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.