“How Johne, that was Wyllyam Waleys brother, was put to dethe.
“As the gretteste masteyrs of Scotlonde were thus doon to euyll dethe, and destroyed for theyr falsnesse, Johan. that was Wyllyam Waleys brother, was take and doon vnto deth, as Syr Johan erle of Alethes [Athol] was.” Sign. q. vi. b. Edit. 1502.
This account, as regarding Johannes Waleis, must certainly be viewed as a mistake of the writers of these Chronicles. It has originated, perhaps, from the circumstance of two brothers of Robert Bruce, Thomas and Alexander, being made prisoners by Macdowal at Lochrian in Galloway, 9th February, 1306–7, and carried to Edward at Carlisle, who ordered them to instant execution. Or it may respect Sir Reginald Crawfurd, the cousin of Wallace, who was made prisoner with them, and subjected to the same fate. Matthew of Westminster says that their heads were placed on the gates of Carlisle. V. Dalrymple’s Annals, II. 19.
The other queries were;—If, from any of the MSS. in the British Museum, there is ground to suppose that Wallace had ever fought with King Edward in England? If any thing occurs that might have given rise to the story, told by Henry, of an interview with the English queen? If there is any hint as to Wallace having opposed the English in Guienne? If there is any proof that Sir John Menteith was concerned in delivering up Wallace to the English? And if it appears that Menteith acted in concert with Aymer de Valence? To these Mr Ellis gives the following answer:—
“Except at the battle of Falkirk, I see no reason to think that Wallace was ever personally opposed to Edward the First; certainly not during his incursion in 1297, as Edward was then in France. The story of his meeting the queen at St Albans must be a fiction. It is too singular a circumstance, if it had happened, to remain totally unnoticed in any of the English annals. I can find no mention of Wallace’s being in Guienne. I think it was not likely that he should be found there. Scotland and the Border gave him full employ for his short career. No concert is at all noticed in the Lanercost MS. between Aymer de Valence and Sir John Menteith.”
His important communication, in regard to the concern that Menteith himself had in the base transactions referred to, will be found among the proofs which I have collected on this subject, in the Note on Book XI. ver. 948, p. 402.
Having made some inquiries as to the manuscript No. 1226, formerly mentioned, and suggested that, from its orthography, it seems to claim a date prior to the age of Charles the First; Mr Ellis has favoured me with the following reply:—
“The manuscript in the same collection, Num. 1226, is entirely in prose. It occupies about a hundred leaves in small quarto; but is not paged. From the orthography, the manuscript may be somewhat older than I had supposed. It certainly is not before the time of James the First. I think you are correct in supposing it a copy from Henry the Minstrel. In an address ‘To the moist cortews Reader,’ the author says, ‘al thoche this famous historie hathe beine republished heir to foir by hime which deserws great thankis for so worthie a work, yit the gathering of the said historie in a smaller compass may gif moir content vnto some readers,’ &c. From another passage it should seem that additions are interspersed; but evidently without either distinction or authorities.”
Mr Ellis also informs me, that the only old edition of Wallace, in the Museum, besides that of 1570, is the one printed at Aberdeen, in 1630, small octavo.