From the above interesting muniment, various important points in our history may be established. In the first place, it seems evident, that Wallace and Murray, up to the 11th October 1297, acted only as “duces exercitus regni Scotie,” in behalf of the community of said kingdom; and that the commission from John Baliol, authorizing them to act under his sanction, must have been received by them on their march to England, or during the time the devastation of that country was going forward; that is to say, between the 11th October and 7th November, on which day the charter was granted to the monks of Hexham,[88] where we find “the name of the illustrious Prince John, by the Grace of God King of Scotland,” is added to the authorities mentioned in the above letter. And again, that between the 7th November 1297, and the 29th March 1298, another commision must have been forwarded from Baliol to Wallace constituting him the sole Regent of the Kingdom of Scotland, as we find him on that day at Torphichen granting, in that capacity, a charter to Alexander Scrimgeor, and affixing to it the seal of Baliol; which circumstance is mentioned in the charter, while no mention is made of any seal being used in that at Hexham.[89]
From the circumstance of Andrew Murray’s name having precedence in the letter to the Hanse Towns, and in the charter of Hexham, it may with great probability be inferred, that these two documents were either written by Wallace himself, or under his direction. That he was qualified for the task is evident, from the care which had been bestowed on his education; first by his uncle, and afterwards at the seminary of Dundee. If Murray had either written them, or ordered them to be written, it is not likely that he would have placed his own name before one whose merits were so generally acknowledged, as to procure him the appointment of Regent in so short a time afterwards; while Wallace, in placing, or causing the name of Murray to be placed, before his own, appears acting in perfect consistency with those amiable traits in his character which we have already noticed. As these writings are also free from that monkish pedantry, and mystification which pervades in the literature of that age, they may with great probability be considered as the composition of the talented Liberator.[90]
It may be remarked, that the envy which a number of the magnates of Scotland entertained towards the Guardian, seems to have arisen after his appointment to the Regency. How Sir Andrew Murray demeaned himself on the occasion, does not appear; but the conduct and feelings of Cumyn, his near relation,[91] were too unequivocally expressed to be misunderstood.
The above letter, besides affording a good specimen of the diplomatic talents of our hero, is at the same time highly complimentary to the friendly feelings and mercantile integrity of the merchants of the two Hanse cities, and exhibits a singular contrast to the policy of Philip, who, though bound by treaties, allowed his allies to struggle on against their powerful adversary, without affording them the slightest assistance.
B.
MEMOIR OF PATRICK EARL OF DUNBAR.[92] [Page 13.]
This powerful and warlike baron was descended from Gospatrick, the Governor of Northumberland, in the time of William the Norman, who deprived him of that office in consequence of his joining the Danes in 1069, on their invasion of England. He afterwards retired to Scotland, and sought the protection of Malcolm III., who conferred on him the Castle of Dunbar and the lands adjoining. In virtue of this grant, his descendants were styled Earls of March, and sometimes of Dunbar; the former title being derived from the lands, the latter from the name of the principal castle belonging to the family. They were also possessed of the castle of Coldbrands-path, a fortress of almost equal importance.
Patrick, or (Corspatrick, as he is sometimes called), the subject of the present notice, was the eighth Earl of Dunbar; he succeeded to his father in 1289, being then about forty-seven years of age. He was one of the nobles who consented to the projected marriage between prince Edward and Margaret the young Queen of Scotland. In 1291, he put in his claim to the crown, among the other competitors, founding his right on being the great-grandson of Ilda or Ada, the daughter of William king of Scots. On the commencement of hostilities between Edward and Baliol, he adhered to the former; but his castle of Dunbar being left in possession of his wife Margery, daughter of Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan, she delivered it over to Baliol—conceiving the duties she owed her country paramount to the injunctions of her husband.
Whatever blame may be attached to this Earl, for the active part he took against the interest of Scotland, still the merit of consistency must be awarded to him in the crooked line of policy he adopted; for, having sworn fealty to Edward in 1291, he adhered to the interests of his over-lord with zeal and fidelity. The answer[93] which he returned to Wallace and the Scottish barons assembled at Perth, is quite in accordance with that tone of independence assumed by the family, and which, according to Lord Hailes, was so prejudicial to Scotland.