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.