THE BETRAYAL AND DEATH OF WALLACE
'In this caus that I wend,
Sa that we wyn, I rek nocht for till end.
Rycht suth it is that anys we mon de:
In to the rycht, quha suld in terrour be?'
HARRY, viii. 171-4.
'For chans off wer thou suld no murnyng mak;
As werd will wyrk, thi fortoun mon thou tak.'
HARRY, ix. 243-4.
'Thi last reward in erd sail be bot small.
Let nocht tharfor, tak rèdress off this myss:
To thi reward thou sall haiff lestand blyss.'
HARRY, vii. 102-4.
'In the history of the next five years' after the battle of Falkirk,
writes Lingard, Wallace's 'name is scarcely ever mentioned.' The
suggestion seems to be that Wallace ceased to be an influential factor
in the course of events. But after all Lingard is driven to acknowledge
the force of Wallace's personality, at the expense of his own
consistency. He comes to admit that 'the only man whose enmity could
give' Edward a 'moment's uneasiness, was Wallace.' The statement looks
remarkably like a reproduction of an English scribe's assertion that,
after the submission of Comyn and the other nobles, there was left but
'one disorderly fellow (_unus ribaldus_), William Wallace by name, who
gave the King just a touch of uneasiness' (_aliquantulum fatigavit_).
Edward himself, it is plain, had formed a very different estimate of
that touch. He was well aware that the other Scots leaders would stand
with him or against him according to the strength of his grip on the
country; more than once he had beheld both sides of the political coats
of most of them. The more dangerous of them--three or four--he could
muzzle effectively enough by a short period of banishment, during which
he would reduce the inflammability of the materials they could work
upon. Wallace, however, was a conspicuously abler man than any of the
time-servers; he was the one prominent Scot that had never submitted;
and he was known to be resolutely irreconcilable. There remained only
one course: Wallace must be destroyed.
Edward, with the siege of Stirling before him, would not have been
likely to allow resentment to overbear policy in the case of any of
the Scots leaders, unless he had become convinced that the particular
offender was either not worth consideration or else hopelessly
recalcitrant. There must, indeed, as Lingard says, have been 'something
peculiar' in Wallace's case, 'which rendered him less deserving of
mercy' than the others. Wallace alone was expressly excluded from
the treaty of Strathord. Sir John Comyn, the head and front of the
immediate offending, escaped easily by the ignominious door of
abject humiliation. The Steward and Sir John de Soulis, who had on
previous occasions bent to like necessities, were let off with two
years' banishment south of Trent. Sir Simon Fraser and Thomas du
Bois--both men that compelled the respect of their opponents--were
more severely dealt with, by exile for three years from Scotland,
England, and France. Yet Edward must have had very distinctly in his
mind the mortifying defeat of Roslin, achieved by Comyn and Fraser.
The chameleon Bishop of Glasgow, 'for the great harm he has done,' was
merely banished for two or three years. In any case, these judgments
were but slackly enforced, even in those instances where enforcement
was within Edward's power. But Wallace--'he may come in to the King's
grace, if he thinks good.' It is idle to speculate what Edward would
have done with him if he had then 'come into the King's grace.'
Edward had certainly made attempts to conciliate Wallace. By the agency
of Warenne, he did so just before the battle of Stirling. He may even
have offered the patriot his royal pardon, with lordships and lands.
Bower says he did. He may, though not at all probably, have dangled
before him the crown of Scotland under English suzerainty. The record
of the judgment pronounced on Wallace mentions that after Falkirk the
King had 'mercifully caused him to be recalled to his peace'; and the
reference is probably to some specific overture, and not merely to the
general summons. Bower reproduces the story that Wallace's friends now
urged his acceptance of the proposed terms, and that Wallace thereupon
delivered his sentiments as follows:--
'O desolate Scotland, over-credulous of deceptive speeches,
and little foreseeing the calamities that are coming upon you!
If you were to judge as I do, you would not readily place your
neck under a foreign yoke. When I was a youth, I learned from
my uncle, a priest, this proverb--a proverb worth more than all
the riches of the world--and ever since I have marked it in my
mind:--
_Dico tibi verum, Libertas optima rerum;
Nunquam servili sub nexu vivito, fili._
And therefore, in a word, I declare that, if all Scotsmen
together yield obedience to the King of England, or part each
one with his own liberty, yet I and my comrades who may be
willing to adhere to me in this behalf, will stand for the
freedom of the realm; and, with God's help, we will obey no man
but the King, or his lieutenant.'
Whether this striking scene was ever enacted or not, there can be no
doubt that the writer represents with fidelity the attitude of Wallace.
The rejection of the King's proffered clemency, even if but indirectly
or generally proffered, would naturally sting his proudly sensitive
feeling. In any case, Edward was fully satisfied that he would never
have peace in Scotland while Wallace was in the field, and that Wallace
would contemn alike his threats and his promises, and succumb only to
superior force or to insidious policy.
Early in 1303-4, Edward had made up his mind that he would receive
Wallace on no terms short of unconditional surrender, and he was
determined to have him in his power at the earliest possible moment.
To somewhere very near this period--say February--must probably be
assigned an undated draft of letters-patent, whereby Edward grants to
his 'chier vadlet' (dear vallet), Edward de Keith, afterwards Sheriff
of Selkirk, all goods and chattels of whatever kind he may gain from
Sir William Wallace, the King's enemy, to his own profit and pleasure.
At this date, certainly, Edward was putting all irons in the fire to
accomplish his intense wish to lay hands upon the redoubtable Wallace.
About this time Wallace and his followers appear to have been hovering
not very far away, south of Forth. Sir Alexander de Abernethy, Warden
between the Mounth and the Forth, had been despatched by the Prince of
Wales to Strathearn, Menteith, and Drip, to guard the passage of the
river. Sir Alexander appears to have written to the King on the subject
of terms to Wallace. In his answer, dated March 3, Edward laid down
definitively, once more, the requirement of unconditional submission:--
'In reply to your request for instructions as to whether it is
our pleasure that you should hold out to William Wallace any
words of peace, know that it is not at all our pleasure that
you hold out any word of peace to him, or to any other of his
company, unless they place themselves absolutely (_de haut et
de bas_) and in all things at our will without any reservation
whatsoever.'
The final corrections of the original draft of this letter indicate how
careful Edward was to express his stern resolution with unmistakable
precision and emphasis. Wallace must surrender at discretion.
There is nothing to show whether Sir Alexander Abernethy had put the
point to Edward of his own motion, in view of contingencies, or on the
prompting of some application addressed to him from the Scots side. It
seems more likely that he was hopeful of success, and wished to fortify
himself with definite instructions. The first paragraph of the letter
shows markedly the King's sense of the importance of Sir Alexander's
service: he urges the knight to all possible diligence; he signifies
where aid, if necessary, may be had; and he orders that Sir Alexander
shall not leave his service in these parts unaccomplished, 'neither for
the parliament nor for any other business.' The same day (March 3),
Edward wrote to 'his loyal and faithful Robert de Brus,' applauding
his diligence on that side the Forth, and urging him, 'as the robe is
well made, you will be pleased to make the hood.' Two days later he
directed the Prince of Wales to reinforce Abernethy at the fords and
passes above Drip; and on March 11 he sent special instructions also
to the Earl of Strathearn to see to the guarding of the fords and of
the country about, so that none of the enemy might cross to injure the
King's lieges on the north side. The proximity of Wallace, and the hope
of putting him down finally, no doubt had a foremost place in Edward's
calculations. It does not seem likely, though it may have been the
case, that application had been made to Abernethy on behalf of Wallace;
perhaps the King's reply would have specifically indicated the fact. It
is not to be believed for an instant that any such application would
have been made with the sanction or knowledge of Wallace himself.
But for the absurd bias of Langtoft, one might be inclined to connect
an episode of his with the negotiations that issued in the treaty
of Strathord and with Sir Alexander de Abernethy's letter. After
Christmas 1303, Langtoft says, Wallace lay in the forest--the glen of
Pittencrieff has been suggested as the particular spot--and 'through
friends' made request to the King at Dunfermline 'that he may submit
to his honest peace without surrendering into his hands body or head,
but that the King grant him, of his gift, not as a loan, an honourable
allowance of woods and cattle, and by his writing the seisin and
investment for him and his heirs in purchased land.' The whole bent of
Wallace's mind was undoubtedly against any such application. Anyhow,
'the King,' says Langtoft, 'angered at this demand, breaks into a rage,
commends Wallace to the devil, and all that grows on him, and promises
300 marks to the man that shall make him headless.' Whereupon Wallace
takes to the moors and the hills and 'robs for a living.'
Wallace, however, had very different business on hand. Apparently
he had found it hopeless to effect the passage of the Forth or to
communicate with Stirling Castle; Sir John de Segrave, the Warden south
of Forth, had joined hands with Bruce and Clifford to attack him. He
had therefore retired into Lothian, Sir Simon Fraser with him, and the
English force in pursuit. A renegade Scot, John de Musselburgh--let
his name be pilloried!--guided the English commander to the retreat
of his countrymen. Wallace and Fraser were brought to bay at Peebles
(Hopperewe) in Tweeddale, and defeated. The news was brought to Edward
at Aberdour on March 12; and on March 15, John of Musselburgh received
from the gratified King's own hand the noble guerdon of 10s.
Already Edward was deep in preparations for the siege of Stirling,
which, as we have seen, absorbed his whole energies from the middle of
March till late in July. On July 25, 1304, the day after the formal
surrender of the obstinate castle, he was in high good humour. There
has been preserved the roll of magnates and others that served under
him in this campaign; and one of the paragraphs informs us how the
King on that day commanded fourteen barons therein named to settle in
what manner they and the others on the roll should be rewarded for the
services they had rendered. At the same time his mind recurred with
renewed energy to Sir William Wallace. A later paragraph represents him
as attempting to enlist the Scots leaders whose terms of submission had
been arranged in the beginning of February, in a comprehensive hunt
after Wallace. There is no crude mention of a specific blood-price in
marks. But on the success of the hunt their own future treatment is
made very expressly dependent. Comyn, Lindsay, Graham, and Fraser, who
had been adjudged to go into exile, as well as other Scots liegemen
of Edward, were enjoined to do their endeavour 'between now and the
twentieth day after Christmas' to capture Wallace and to render him to
the King. The King will see how they bear themselves in the business,
and will show more favour to the man that shall have captured Wallace,
by shortening his term of exile, by diminishing the amount of his
ransom or of his obligation for trespasses, or by otherwise lightening
his liabilities. It is further ordained that the Steward, Sir John
de Soulis, and Sir Ingram de Umfraville shall not have any letters
of safe-conduct to come into the power of the King until Sir William
Wallace shall have been surrendered to him. It stands to the eternal
credit of the comrades of Wallace that they do not appear--not one of
them--to have taken a single step to better or shield themselves by
ignominious treachery to their undaunted friend.
Apparently Wallace and Fraser had got together some followers again,
after their defeat at Peebles, and had drawn towards Stirling in the
hope of effecting some diversion in favour of the gallant garrison.
They do not, however, seem to have been strong enough to contribute any
useful support. After the capitulation of Stirling Castle, an English
force appears to have proceeded against them, for in September there is
record of a pursuit after Wallace 'under Earnside.' But there are no
particulars available: the record affords but a momentary glimpse into
the darkness.
Meantime the attempt to capture Wallace was steadily kept up by Edward
and his emissaries. On February 28, 1304-5, Ralph de Haliburton, who
was--unhappily for his honour--one of the Scots survivors of the
siege of Stirling Castle, was released from prison in England, and
delivered to Sir John de Mowbray, 'of Scotland, knight,' to be taken to
Scotland 'to help those Scots that were seeking to capture Sir William
Wallace.' It stands on record that Sir John and others gave security to
re-enter Ralph at the parliament in London in three weeks from Easter
(April 18), 'after seeing what he can do.' But, so far as appears,
the miserable renegade was not able to do anything effective. Is this
possibly 'Ralph Raa'?
Somewhere about this period may probably be placed an episode in the
chequered career of a Scots squire, Michael de Miggel, who had been
in Wallace's hands, if not actually of his company. Michael had done
homage to Edward in the crowd on March 14, 1295-96, but had promptly
repented, for in six weeks' time he was taken prisoner in Dunbar
Castle. For eighteen months thereafter he was confined in the Castle
of Nottingham; which may probably indicate that the English officers
were aware that he needed to be strictly looked after. On September 1,
1305, an inquisition was held at Perth 'on certain articles touching
the person of Michael de Miggel,' the substantial charge apparently
being that he had been a confederate of Wallace. The sworn statement of
the inquisitors was 'that he had been lately taken prisoner forcibly
against his will by William le Waleys; that he escaped once from
William for two leagues, but was followed and brought back by some
armed accomplices of William's, who was firmly resolved to kill him for
his flight; that he escaped another time from said William for three
leagues or more, and was again brought back a prisoner by force with
the greatest violence, and hardly avoided death at William's hands, had
not some accomplices of William's entreated for him; whereon he was
told if he tried to get away a third time he should lose his life. Thus
it appears,' they concluded, 'he remained with William through fear
of death, and not of his own will.' The explanation served. The date
'lately' in all probability places the episode in the last few months
of Wallace's career. It at least confirms the strenuous persistence of
Wallace, as far as his means would permit, against the enemies of his
country, and their relentless hunting down of all his adherents.
Unable to maintain himself in the east, Wallace retired to the west.
Whether Harry be right or wrong in making Sir Aymer de Valence bargain
with Sir John de Menteith for the capture of the patriot, matters
little; the result is the same. Menteith, in any case, took up the
hunt. It has been somewhat strangely urged in palliation of his infamy,
that he was then Edward's man. True, he was Edward's man; and since
March 20, 1303-4, he had been Constable of Dumbarton Castle and town,
and Sheriff of Dumbartonshire. He was therefore acting in the plain way
of duty. At the same time, the previous question remains to be disposed
of: why was he, a Scots knight, the man of the English King? Instead
of palliating his infamy, his official position only deepens its
blackness. The despised Harry finds a much more plausible excuse for
the poor-spirited creature. Harry depicts him as displaying reluctance;
as urging to Sir Aymer--
'He is our governor;
For us he stood in many a felon stour,
Not for himself, but for our heritage:
To sell him thus it were a foul outrage.'
Harry appears to think that Menteith was Constable of Dumbarton
in Wallace's interest; and the dramatic remonstrance he puts into
Menteith's mouth is sufficiently transparent. However, it elicits from
Sir Aymer a promise that Wallace's life shall be safe, and that Edward
will be satisfied if his great enemy be securely lodged in prison. On
this promise, Menteith consents. True or untrue, it is the only decent
plea that has ever been suggested on Menteith's behalf; and even then
it disgraces his intelligence. Harry further indicates that Menteith,
after all, delayed somewhat in the execution of the project. He says
that Edward wrote to Menteith privately, and 'prayed him to haste.' The
infamous wretch sorely needs the full benefit of Harry's palliations.
Menteith proceeded to carry out his scheme. Harry says he got 'his
sister's son' to attach himself to Wallace's personal following, with
full instructions for the betrayal. The youth was to inform Menteith
of Wallace's movements, so as to enable him to effect the capture
under the most favourable conditions. This subordinate tool is said
to have been named Jack Short: the authority of Langtoft is usually
given, but mistakenly; it is not Langtoft, but Langtoft 'illustrated
and improved' by Robert of Brunne, that mentions 'Jack Short his man'
as the instrument of Wallace's betrayal, adding by way of explanation,
that 'Jack's brother had he slain.'
The desired opportunity soon offered. According to Harry, Bruce, in
reply to an invitation to come and claim the crown, informed Wallace
that he would devise an excuse for leaving the English court, and
endeavour to meet him on Glasgow Moor on the first night of July.
Attended only by the ever-faithful Kerly and the treacherous emissary
of Menteith, Wallace rode out on several evenings from Glasgow to
Robroyston, in expectation of Bruce. On 'the eighth night,' Menteith
received notice, and with sixty sworn men--'of his own kin, and of
kinsmen born'--he hurried to the scene. About midnight, Wallace and
Kerly went to sleep--a very unlikely thing for Kerly to do in the
circumstances. The traitorous attendant then is said to have removed
their arms, and given the signal to Menteith. Kerly was instantly
despatched. Wallace started up, and, missing his arms, defended himself
with his hands. Menteith then came forward, and represented that
resistance was in vain, the house being surrounded by English troops;
that the English really did not wish to kill him; and that he would be
safe under his protection in his (Wallace's) own house in Dumbarton
Castle. Wallace thought that Menteith, his gossip--nay, 'his gossip
twice' (for Major, in consonance with Harry, records that Wallace had
stood godfather to two of Menteith's children)--might be trusted; still
he made him swear. As Harry remarks, 'That wanted wit; what should his
oaths avail any more, seeing he had been long forsworn to him?' The
oath taken, Wallace resigned his hands to the 'sure cords' of Menteith.
As they fared forth, Wallace saw no Southrons, and he missed Kerly--to
him convincing signs of betrayal. Still Menteith protested that the
sole intention was to keep their prisoner in security; there was no
design against his life. The truth, however, was at once evident.
Menteith did not proceed to Dumbarton, but took his way right south
with all speed, 'aye holding the waste land,' for 'the traitors durst
not pass where Scotsmen were masters,' and it was essential to their
purpose to gain time on Wallace's men, and to baffle the certain
pursuit. On the south side of 'Solway sands,' Menteith delivered
Wallace to Sir Aymer de Valence and Sir Robert de Clifford, who
conducted him 'full fast' to Carlisle, where they threw him into
prison. His real custodian, however, appears to have been Sir John de
Segrave, the Warden south of Forth.
Such writers as exculpate Menteith from participation in the capture
of Wallace lie under the obligation of explaining the following facts.
There still exists a document that looks like a memorandum of business
for Edward's parliament or council. It notes that 40 marks are to be
given to the vallet who spied out (_espia_) William Wallace; that 60
marks are to be given to the others, and that the King desires they
shall divide the money among them; and that £100 in land is to be given
to John de Menteith. Again: shortly after the middle of September, when
the Scots commissioners attended the English parliament for the special
purpose of agreeing to regulations for the settlement of Scotland,
nine, instead of ten, appeared; and in place of Earl Patrick, who was
the absent member, Sir John de Menteith 'by the King's command was
chosen.' By one of the regulations then agreed to, Sir John de Menteith
was confirmed in the governorship of Dumbarton Castle. Further: on
November 20, 1305, a signal mark of royal favour is recorded with
peculiar emphasis. At the request of 'his faithful and loyal John
de Menteith,' Edward commands his Chancellor to issue letters of
protection and safe-conduct in favour of certain burgesses of St. Omer
passing with their goods and merchandise through his dominions; the
letters to be framed in such especial form as John de Menteith shall
wish 'in reason,' to last for two or three years as pleases him most.
The Chancellor is to deliver them without delay to Menteith, and to
no other; for the King has granted them to him 'with much regret,'
and would have given them to no other than himself. And finally, on
June 16, 1306, Edward commands Sir Aymer de Valence to deliver to Sir
John de Menteith the temporality of the bishopric of Glasgow towards
Dumbarton, during pleasure; and on the same date he informs Sir Aymer
that he has ordered the Chancellor and Chamberlain to prepare a charter
granting the Earldom of the Lennox to Sir John de Menteith, 'as one
to whom he is much beholden for his good service, as Sir Aymer tells
him, and he hears from others,' and he commands Sir Aymer to give him
seisin. Harry may have mixed up the facts a little, but it is plain
that he has got hold of the main thread. Apart from the capture of
Wallace, it is simply incredible that Menteith's services would have
been deemed so markedly valuable in the eyes of the English King.
Having apprised Edward of the capture of his great enemy, Valence
and Clifford brought Wallace on to London. Harry says Valence and
Clifford, but no doubt he ought to have said Sir John de Segrave; at
any rate, Wallace was in the custody of Segrave on August 18. The news
of Wallace's coming had spread far and wide, and as the cavalcade
approached the capital, it was met by a multitude of men and women,
curious to gaze upon the rebellious savage--says Stow, 'wondering upon
him.' The illustrious captive was lodged in the house of Alderman
William de Leyre, in the parish of Allhallows Staining, at the end of
Fenchurch Street. It may seem strange that he was not taken to the
Tower. In any case, it is in the last degree improbable that the fact
points to any intention of Edward to make a final attempt to secure
Wallace's submission to his grace. There is certainly more probability
in Carrick's conjecture, that the reason was 'the difficulty which the
party encountered in making their way through the dense multitudes who
blocked up the streets and lanes leading to the Tower.' Anyhow, it is a
point of very subordinate interest. The date of the arrival was Sunday,
August 22.
No time was lost. Everything was in readiness. The very next morning,
Monday, August 23, 1305, Wallace was conducted on horseback from the
City to Westminster, to undergo the farce of trial. Sir John de Segrave
was in command of the escort, and with him there rode the Mayor,
Sheriffs, and Aldermen of London, followed by a great number of people,
on horseback and on foot. Arrived at Westminster Hall, Wallace was
placed on the bench on the south side. It is said that, as he sat there
awaiting his doom, he was crowned with a garland of laurel leaves. The
popular English fancy absurdly associated this strange procedure with
an alleged assertion of Wallace's in times past, to the effect that he
deserved to wear a crown in that Hall. Some writers regard it as a mark
of derision. Llewelyn's head had been exposed on the battlements of
the Tower crowned with a wreath of ivy--said to be in fulfilment of a
prophecy of Merlin's. Sir Simon Fraser is said, in the ballad, to have
been drawn through the streets to the gallows with 'a garland on his
head after the new guise'; though Langtoft says Fraser's head was fixed
on London Bridge 'without chaplet of flowers,' as if the omission were
a noticeable breach of custom. It is a mistake, then, to suppose that
the garland was a special insult to Wallace. It may have marked the
satisfaction of victory over a notable enemy. It may be taken as the
fillet of the destined victim.
The Commissioners appointed to try Wallace were Sir John de Segrave;
Sir Peter Malory, the Lord Chief Justice; Ralph de Sandwich, the
Constable of the Tower; John de Bacwell (or Banquelle), a judge; and
Sir John le Blound (Blunt), Mayor of London. They had been appointed
by Edward on August 18. They were all present. The indictment was
comprehensive, charging sedition, homicide, spoliation and robbery,
arson, and various other felonies. The charge of sedition or treason
was based on Edward's conquest of Scotland. On Balliol's forfeiture, he
had reduced all the Scots to his lordship and royal power; had publicly
received homage and fealty from the prelates, earls, barons, and a
multitude of others; had proclaimed his peace throughout Scotland; and
had appointed wardens, his lieutenants, sheriffs, and others, officers
and men, to maintain his peace and to do justice. Yet this Wallace,
forgetful of his fealty and allegiance, had risen against his lord;
had banded together a great number of felons, and feloniously attacked
the King's wardens and men; had, in particular, attacked, wounded, and
slain William de Hazelrig, Sheriff of Lanark, and, in contempt of the
King, had cut the said Sheriff's body in pieces; had assailed towns,
cities, and castles of Scotland; had made his writs run throughout the
land as if he were Lord Superior of that realm; and, having driven out
of Scotland all the wardens and servants of the Lord King, had set up
and held parliaments and councils of his own. More than that, he had
counselled the prelates, earls, and barons, his adherents, to submit
themselves to the fealty and lordship of the King of France, and to
aid that sovereign to destroy the realm of England. Further, he had
invaded the realm of England, entering the counties of Northumberland,
Cumberland, and Westmoreland, and committing horrible enormities. He
had feloniously slain all he had found in these places, liegemen of
the King; he had not spared any person that spoke the English tongue,
but put to death, with all the severities he could devise, all--old
men and young, wives and widows, children and sucklings. He had slain
the priests and the nuns, and burned down the churches, 'together with
the bodies of the saints and other relics of them therein placed in
honour.' In such ways, day by day and hour by hour, he had seditiously
and feloniously persevered, to the danger alike of the life and the
crown of the Lord King. For all that, when the Lord King invaded
Scotland with his great army and defeated William, who opposed him
in a pitched battle, and others his enemies, and granted his firm
peace to all of that land, he had mercifully had the said William
Wallace recalled to his peace. Yet William, persevering seditiously
and feloniously in his wickedness, had rejected his overtures with
indignant scorn, and refused to submit himself to the King's peace.
Therefore, in the court of the Lord King, he had been publicly
outlawed, according to the laws and customs of England and Scotland, as
a misleader of the lieges, a robber, and a felon.
It was laid down as not consonant with the laws of England, that a man
so placed beyond the pale of the laws, and not afterwards restored
to the King's peace, should be admitted either to defend himself
or to plead. Still it is recorded that Wallace, whether regularly
or irregularly, did reply to Sir Peter Malory, denying that he had
ever been a traitor to the English King. He is also said to have
acknowledged the other charges preferred. There are allegations of
wanton and extravagant misdeeds that undoubtedly merited denial, and
could not have been positively acknowledged by Wallace. It may be that
he considered it futile to raise any further objection, and heard the
charges with the contempt of silent indifference.
Sentence was pronounced:
'That the said William, for the manifest sedition that he
practised against the Lord King himself, by feloniously
contriving and acting with a view to his death and to the
abasement and subversion of his crown and royal dignity, by
opposing his liege lord in war to the death, be drawn from the
Palace of Westminster to the Tower of London, and from the
Tower to Aldgate, and so through the midst of the City, to the
Elms;
'And that for the robberies, homicides, and felonies he
committed in the realm of England and in the land of Scotland,
he be there hanged, and afterwards taken down from the gallows;
'And that, inasmuch as he was an outlaw, and was not afterwards
restored to the peace of the Lord King, he be decollated and
decapitated;
'And that thereafter, for the measureless turpitude of his
deeds towards God and Holy Church in burning down churches,
with the vessels and litters wherein and whereon the body
of Christ and the bodies of saints and relics of these were
placed, the heart, the liver, the lungs, and all the internal
organs of William's body, whence such perverted thoughts
proceeded, be cast into fire and burnt;
'And further, that inasmuch as it was not only against the Lord
King himself, but against the whole Community of England and
of Scotland, that he committed the aforesaid acts of sedition,
spoliation, arson, and homicide, the body of the said William
be cut up and divided into four parts; and that the head, so
cut off, be set up on London Bridge, in the sight of such as
pass by, whether by land or by water; and that one quarter be
hung on a gibbet at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, another quarter at
Berwick, a third quarter at Stirling, and the fourth at St.
Johnston, as a warning and a deterrent to all that pass by and
behold them.'
In execution of this atrocious sentence, Wallace was dragged at the
tails of horses through the streets of London to the Elms in Smithfield
(_i.e._ Smoothfield--later Cow Lane, now King Street). At the foot of
the gallows, he is said to have asked for a priest, in order to make
confession. Harry seems confused in placing this incident before the
procession to Westminster; and his representation of the Archbishop of
Canterbury as shriving Wallace, in defiance of Edward's express general
prohibition, is at any rate highly coloured in the details. Harry
further records that Wallace requested Clifford to let him have the
Psalter that he habitually carried with him; and that, when this was
brought, Wallace got a priest to hold it open before him 'till they to
him had done all that they would.' The sentence was faithfully carried
out through all its stages. The English chroniclers gloat over the
inhuman savagery, some of them describing details of dishonour to the
heroic victim's body such as may find no place on this page. The head
was fixed on London Bridge, and the four quarters were taken to their
destined places of exposure by Segrave. The chroniclers vary in the
names of these places, Dumfries and Aberdeen being specified by one or
another instead of towns mentioned above. There still exists an account
presented by the Sheriffs of London on December 1 for
15s. delivered to John de Segrave in August last for carriage
of the body of William le Waleys to Scotland, by the King's
writ; and John's receipt.
The record adds that 'afterwards they were allowed 10s. in the Roll'--a
last royal meanness in connection with Wallace.
Wallace was dead. Laboriously tracked and hunted down by miserable
hirelings--Scots, to their black shame--he had been put through
the farce of a formal trial, and done to death by an accumulation
of barbarous cruelties and unmanly indignities, the revenge of a
pusillanimous mind. Wallace had never done homage or sworn fealty to
the English King: how could he possibly be a traitor? His deadly crime,
in fact, was that he alone of all the prominent Scotsmen of the time
had never bowed to the usurper. Many a real traitor--doubly, trebly,
and deeper dyed--had Edward let off with little or no punishment, and
even restored to their estates, and to his own favour and confidence.
But let a man show the genuine mettle of an independent spirit, and
his fate was sealed. Wallace could not be bent; therefore he must be
broken. In loose popular language he might be called a traitor, and
the justices of the special Commission were not inclined to split
technical hairs of legality. But in fact Wallace was simply a prisoner
of war, an open enemy captured in arms. Under judicial forms he was
doomed to death in accordance with a prearranged programme, under which
there was no necessity for the prosecution to call evidence, and no
opportunity for the victim to offer any defence. Of course his life was
justly at the King's mercy. But Wallace died, not because his life was
technically forfeited, but simply because Edward could feel no security
so long as his arch-enemy breathed. The formality of trial was a mere
abuse of judicial process, calculated to befool people already disposed
to be befooled. Once more Edward took care to shelter himself under the
forms of legal procedure.
The elaborate series of punishments assigned to the various categories
of Wallace's alleged misdeeds illustrates forcibly the base
vindictiveness of Edward. A soldier like him might have been expected
to show soldierly appreciation of the most gallant enemy he ever
faced. The zeal manifested in vengeance for the alleged dishonour to
God and the holy saints is sufficiently edifying, even for the early
years of the fourteenth century. It cloaks the malignant gratification
of personal malice with the dazzling profession of the championship
of religion. When the spacious Abbey of Dunfermline was burnt to the
ground only eighteen months before, that was presumably not for the
dishonour, but for the glory, of God and the holy saints. The point of
view is notoriously important.
Wallace was dead. His body was dismembered, and distributed in the
great centres of his activity and influence, as an encouragement to
English sympathisers, and a sign of retribution to Scots that might yet
cherish the foolishness of patriotism. The moral has been well rendered
by Burton:--
'The death of Wallace stands forth among the violent ends which
have had a memorable place in history. Proverbially such acts
belong to a policy that outwits itself. But the retribution has
seldom come so quickly, and so utterly in defiance of all human
preparation and calculation, as here. Of the bloody trophies
sent to frighten a broken people into abject subjection, the
bones had not yet been bared ere they became tokens to deepen
the wrath and strengthen the courage of a people arising to try
the strength of the bands by which they were bound, and, if
possible, break them once and for ever.'
Wallace had done his work right well and truly, as builder of the
foundations of Scottish independence. He had sealed his faith with his
blood. Probably he died despairing of his country. Yet barely had six
months come and gone when his dearest wish was fulfilled. The banner
of Freedom waved defiance from the towers of Lochmaben, and in the
Chapel-Royal of Scone the Bruce was crowned King of Scotland.