[61] Fordun relates, that when this offer was made to Wallace, and on his being pressed by his friends to comply, he thus expressed himself:—“O! desolated Scotland, too credulous of fair speeches, and not aware of the calamities which are coming upon you! If you were to judge as I do, you would not easily put your neck under a foreign yoke. When I was a boy, the priest, my uncle, carefully inculcated upon me this proverb, which I then learned, and have ever since kept in my mind:—
“Dico tibi verum, Libertas optima rerum;
Nunquam servili, sub nexu vivito, fili.”
“I tell you a truth,—Liberty is the best of things, my son, never live under any slavish bond.”
“Therefore, I shortly declare, that if all others, the natives of Scotland, should obey the King of England, or were to part with the liberty which belongs to them, I and those who may be willing to adhere to me in this point, will stand for the liberty of the kingdom; and by God’s assistance, will only obey the King, viz. John Baliol, or his Lieutenant.”
[62] This is evidently a corruption of Loup de guerre.
[63] The existence of the bond or covenant between Bruce and Cumyn, though subjected to the doubts of Lord Hailes, is recorded by all our respectable authorities. The objections of his Lordship arose from the difficulty the parties would have experienced in effecting the contract. “It must be held extraordinary,” says our learned annalist, “that the two conspirators met together, should have committed such a secret to writing, as if it had been a legal covenant to have force in a court of justice; but more extraordinary still, that they should have done this at the imminent hazard of intrusting their lives and fortunes to the fidelity of a third party; for I presume, it will be admitted, that two Scottish barons, in that age, could not have framed such an indenture without assistance.” His Lordship, in his zeal to diminish the authority of preceding historians, often forgets the manners and customs of the age respecting which he writes, and assimilates them too closely to those of his own times. Were it not for this, he would have seen neither difficulty nor danger in two barons of such extensive territorial possessions and feudal influence, procuring a person properly qualified, and whose secrecy, had it been doubted, they would have had no hesitation in effectually securing, either by imprisonment or otherwise. Even if their power did not extend to this, as the bond was not left in the possession of the drawer, where was the danger? Would any person whose education enabled him to frame such an instrument, have been so extremely foolish as attempt to charge two of the most powerful noblemen of the kingdom with treason, without the least shadow of proof to support the accusation? Bonds of manrent were never intended to be brought into a court of law, and all his Lordship’s experience would not have furnished him with a single instance of an attempt to enforce the fulfilment of such a contract by legal means. Bonds of this kind were entered into for the purpose of strengthening the feudal connections of the parties; and infidelity under such compacts carried its punishment along with it, by the want of confidence it created among the other feudal proprietors. That such bondsmen were looked upon with extreme jealousy by the Legislature, is sufficiently evident from the conduct of James II. towards Lord Douglas; “a court of justice,” therefore, was not the place to get their penalties recognised.
The transaction is thus related by Wyntown, with whom Barbour agrees in every particular, and by which it will be seen, that “the two conspirators” did not “meet together,” as his Lordship asserts, but were riding together to Stirling; and the instrument was drawn and sealed the same night in that place:—
“Quhen all this sawe the Brws Robert,
That bare the Crowne swne eftyrwart,
Gret pytté of the folk he had,
Set few wordis tharof he mád.
A-pon á tyme Schyr Jhon Cwmyn,
To-gydder rydand frá Strevylyn,
Said til hym, ‘Schyr, will yhe noucht se,
How that governyd is this cuntré?
Thai sla oure Folk but enchesown,
And haldis this Land agayne resown;
And yhe thar-of full Lord suld be.
For-thi gyve ye will trow to me,
Yhe sall gere mak yhow thare-of Kyng;
And I sall be in yhoure helpyng,
Wyth-thi yhe gyve me all the Land,
That yhe hawe now in-til yhoure hand,
And gyve that yhe will noucht do swá,
Na swilk a State a-pon yhowe tá,
All hale my Landis sall yhowris be;
And lat me tá the State on me,
And bryng this Land owt of Thryllage.
For thare is nother man ná page
In all this Land na thayne sal be
Fayne to mak thaime selfyn fre.’
“The Lord the Brws hard his karpyng,
And wend he spak bot faythful thyng:
And for it lykyd til his will,
He gave swne his Consent thare-til,
And sayd, ‘Syne yhe will, it be swá,
I will blythly a-pon me tá
The State; for I wate, I have Rycht:
And Rycht oft makis the febil wycht.’
“Thus ther twa Lordis accordyt are.
That ilke nycht than wryttyne ware
Thare Indentwris, and Aithis made
Til hald all, that thai spokyn had.”
V. ii. p. 123
[64] It is with regret that we find this recreant’s name in the list of the defenders of Stirling. Emancipation from a dungeon, and the prospect of attaining to great riches, were no doubt powerful motives. Whether the following relation in Henry has any subsequent connection with this individual, we must leave our readers to determine. If it does, he appears to have received from the hand of our hero the recompence of his labours.