, daughter of Hugh de Plessets,
knight, and at the same time, his sister Amabil became the wife of
his brother-in-law, Sir John de Plessets. Soon after the accession of
Edward I., he was engaged in the wars of Scotland, and in the 13th
Edward I. he attended the King in his expedition into Wales. In the
19th Edward I. he was with his father in the Scottish wars; and in the
24th Edward I. executed the office of Constable of the English army.
Dugdale asserts, that in the 25th Edward I., John de Segrave was, by
indenture, retained to serve Roger le Bigot, Earl of Norfolk, the Earl
Marshal, with six knights, including himself, as well in peace as war,
for the term of his whole life, in England, Wales, and Scotland, with
the following retinue:--In time of peace, with six horses, so long as
the Earl should think fit, taking _bouche of court_ for himself and six
knights; and for his esquires hay and oats, together with livery for
six more horses, and wages for six grooms and their horses. He was also
to receive two robes for himself, as for a banneret, yearly, as well
in peace as in war, with the same robes for each of his five knights,
and two robes annually for his other bachelors. In war, he was bound to
bring with him his five knights and twenty horses, in consideration of
which, he was to receive for himself and his company, with all the said
horses, xl s. per diem; but if he should bring no more than six horses,
then xxij s. per diem. It was further agreed, that the horses should be
valued, in order that proper allowance might be made, in case any of
them should happen to be lost in the service; and, for the performance
of this agreement, he had a grant from the Earl of the manor of Lodene
in Norfolk.
The preceding document has been cited nearly in Dugdale’s own words,
because at the same time that it affords much information with respect
to the retinue by which Segrave was attended to the field, it proves
that he was intimately connected with the Earl Marshal, which tends to
explain his having in the same year, namely, on the 12th August, 25th
Edward I. 1297, been appointed by the Earl to appear in his name before
the King, in obedience to a precept directed to him and the Constable,
commanding them to attend him on the subject of a body of armed men
which had assembled in London. The record states, that on the appointed
day, the Earl of Hereford as Constable, and “Mons^r John de Segrave,
qui excusa le Comte Mareschal par maladie,” came accordingly.[104] In
the 25th Edward I., this baron was also summoned to accompany the King
beyond the sea, and afterwards at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, with horse and
arms; and, in the next year, was present when the English army gained
the victory of Falkirk. In the 28th Edward I., he was again summoned to
serve in the wars of Scotland, in which year, when he must have been
about forty-five years old, he was at the siege of Carlaverock. The
account given of him by the poet, that he performed the Earl Marshal’s
duties upon that occasion, because that nobleman was prevented from
attending, is not only strongly corroborated by the preceding statement
of his having acted as deputy of the Earl Marshal in the year 1297, but
also by the following extract from Peter de Langtoft’s chronicle (p.
309.), when speaking of the expedition into Scotland in 1300.
“After Midesomers tide thorgh comon ordinance,
No lenger suld thei bide, bot forth & stand to chance.
Norreis & Surreis, that seruice auht the kyng,
With hors & harneis at Carlele mad samnyng.
The erle Marschalle Rogere no hele that tyme mot haue,
He went with his banere Sir Jon the Segraue,
To do alle tho service that longed the office tille,
& mayntend alle the prise, ther he sauh lawe & skille.”
After Carlaverock castle surrendered, Segrave’s banner, from his having
acted as Marshal during the siege, was displayed on its battlements. In
the 30th of Edward I., he was a party to the Letter from the Barons to
the Pope, in which he is styled “John Lord of Segrave;” and about that
time was appointed Governor of Berwick, and Warden of Scotland. In the
same year, whilst riding out of Berwick with a small escort, he was
surprised by an ambuscade of the Scots, wounded, and taken prisoner;
which event is thus noticed by Langtoft (p. 319.)
“Our men in Scotland with sautes sodeynly,
The Segrave myght not stand, Sir Jon tok the gayn stie.
His sonne & his brother of bedde als thei woke,
& sextene knyghtes other, the Scottis alle them toke.”
His captivity was however, it appears, of short duration; for, on
Edward’s return to England, Segrave was left as his Lieutenant of
Scotland. At different periods during the reign of Edward I., he
obtained grants of free warren and other privileges in several of his
manors, and possessed that elevated place in his sovereign’s confidence
and esteem, which his long and zealous services so justly merited.
Nor was he less distinguished by his successor, for soon after the
accession of Edward II., he was constituted Governor of Nottingham
castle, which had belonged to Piers de Gaveston, and was likewise
appointed to his situation of Justice of the Forests beyond the Trent,
and Keeper of all the Rolls thereto belonging; but he resigned these
offices in the following year, when they were conferred upon Henry
de Percy. In the 2d Edward II., he was again appointed Warden of
Scotland; in the 6th Edward II. he was taken prisoner at the battle
of Bannockburn, and about twelve months afterwards Thomas de Moram
and several other Scots, then prisoners in the Tower of London, were
delivered to Stephen de Segrave, son and heir of the Baron, to be
exchanged for him. In the 8th Edward II., commissioners were appointed
to hear and determine all disputes relative to the taking up of
carriages by him or his agent, in consequence of his offices of Keeper
of the Forests beyond the Trent, and of the castles of Nottingham
and Derby. He was summoned upon several occasions to serve in the
Scottish wars during the early part of the reign of Edward II., and
to Parliament from the 26th August, 24th Edward I., 1296, to the 6th
May, 18th Edward II., 1325. In the 10th Edward II., in recompence of
his great services, and of his imprisonment in Scotland, he received a
grant of L.1000; but what was then due to the crown for money received
by him from the time of his appointment of Warden of the Forests beyond
the Trent and Governor of Nottingham Castle, was to be deducted from
that sum.
The tide of royal favour at last turned, and he accidentally fell a
victim to the displeasure of his sovereign. Having, in 1325, excited
Edward’s anger by the escape of Roger Lord Mortimer from the Tower,
he sent Segrave and the Earl of Kent into Gascony, under the pretence
of defending that province, where he was attacked with a disease then
prevalent there, of which he shortly afterwards died, aged about
seventy years, leaving John de Segrave, his grandson, son of his eldest
son Stephen, who died in his lifetime, his heir.
The preceding unadorned narrative of John de Segrave’s services
forms a splendid monument of his fame: for, whilst the impossibility
of colouring the biography of his contemporaries with meretricious
ornaments of language, is strongly felt when their actions are few or
obscure, the absence of such assistance tends to the advantage of those
who need no other eulogy than the simple record of the occasions upon
which they were present in the field, or were selected to execute high
and important duties.
John de Segrave, the next Baron, added to the honours of his ancestors
in an unprecedented manner, by marrying Margaret, the daughter and
heiress of Thomas de Brotherton, Marshal of England, younger son of
King Edward I. Through the marriage of Elizabeth, their daughter and
heiress, with John Lord Mowbray, that family attained the Marshalship
of England. The present representatives of John Baron Segrave, the
subject of this article, are the Lords Stourton and Petre and the Earl
of Berkley. The arms of John de Segrave were sable, a lion rampant,
argent, crowned or.
M.
EXTRACTS FROM THE WARDROBE ACCOUNTS.
Page 120.
This, of course, is mere conjecture on the part of the author; but
that he has, at least, probability on his side, may be inferred from
the extraordinary outlay attending the Scottish expeditions, as proved
by the following extracts from the Wardrobe Accounts--exhibiting the
Revenue and Expenditure of Edward for the year 1300, and including the
disbursements occasioned by the invasion of Scotland during that year:--
Total amount of receipts, p. Exchequer, for this
present 28. year of Edward I. -- L.49,048 19 10
Fines levied, and proceeds of stores, horses, &c.
sold 9,106 16 2½
---------------
Per fo. 15. L.58,155 16 0½
===============
Charges on Scottish War.
For royal garrisons and castles in Scotland,
fo. 154. L.18,638 1 8
... replacing horses killed or destroyed in King’s
service, belonging to knights, and officers,
and gratification to messengers, servants,
&c. fo. 187. 4,386 4 5
... annual fees to knights of King’s household,
wages of bannerets and simple knights, &c.
fo. 210. 3,077 19 0
... wages of engineers, archers, sergeants-at-arms
of King’s household, esquires, &c.
fo. ix. Observ. on W. A. 1,038 10 7
... wages of foot-soldiers, crossbow-men, archers,
artificers and workmen, fo. 270. 4,446 9 11½
... wages of seamen belonging to the fleet of the
Cinque Ports and other towns, employed
in the King’s service, fo. 279. 1,233 9 8
-------------
Amount of charges for the year L.32,820 15 3½
* * * * *
Separate Disbursements.
Alms and charitable donations of the King and
his family, fo. 47. L.1,166 14 6
Necessaries for the King’s household, travelling
expenses, ambassadors, messengers to Court
of Rome, wages of King’s servants _not_ on
the Marshall’s roll, &c. (Observ. on W. A.
fo. viii.) 3,338 19 3
Expenses of messengers and others, despatched
on King’s business, fo. 303. 87 11 1
Falconers, huntsmen, &c. fo. 309 77 6 11½
Allowance to bannerets, knights, clerks, and
other servants of the King’s household for
their winter and summer robes, fo. 331. 714 3 4
Expenses of sundry furnishings for the Royal
household, including separate expenses of the
Queen and her household, amounting to
L.3668, 2s. 9d., and Chancellor’s fee, amounting
to L.581, 9s. 9d. fo. 360. 15,575 18 5½
“The account then states the payments contained
in this book to amount to L.53,178 15 0
“To which are added the expenses of the household
contained in a separate account, amounting
to L.10,969 16 0½
---------------
And “the whole of the national expenditure,
within this department, during one entire
year,” is stated at L.64,105 0 5
==============
It is added, “The account is corrected and
approved by the comptroller in every page;
but the balance is not struck. If we take,
however, the sum told of the money received,
which amounted to L.58,155 16 2
And deduct it from the money paid, we shall
find a balance due to the accountant, amounting
to 5,949 4 3”
=============
On data furnished by the ascertained difference in the value of silver
in 1300, which is stated to be “_thrice_ as much” as it was in 1700,
and the comparative value of certain provisions, estimated, as being
in 1300, “_five_ times as cheap” as in 1700. Bishop Fleetwood “makes
the difference of the value of a shilling between the two periods
to be fifteen;” and it is added, “supposing this calculation to be
well-founded, computations might be made, so as to form a judgment of
the difference between the latter of those periods and the present
time.”--(_Vide_ p. xii. Observations on Wardrobe Account, 1787.)
An estimate of the expense of the Scottish war, according to this mode
of computation, would therefore present the following result, for
(1700) the period alluded to by Bishop Fleetwood:--
Charges on Scottish war for 1300 L.32,820 15 3½
For difference in the weight of silver 3
--------------
L.98,462 5 10½
For the variation in the value of money 5
--------------
L.492,311 9 4½
being an increase of the sum of 32,820_l._ 15s. 3½d. of the year 1300,
to 492,311_l._ 9s. 4½d., or nearly _one-eighth_ of 3,895,205_l._, the
revenue of the kingdom in the reign of William III., according to
Sir John Sinclair:--while, from a statement by the same respectable
authority, the whole revenue of the kingdom under Edward I. is
estimated at 150,000_l_; the disbursements for the Scottish war will
therefore be found to exceed, within one department of the national
expenditure, _one-fifth_ of the national income.
N.
TRIAL OF WALLACE.
Page 158.
“William Wallace, which had oft-times set Scotland in great trouble,
was taken and brought to London, with great numbers of men and women
wondering upon him. _He was lodged in the house of William Delect, a
citizen of London, in Fenchurch Street._ On the morrow, being the eve
of St Bartholomew, he was brought on horseback to Westminster-hall;
John Segrave and Geoffrey, knights, the mayor, sheriffs, and aldermen
of London, _many, both on horseback and on foot_, accompanying him;
and in the great hall at Westminster, _he being placed on the south
bench_, crowned with laurel, for that he had said in times past that he
ought to wear a crown in that hall, as it was commonly reported; and
being appeached as a traitor by Sir Peter Malorie, the King’s Justice,
he answered _that he was no traitor to the King of England_; but for
other things whereof he was accused, he confessed them, and was, after,
headed and quartered.”--_Stow. Chron._ p. 209.
O.
ON THE MARTYRDOM OF WALLACE.
Page 159.
The following account is given by Langtoft of the capture, sentence,
and execution of Wallace:
“A! Jhesu, when thou wille how rightwis is thi mede?
That of the wrong has gilt, the endying may thei drede.
William Waleis is nomen, that maister was of theues,
Tething to the Kyng is comen, that robberie mischeues.
Sir Jon of Menetest sewed William so nehi.
He tok him whan he wend lest, on nyght his leman bi.
That was thorght treson of Jak Schort his man,
He was the encheson, that Sir Jon so him nam,
Jak brother had he slayn, the Waleis that is said,
The more Jak was fayn, to do William that braid.
Selcouthly he endis the man that is fals,
If he trest on his frendes, thei begile him als.
Begiled is William, taken is & bondon,
To Inglond with him thei cam, & led him vnto London,
The first dome he fanged, for treson was he drawen.
For robbrie was he hanged, & for he had men slawen,
& for he had brent abbies, & men of religion,
Eft fro the galweis quik thei lete him doun,
& boweld him alle hote, & brent tham in the fire.
His hede than of smote, suilk was William hire;
& for he had mayntend the werre at his myght,
On lordschip lended thore he had no right,
& stroied those he knewe, in fele stede sers
His body thai hewe on foure quarters,
To hang in foure tounes, to mene of his maners
In stede of Gonfaynounes, & of his baners.
At London is his heued, his quarters ere leued, in Scotland spred,
To wirschip her iles, & lere of his wiles, how wele that he sped.
It is not to drede, traytour salle spede, als he is worthi,
His lif salle he tyne, & die thorgh pyne, withouten merci.
Thus may men here, a ladde for to lere, to biggen in pays;
It fallis in his iye, that hewes ouer hie, with the Walays.”
Vol. ii. p. 329. 330.
“The martyrdom of Wallace,” says the editor of Wyntoun’s Chronicle, “is
thus described, in a ballad written about a year after, when the head
of Sir Simon Frazer, one of the heroes of Roslin, was set up beside
those of Wallace and Lewellyn, the last sovereign of Wales.
“To warny alle the gentilmen, that liueth in Scotlonde.}
The Waleis wes to drawe seththe he wes anhonge, } to abyde.
Al quic biheueded, ys boweles ybrend, }
The heued to Londone brugge wes send
* * * * *
Sire Edward oure Kyng, that ful ys of pietè, }
The Waleis quarters sende to is oune contre, } Ant drede.”
On four half to honge, huere myrour to be, }
Ther-apon to thenche, that manie myhten se, }
_MS. Harl. No. 2253, f. 59, b. Trivet._ p. 340.
“Thus did Edward glut his vengeance on the dead body of this worthy
man, whose living soul all his power never could subdue.
“Some of the English historians have stained their pages with low
invectives against Wallace. Carte, in particular [Hist. v. ii. p.
290.], labours hard to prove him a traitor to King Edward, whose
_mercy_ he praises. That he was a traitor, he proves from his being a
native of Galloway, _or_ the Cambrian territories, which, _he says_,
the kings of Scotland held in vassalage of the crown of England, and
because the subvassals were, in cases of rebellion, subject by the
feudal law to the same forfeitures and penalties as the immediate
vassal.
“A man must feel himself very much pinched for arguments, when he
has recourse to such as are confessedly not founded on reason, and
to quibbles and perversion of facts. Clydesdale, the ancient kingdom
of Strathcluyd, one of the first independent kingdoms established
in Britain by the expulsion of the Romans, which for many centuries
withstood the attacks of the Angles, Pichts, Scots, and Norwegians,
and had the honour to produce STEWART, DOUGLAS, and WALAYS, was never
pretended to be any part of the territories of which the kings of
England claimed the superiority. So the pretence that Walays was a
traitor, in consequence of the place of his birth, falls to the ground;
and the pretence of rebellion is equally unfounded, unless the noble
exertions of a free people against the unjustifiable attempts of a
neighbouring prince to subject them to his dominion, are to be branded
with the name of rebellion. Well may the spirit of the noble Walays
forgive those writers for accusing him of inhumanity and rebellion,
who have extolled the clemency of Edward I.”--_Notes to Wyntoun’s
Chronicle_, vol. ii. p. 503.
The inclination to detract from the merits of Wallace, does not appear
to have become entirely extinct among the historians of England. Dr
Lingard thus expresses himself respecting our hero: “It may perhaps
offend the national partiality of some among my readers, but I greatly
suspect that Wallace owes his celebrity as much to his execution as
to his exploits. Of all the Scottish chieftains who deserved and
experienced the enmity of Edward, he alone perished on the gallows;
and on this account his fate called forth and monopolized the sympathy
of his countrymen.”--Vol. iii. p. 227.
On this Mr Tytler remarks, “It is not true, that of all the Scottish
chieftains who deserved Edward’s enmity, Wallace was the only one who
perished on the gallows. Sir Nigel Bruce, Sir Christopher Seton, John
Seton, the Earl of Athol, Sir Simon Fraser, Sir Herbert de Morham,
Thomas Boys, Sir David Inchmartin, Sir John de Somerville, Sir Thomas
and Sir Alexander Bruce, both brothers of the king, and Sir Reginald
Crawfurd, were all hanged by Edward’s orders in the course of the
year 1306, within a year of the execution of Wallace. So much for the
accuracy of the ground on which Lingard has founded his conjecture,
that Wallace owes his celebrity ‘to his execution.’”
Respecting the inaccuracies of Dr Lingard on this subject, we shall
give another extract from the same authority. “He,” Dr Lingard
“observes, that after the surprise of Ormesby the Justiciary, by
Wallace and Douglas, other independent chieftains arose in different
counties, who massacred the English, and compelled their own countrymen
to fight under their standards. These other independent chieftains are
brought in ‘for the nonce’ by Dr Lingard. They are utterly unknown
to the contemporary historians, English and Scottish. But they do
not appear upon the stage without a use. On the contrary, they first
multiply like Falstaff’s men in buckram, ‘into numerous parties,’ and
then act a principal part in the next sentence; for the historian
goes on to observe, ‘that the origin and progress of _these numerous
parties_ had been viewed with secret satisfaction by the Steward of
Scotland, and Wishart the Bishop of Glasgow, who determined to collect
them into one body, and to give their efforts one common direction.
Declaring themselves the assertors of Scottish independence, they
invited the different leaders to rally around them; and the summons was
obeyed by Wallace and Douglas, by Sir Alexander Lindsay, Sir Andrew
Moray, and Sir Richard Lundy,’ vol. iii. p. 305. This last sentence is
one of pure and gratuitous invention, without a shadow of historical
authority to support it. The numerous and independent parties and
chieftains who rose in different counties--the silent satisfaction with
which they were contemplated by the Bishop of Glasgow and the High
Steward--their determination to collect them into one body, and to give
them one common direction--their declaring themselves the assertors
of Scottish independence--their summons to the different leaders to
rally round them, and the prompt obedience of this summons by Wallace,
Douglas, and the rest--are facts created by the ingenuity of the
historian. They seem to be introduced for the purpose of diminishing
the reputation of Wallace; and the impression they leave on the mind
of the reader, appears to me to be one totally different from the
truth. The Steward and the Bishop of Glasgow are the patriot chiefs
under whom Douglas and Wallace, and many other independent chieftains
consent to act for the recovery of Scottish freedom; and Wallace sinks
down into the humble partisan, whose talents are directed by their
superior authority and wisdom. Now, the fact is exactly the reverse of
this. The Steward and Wishart, encouraged by the successes of Wallace
and Douglas, joined their party, and acted along with them in their
attempt to free Scotland; but neither Fordun, nor Wynton, nor Bower
gives us the slightest ground to think that they acted a principal
part, or any thing like a principal part, in organizing the first
rising against Edward. On the contrary, these historians, along with
Trivet and Walsingham, Tyrrel and Carte, ascribe the rising to Wallace
alone, whose early success first caused him to be joined by Douglas,
and afterwards by the Bishop and the Steward, along with Lindsay,
Moray, and Lundy. Indeed, instead of playing the part ascribed to him
by Lingard, the patriotism of the Steward and the Bishop, was of that
lukewarm and short-lived kind which little deserves the name. It did
not outlive eight weeks; and they seized the first opportunity to
desert Wallace and the cause of freedom. The attack upon Ormesby the
Justiciary took place some time in May 1297; and on the 9th of July of
the same year, did Bishop Wishart, this patriot assertor of Scottish
independence, negociate the treaty of Irvine, by which he and the
other Scottish barons, with the single exception of Wallace and Sir
Andrew Moray of Bothwell, submitted to Edward. Lingard’s other hero,
the High Steward, who is brought in to divide the glory with Wallace,
was actually in the English service at the battle of Stirling; and
although he secretly favoured the Scottish cause, he did not openly
join his countrymen till he saw the entire destruction of Surrey’s
army. I may remark, in concluding this note, that the idea of an attack
upon Wallace, and an eulogy on the clemency of Edward, has probably not
even the merit of originality. It appears to be borrowed from Carte,
vol. ii. p. 290; but it is only the idea which is taken. The clumsy
and absurd argument of Carte is discarded, and a far more ingenious
hypothesis, with a new set of facts, is substituted in its place. On
reading over Hemingford again, I find one expression which may perhaps
have suggested this theory of Lingard. Hemingford says, speaking of
Bruce, p. 120, that he joined the Bishop of Glasgow and the Steward,
‘qui tocius mali fabricatores exstiterant.’ Yet this is inconsistent
with his own account in p. 118, and is not corroborated, so far as I
know, by any other historian.”
Among other singular passages in the work of the learned Doctor, we
cannot omit taking notice of the following: “The only great battles
in which Wallace is known to have fought, are those of Stirling and
Falkirk. In the first he was victorious; but he must share the glory
of the action with Sir Andrew Murray, who was certainly his equal in
command, perhaps his superior. In the second he was defeated, and the
defeat was the most disastrous that Scotland ever experienced. In the
history of the next five years, his name is scarcely ever mentioned.”
Scottish historians never pretended that there was any battle of
equal importance to those of Stirling and Falkirk, in which Wallace
was engaged. But where Dr Lingard could get his information, that
Sir Andrew Murray held a superior, or even an _equal command_ with
him, it is not easy to conjecture. In Scottish authors, evidences to
the contrary are innumerable; and if Dr Lingard had not preferred
substituting his own “perhaps,” in place of historical record, he might
have proofs in direct opposition to the statement he has made, and
that even from English authors, with whom he appears to be familiar.
At the treaty of Irvine, for the submission of the Scottish barons,
when all deserted Wallace but Sir Andrew Murray, it is mentioned in the
instrument as having been notified to Wallace “Escrit à Sire Willaume,”
and the name of Sir Andrew is not even alluded to. This would certainly
not have been the case, had he held even an equal command, much less a
superior.--_Fœdera, T._ ii. p. 774.
In the Chronicle of Langtoft, page 297, we have an account of the
battle of Stirling, which is thus introduced:--
“The rascail of ther route bigan to werre alle newe,
Now Edward is oute, the barons be not treue.
The suffred, as it sais, the Scottis eft to rise,
& William the Walais _ther hed & ther justise_.
Thorgh fals concelement William did his wille,
Our castels has he brent, our men slayn fulle ille.”
The chronicler, after telling us that Wallace was the _head and
justice of the Scots_--expressions which embrace a pretty extensive
prerogative--proceeds to narrate the operations of the day, in which he
speaks of Wallace as the only commander opposed to Warren: nor does he
even hint of any individual who had a right to “divide the glory” of
the victory with him: on the contrary he says,
“The Inglis were alle slayn, the Scottis bare them wele,
The Waleis had the wayn, als maistere of that eschele.”
Sir Andrew Murray is not even mentioned by Langtoft. That he fought
bravely, and died nobly in defence of his country, is what no one
will attempt to deny, and the same might be said of many more who
were present on that occasion; but being the only man amongst a timid
and backsliding aristocracy, who acted with patriotism and spirit
in so trying a time, his name has been handed down to the grateful
remembrance of posterity.
“In the next five years,” adds Dr Lingard, the “name” of Wallace “is
scarcely ever mentioned.” When Scottish affairs are concerned, and
more particularly when the character of her deliverer is the subject
adverted to, a reference to authorities appears to be extremely
irksome, or attended with too much trouble to our learned author. In
the present instance, however, we shall not ask him to go farther
than the pages of his own work, where he will find matter that might
lead him to suspect the truth of the above assertion, as well as
the correctness of the view he has taken of the grounds on which
our patriot’s popularity is founded. We are informed (vol. iii. p.
227), “The only man whose enmity could give him” (Edward) a “moment’s
uneasiness, was Wallace, and in few months he was brought captive
to London.” And again, vol. iii. p. 329, “If the fate of Wallace
was different from all others, it proves that there was something
peculiar in his case which rendered him less deserving of mercy.” If
we are to credit our author’s statements, Edward must have been a more
nervous character than he has ever been supposed to be, if he could
feel “uneasiness” at “the enmity” of a man who had been thus buried
in obscurity, and whose “name had scarcely been heard of for five
years,”--one who, in the only great battle in which he was successful,
held but a subordinate command, and acted during the insurrection
in the humble character of a mere partisan, under the direction of
others. Surely there was nothing peculiarly aggravating in the case
of such a man, to have “rendered him less deserving of mercy” than
his more guilty superiors, particularly from _one_ whom our author
informs us “was _not_ a blood-thirsty tyrant.” It is strange that it
did not appear to Dr Lingard, as a very high degree of praise, that
after Wallace had been deprived, by the severe and sanguinary policy of
Edward, of all resources save what arose from his own dauntless heart
and irresistible arm, that he should still continue to be the only man
_whose_ “enmity” could give the oppressor of his country “a moment’s
uneasiness.” From this circumstance, and from this alone, arose that
“something peculiar” in his case which rendered him obnoxious to the
tender mercies of Edward. In conclusion, we cannot help remarking,
that the Doctor’s method of substituting, where his prejudices happen
to be interested, his own theoretical conjectures, in opposition to
the authentic records of the country, is rather an indirect way to the
confidence of his reader.
P.
PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF WALLACE.
P. 162.
From the following passage in the Minstrel it would seem, that a
portrait of Wallace had been taken during his short stay in France,
and forwarded to his friends in Scotland. What afterwards became of
this precious relic, cannot now be discovered. Though there are many
likenesses of him to be met with in the country, yet the pretensions to
originality of all those we have yet seen, are extremely questionable.
It would be difficult for a blind man to give his ideas of a picture in
more appropriate language than the following.
“The wyt off Frans thocht Wallace to commend;
In to Scotland, with this harrold, thai send
Part off his deid, and als the discriptioune
Off him tane thar, be men off discretioun,
Clerkis, knychtis, and harroldis, that him saw;
Bot I hereoff can nocht reherss thaim aw.”
The description of Wallace, in the following lines, places the genius
of Henry in a very favourable light. It is evidently the effort of a
master, and might be studied to advantage by the artist who intended
to commit his ideas of the hero of Scotland to canvas:--
“Wallace statur, off gretness, and off hycht,
Was jugyt thus, be discretioun off rycht,
That saw him bath dissembill and in weid;
Nyne quartaris large he was in lenth indeid;
Thryd part lenth in schuldrys braid was he,
Rycht sembly, strang, and lusty for to se;
Hys lymmys gret, with stalwart paiss and sound,
Hys browys hard, his armes gret and round;
His handis maid rycht lik till a pawmer,
Off manlik mak, with naless gret and cler;
Proportionyt lang and fayr was his wesage;
Rycht sad off spech, and abill in curage;
Braid breyst and heych, with sturdy crag and gret,
His lyppys round, his noyss was squar and tret;
Bowand bron haryt, on browis and breis lycht,
Cler aspre eyn, lik dyamondis brycht.
Wndir the chyn, on the left syd, was seyn,
Be hurt, a wain; his colour was sangweyn.
Woundis he had in mony diuerss place,
Bot fayr and weill kepyt was his face.
Off ryches he kepyt no propyr thing;
Gaiff as he wan, lik Alexander the King.
In tym off pes, mek as a maid was he;
Quhar wer approchyt the rycht Ector was he.
To Scottis men a gret credens he gaiff;
Bot knawin enemyss thai couth him nocht disayff.
Thir properteys was knawin in to Frans,
Off him to be in gud remembrans.”
Book ix. 1909-1942.
The subjoined extract, from Fordun, fully corroborates the statements
from the Minstrel:--
“Erat staturâ procerus, corpore giganteus, facie serenus, vultu
jocundus, humeris latus, ossibus grossus, ventre congruus, lateribus
protelus, aspectu gratus, sed visu ferus; renibus amplus, brachiis et
cruribus vigorosus; pugil acerrimus, et omnibus artubus fortissimus
et compactus. Insuper sic eum Altissimus et ipsius vultum varium
quâdam hilaritate favorabili insigniverat, ita dicta et facta
illius quodam cœlesti dono gratificaverat ut omnia fidorum corda
Scotorum solo aspectu sibi conciliaret in gratiam et favorem. Et nec
mirum: erat enim in donis liberalissimus, in judiciis æquissimus, in
consolatione tristium compatientissimus, in consilio peritissimus,
sufferentia patientissimus, in locutione luculentissimus,--super
omnia falsitatem et mendacia prosequens, ac proditionem detestans;
propter quod fuit Dominus cum eo, per quem erat vir incunctis prosperé
agens; ecclesiam venerans, ecclesiasticos reverens, pauperes et
viduas sustentans, pupillos et orphanos refovens, oppressos relevans,
furibus et raptoribus insidians, et sine pretio super eos, justitiam
exercens et rigorem. Cujuscemodi justis operibus, quia quam maximé Deum
gratificabót ipse propterea omnia ejus opera dirigebat.”--_Lib._ x.
cap. 28.
Q.
REMINISCENCE OF WALLACE.
Page 163.
Among the few speeches of Wallace which we have on record, the
following is mentioned by English writers, as having been addressed
by him to the Scottish schiltrons, on the eve of the battle of
Falkirk:--“I haif brocht you to the ring, hap gif you cun.” Respecting
the meaning of these words, however, there is no agreement between
Scottish or English writers. Walsingham has it, “I haif brocht you
to the King, hop gif you cun;”--on which Lord Hailes very properly
remarks:--
“This speech of Wallace has generally been related and explained in
a sense very different. I must therefore give my reasons for having
departed so widely from the common opinion. _Walsingham_, p. 75,
says, ‘Dicens eis patriâ linguâ,--_I haif brocht you to the_ King,
_hop gif you cun_.’ This short speech has always appeared to me as
utterly inconsistent with the character of Wallace. It is commonly
understood to mean, ‘I have brought you to the King, hope if you
can hope.’ To say nothing of the impropriety of the appellation of
_King_, bestowed by Wallace on Edward, the sentiment, ‘hope, if you
can hope,’ seems only fit for the mouth of a coward or a traitor.
Abercrombie, perceiving this, has given a more plausible interpretation
of the word _hop_. He renders the phrase thus, ‘_Fly_ if you can;’ as
if Wallace had meant to say, ‘_Fight_, for you cannot fly.’ There is
nothing incongruous in this sentiment; but surely it did not merit
to be recorded: Neither was it strictly true; for the Scottish army
might have retired with unbroken forces into the forest which lay in
the rear. The only satisfactory interpretation of Wallace’s address
to his troops, is to be found in _W. Westm._ p. 451, ‘Ecce adduxi vos
ad _annulum_ charolate (chorolate) sive tripudiate vos, sicut melius
scitis.’ _King_, in Walsingham, ought to be _ring_. The words of
Wallace were, ‘I haif brocht you to the ring, hap gif you cun.’ _The
ring_ means the dance _à la ronde_. _Douglas_ translates ‘Exercet Diana
_choros_,’ Æneid ii., thus, ‘Ledand _ring-dances_,’ p. 28. l. 42. ‘Te
lustrare _choros_,’ Æneid vii., thus: ‘To the scho led _ring-sangis_ in
karoling,’ p. 220, l. 31. Elsewhere, in his own person, he says, ‘Sum
sang _ring-sangis_,’ Prologue, xii. B. p. 402, l. 33. That _hap_ or
_hop_ is understood of dancing, is also plain from _Douglas_. He thus
paraphrases ‘Hic exultantes Salios,’ Æneid, viii.
‘The dansand Preistis, clepit _Salii_,
_Happand_ and singand.’ P. 267, l. 21.
“I need not prove, that ‘gif you cun’ implies ‘if you have skill,’
or, ‘according to your skill.’ The verb is obsolete; but the noun and
the adjective are still remembered. ‘Let my right hand forget its
_cunning_,’ ‘a _cunning_ artificer,’ ‘a _cunning_ man.’ _Langtoft_,
vol. ii. p. 305, as translated by Brunne, reports the words thus: “To
the renge ere ye brouht, hop now if ye wille.” But he does not seem to
have understood the import of the words.”
The above is all learned enough; but his lordship has stopped short in
his explanation, and left his readers as much in the dark, as any of
his predecessors, respecting the meaning or propriety of such a phrase
in the mouth of a general, on the commencement of a great battle. Some
of our readers perhaps require to be told that _schiltron_ means a body
of men drawn up in a circle.[105] The war-dance of the Scots and other
northern nations, as is well known, was performed round a large fire.
Each warrior’s hand was firmly clasped in that of his neighbour. Their
motion was at first slow, and gradually increased, till their rapidity
almost rivalled the velocity of the whirlwind. When arrived at this
state of fury, if any luckless wight slipped his hold, or otherwise
became unsteady, the impetus which he and his fellows had acquired,
pitched him headlong amid the flames, when his endeavours to extricate
himself from the blaze, and regain his place, formed the chief sport
of his companions. To render the schiltron the most formidable figure
for defensive operations, steadiness was all that was requisite. When
Wallace, therefore, on the rapid advance of the English, addressed his
soldiers in the manner alluded to, he gave utterance to the happiest
thought, in the fewest words, that perhaps ever presented itself to the
mind of genius in a case of emergency. The striking similarity between
their form of battle and their favourite dance, was apparent to all;
and the impending conflict became instantly stript of its terrors, by a
playful allusion to an amusement with which they were familiar, while
it flashed upon their minds with all the conviction of experience, that
on the preservation of their ranks their safety depended. The behaviour
of the schiltrons on that fatal day showed that they understood the
address of their leader better than any of its subsequent commentators.
R.
WALLACE’S DESCENDANTS.
Page 167.
Wallace appears to have left a daughter, whose legitimacy has been
called in question, but on very slender grounds. In Chalmers’s
Caledonia, vol. i. p. 579, we find the following passage:--“It has
been said that Wallace left no legitimate issue; but he had a natural
daughter, who married Sir William Baillie of Hoprig, the progenitor
of the Baillies of Lamington.” It has never been disputed, that the
lady by whom Wallace had this daughter was the heiress of Lamington,
in right of her father, Sir Hew de Bradfute; it would therefore have
been satisfactory, if the learned author above mentioned had explained
how the Baillies of Hoprig came to the possession of Lamington. If the
daughter of Wallace was legitimate their succession appears the natural
consequence of the marriage of Sir William Baillie; if not, the manner
in which they became possessed of that property requires elucidation.
That Wallace and the heiress of Lamington were lawfully married, is
asserted by Henry, who draws the following picture of their connubial
happiness:--
“Quhat suld I say, Wallace was playnly set
To luff hyr best in all this warld so wid;
Thinkand he suld off his desyr to get;
And so befell be concord in a tid,
That sho [was] maid at his commaund to bid;
And thus began the styntyn aff this stryff:
Begynnyng band, with graith witnes besyd,
_Myn auctor sais, sho was his rychtwyss wyff_.
Now leiff in pees, now leiff in gud concord!
Now leyff in blyss, now leiff in haill plesance!
For scho be choss has bath hyr luff and lord.
He thinkis als, luft did him hye awance,
So ewynly held be favour the ballance,
Sen he at will may lap hyr in his armyss.
Scho thankit God off hir fre happy chance,
For in his tyme he was the flour off armys.
Fortoune him schawit hyr fygowrt doubill face,
Feyll syss or than he had beyne set abuff:
In presoune now, delyuerit now throw grace,
Now at vness, now in to rest and ruff;
Now weyll at wyll, weyldand his plesand luff,
As thocht him selff out off aduersité;
Desyring ay his manheid for to pruff,
In cairage set apon the stagis hye.
The werray treuth I can nocht graithly tell,
In to this lyff how lang at thai had beyne:
Throuch natural course of generacioune befell,
A child was chewyt thir twa luffaris betuene,
Quhilk gudly was, a maydyn brycht and schene.”
_Buke Sext_, 41-69.
According to the above authority, the offspring of this marriage was
first united in the bands of wedlock to an Esquire of the name of Shaw.
Whether this was any connection of William de Shaw, mentioned at page
106, vol. i. of this work, as witnessing the charter of James, Lord
High Steward of Scotland, along with some other friends of Wallace, we
have no means of ascertaining. We are told, however, that
“Rycht gudly men come off this lady ying.”
Whether these were the issue of the marriage with Shaw, or of that
afterwards contracted with Baillie of Hoprig, or of both, it is
difficult to determine. It is probable, as Sir William Baillie is
designated, of Hoprig, and his descendants as proprietors of Lamington,
that they may have succeeded to the inheritance, after the offspring
of the first marriage had become extinct. It has also been advanced,
as an argument against the legitimacy of the daughter of Wallace, that
she inherited none of the property of her father. Those, however,
who started this objection, would have done well to have shown, that
Wallace possessed property to which she could have succeeded. It does
not appear that he was ever personally invested in any of the lands
belonging to the family. And mention is made of his brother Malcolm
having left a son of the name of John, in whom the succession was
prolonged, till it merged in the family of Craigie. In Langtoft’s
Chronicle, vol. ii. p. 338, we have an account of the capture and
execution of a Sir John de Wallace, who is there called a brother of
Sir William. This is evidently a mistake, and might very easily arise
from the closeness of the connection between the two parties. Another
“John Walays of Elryslà” (Elderslie) is taken notice of as among the
witnesses to the charter of Robert, Duke of Albany; and, from the
family title being preserved, it is highly probable that the stock of
Sir Malcolm Wallace had not then become extinct.
S.
ON THE TREACHERY OF MENTEITH.
Page 169.
In the account of the capture of Wallace, we have thought it advisable
to follow, in a great measure, the statement given by the Minstrel. It
is, we conceive, the only rational one we are possessed of; and as the
authority of the author has been supported by the Tower records, and
other incontrovertible muniments, in matters of comparatively trifling
importance, it would be unfair to doubt his veracity on so important a
part of the history of his hero, particularly when all the notices we
have in other writers, tend more or less to confirm the truth of what
he asserts. Lord Hailes, however, has attempted to remove the odium
which has for these five hundred years been attached to the memory of
Menteith; but his efforts to exculpate the Judas of Scotland, have been
viewed by the generality of his countrymen in rather an unfavourable
light. In the remarks his Lordship has made on the subject, we cannot
discover that acuteness which frequently appears in his other writings.
Dr Jamieson has thus replied to him:
“The account given of the treachery of Menteth, is one of those
points on which Sir D. Dalrymple shows his historical scepticism. He
introduces it in language calculated to inspire doubt into the mind
of the reader; observing, that ‘the popular tradition is, that his
_friend_, Sir John Menteth, betrayed him to the English.’--_Annals_,
i. 281. It is rather strange that he should express himself in this
manner, at the very moment that he quotes the Scotichronicon on the
margent; as if this venerable record, when a modern should be disposed
to adopt a theory irreconcileable with its testimony, were entitled to
no higher regard than is due to ‘popular tradition.’
“He adds,’Sir John Menteth was of high birth, a son of Walter Stewart,
Earl of Menteth.’ I can perceive no force in this remark, unless it
be meant to imply that there never has been an instance of a man of
noble blood acting the part of a traitor. On the same ground, we might
quarrel with all the evidence given of the conspiracies formed against
Robert Bruce; and even call in question the murder of that amiable and
accomplished prince, James I.
“But ‘at this time,’ we are told, ‘the important fortress of Dumbarton
was committed to his (Menteith’s) charge by Edward.’ Here, it would
seem, the learned writer fights the poor Minstrel with his own weapons.
For I find no evidence of this fact in the Fœdera, Hemingford, or
the Decem Scriptores; and Lord Hailes has referred to no authority;
so that there is reason to suspect, to use his own language, that he
here ‘copies’ what ‘is said by _Blind Harry_, whom no historian but
Sir Robert Sibbald will venture to _quote_.’ If Harry’s narrative be
received as authority, it is but justice to receive his testimony as
he gives it. Now, in the preceding part of his work, he represents
Menteth as holding the castle of Dunbarton at least with the consent of
Wallace, while acknowledged as governor of Scotland. It would appear,
indeed, that the whole district of the Lennox had been intrusted to him.
“In the Leynhouss a quhill he maid repayr;
Schyr Jhon Menteth that tym was captane thar.”
B. viii. 1595.
“But even at this time there was something dubious in the conduct of
Menteth. While he retained the castle, the English held the town under
Edward.
“In peess thai duelt, in trubyll that had beyn,
And trewbut payit till Ingliss capdanis keyn.
Schyr Jhon Menteth the castell had in hand:
Bot sum men said, thar was a prewa band
Till Sotheroun maid, be menys off that knycht,
In thar supplé to be in all his mycht.”
B. ix. 1393.
“It is perfectly conceivable, that, although it was known to Wallace
that Menteth had some secret understanding with the English, this
artful man might persuade him that he only wished an opportunity
of wreaking the national vengeance on them, or at least of more
effectually serving the interest of Wallace when he saw the proper
time. Although Wallace had been assured that Menteith had taken an oath
of fealty to Edward, he would have had no more reason for distrusting
him than for distrusting by far the greatest part of the nobility and
landholders of Scotland, who, as they believed, from the necessity of
despair had submitted to the usurper.
“John de Menteth is designated by Arnold Blair, _immanis proditor_;
and the writer proceeds to curse him as if with bell, book, and
candle.--_Relations_, p. 8.
“Sir David aims another blow at this account, in the following
words;--‘That he had ever any intercourse of friendship or familiarity
with Wallace, I have yet to learn.’ But the truth is, the worthy Judge
does not seem disposed to _learn_ this. It is difficult to say what
evidence will satisfy him. The incidental hints, in the preceding
part of the poem, in regard to Wallace’s connection with Menteth, all
perfectly agree with the mournful termination. Such confidence had
he in him, according to the Minstrel, that he not only resided in
Dunbarton Castle for two months, while Menteth had the charge of it,
but gave orders for building ‘a house of stone’ there, apparently that
he might enjoy his society.
“Twa monethis still he duelt in Dumbertane;
A houss he foundyt apon the roch off stayne;
Men left he thar till bygg it to the hycht.”
B. viii. 1599.
“But, independently of the testimony of Blind Harry, Bower expressly
asserts the co-operation of Menteith with Wallace, Graham, and
Scrymgeour, in the suppression of the rebellious men of Galloway.
‘In hoc ipso anno (1298), viz. xxviii. die mensis Augusti, dominus
Wallas Scotiæ custos, cum Johanne Grhame et _Johanne de Menteth_,
militibus, necnon Alexandro Scrimzeour constabulario villæ de Dundee,
et vexillario Scotiæ, cum quinquagentis militibus armatis, rebelles
Gallovidienses punierunt, qui regis Angliæ et Cuminorum partibus sine
aliquo jure steterunt.’
“These words, which seem to be a quotation, in the Relationes of Blair,
from the Scotichronicon, are not found in the MSS. from which Goodall
gave his edition. They appear to have formed the commencement of the
xxxii. chapter of the eleventh book, one of the two chapters here
said to be wanting. Now this, whether it be the language of Bower,
or of Blair, could not have been borrowed from the Minstrel, for the
circumstance is overlooked by him. It seems to refer to that period
of the history of Wallace, in which he is said to have made a circuit
through Galloway and Carrick.
“Fra Gamlis peth the land obeyt him haill,
Till Ur wattir, baith strenth, forest, and daill.
Agaynis him in _Galloway_ hous was nayne.”
B. vi. 793-5.
“It is to be observed, that John Major expressly affirms the treachery
of Menteth, as acting in concert with Aymer de Valloins, Earl of
Pembroke. He says, that Menteth was considered as his most intimate
friend; ‘ipsi Vallacco putatus amicissimus.’ Hist. Fol. lxxiii. Now,
although he rejects many of the transactions recited by Blind Harry
‘as false,’ so far is he from insinuating the slightest hesitation
as to this business, that he formally starts an objection as to the
imprudence of Wallace in not being more careful of his person, and
answers it by remarking, that ‘no enemy is more dangerous than a
domestic one.’ He differs from the Minstrel in saying that Wallace was
‘captured _in_ the city of Glasgow.’
“It may be added, that Bower expressly asserts that Wallace,
‘suspecting no evil, was fraudulently and treacherously seized _at_
Glasgow by Lord John de Menteth.’ _Scotichron._ xii. 8. Bower again
refers to the treacherous conduct of Menteth towards Wallace when
afterwards relating a similar plan which he had laid for taking King
Robert Bruce prisoner, under pretence of delivering up to him the
Castle of Dunbarton, on condition of his receiving a hereditary right
to the lieutenancy of the Lennox; v. Lib. xii. c. 16, 17, Vol. ii.
243. These two chapters are not in all the MSS., but are found in
those of Cupar, Perth, and Dunblane. Now, Bower was born anno 1385;
_Ibid._ ii. 401. The date assigned to the Scotichronicon, as published
with his Continuation, is 1447, and that to the Minstrel’s Poem, 1470;
v. Pinkerton’s Maitland Poems, Intr. lxxxvi-lxxxix. It is therefore
impossible that Bower could have borrowed the account given of Menteth
from Blind Harry. Bower was born, indeed, only eighty or eighty-one
years after the fact referred to; and, considering the elevation of the
character of Wallace, and the great attachment of his countrymen even
to this day, as well as the multitude of his enemies, it is totally
inconceivable that a whole nation, learned and unlearned, should concur
in imputing this crime to one man, _without_ the most valid reasons.
“Wyntown finished his ‘_Cronykil_,’ anno 1418. He, it is generally
believed, was born little more than fifty years after the butchery
of our magnanimous patriot. Sir David Dalrymple could not, one would
suppose, reasonably object to his testimony. Let us hear it.
A thousand thre hundyr and the fyft yhere
Eftyr the byrth of oure Lord dere,
Schyre John of Menteth in tha days
Tuk in Glasgw Willame Walays,
And send hym in-til Ingland swne.
Thare wes he quartaryd and wndwne
Be dyspyte and hat Inwy:
Thare he tholyd this Martyry.
_Cron._ viii. c. 20.
“I shall only add an important proof from the Lanercost MS., referred
to in the _Preliminary Remarks_.[106] ‘_Captus_ fuit Willelmus Waleis
per unum Scottum, scilicet per dominum Johannem de Mentiphe, et usque
London ad Regem adductus, et adjudicatum fuit quod traheretur, et
suspenderetur, et decollaretur, et membratim divideretur, et quod
viscera ejus comburentur, quod factum est; et suspensum est caput ejus
super pontem London, armus autem dexter super pontem Novi Castri super
Tynam, et armus sinister apud Berwicum, pes autem dexter apud villam
Sancti Johannis, et pes sinister apud Aberden.’ Fol. 211. _Mentiphe_ is
obviously an _erratum_ for _Menteith_.”
Mr Tytler, in the “Notes and Illustrations” to the first volume of his
History of Scotland, has also handled this subject with considerable
ability. We shall select the following, as affording additional
arguments to those already advanced by Dr Jamieson. In alluding to
the evidence afforded by the Lanercost MS., that intelligent writer
observes, “We cannot be surprised that Lord Hailes should have been
ignorant of this passage, as he tells us, Annals, vol. ii. p. 316, he
had not been able to discover where the MS. of Lanercost was preserved.
“The same excuse, however, will not avail him as to the next piece
of evidence, of Menteth’s having seized Wallace. It is contained in
Leland’s extract from an ancient MS. Chronicle, which Hailes has
elsewhere quoted; I mean the Scala Chronicle, preserved in Corpus
Christi Library, Cambridge. In Leland’s Collect., vol. i. p. 541, we
have this passage from the Chronicle. ‘_Wylliam Waleys was taken of the
Counte of Menteth about Glaskow_, and sent to King Edward, and after
was hangid, drawn, and quarterid at London.’ This is only Leland’s
abridgment of the passage, which in all probability is much more full
and satisfactory in the original. Yet it is quite satisfactory as to
Menteth’s guilt.
“The next English authority is Langtoft’s Chronicle, which Hailes has
himself quoted in his Notes and Corrections, vol. ii. p. 346. It is
curious, and as to Menteith’s guilt perfectly conclusive.
‘Sir Jon of Menetest serwed William so nehi,
He tok him whan he wend lest, on nyght his leman bi.
That was thorght treson of Jak Schort his man,
He was the encheson, that Sir Jon so him nam.’ p. 329.
“We learn from this, that Sir John Menteth prevailed upon Wallace’s
servant, Jack Short, to betray his master, and came under cover of
night, and seized him in bed, ‘his leman bi,’ and when he had no
suspicion of what was to happen. How Hailes, after quoting this
passage, which was written more than two centuries before Blind Harry,
should have represented this poor minstrel as the only original
authority for the guilt of Menteth, is indeed difficult to determine.”
“Having given these authorities, all of them prior to Blind Harry,
it is unnecessary to give the testimony of the more modern writers.
The ancient writers prove incontestably, that Sir John de Menteth, a
Scottish baron, who had served along with and under Wallace against the
English, deserted his country, swore homage to Edward, and employed a
servant of Wallace to betray his master into his hands; that he seized
him in bed, and delivered him to Edward, by whom he was instantly
tried, condemned, and hanged. It was natural that the voice of popular
tradition should continue from century to century, to execrate the
memory of such a man. Whether Menteth was the intimate friend of
Wallace, or what precise degree of familiarity existed between them, it
is now not easy to determine, nor is it of any consequence as to his
guilt. Indeed it is impossible to regard, without a smile the weak and
inconclusive evidence, if it deserves so grave a name, on which Hailes
has founded what he calls his Apology for Menteth, which, after all,
seems to be borrowed from _Carte, vol. ii. p. 289_. Lord Hailes also
remarks, “It is most improbable, that Wallace should have put himself
in the power of a man whom he knew to be in an office of distinguished
trust under Edward;” and almost in the same breath paraphrases the
lines of Langtoft, in which it is stated that his capture was effected
through the treason of Jack Short, whose brother Wallace is said to
have slain. Surely the confidence was as imprudent in the one case as
it would have been in the other. It may be observed, however, that if
there had been a possibility of rescuing the name of Menteith from
the execrations of his country, the task would not have remained for
the learned annalist to perform. The great family interest which he
possessed, was sufficient to protect him from punishment, not only for
his treachery to Wallace, but also for his subsequent perfidy to Bruce.
Yet though that interest was powerfully exerted to screen him from the
consequences of his demerits, not a single effort was made to remove
the dishonourable stain from his character.
The following transaction, which has already been alluded to, is quite
consistent with the conduct ascribed to him by the Minstrel. It will
also account for the impunity which attended his crimes.
“About this time, there happened a passage not unworthy to be related,
in regard to the variety of providences, in a narrow compass of time.
John Menteith, who betrayed his friend Wallace to the English, and
was therefore deservedly hated by the Scots, received, amongst other
rewards, the government of Dumbarton castle from the English. When
other forts were recovered, that only, or but very few with it, held
out for the English. And because it was naturally impregnable, the
king dealt with the governor, by his friends and kindred, to surrender
it. He demanded the county or earldom of Lennox, as the price of his
treachery and surrender. Neither would he ever so much as hear of any
other terms. In this case the King wavered and fluctuated in his mind
what to do. On the one side, he earnestly desired to have the castle;
yet, on the other, he did not so much prize it, as for its sake to
disoblige the Earl of Lennox, who had been his fast and almost his
only friend in all his calamities. But the Earl of Lennox hearing of
it, and coming in, soon decided the controversy, and persuaded the
King, by all means to accept the condition. Accordingly the bargain
was made as John Monteith would have it, and solemnly confirmed. But
when the King was going to take possession of the castle, a carpenter,
one Roland, met him in the wood of Colquhoun, about a mile from it;
and having obtained liberty to speak with the King, concerning a
matter of great importance, he told him what treachery the governor
intended against him; nay, and had prepared to execute it. It was
this:--In a wine-cellar concealed, and underground, a sufficient number
of Englishmen were hid, who, when the rest of the castle should be
given up, and the King secure, were to issue forth upon him as he was
at dinner, and either to kill, or take him prisoner. This being thus
related, the King, upon the surrender of the other parts of the castle
by John, being kindly invited to a feast, refused to eat; till, as he
had searched all other parts of the castle; so, he had viewed that
wine-cellar also. The governor excused it, pretending that the smith,
who had the key, was out of the way, but that he would come again anon.
The King, not satisfied therewith, caused the door to be broke open,
and so the plot was discovered. The Englishmen were brought forth
in their armour, and being severally examined, confessed the whole
matter; and they added also another discovery, viz. that a ship rode
ready in the next bay to carry the King into England, The complices in
this wretched design were put to death; but John was kept in prison,
because the King was loth to offend his kindred, and especially his
sons-in-law, in so dangerous a time: for he had many daughters, all of
them very beautiful, and married to men rich enough, but factious.
Therefore, in a time of such imminent danger, the battle drawing near
wherein all was at stake, lest the mind of any powerful man might be
rendered averse from him, and thereby inclined to practise against
him, John was released out of prison, upon this condition, (for the
performance whereof his sons-in-law undertook), that he should be
placed in the front of the battle, and there, by his valour should wait
the decision of Providence. And indeed the man, otherwise fraudulent,
was in this faithful to the King; for he behaved himself so valiantly,
that that day’s work procured him not only pardon for what was past,
but large rewards for the future.”--_Buchanan’s Hist._ vol. i. p. 310.
It may here be mentioned, that, since the Note on page 152 was printed
off, we have learned from one, whose researches, and connection with
the name, entitle him to express an opinion, that the M’Kerlies of
Wigtonshire are descended from Kerlé, or Kerlie, who, with Sir William
Wallace and Stephen of Ireland, carried by assault the Fort of the
Black-Rock of Cree, or Cruggleton Castle, and who was the last friend
that clung to the fortunes of his master. Although the records of
the burgh of Witham furnish no information on the subject, being all
of a date subsequent to the Reformation, it is still handed down by
tradition, that the M’Kerlies were once proprietors of Cruggleton
Castle.
T.
SINGULAR LEGEND.
Page 169.
This monkish legend Henry has carefully preserved; and as it affords a
specimen of the superstition of the age, we shall give it a place for
the gratification of the curious among our readers.
“Wyss clerkyss yeit it kepis in remembrans,
How that a monk off Bery abbay than,
In to that tym a rycht religiouss man;
A yong monk als with him in ordour stud,
Quhilk knew his lyff was clene, perfyt, and gud.
This fadyr monk was wesyd with seknace,
Out off the warld as he suld pass on cace,
His brothyr saw the spret lykly to pass;
A band off him rycht ernystly he coud ass.
To cum agayn and schaw him off the meid,
At he suld haiff at God for his gud deid.
He grantyt him, at his prayer to preiff,
To cum agayn, gyff God wald geiff him leiff.
The spreyt, changyt out off this warldly payn,
In that sammyn hour cum to the monk agayn.
Sic thing has beyn, and is be woice and sycht.
Quhar he apperyt, thar schawyt sa mekill lycht,
Lyk till lawntryns it illumynyt so cler,
At warldly lycht thar to mycht be no peyr,
A woice said thus:--‘God has me grantyt grace
That I sall kep my promess in this place.’
The monk was blyth off this cler fygur fayr;
Bot a fyr brand in his forheid he bayr,
And than him thocht it myslikyt all the lawe.
‘Quhar art thou spreyt? Ansuer, sa God the sawe.’
‘In purgatory.’--‘How lang sall thow be thair?’
‘Bot halff ane hour to com, and litill mair.
Purgatory is, I do the weill to wit,
In ony place quhar God will it admyt.
Ane hour of space I was demed thar to be;
And that passis, supposs I spek with the.
Quhy has thow that, and all the layff so haill?’
‘For off science I thocht me maist awaill.
Quha prydys tharin, that laubour is in waist,
For science cummys bot off the haly Gaist.’
‘Eftir thi hour, quhar is thi passage ewyn?’
‘Quhen tym cummys,’ he said, ‘to lestand hewin.’
‘Quhat tym is that? I pray the now declar.’
‘Twa ar on lyff mon be befor me thar.’
‘Quhilk twa ar thai?’ The verité thow may ken,
‘The fyrst has bene a gret slaar of men.
Now thai him kep to martyr in London toun
On Wednyssday, befors king and commoun.
Is nayn on lyff at has sa mony slayn.’
‘Brodyr,’ he said, ‘that taill is bot in wayn;
For slauchtyr is to God abhominabill.’
Than said the spreyt, ‘Forsuth this is no fabill.
He is Wallace, defendour off Scotland,
For rychtwyss war that he tok apon hand.
Thar rychtwysnes is lowyt our the lawe;
Tharfor in hewyn he sall that honour hawe.
Syn a pure preyst, is mekill to commend;
He tuk in thank quhat thing that God him send.
For dayly mess, and heryng off confessioun,
Hewin he sall haiff to lestand warysoun.
I am the thrid, grantyt throw Goddis grace.’
‘Brothir,’ he said, ‘tell I this in our place,
Thai wyll bot deym, I othir dreym or ráwe.’
Than said the spreyt:--‘This wetnes thow sall hawe.
Your bellys sall ryng, for ocht at ye do may,
Quhen thai hym sla, halff ane hour off that day.’
And so thai did, the monk wyst quhat thaim alyt
Throuch braid Bretane, the woice tharoff was scaylyt,
The spreyt tuk leyff at Goddis will to be,
Off Wallace end to her it is peté;
And I wald nocht put men in gret dolour,
Bot lychtly pass atour his fatell hour.”
Book xi. 1238-1304.
U.
VERSES ON THE DEATH OF WALLACE.
Page 170.
The verses on the death of Wallace, which have been attributed to John
Blair, stand thus in the original:--
Invida mors tristi Gulielmum funere Vallam,
Quæ cuncta tollit, sustulit:
Et tanto pro cive cinis, pro finibus urna est,
Frigusque pro lorica obit.
Ille quidem terras, loca se inferiora reliquit:
At fata factis supprimens,
Parte sui meliore solum cœlumque pererrat;
Hoc spiritu, illud gloria.
At tibi si inscriptum generoso pectus honesto
Fuisset, hostis proditi
Artibus, Angle, tuis, in pœnas, parcior isses,
Nec oppidatim spargeres
Membra viri sacranda adytis. Sed scin quid in ista,
Immanitate viceris?
Ut Vallæ in cunctas oras sparguntur et horas
Laudes, tuumque dedecus.
Abercrombie, who confounds John Blair with Arnold Blair, doubts of
the above lines being composed by him. Arnold, in his _Relationes_,
has certainly given nothing of his own, his brief details, as we have
already observed, being merely extracts from the Scotichronicon; and
it is more than probable, that as he borrowed from Fordun in the one
instance, he might also be inclined to take the same liberty with Blair
in the other. The verses are evidently the effusion of a superior
mind, brooding over a recent calamity. They are attached to the end of
Arnold Blair’s Relationes, to which the date of 1327 is affixed,--thus
bringing them to within 22 years of the execution of Wallace;--that
they were composed soon after that event becomes therefore a matter of
certainty.
The writer entertained the hope of being able to gratify his readers
with some specimens of the chansonnettes, said to have been composed
in honour of Wallace by the Troubadours of France. He is sorry,
however, that his applications have not been followed by the success
anticipated. He will, therefore, conclude his labours with the
following lines from an unpublished manuscript:--
ON THE BIRTH-DAY OF WALLACE.
May this day be blest, ‘mid the days of the year,
May the sweet smile of heav’n ever brighten its dawn,
And the music that wakes when its first rays appear,
Swell joyously on till those rays are withdrawn.
May the bee’s tiny bugle be heard ’round the brier--
Or when in the midst of his favourite rose;
May the breeze full of fragrance around him expire
In sighings too soft to disturb his repose.
While autumn in splendour o’er mountain and vale,
Displays her refreshing enchantment to view;
And each motionless ship, with her white hanging sail,
Is seen to repose on a mirror of blue.
To this sweet scene of peace, all so tranquil and bland,
May the heart-stirring spirit of music be given;
And the joy-song from each flow’ry nook of the land,
Meet and rise in one grand halleluja to heav’n.
For this was the day gave to Scotland a name,--
A hero,--a patriot,--the boon was divine.
The gleam of his sword led her back to her fame,
And brighten’d her pathway to liberty’s shrine.
Hail pattern of heroes! thy deeds they shall stand,
Deep-engrav’d on the hearts of the brave and the free,
Till the adamant mountains that girdle the land,
Dissolve as their snows, and run down to the sea.
Like a comet, he came irresistibly forth,
Spreading woe ’mong the foes of his dear native land;
He _set_--yet his _light_ lingers still in the _north_,
To rouse and direct ev’ry patriot brand.
THE END.
PRINTED BY J. HUTCHISON,
FOR THE HEIRS OF D. WILLISON.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Langtoft tells an improbable story of the Scots having induced him
to surrender, by a promise of returning to the allegiance of Edward.
Twenge must have been a noted simpleton indeed, if he could have been
so easily imposed upon.--See Langtoft, vol. ii. p. 300.
[2] Fordun à Goodall, vol. ii. p. 170.
[3] See Appendix, A.
[4] See Appendix, B.
[5] Of this army the Campbells and M’Gregors formed a part, and no
doubt a number of the Perthshire clans were included.
[6] Fordun states, that the Scots army remained in England from All
Saints day till Christmas, 31st October till 25th December. Wyntown
also agrees with him, and thus expresses himself on the subject.
“And syne frá the Alhalowmes
In Yngland till Yhule he bydand wes.
All Allyrdáyle as man of Were
That tyme he brynt wyth his Powere:
And wyth gret Prayis owt of that Land,
Come eftyr the Yhule in-til Scotland.”
_Wyntown_, B. viii. c. 13. v. 177-182.
[7] In the invasion of England, one Grimesby acted as guide to the
Scottish army. This person we have alluded to at page 109, vol. i. as
carrying the banner of St John of Beverley, in the army of Edward.
He was afterwards rewarded by the Usurper with the promise of the
first benefice of twenty merks or pounds which should become vacant
in Scotland. This prospect of preferment, however, did not prevent
him from joining the liberator of his country. He appears to have
been long in the service of England, and was most probably one of
those 30,000 Scots who were sent by Alexander III. to the assistance
of Henry III., when opposed by his barons. Though it be uncertain if
he accompanied Edward to the Holy Land, it is however pretty evident
that he attended him in his various expeditions to France; and, in his
character of pursuivant, he obtained a very intimate acquaintance with
the localities of that country, as well as of England. His intimate
knowledge of the latter rendered his services of much importance to
his countrymen. Henry represents him as a steady and useful adherent
to Wallace, and describes him to be of great stature, and as having
acquired among the English the name of Grimesby, on account of his
grim or stern visage. This, however, is more fanciful than correct.
_Grimesby_ is of Danish origin, and though among the Scots he was
called Jop, his real name appears to have been Gilbert Grimesby. He
acted as herald, as well as guide; and often marshalled the Scottish
battalions on the eve of battle.
[8] Hexham.
[9] See Appendix, C.
[10] See Appendix, D.
[11] It is probable that some of our readers may be displeased with
our passing over the interview which Wallace is said to have had with
Queen Margaret, during the time his army was encamped in the north
of England; but we always wish to have some authority for what we
commit to our pages; and as we can find nothing in support of it,
either in English or Scottish records, we are inclined to look upon
it as a minstrel’s tale, introduced for the purpose of effect. The
subject excited the inquiries of the learned Dr Jamieson, who has been
at considerable pains to ascertain whether or not such an interview
actually took place; and all his researches tend rather to throw
discredit on the affair, in addition to the doubt which naturally
arises from the silence of history. Henry, in whose work the tale is
only to be found, represents Edward as being then in Britain, while it
is agreed on all hands that he was, at the time, prosecuting the war
in Flanders. Though the Minstrel be a favourite with us, still we like
to see his statements corroborated; and we conceive, that the English
Queen appearing in the Scottish camp in the manner he describes, was a
circumstance too flattering to the national pride of the Scots, to be
left to the pen of one solitary narrator.
[12] See Appendix, E.
[13] Respecting these two meritorious individuals, few particulars
appear to be known. Guthrie is said to have been the ancestor of the
Guthries of that Ilk, and was frequently employed as the confidential
agent of his countrymen.