CONSTABLE’S MISCELLANY,
VOLS. LIII. LIV.
Will appear on the 3d and 17th April, containing,

THE LIFE
OF
SIR WILLIAM WALLACE,
OF
ELDERSLIE.

BY JOHN D. CARRICK.

THE BUGLE NE’ER SUNG TO A BRAVER KNIGHT
THAN WILLIAM OF ELDERSLIE.

THOMAS CAMPBELL.

IN TWO VOLUMES.

EDINBURGH:
CONSTABLE AND CO., 19, WATERLOO PLACE;
AND HURST, CHANCE, AND CO., LONDON.

BOURRIENNE.
Preparing for immediate Publication
IN
CONSTABLE’S MISCELLANY,
MEMOIRS
OF
NAPOLEON BONAPARTE,
FROM THE FRENCH
OF
M. DE BOURRIENNE,
PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE EMPEROR.
BY JAMES S. MEMES, LL.D.
IN THREE VOLUMES.

CONSTABLE’S MISCELLANY,
OF
ORIGINAL AND SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

“A real and existing Library of Useful and Entertaining knowledge.” Literary Gazette.

ADVERTISEMENT.

The unlimited desire of knowledge which now pervades every class of Society, suggested the design, of not only reprinting, without abridgment or curtailment, in a cheap form, several interesting and valuable Publications, hitherto placed beyond the reach of a great proportion of readers, but also of issuing, in that form, many Original Treatises, by some of the most Distinguished Authors of the age. Such is the object of the present Work, which is publishing in a series of Volumes, under the general title of “Constable’s Miscellany of Original and Selected Publications, in the various Departments of Literature, Science, and the Arts.”

Immediately after its commencement, in January 1827, this Miscellany met with extensive encouragement, which has enabled the Publishers to bring forward a series of works of the very highest interest, and at unparalleled low prices. Fifty-two volumes are already before the Public, forming thirty-four distinct works, any of which may be purchased separately. Every volume contains a Vignette Title-page; and numerous other illustrations, such as Maps, Portraits, &c. are occasionally given.

Being intended for all ages as well as ranks, Constable’s Miscellany is printed in a style and form which combine at once the means of giving much matter in a small space, with the requisites of great clearness and facility.

A Volume, containing at least 324 pages, appears every three weeks, price 3s. 6d., a limited number being printed on fine paper, with early impressions of the Vignettes, price 5s.

EDINBURGH:
PUBLISHED BY CONSTABLE AND CO.; AND
HURST, CHANCE, AND CO., LONDON.

ORIGINAL WORKS
PREPARING FOR
CONSTABLE’S MISCELLANY.

I. LIFE of K. JAMES the FIRST. By R. Chambers, Author of “The Rebellions in Scotland,” &c. 2 vols.

II. The ACHIEVEMENTS of the KNIGHTS of MALTA, from the Institution of the Hospitallers of St John, in 1099, till the Political Extinction of the Order, by Napoleon, in 1800. By Alex. Sutherland, Esq. 2 vols.

III. LIFE of FRANCIS PIZZARO, and an ACCOUNT of the CONQUEST of PERU, &c. By the Author of the “Life of Hernan Cortes.” 1 vol.

IV. HISTORY of MODERN GREECE, and the Ionian Islands; including a detailed Account of the late Revolutionary War. By Thomas Keightley, Esq., Author of “Fairy Mythology,” &c. 2 vols.

V. A TOUR in SICILY, &c. By J. S. Memes, Esq. LL.D., Author of the “History of Sculpture, Painting, and Architecture,” &c. 1 vol.

VI. MEMOIRS of the IRISH REBELLIONS; By J. McCaul, Esq. M. A. of Trin. Coll., Dublin. 2 vols.

VII. HISTORY of FRANCE, from the earliest authentic era till the present time. By William Fraser, Esq., Editor of “The Foreign Review.” 3 vols.

VIII. A JOURNEY through the SOUTHERN PROVINCES of FRANCE, the PYRENEES, and SWITZERLAND. By Derwent Conway, Author of “A Tour through Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.” 2 vols.

IX. The POEMS and LETTERS of ROBERT BURNS, Chronologically arranged, with a Preliminary Essay and Notes, and Sundry Additions. By J. G. Lockhart, LL.B.^* 2 vols.

X. LIFE and REIGN of MAHMOUD II., present Grand Sultan of Turkey, including the Geographical, Moral, and Political History of that Empire. By E. Upham, Esq. Author of the “History of the Ottoman Empire,” &c.^* 1 vol.

LIST OF WORKS ALREADY PUBLISHED.

Price 3s. 6d. each Volume, cloth boards; or on fine paper, 5s.

Vols. 1. 2. 3. CAPT. BASIL HALL’S VOYAGES.

4. ADVENTURES of BRITISH SEAMEN. By Hugh Murray, Esq. F.R.S.E.

5. MEMOIRS of LA ROCHE JAQUELEIN. With a Preface and Notes, by Sir Walter Scott, Bart.

6. & 7. CONVERTS from INFIDELITY. By Andrew Crichton.

8. & 9. SYMES’ EMBASSY to the KINGDOM of AVA. With a Narrative of the late Military and Political Operations in the Birman Empire.

10. TABLE-TALK; or, SELECTIONS from the ANA.

11. PERILS and CAPTIVITY.

12. SELECTIONS of the MOST REMARKABLE PHENOMENA of NATURE.

13. & 14. MARINER’S ACCOUNT of the NATIVES of the TONGA ISLANDS, in the South Pacific Ocean.

15. & 16. HISTORY of the REBELLIONS in SCOTLAND in 1745, 1746. By Robert Chambers.

17. VOYAGES and EXCURSIONS in CENTRAL AMERICA. By Orlando W. Roberts, many years a resident Trader.

18. & 19. The HISTORICAL WORKS of FREDERICK SCHILLER, from the German, by George Moir, Esq. Translator of “Wallenstein.”

20. & 21. An HISTORICAL VIEW of the Manners, Customs, Literature, &c. of Great Britain, from the Time of the Saxons, down to the 18th Century. By R. Thomson, Author of “Chronicles of London Bridge.”

22. The GENERAL REGISTER of Politics, Science, and Literature, for 1827.

23. LIFE of ROBERT BURNS. By J. G. Lockhart, LL.B.

24. & 25. LIFE of MARY, QUEEN of SCOTS. By Henry Glassford Bell, Esq.

26. EVIDENCES of CHRISTIANITY. By the Venerable Archdeacon Wrangham.

27. & 28. MEMORIALS of the LATE WAR.

29. & 30. A TOUR in GERMANY and in the AUSTRIAN EMPIRE, in 1820, 21, 22. By J. Russell, Esq.

Works already Published.

31. & 32. The REBELLIONS in SCOTLAND, under Montrose and Others, from 1638 till 1660. By Robert Chambers, Author of “The Rebellion of 1745.”

33. 34. & 35. HISTORY of the PRINCIPAL REVOLUTIONS in EUROPE. From the French of C. W. Koch.

36. & 37. A PEDESTRIAN JOURNEY through RUSSIA and SIBERIAN TARTARY. By Capt. John Dundas Cochrane, R. N.

38. NARRATIVE of a TOUR through NORWAY, SWEDEN, and DENMARK. By Derwent Conway, Author of “Solitary Walks,” &c.

39. HISTORY of SCULPTURE, PAINTING, and ARCHITECTURE. By J. S. Memes, LL.D. Author of “The Life of Canova,” &c.

40. & 41. HISTORY of the OTTOMAN EMPIRE. By Edward Upham, Esq. M.R.A.S., Author of the “History of Budhism,” &c.

42. HISTORY of the REBELLIONS in SCOTLAND, under DUNDEE and MAR, in 1689 and 1715. By Robert Chambers, Author of the “Rebellion in Scotland in 1745,” &c.

43. & 44. HISTORY of MOST REMARKABLE CONSPIRACIES connected with European History. By J. P. Lawson, M. A., Author of the “Life and Times of Archbishop Laud.”

45. The NATURAL HISTORY of SELBORNE. By the late Rev. Gilbert White, M. A. A New Edition with Additions. By Sir William Jardine, Bart., Author of “Illustrations of Ornithology,” &c.

46. An AUTUMN in ITALY, being a PERSONAL NARRATIVE of a TOUR in the AUSTRIAN, TUSCAN, ROMAN, and SARDINIAN STATES, in 1827. By J. D. Sinclair, Esq.

47. & 48. The LIFE of OLIVER CROMWELL. By M. Russell, LL.D.

49. LIFE of HERNAN CORTES. By Don Telesforo de Trueba y Cosio, Author of “Gomez Arias,” “The Castilian,” &c.

50. & 51. HISTORY of CHIVALRY and the CRUSADES. By the Rev. Henry Stebbing, M. A.

52. HISTORY of MUSIC. By W. C. Stafford.

53. & 54. LIFE of SIR WILLIAM WALLACE. By John D. Carrick.

LIFE
OF
SIR WILLIAM WALLACE.

Blackwood Sculp^t

SEAL of BALIOL used by WALLACE while REGENT of SCOTLAND.

Vol I, [Page 137]

CONSTABLE’S MISCELLANY
OF
Original and Selected Publications
IN THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
OF
LITERATURE, SCIENCE & THE ARTS.
VOL. LIII.

LIFE OF SIR WILLIAM WALLACE, VOL. I.

Drawn by A. Nasmyth

Engraved by W. Miller

WALLACE’S TREE—TORWOOD.

EDINBURGH:
PRINTED FOR CONSTABLE & C^o. EDINBURGH.
AND HURST, CHANCE & C^o. LONDON.
1830.

LIFE
OF
SIR WILLIAM WALLACE,
OF
ELDERSLIE.

BY JOHN D. CARRICK.

THE BUGLE NE’ER SUNG TO A BRAVER KNIGHT
THAN WILLIAM OF ELDERSLIE.

THOMAS CAMPBELL.

IN TWO VOLUMES.

VOL. I.

EDINBURGH:
PRINTED FOR CONSTABLE AND CO.;
AND HURST, CHANCE AND CO., LONDON.
1830.

PREFACE.

In presenting to the British Public the Life of a man, whose name has been for ages the slogan, or cri de guerre, when the liberty of his country was in danger, few words may suffice in the way of Preface.

The unprovoked aggression of England on the freedom of Scotland, produced, in the latter country, one of those grand national convulsions, which seldom fail to call forth some master-spirit from obscurity. Owing to circumstances, however, connected with the unsettled and turbulent state of the times, the transcendent talents of the Knight of Elderslie had been, among his contemporaries, more a subject for grateful admiration, than historical record; and, in consequence, no small degree of fiction has been mixed up with his story, while his real achievements have become in a manner obscured by their own undefined greatness.

The Proprietors of Constable’s Miscellany, conceiving that a work exclusively devoted to the elucidation of the occurrences in the life and times of the Deliverer of Scotland, would be an important addition to our stock of historical knowledge, the writer was requested to undertake the present work, having become partially conversant with the subject, while engaged in drawing up a Life of Wallace, some years ago,[1] for the use of juvenile readers.

In venturing before the Public as the biographer of the Guardian of Scotland, the Author is not unconscious of the difficulties that surround him. The subject is one with which his countrymen in all ranks of life have been from their early years more or less familiar; and are all qualified, to a certain extent, to become his critics. With so numerous a host of reviewers, the errors he may have committed have no chance to escape detection, while the strong partiality with which such readers are imbued, will no doubt be occasionally offended, when they find the tame realities of historical evidence substituted for the more pleasing details of romantic and poetical embellishment. With another class of readers, whose cooler temperament and neutralized feelings may enable them to view the narrative of our hero’s transactions through a different medium, the writer runs an equal hazard of being charged with overstepping the limits of probability. Thus circumstanced, the hope of his production meeting any thing like general approbation becomes extremely faint, and excites the apprehension that he will have to measure his success only by the mildness with which his labours may be censured.

It remains only to be added, that to John Strachan, Esq. of Thornton, Stirlingshire, (late of Woodside), the Publishers lie under deep obligation for the kind manner in which he furnished information connected with Wallace’s Oak, and for the sketch of the tree itself, after a painting by Nasmyth, executed in 1771, which illustrates the present Volume. The building, represented in the back ground, is the ruins of Tor Castle, where the unfortunate James III. is supposed to have passed the night previous to the fatal battle of Sauchie.

March 1830.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

There is no portion of the history of Scotland more embarrassing to modern writers, than the period which relates to the life and achievements of Wallace.

Having been long since anticipated in all the leading details respecting him by Henry the Minstrel, our historians in general seem nervous in approaching the subject; and have either contented themselves with such materials as the old English writers and certain monastic chronicles have furnished, or have deliberately borrowed, without the grace of acknowledgment, the facts recorded by an author they affected to despise, as one whom the learned were not agreed to admit within the pale of respectable authority. This treatment, however, we conceive to be not only unfair, but rather discourteous in those who may have extended their suffrages to writers guilty of much greater aberrations from historical veracity than any which are chargeable against him. It is true, that the works of those writers are in Latin; but still, we do not see that a great falsehood, told in the classical language of ancient Rome, should be entitled to a larger portion of public faith than a lesser one set forth in the more modern patois of Scotland.

When Walsingham, in describing the battle of Falkirk, tells us that the sharpness and strength of the English arrows were such, that “they thoroughly penetrated the men-at-arms, obscured the helmets, perforated the swords, and overwhelmed the lances”—(ut ipsos armatos omnino penetrarent, cassides tenebrarent, gladios perforarent, lanceas funderent)—and another learned author,[2] in narrating the same battle, makes the loss of the Scots in killed, wounded and prisoners, amount to more in number than were disposed of in any one of the most sanguinary conflicts between the Roman and Barbaric worlds,—we would naturally expect, that the indulgence which can readily attribute such outrages on our credulity, to the style of the age in which the writers lived, might also be extended to our Minstrel, even when he describes his hero “like a true knight-errant, cleaving his foes through brawn and bayne down to the shoulders.”

It is said by Lord Hailes, in speaking of Henry, that “he is an author whom every historian copies, yet no historian but Sir Robert Sibbald will venture to quote.” This, though intended as a sneer by the learned annalist, may be viewed as complimentary to the candour of Sir Robert, who, while he avails himself of the facts related by another, is not above acknowledging the obligation. Considering the situation of this unfortunate but ingenious man, no author had ever a stronger claim on the indulgence of his readers. Blind from his birth, he was deprived of the advantage of correcting the manuscript of his work, while his poverty prevented him from procuring an amanuensis capable of doing justice to his talents. Hence we find a number of errors and omissions, that from the ease with which they can be rectified, appear evidently the faults of transcribers. Succeeding historians, far from making the allowance which his case demanded, have acted towards him with a degree of peevish hostility exceedingly unbecoming. Because his dates do not always correspond with the transactions he records, he has been termed a “liar” a “fabulist,” “a man blind in more respects than one;” with other appellations no less unworthy of themselves than unmerited by him. When it is considered that there is no circumstance connected with Wallace mentioned by subsequent writers, but what had already found a place in the work of the Minstrel;—that they had no other story to give than what he had previously given;—and that they must either repeat what he had already stated, or remain silent: we are led to conclude, that he could not have so effectually pre-occupied the ground, without having very complete information regarding the subject of his biography. This information, he tells us himself, was derived from a memoir written in Latin by John Blair, assisted by Thomas Gray, the former chaplain to Wallace, and the latter parson of Liberton, both eye-witnesses of the transactions they relate. It follows, therefore, that Scottish authors, having obtained, in a great measure, their information respecting Wallace from the pages of Blind Harry, their characters, as historians, become seriously involved with the fate of him whom they have so unceremoniously vituperated. Under these circumstances, it appears a very proper subject of inquiry, to ascertain whether he has, or has not executed his task with becoming fidelity. Were the memoir of Blair extant, this matter could very soon be determined; but having long since disappeared, doubts are now entertained of its ever having been in existence. Sir Robert Sibbald has published a few fragments, entitled Relationes quædam Arnaldi Blair, Monachi de Dumfermelini, et Capellani D. Willielmi Wallas, Militis 1327. Though these are merely transcripts from the Scotichronicon of Fordun, yet some have supposed them to have been the groundwork on which Blind Harry founded his poem. This opinion, however, can scarcely be maintained save by those who have only seen the title; the most superficial inspection will be sufficient to induce a very different conclusion. Arnold Blair may have, on some occasion, officiated as chaplain to Wallace, and, proud of the distinction, in imitation of his namesake, may have made the ill-arranged excerpts from Fordun, for the purpose of handing down his own name in connexion with that of the illustrious defender of his country: but the confident manner in which Henry refers to his author, as evidence of facts which are not alluded to, even in the most distant manner, in the work of Arnold, shows the impossibility of its being the foundation of his narrative; for we cannot suppose that an author, wishing to pass off a tissue of fables for a series of truths, would act with so much inconsistency, as to court detection by referring for authority to a quarter where he was sure of finding none. When Henry introduced his translation to the public, the approbation with which it was received may very justly be viewed as the test of its correctness, there being no scarcity of men in the country capable of collating it with the original, and detecting the imposition, if any existed; and it may therefore reasonably be inferred, that the excellency of the translation was such as to supersede the original; being, from its language, more accessible to all classes than the other, which, on that account, was more likely to go into desuetude, and ultimately to disappear.

The character of Minstrel which has been attached to Henry,—joined to the vulgar and disgusting translation of his work into modern Scotch, by Hamilton of Gilbertfield,—has, it is presumed, injured his reputation as a historian, more than any deviation he has made from the authentic records of the country. No other work of his exists, or is known to have existed, which might entitle him to rank as a minstrel; but being called upon—and possibly compelled by circumstances—to recite his translation in the presence of the great, he received a minstrel’s reward, and became, perhaps improperly, confounded with the profession.

Had Barbour, Wyntown, Langtoft and other authors, who wrote their chronicles in rhyme, been quoted by subsequent writers as minstrels, it would no doubt have weakened their authority as historians. These men, however, professed to give, though in verse, a faithful register of the transactions of their country. Henry seems to have had only the same object in view; and thus endeavours to impress the reader with the fidelity of the translation, and the disinterestedness of his motives:—

“Off Wallace lyff quha has a forthar feill,
May schaw furth mair with wit and eloquence;
For I to this haiff don my diligence,
Eftyr the pruff geyffyn fra the Latyn buk,
Quhilk Maister Blayr in his tym wndyrtuk,
In fayr Latyn compild it till ane end;
With thir witnes the mar is to commend.
Byschop Synclar than lord was off Dunkell,
He gat this buk, and confermd it him sell
For werray true; thar off he had no dreid,
Himselff had seyn gret part off Wallace deid.
His purpos was till haue send it to Rom,
Our fadyr off kyrk tharon to gyff his dom.
Bot Maister Blayr, and als Schir Thomas Gray,
Eftir Wallace thai lestit mony day,
Thir twa knew best of gud Schir Wilyhamys deid,
Fra sexteyn yer quhill nyne and twenty yeid.
Fourty and fyve off age, Wallace was cauld,
That tym that he was to [the] Southeroun sauld.
Thocht this mater be nocht till all plesance,
His suthfast deid was worthi till awance.
All worthi men at redys this rurall dyt,
Blaym nocht the buk, set I be wnperfyt.
I suld hawe thank, sen I nocht trawaill spard;
For my laubour na man hecht me reward;
Na charge I had off king nor othir lord;
Gret harm I thocht his gud deid suld be smord.
I haiff said her ner as the process gais;
And fenyeid nocht for frendschip nor for fais.
Costis herfor was no man bond to me;
In this sentence I had na will to be,
Bot in als mekill as I rahersit nocht
Sa worthely as nobill Wallace wrocht.
Bot in a poynt, I grant, I said amyss,
Thir twa knychtis suld blamyt be for this,
The knycht Wallas, off Craggé rychtwyss lord,
And Liddaill als, gert me mak [wrang] record.
On Allyrtoun mur the croun he tuk a day,
To get battaill, as myn autour will say.
Thir twa gert me say that ane othir wyss;
Till Maister Blayr we did sumpart off dispyss.”

Buke Eleuenth, v. 1410–1450.

What more can an author say to satisfy his reader of the purity of his intentions, as well as of the genuineness of the source from whence he has drawn his materials? Without reward, or promise of reward, he appears to have undertaken his task from the purest feelings of patriotism, and finished it before he experienced any of the fostering influence of patronage. That the transactions he relates are substantially correct, or at least such as were generally believed to be so at the time he wrote, we have the evidence of one nearly cotemporary. Major thus expresses himself:[3] “Henry, who was blind from his birth, in the time of my infancy composed the whole Book of William Wallace; and committed to writing in vulgar poetry, in which he was well skilled, the things that were commonly related of him. For my own part, I give only partial credit to writings of this description. By the recitation of these however, in the presence of men of the highest rank, he procured, as he indeed deserved, food and raiment.” Though Major says nothing of Blair’s Memoirs, yet he frees Henry from the charge of relating any thing that was not previously believed by his countrymen.

Thomas Chambers, in his History of the House of Douglas, says, “These things fell out in the year 1298; which passages, as the most part of actions done in the time of Sir William Wallace, are either passed over, or slenderly touched by the writers of our chronicles, although the truth thereof be unquestionable, being related by those eyewitnesses who wrote the diary or history of Sir William Wallace in Latin, which is paraphrastically turned into English rhyme, the interpreter expressing the main body of the story very truly; howsomever, missing or mistaking some circumstances, he differeth therein from the Latin.”[4] From the manner in which this is expressed, it may be supposed that Chambers had seen the original. If this could be established, his testimony would be of considerable importance. Nicholson, Archdeacon of Carlisle, in his Scottish Historical Library, says, that the names of the great northern Englishmen, whom Henry represents Wallace as having been engaged with, such as Sir Gerard Heron, Captain Thirlwall, Morland, Martindale, &c. are still well known on the borders of Cumberland and Northumberland. The reader may also find, by the Statistical Account of Scotland, that the localities mentioned in the poem, are given with a precision beyond the reach of one labouring under the infirmity of blindness.

The invasion of Lorn by MacFadyan and a horde of Irish, at the instigation of Edward, is a circumstance unnoticed by any historian, save the translator of Blair; and were it not for the undoubted evidence, arising from traditions still preserved among a people who never heard of the work of the Minstrel, it might be considered as the mere creation of his own fancy. But such decided testimony in favour of the correctness of his statement, when taken in connection with the accurate manner in which he has described the advance of Wallace through a country, respecting the intricacies of which he, of himself, could form no idea—the near approach he has made to the Celtic names of the places, which can still be distinctly traced—and the correct description he has given of the grand scene of action on the Awe,—are sufficient to stamp the impress of truth on his narrative, and satisfy any one of the impossibility of a man, situated as he was, ever being able to accomplish it without the diary of an eye-witness.

After the defeat of MacFadyan, Wallace is represented as holding a council or meeting with the chieftains of the West Highlands, in the Priory of Ardchattan. The ruins of the Priory are still to be found on the banks of Loch Etive, a few miles from the scene of strife; and among the rubbish, as well as in the neighbouring grounds, coins of Edward I. have at different times been dug up, in considerable quantities. So late as March 1829, the following paragraph appeared in the Glasgow Herald:—“In digging a grave, a few days ago at Balvodan (or St Modan’s), a burial-place in the neighbourhood of the Priory of Ardchattan, Argyllshire, a number of ancient silver coins were found, in a remarkably fine state of preservation. The place where they had been deposited was about four feet below the surface; and they seem to have been contained in an earthen vessel, which mouldered into dust, on exposure to the atmosphere; they were turned up by the shovel, as those who were attending the interment were surrounding the grave, and each of the party present having picked up a few, the rest were, by the Highlanders, returned with the earth to the grave. The coins were struck in the reign of the First Edward, whose name can be distinctly traced on them; and they were probably placed there at the time, when that monarch had succeeded in getting temporary possession of the greater part of Scotland. In that case they must have lain where they were found for upwards of five hundred years.” The writer had an opportunity of examining a number of these coins on the spot; he found a great many of them to be struck in Dublin, and they seemed below the regular standard. Though numerous discoveries have been made of the coins of this ambitious monarch in other parts of Scotland, yet in the West Highlands they are extremely rare. Neither Edward, nor any of his English generals, ever penetrated so far in that direction. It is, therefore, highly probable, that the above money may have formed part of the contents of the military chest of MacFadyan, which, in that superstitious age, had found its way into the hands of the priesthood.

Although Henry cannot be collated with his original, the truth or falsehood of his narrative may, in part, be ascertained by comparing him with those who preceded him on the same subject. The most reputable of these writers, and those whose characters for veracity stand highest in the estimation of the learned, are John de Fordun, and Andro de Wyntown, both original historians; for, though Wyntown outlived Fordun, he had not an opportunity of seeing his history. With respect to Fordun’s agreement with the Minstrel, the reader has the evidence of Nicholson, Archdeacon of Carlisle, who says, that “Hart’s edition of Wallace contains a preface which confirms the whole of it out of the Scoti-Chronicon.”[5] Wyntown, who finished his history in 1424, being about 46 years before Henry, in alluding to those deeds of Wallace which he had left unrecorded, says,

“Of his gud Dedis and Manhad
Gret Gestis; I hard say, ar made;
Bot sá mony, I trow noucht,
As he in-till hys dayis wroucht.
Quha all hys Dedis of prys wald dyte,
Hym worthyd a gret Buk to wryte;
And all thái to wryte in here
I want báthe Wyt and gud Laysere.”

B. viii. c. xv. v. 79–86.

The first couplet may allude to Blair’s Diary, or perhaps to Fordun’s History, which he had no doubt heard of; and, in the succeeding lines, he doubts that, however much may have been recorded, it must still fall very short of what was actually performed. This is so far satisfactory, from one who lived almost within a century of the time, and who no doubt often conversed with those whose fathers had fought under the banners of Wallace; it is a pity that his modesty, and his want of “gud laysere,” prevented him from devoting more of his time to so meritorious a subject. The first transaction which he has narrated, is the affair at Lanark; but it is evident from what he says, that Wallace must have often before mingled in deadly feud with the English soldiers, and done them serious injury; otherwise, it would be difficult to account for their entertaining towards him the degree of animosity expressed in the following lines:

“Gret Dyspyte thir Inglis men
Had at this Willame Walays then.
Swá thai made thame on á day
Hym for to set in hard assay:”

B. viii. c. xiii. v. 19–22.

Every particular that Wyntown gives of the conflict which ensues, in consequence of this preconcerted quarrel on the part of the English, is detailed in the account of the Minstrel with a degree of correctness, leaving no room to doubt that either the two authors must have drawn their materials from the same source, or that Henry, having heard Wyntown’s version of the story, considered it so near the original as to leave little to be corrected. The language, as will be seen from the following examples, is nearly the same:

“Twelf hundyre nynty yhere and sewyn
Frá Cryst wes borne the Kyng of Hewyn,”

B. viii. c. xiii.

Henry thus enters upon the same subject—

“Tuelff hundreth yer, tharto nynté and sewyn,
Fra Cryst wes born the rychtwiss king off hewyn.”

“Buke Sext,” 107, 108.

Wyntown gives the following dialogue, as having taken place between Wallace and an athletic wag belonging to the English garrison of Lanark, who, when surrounded by his companions, made “a Tyt at hys sword:”

W. “Hald stylle thi hand, and spek thi worde.”

I. “Wyth thi Swerd thow máis gret bost.”

W. “Tharefor thi Dame made lytil cost.”

I. “Quhat caus has thow to were the Grene?”

W. “Ná caus, bot for to make the Tene.”

I. “Thow suld noucht bere sà fare a Knyf.”

W. “Swà sayd the Preyst, that swywyd thi Wyf:
Swà lang he cald that Woman fayr,
Quhill that his Barne wes made thi Ayre.”

I. “Me-thynk thow drywys me to scorne.”

W. “Thi Dame wes swywyd or thow wes borne.”

B. viii. c. xiii. 28–38.

The similarity of Henry’s version is too apparent to be the effect of chance. After a little badinage, which does not appear in Wyntown, he says,

“Ma Sotheroune men to thaim assemblit ner.
Wallace as than was laith to mak a ster.
Ane maid a scrip, and tyt at his lang suorde:
‘Hald still thi hand,’ quod he, ‘and spek thi word.’
‘With thi lang suerd thow makis mekill bost.’
‘Tharoff,’ quod he, ‘thi deme maid litill cost.’
‘Quhat causs has thow to wer that gudlye greyne?—’
‘My maist causs is bot for to mak the teyne.’
‘Quhat suld a Scot do with sa fair a knyff?—’
‘Sa said the prest that last janglyt thi wyff;
‘That woman lang has tillit him so fair,
‘Quhill that his child, worthit to be thine ayr.’
‘Me think,’ quod he, ‘thow drywys me to scorn.’
‘Thi deme has beyne japyt or thow was born.’”

“Buke Sext,” 141–154.

The parties soon come to blows; and, in the conflict, Wallace cut off the hand of one of his opponents. Wyntown thus takes notice of the circumstance.

“As he wes in that Stowre fechtand,
Frá ane he strak swne the rycht hand;
And frá that Carle mycht do ná mare,
The left hand held fast the Buklare,
And he swá mankyd, as brayne-wode,
Kest fast wyth the Stwmpe the Blode
In-til Willame Walays face:
Mare cumryd of that Blode he was,
Than he was a welle lang qwhile
Feychtand stad in that peryle.”

B. viii. c. xiii. 47–56.

Henry narrates the anecdote with little variation.

“Wallace in stour wes cruelly fechtand;
Fra a Sotheroune he smat off the rycht hand:
And quhen that carle off fechtyng mycht no mar,
With the left hand in ire held a buklar.
Than fra the stowmpe the blud out spurgyt fast,
In Wallace face aboundandlye can out cast;
In to great part it marryt him off his sicht.”

“Buke Sext, 163–169.”

The escape of Wallace by means of his mistress—her murder by order of the sheriff—his return the ensuing night—with the slaughter of the sheriff—are particularly taken notice of by Wyntown. Henry’s translation includes all these occurrences, and only differs by being more circumstantial. The account of the battle of Falkirk agrees in numerous instances. The covenant between Cumming and Bruce, which Henry states to have taken place near Stirling, is corroborated in place and circumstance by Fordun, Wyntown and Barbour. The hanging of Sir Bryce Blair and Sir Ronald Crawford in a barn at Ayr, is confirmed by the last mentioned writer, although he does not descend to particulars.

These, and many other instances may be adduced, to show, that, though Henry or his authority may have occasionally indulged in the marvellous, yet the general outline of his history, and even many of the particulars, are in strict accordance with truth; and the work itself necessarily becomes not only valuable as a depository of ancient manners, but as containing matter, which, if properly investigated, may be useful to the historian. Whether the apocryphal part—and which, it must be allowed, is considerable—ought to be attributed to the fancy of the translator, or if it formed a portion of the original text, we have no means of ascertaining. From the frequent and apparent sincerity, however, with which Henry appeals to his “auctor,” and the value he seems to attach to a faithful discharge of his task, we might be led to infer, that if it were practicable to collate his performance with the memoir of Blair, the rendering of it would be found unexceptionable. Under these circumstances, the writer of the following narrative has not scrupled to avail himself of such statements as appeared entitled to credit; and, though he cannot consider the Minstrel as deserving the same degree of confidence as Wyntown or Barbour, yet, when he finds him consistent and characteristic, he conceives it would be unjust to suspect falsehood in every instance, where he does not happen to be supported by the respectable testimonies already enumerated. That he is more circumstantial than any of the Scottish historians, is easily accounted for, by his attention, or rather that of his author, being engrossed by the actions of one individual. A degree of minuteness is in this case adopted, which would be altogether incompatible with the plan of a general historian.

These remarks it has been deemed necessary to make in defence of one to whom we are indebted for the only original memoir of the greatest hero, and purest patriot, Scotland or any other country ever produced; an author, however, who, instead of having the merits of his work fairly appreciated, has been vilified and abused by those who, in their zeal for establishing new historical creeds, have found it a matter of less labour to sneer than to investigate.

The sources from whence the present writer has drawn his materials, will, it is hoped, be found such as are generally entitled to credit. Being of opinion that the authors who lived nearest the period under review ought to be best informed respecting the transactions connected with it, he has therefore endeavoured to collate as many ancient Scottish and English authorities as possible. The biographical notices of such Englishmen as figured in the Scottish wars, are chiefly drawn from the historians of England; conceiving that it belongs to the writers of a country to be best acquainted with the details of its internal and domestic history; but to enumerate the authorities he has consulted, would here be superfluous, as they are duly noted at the proper stages of the narrative.

LIFE
OF
SIR WILLIAM WALLACE.

CHAPTER I.
STATE OF SCOTLAND IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

The scanty and imperfect records which exist respecting the early state of Scotland, have been a fruitful source of complaint to all writers who have applied themselves to the investigation of her history. Those, however, who would form an estimate of her relative situation and internal resources, by reference to her condition at the time she became allied to England on the accession of James VI., would arrive at very erroneous conclusions on the subject.

That Scotland retrograded under the dynasty of the Stuarts, few, who are conversant with her early history, will be inclined to deny. But, without inquiring how far the incapacity or imprudence of that unfortunate race may have contributed to her decline, the writer will endeavour to arrange a few remarks respecting the above-mentioned period, for the benefit of those readers whose attention may not have been directed to that interesting portion of our annals.

The jurisprudence of Scotland, like that of the other states of Europe, embraced the feudal system in all its degrees of servitude, from the knightly devoirs of the baron, down to the humble and more laborious task of the bondsman, who could be either put to death at the will of his over-lord, or bartered away to the church, for a certain number of masses. Yet though this state of society existed to a considerable extent, there were some privileged classes exempt from its more degrading operation. The most influential of these, as might be expected, were the priesthood, who, as soon as admitted to orders, became emancipated from their temporal bondage.[6]

Merchants and burgesses were of course free. Had this not been the case, those useful classes could not have existed, as the control of the feudal superior over the adscriptos glebæ, extended not only to an absolute property in themselves and their offspring, but also over any means they might accumulate. When a bondsman, therefore, bought a burgage, and remained a year and a day in a burgh, without being molested or claimed by his lord, he became a free man for ever.[7]

Another useful portion of society is to be found in our records under the name of liberi firmarii, or free yeomanry, the formation of which, it is presumed, may be attributed in a great measure to the ecclesiastical establishments. The clergy, from their superior education, were wiser, in their generation, than their neighbours; and instead of allowing the produce of their lands to be eaten up by hordes of idle serfs, they preferred letting them at a valuation to industrious free men, whom they encouraged by the immunities which they had it in their power to grant. These free men were generally the descendants of the clergy, the younger sons of gentlemen, or burgesses possessed of small capitals. From this judicious management, the church lands were always the best cultivated, and consequently the most productive in the country.

At an early period the maritime towns were frequented by foreigners; and the productions of almost every clime were to be found in Scotland. By an Act of Alexander III.,[8] it appears that the trade of the country had rather declined during his minority; the causes of which are stated to have been, captures by pirates, shipwrecks on the coast, storms at sea, and detentions on slight grounds in various ports and places. In order, therefore, to revive the foreign commerce of the kingdom, and give the necessary security and facility to transactions with strangers, all the lieges were strictly prohibited from interfering with the said traffic, except the burgesses at the different ports. This regulation gave confidence to foreigners, by bringing them into immediate contact with a description of men, with whom reciprocal advantages would naturally beget and maintain a friendly understanding.[9]

The consequence of this liberal policy was soon felt; and before the year expired, vessels from all quarters made their appearance in the Scottish harbours, willing to exchange their cargoes for the productions of the country; and in the course of a few years, Scotland exhibited a very flourishing appearance, abounding in money and wealth of every description. The Flemings, whom the English had expelled, found protection and encouragement in Scotland, and were allowed to fortify their factory at Berwick, called “The Red Hall,” under condition of their defending it to the last extremity against the enemies of that kingdom. This engagement, as will be seen, they afterwards nobly performed.

A number of wealthy Lombards, jealous perhaps of their rivals the Flemings, now made application to the Government of Scotland for permission to erect similar establishments in various parts of the country, particularly at Queensferry and other stations on the Forth,—craving, at the same time, certain spiritual privileges. The States of the kingdom acceded at once to their request, in so far as they regarded trade; but as the Lombards were the vassals of the Pope, they prudently declined mixing up any ecclesiastical matters with affairs of commerce. In the meantime, the unfortunate death of the King put an end to the negociation. Fordun, who narrates the circumstance, does not condescend on the nature of the spiritual privileges required. It is highly probable, however, that they consisted in their being admitted into Scotland on the same terms which they enjoyed in England and other European states, where they were recognised in a special manner as “the Pope’s merchants,” and were intrusted by him with the receiving and remitting the immense revenues which were drawn from every country where their Holy Father’s supremacy was acknowledged. Trade, with them, was often a secondary consideration. Lending of money, for which they exacted enormous usury, constituted the most lucrative part of their operations; and in these nefarious transactions, it has been conjectured, that they were often commissioned to employ the funds belonging to the Holy See, whose bulls were frequently issued in their favour, when their crimes or rapacity had aroused the vengeance of the governments under which they resided.[10] Their severity to their debtors, made them known by the name of Caursini; and they at last became generally obnoxious for their extortion. If the account given of them by Matthew Paris may be relied on, the caution of the Scots respecting the admission of such harpies into the country was highly commendable.

The great mart for foreign commerce in the kingdom, previous to 1296, appears to have been Berwick. The importance of this place was considerable. Even in the reign of Malcolm IV., it possessed more ships than any other town in Scotland, and was exposed, from its wealth, to visits from the piratical fleets of the Norwegians. In 1156, a ship belonging to a citizen, called Knut the Opulent, and having his wife on board, was taken by Erlend, Earl of Orkney; but it is recorded Knut hired fourteen ships, with a competent number of men, for which he paid one hundred merks of silver, and went in pursuit of the pirate, who had anchored for the night at one of the adjacent islands.[11]

The wealth and importance of this ancient emporium of commerce, became so great in the reign of Alexander II., as to excite the admiration of contemporary authors, one of whom calls it a “second Alexandria;” and eulogizes the inhabitants for the extent of their donations to religious houses. “But we have,” says Macpherson, in his Annals of Commerce, “better authority than the voice of panegyric, for the prosperity of Berwick; as we find the customs of it assigned by King Alexander to a merchant of Gascoigne for 2,197l. 8s. Sterling—a sum equal to 32,961 bolls of wheat, at the usual price of 16 pennies.”[12]

In the years 1283 and 1284, Robert Durham the Mayor, together with Simon Martel, and other good men of Berwick, enacted the Statute of the Gilt.

“By c. 20. None but gild-brothers were permitted to buy hides, wool, or wool-fells, in order to sell them again, or cut cloth, except foreign merchants.

“C. 22. 37. and 44. Herrings and other fish, corn, beans, peas, salt, and coals,[13] were ordered to be sold ‘at the bray,’ along side the vessel bringing them, and no where else; and they were not to be carried on shore when the sun was down. Any burgess who was present at a purchase of herrings, might claim a portion of them for his own consumption, at the original cost.

“C. 27. Brokers were elected by the community of the town, and their names registered. They paid annually a tun (dolium) of wine for their license;”—a proof that their business must have been lucrative.

“C. 28. No regrator was allowed to buy fish, hay, oats, cheese, butter, or other articles brought into the town for sale, till the bell rung.

“The government of the town was declared to be by a mayor, four provosts (præpositis), and twenty-four councillors,” &c.

In 1283, when Edward was preparing for his invasion of Wales, he commissioned one John Bishop, a burgess of Lynne, to purchase merchandise (mercimonia) for him in Scotland. This is rather a singular instance of the superiority of the Scots market in those days.[14]

The other cities in Scotland, though inferior to Berwick, were not without their proportion of trade. About the same time, the sheriffs of Cumberland and Lancaster were ordered to send people to purchase fish on the west coast of Scotland, and convey them to the depôt at Chester; and one Adam de Fulcham was commissioned to furnish 100 barrels of sturgeons, of 500 weight each, 5000 salt fish, also dried fish. The fish of Aberdeen were so well cured, that they were exported to the principal fishing port of Yarmouth.

Four hundred fish of Aberdeen (perhaps salmon), one barrel sturgeons, five dozen lampreys, fifty pounds whale oil, balen (for burning, perhaps, during the voyage), and a half last of herrings, constituted the fish part of the provisions put on board of a ship fitted out at Yarmouth for bringing the infant Queen of Scotland from the court of her father, the King of Norway. The fish of Aberdeen cost somewhat under three pennies; stock-fish under one penny each, and the half last of herring 30s.[15]

In the reign of Alexander III., the merchants of St Omer’s, and partners of the Florentine houses of Pullici and Lambini, had established correspondents in Scotland; and one Richard de Furbur, a trader of the inland town of Roxburgh, had sent factors and supercargoes to manage his business in foreign countries, and various parts of Britain.

The exports of Scotland, at this time, consisted of wool and woolfells, hides, black cattle,[16] fish, salted and cured, horses, greyhounds, falcons, pearls, and herrings, particularly those caught in Lochfyne, which had a preference, and found a ready market among the French, who came and exchanged their wines at a place still known by the name of French Foreland; and so much was wine a regular understood barter, that Lochfyne (Lochfion), or the Wine Loch, became the only name for one of the most extensive arms of the Western Ocean on the Scottish coast. The pearl was a more ancient branch of traffic, and said to have been in request among the Romans. The Scottish pearl, however, appears to have been partially superseded in the French market, by the introduction of an article of superior lustre from the East. The goldsmiths of Paris, therefore, made a trade regulation, forbidding any worker in gold or silver to set any Scotch pearls along with Oriental ones, except in large jewels for churches. The greyhounds,[17] however, kept up their price; and the Scottish falcons were only rivalled by those of Norway.

The reader may have some idea of the quantity of wine consumed at the table of Alexander III., from the circumstance of one hundred and seventy-eight hogsheads being supplied in the year 1263, and sixty-seven hogsheads and one pipe furnished the following year. The difference in the quantity of these two years may have been occasioned by the battle of Largs having taken place on the 2d October 1263; after which there would, no doubt, be a considerable influx of barons and their followers to the royal presence, to partake of the festivities incident to the occasion.[18]

Horses were, it is said, an article of importation as well as exportation with the Scots in the thirteenth century. Alexander I. rode a fine Arabian; and, in the Norwegian account of Haco’s invasion, we are told that a large body of Scottish knights appeared on Spanish steeds, which were completely armed. It is probable, however, that the warriors so mounted might have been the forces of the Temple, as this wealthy order had been some time before established in the country; and its services would no doubt be required on so stirring an occasion.

Asia, in the thirteenth century, was the grand military school for the nations of Europe; and every country having representatives in the armies of the crusaders, the improvements that took place in the art of war were quickly transfused through the various kingdoms of Christendom; and the offensive and defensive armour of each was, therefore, nearly the same. The warriors of Scotland and England assimilated very closely to each other; and, with the exception, perhaps, of the glaive-men and the bill-men of the English, and the Highlanders and Isles-men of the Scots, no material difference could be discovered. The Scots, as well as the English, had “men-at-arms,” who fought on foot; and while the latter used the lance, the former were armed with a spear of no common length. These men among the Scots were selected on account of their stature and strength, and were generally placed in the front-rank of the squares, being completely enclosed in defensive armour, which consisted of steel helmets, a tunic, stuffed with wool, tow, or old cloth, with a habergeon, or shirt of iron rings, the joints defended by plates of the same metal. The stubbornness with which they maintained their ranks may very reasonably be supposed to have acquired for the Scottish phalanx or schiltron, that high character for firmness and obstinate valour for which it was so long distinguished.

Hauberks of different kinds, with padded or quilted pourpoints, having iron rings set edgeways, were generally worn. In the early part of the reign of Alexander III, chain-mail was first introduced into Scotland by the crusaders; it was formed of four rings, joined to a fifth, and all firmly secured by rivets. Eastern armour, however, had appeared in the country before this period, as we find that Alexander I. had a splendid suit of Arabian manufacture, richly ornamented with jewels, with a spear and shield of silver, which, along with his Arabian steed, covered with a fair mantle of fine velvet, and other rich housings, he dedicated to the patron Saint of Scotland, within the church of St Andrew’s, in the early part of the thirteenth century. This was considered so valuable a donation, as to require the sanction of David, the heir-apparent of the throne.[19]

Habergeons, of various forms and dimensions, according to the fancy or circumstances of the wearer, prevailed in this age. These were generally covered by a gown or tabard, on the back and front of which the arms of the wearer were emblazoned. Jacked or boiled leather, with quilted iron-work, was also in use for defending the arms and legs. Helmets, bacinets and skullcaps, surmounted, according to the dignity of the person, formed defences for the head; and the shields were either round, triangular, or kite-shape, with the device or arms of the warrior painted upon them in glaring colours. The common soldiers wrapped pieces of cloth about the neck, their numerous folds of which formed an excellent defence from the cut of a sword. The “Ridir,” or Knight among the Highlanders, differed little in his equipment from those of the same rank in the Low Country. In battle, he was usually attended by a number of Gall-oglaich. These were soldiers selected as the stoutest and bravest of the clan, and might be considered as the “men-at-arms” among the Gaël. They were supplied either with the corslet, or the lùireach mhailleach, (the habergeon, literally the coat of rings,) and were armed with the Lochaber-axe, the clamdhmhor, (great two-handed sword) and sometimes a heavy shelving stone-axe, beautifully polished, and fixed into a strong shaft of oak.[20] In the rear of the Gall-oglaich, stood the Ceatharnaich, an inferior sort of soldiers, armed with knives and daggers. Their duty was to take, kill, or disable those whom the prowess of the front rank had brought to the ground. The boldest and most dexterous among the Gall-oglaich was made squire or armour-bearer to the chief. This man, as well as the rest of his companions, received a larger portion of victuals when they sat at their leader’s table; but the part allotted for the armour-bearer was greater than any, and called, on that account, beath fir, or, “the Champion’s Meal.”

Among the Knights of the Isles, the conical-shaped helmet was more in use than any other. From piratical habits, and long intercourse with the Norwegians, their followers in general were better equipped than those of the mainland. The habergeon was very common among them; and from the gown they put over it, being universally dyed of a yellow or saffron-colour, they presented a more uniform appearance than their neighbours.

Besides the lance and spear, the mace, the pike, the martel de fer (a sort of iron hammer), the two-handed sword, various forms of daggers, knives, clubs, flails, scythes fixed on poles, bows, cross-bows,[21] and slings made by a thong fixed to the end of a staff, were in use among the Scots. These slingers used their weapons with both hands. They had no defensive armour, and were generally placed among the archers, who were divided into companies of twenty-five men each.

The military engines in use in attacking or defending castles, or other fortified places, were the Loup de Guerre, or war-wolf, a frame formed of heavy beams, with spikes, and made to fall on the assailants in the manner of a portcullis—the Scorpion, a large stationary cross-bow of steel, which discharged darts of an uncommon size, and the Balista, Catapulta, and Trebuchet, which were engines of great power in throwing large stones, which were often heated to a high temperature. The Bricolle threw large square-headed darts, called Carreaux, or Quarrels. This engine was used by the Flemings in fortifying their factory at Berwick, called the “Red Hall.” The Espringal threw darts with brass plates, instead of feathers, to make their flight steady. The Berfrarium, an engine also called Belfredus, was made of wood, covered with skins to defend it from fire, and was formed like a tower, and of a height to overlook the walls. It consisted of several stories, and was rolled on wheels towards the object of attack, and filled with archers and spearmen; the latter, under cover of the former, either rushed upon the walls, or fought hand to hand with the besieged. The name was afterwards given to high towers erected in cities, for the purpose of alarming by bells. Hence the origin of the term “Belfrey.” The most expert in the manufacture of these engines of destruction was a monk of Durham. This man supplied the greatest portion of the artillery required for the defence of Berwick.

Respecting the state of the Arts, it would be difficult to give any thing like a circumstantial detail. That various useful mechanical professions were known and prosecuted, there is abundance of evidence to prove; but to what degree of perfection they were brought, is not so clear. That the compass was familiar to the mariners of Scotland at an early age, appears from the manner in which Barbour expresses himself, in the description of Bruce and his companions, who, in crossing from Arran to Carrick in the night-time, steered by the light of a fire upon the shore.

“For thai na nedill had, na stane,
Bot rowyt always in till ane,
Steerand all tyme apon the fyr.”

Buke Feyrd, 1. 23–25.

According to Wyntown, great attention was paid to agriculture by Alexander III., who fixed that well-known measurement of land called “Ox-gang.” The passage is worth extracting.

“Yhwmen, pewere Karl, or Knáwe,
Dat wes of mycht an Ox til hawe,
He gert that man hawe part in Pluche;
Swá wes corne in his Land enwche;
Swá than begowth, and eftyr lang
Of Land was mesure, ane Ox-gang.
Mychty men, that had mà
Oxyn, he gert in Pluchys gá.
A Pluch of Land eftyr that
To nowmyr of Oxyn mesur gat.
Be that Vertu all hys Land
Of corn he gart be abowndand.
A Bolle of átis pennys foure
Of Scottis Monè past noucht oure;
A boll of bere for awcht or ten
In comowne prys sawld wes then;
For sextene a boll of qwhete;
Or fore twenty the derth wes grete.
This fályhyd frá he deyd suddanly.”

B. vii. c. x. 507–525.

If the beautiful specimens of architecture which were produced in this age may be regarded as furnishing certain criteria for judging of the general state of the arts, we would be warranted in assigning to them a much higher degree of perfection than many of our readers would be inclined to admit. It is, however, difficult to believe, that a nation could have arrived at a high degree of excellence in an art which required a superior knowledge of the principles of science, as well as the greatest refinement in taste, without having made a corresponding proficiency in those of a subordinate character. The exquisite workmanship which adorned the crosses and monuments within the sacred precincts of the Island of Iona, commands at once the admiration and respect of strangers; and the fragments which have escaped the ravages of modern Vandalism, display a neatness of execution in the figures, lettering and embellishments, which may justly claim competition with the productions of the present day. Some, who will not look further than the subsequent poverty and degradation of Scotland, insist that these crosses and monuments are French manufacture, and were imported from France. This conjecture will not admit of a moment’s reflection. They might as well inform us that the Abbey of Melrose, the Cathedral of Glasgow, and all the rest of our sacred edifices, were importations from the same quarter. With more propriety, however, it may be alleged, that the most elegant of our Ecclesiastical structures were erected by a band of ingenious architects and workmen belonging to various countries, who associated together about this time, under the name of Free Masons, and wandered about Europe, offering their services where they expected the most liberal encouragement. Of these men, it is presumed Scotland has a right to claim a fair proportion.

Naval architecture also appears to have met with due encouragement; for we find, in the year 1249, Hugh de Chantillon, Earl of St Paul and de Blois, a powerful vassal of Louis IX., joined the crusaders under that monarch at Cyprus, with fifty knights carrying banners, besides a numerous body of Flemings, on board of a vessel of great strength and dimensions, which, according to Matthew Paris,[22] (who calls it a marvellous vessel), was built at Inverness, in the Murray Firth. On this occasion Macpherson remarks,[23] “That a French nobleman should apply to the carpenters of Inverness for a ship, is a curious circumstance; which seems to infer, that they had acquired such a degree of reputation in their profession, as to be celebrated in foreign countries.” A large vessel was afterwards built for the Venetians at the same place.[24]

As the state of literature at this period was nearly on a level all over Britain, the following specimens of the earliest lyrical effusions of the Scottish and English Muse known to exist, may serve the purpose of exciting a more elaborate inquiry.

ANCIENT ENGLISH SONG.

Summer is come in,
Loud sings the cuckoo;
Groweth seed, and bloweth meed,
And springth woods new,
Singth the cuckoo.

Ewe bleateth after lamb,
Loweth after calf, cow;
Bullock starteth, buck verteth,
Merry sings the cuckoo,
Cuckoo, cuckoo,
Well singth the cuckoo,
May’st thou never cease.

ANCIENT SCOTTISH SONG.

“Quhen Alysandyr oure Kyng wes dede,
That Scotland led in Luwe and Le,
Away wes Sons of Ale and Brede,
Of Wyne and Wax, of Gamyn and Gle:
Oure Gold wes changyd in-to Lede.
Cryst, borne in-to Virgynytè,
Succour Scotland and remede,
That Stad is in perplexytè.”

The law of Scotland is known to all to have been that of the Romans. The municipal and commercial departments were under the control of the Court of the “Four Burghs,” which consisted of representatives from Berwick, Edinburgh, Roxburgh and Stirling; to whom all matters connected with commerce, and the rights and privileges of the burgesses, were referred. The Chamberlain’s Court had also a jurisdiction over the burghs in matters respecting the trade and general policy of the kingdom. The chamberlain, in the discharge of his duty, was constrained to make periodical progress through the kingdom, to adjust the standards, weights and measures, kept in the different burghs. It was also his duty to detect any imposition that might be practised by the King’s servants, in exacting more goods at the King’s price (which was lower than the market), than what were required for his service, and thereby making a profit to themselves. From the regulations of the Chamberlain’s Court, it appears that inspectors were appointed to examine and certify, by their seal of office, the quantity and quality of cloth, bread, and casks containing liquors; and that other officers, called “Troners,” had the inspection of wool. Salmon fishings also were carefully regulated; and fishing during the night, or while the salmon were not in season, was prohibited.[25]

The great councils of the nation, from whence all the laws emanated, had their meetings at Scone; and the promulgation of any new act was preceded by the ringing of the great bell of the monastery where the meetings were held. By this practice, “the bell of Scoon” became, in time, a cant expression for the law of the land.[26] These councils were almost solely attended by the barons and ecclesiastics of the highest rank. Neither merchants nor burgesses were admitted. Representations, therefore, from the Chamberlain’s Court, and the Court of the Four Burghs, afforded the only chance for correcting the mistakes which might arise from the ignorance of these aristocratic legislators.

From the intercourse which existed between Scotland and England during the long interval of peace, previous to the aggression of Edward, the manners, particularly of the higher classes, were in many respects nearly the same. The frequent intermarriages tended, more than any other cause, to render the inhabitants of the two countries familiar with the habits and customs of each other, while both imitated the French in dress and language; and their domestic economy, in numerous instances, also bore a close resemblance.

Though the barons and churchmen among the Scots had no taste for the high-spiced wines so much relished by the English, yet in the viands which graced their festivities, particularly those who held lands in England, there appeared to have been little or no alteration. On great occasions, the seal, the porpoise, and the wild boar, though now banished from the table, never failed to make their appearance. Venison pasties, game, poultry, and baked meats of all descriptions, with fish in endless variety, were common at the tables of the great. Shell-fish, particularly oysters, were much in demand among the ecclesiastics. This is evident from the quantity of shells which are still to be found in digging about the ruins of religious establishments. The frequent recurrence of those periods when food of an opposite description was forbidden, sufficiently accounts for this profusion.

Among the culinary preparations that were peculiar to Scotland, one known by the name of Mìr-Mòr, was held in the highest estimation. This savoury dish always had a place at the royal table; and so much was it a favourite, that in the traditionary songs of the Gaëlic bards, it is mentioned as a viand fit only for a hero, and represented by them to be given as such by Fingal to his friend Goll Mac-mhairn, in addition to his beath fir, or “champion’s meal,” which he received sitting at the right hand of the royal donor. Of this highly-prized morceau friand, minced meat, marrow and herbs, were the principal ingredients; and in this composition it is not difficult to trace the origin of the “Haggies,” a dish still considered national among the Scots.

Were it a fair criterion to estimate the strength and importance of a country by the princely revenues of its church establishment, Scotland, in the thirteenth century, might be considered as holding a very respectable rank among the nations of Europe. The deference which the Roman Pontiffs, on various occasions, paid to the Kings of Scotland, while it displayed their anxiety to preserve, by conciliatory conduct, the spiritual supremacy in the kingdom, also shows that the national or patriotic feelings of the Scottish ecclesiastics were stronger than those ties which connected them with the See of Rome; for, by their well-timed support of the royal authority, the thunders of the Vatican, so terrible in other countries, rolled harmlessly over without distracting the state; and the King was often enabled to contest, and bring to a favourable termination, those differences which arose between him and the Pope, with whose legates he frequently assumed very high ground, not only forbidding them his presence, but even refusing them a safe conduct through his dominions.

To give any thing like a satisfactory account of the revenues of the several ecclesiastical endowments, would occupy a space not consistent with the design of the present work. It may, however, be briefly stated, that the wealth of the church did not altogether arise from her spiritual emoluments. Agriculture, and various branches of traffic, engaged the attention, and increased the riches as well as the luxuries of the priesthood. In 1254 the Cistercian monks were the greatest breeders of sheep in England. Being exempted from duties, their wealth rapidly increased. That they possessed similar privileges in Scotland, is pretty evident; for in 1275,[27] when Bagamont, an emissary from Rome, was sent to levy a tenth on the property of the Scottish church for the relief of the Holy Land, this wealthy order of temporal as well as spiritual shepherds, compounded for the enormous sum of 50,000 merks. By this compromise, the amount of their revenues remained unknown.

The following is part of the live-stock, which (according to an inventory preserved in the chartulary of Newbottle) at one time belonged to the Abbey of Melrose, viz. 325 forest mares, 54 domestic mares, 104 domestic horses, 207 stags or young horses, 39 three-year old colts, and 172 year old colts. Amidst all this profusion of wealth, the serious reader may desire to know how the ceremonials of religion were attended to. From the many jokes which Fordun relates as having taken place among the clergy of his day, we cannot suppose that either the teachers or the people were more devout than their neighbours. An old writer describes the interior of a cathedral as a place where the men came with their hawks and dogs, walking to and fro, to converse with their friends, to make bargains and appointments, and to show their guarded coats; and among the Scots, it is well known, weapons were too often displayed on such occasions.

From what has been stated in the foregoing pages, it is pretty evident that Scotland occupied a more prominent station among the nations of Europe, before the aggression of Edward I. than she has ever done since. The single fact, that Alexander II. mustered and led to the borders of England, in 1244, an army of 100,000 foot, with a well appointed body of cavalry, proves that, at the period under review, when the numerical strength of the two British kingdoms were marshalled, the inferiority of Scotland was by no means very apparent. An army so numerous as that we have mentioned, no subsequent monarch of that kingdom ever had it in his power to bring into the field. On the death of Alexander III. the prosperity of Scotland became eclipsed—anarchy overspread the land—the machiavelism of her arch-enemy prevailed—her ancient glory was trampled in the dust—and commerce deserted a country overrun with the horrors of war. Thus, in the emphatic language of the Bard, “Oure gold wes changyd into lede;” “and,” says MacPherson, “our fishermen and merchants into cut-throats and plunderers, whose only trade was war, and whose precarious and only profit was the ruin of her neighbours.”

CHAPTER II.
ON THE CLAIM OF ENGLAND TO THE FEUDAL HOMAGE OF SCOTLAND.

Scotland, at various periods of her history, has been placed in situations of imminent peril, from the encroachments and invasions of her ambitious neighbour in the South. Misled by an insatiable thirst for conquest, the English monarchs were either prosecuting their views of aggrandizement on the continent of Europe, or disturbing the tranquillity of Britain by endeavouring to subvert the liberty and independence of her states. The Welsh, after being driven from the most fruitful of their domains, continued an arduous, but ineffectual struggle for their freedom, amid the few barren rocks and vallies that remained to them of their ancient and once flourishing kingdom. The Scots, though always numerically inferior to the English, and, from the comparative poverty of their country, deficient in those internal resources which their richer neighbours possessed; yet, from their warlike propensities, their parsimonious habits, and that love of independence which formed so striking a feature in the character of all the tribes of which the nation was composed, were either prepared to guard the frontier of their kingdom, or retaliate an aggression by invading the territories of the enemy. This last measure was the mode of defence they chiefly resorted to; aware that, with the exception of Berwick, the English, without advancing farther into the country than was consistent with their safety, would find no booty equivalent to what could be driven by the Scots from the fertile plains of their more wealthy opponents. These hostilities were frequently embittered by a claim of superiority which the English urged against the crown and kingdom of Scotland; and as the attempts which were made, from time to time, to enforce it, have produced more misery and bloodshed than any other national quarrel that ever existed between the two countries, an inquiry into the nature and foundation of the alleged plea of vassalage, may be of importance in elucidating the conduct of the conflicting parties in the following narrative. In this inquiry, we shall dispense with any reference, either to “Brute the Trojan” on the one side, or to that no less questionable personage, “Scota, daughter to the King of Egypt,” on the other; and proceed, at once, to the only well-authenticated evidence that exists on the subject.

In the year 1174, William, King of Scotland, dissatisfied with the conduct of Henry II. of England, invaded Northumberland, instigated thereto by a sense of his own wrongs, real or imaginary, and those discontented barons who wished to place the young King on the throne,—an ambitious youth, whom his father had imprudently allowed to be crowned during his own lifetime. While the numerous army of William was spread over the adjacent country, wasting, burning, and slaying with that indiscriminate recklessness peculiar to the age; he, with a chosen band of his followers, besieged the Castle of Alnwick. The devastations committed by the marauding army of the Scots inflamed the minds of the Barons of Yorkshire with a generous indignation; and they determined to exert themselves for the relief of their distressed countrymen. Having congregated at Newcastle to the number of four hundred horsemen, encased in heavy armour; they, though already fatigued with a long journey, pressed forward under the command of Sir Bernard de Baliol; and, by travelling all night, came in sight of the battlements of Alnwick Castle by daybreak. William, it would seem, had been abroad in the fields, with a slender escort of sixty horse; and, mistaking the English for a detachment of his own troops, he was too far advanced to retire, before he became sensible of his danger. “Now it will be seen who are true knights,” said the intrepid monarch, and instantly charged the enemy. His efforts, however, were unavailing; he was soon overpowered, and, along with his companions, made prisoner.

The chivalry of Yorkshire thus secured for their monarch a valuable prize. The magnanimity of Henry, however, was not equal to the gallantry of his subjects; for, on getting possession of the unfortunate prince, he inflicted on him every possible mortification. Not satisfied with exhibiting his rival, like a felon, with his feet tied under his horse’s belly, to the rude gaze of the vulgar; he summoned all his barons to Northampton, to witness “the humiliating spectacle of a sovereign prince exposed in public to a new-invented indignity.”[28]

It may appear difficult to account for this treatment of a Royal Captive, taken under such circumstances, in an age when the honours of chivalry were eagerly sought after by all the crowned heads of Europe. When we reflect, however, that on the Thursday preceding the capture of William, Henry himself had been ignominiously scourged at the tomb of his formidable enemy, Thomas à Becket, his lacerated feelings might, perhaps, have found some relief in this public exhibition of his power to inflict, on a brother monarch, something of a similar degradation.

William was at first committed prisoner to Richmond castle, in Yorkshire; but Henry, either from apprehension of his being insecure among the scarcely-extinguished embers of the late insurrection, or wishing to enhance his value in the eyes of the Scots, by removing him to a greater distance, had him conveyed beyond seas, to Falaise in Normandy. Meanwhile, the Scottish army, thunderstruck at so unusual a calamity, after some ineffectual and misdirected attempts at revenge, abandoned their spoil, and hastily retreated to their own country. Alarmed, however, at the irregularities which the absence of the Head of their Government was likely to produce among the discordant and inflammable materials of which the kingdom was composed, they too hastily agreed to the ignominious terms proposed by the enemy; and submitted to their King becoming the liegeman of Henry for Scotland, and all his other territories; and further,

“The King of Scotland, David, his brother, his Barons, and other liegemen, agreed that the Scottish church should yield to the English church such subjection, in time to come, as it ought of right, and was wont to pay in the days of the Kings of England, predecessors of Henry. Moreover, Richard Bishop of St Andrew’s, Richard Bishop of Dunkeld, Geoffrey Abbot of Dunfermline, and Herbert Prior of Coldingham, agreed that the English church should have that right over the Scottish which in justice it ought to have. They also became bound, that they themselves would not gainsay the right of the English Church.”

“A memorable clause!” says Lord Hailes, “drawn up with so much skill as to leave entire the question of the independence of the Scottish church. Henry and his ministers could never have overlooked such studied ambiguity of expression. The clause, therefore, does honour to the Scottish clergy, who, in that evil day, stood firm to their privileges, and left the question of the independence of the national church to be agitated, on a more fit occasion, and in better times.”

“In pledge for the performance of this miserable treaty, William agreed to deliver up to the English, the castles of Rokesburgh, Berwick, Jedburgh, Edinburgh and Stirling, and gave his brother David and many of his chief barons as hostages.”

Thus stood the right of England to feudal homage over Scotland in 1175. A superiority acquired in such an ungenerous manner, was not likely to be long submitted to with patience. The Scots had always plumed themselves on being an unconquered people, and able to preserve their independence against all who had attempted to invade them. Vassalage implies protection;—It was therefore presumption in England to pretend to defend Scotland against those enemies before whom she herself had been obliged to truckle.

It was not long before the conduct of William displayed that covered scorn of his liege-lord, which his late injuries were calculated to inspire. Countenanced by him, the Scottish bishops, at a council held at Northampton, boldly declared, in the presence of the Pope’s legate, “that they had never yielded subjection to the English church, nor ought they.”

William also entered the lists with the Roman Pontiff,—before whose threats and anathemas Henry had so ignominiously crouched:—Yet though all the thunder of the Vatican was levelled against him,—and the Archbishop of York, armed with Papal authority, had not only excommunicated him, but placed the kingdom under an interdict; still he maintained his point with inflexible resolution, till the judgment of the apostolic father was annulled, and an honourable compromise obtained. The contrast thus exhibited by his vassal could not be very consoling to the feelings of the English monarch.

In the year 1178, William, in the same spirit, founded and amply endowed an abbey at Aberbrothick, in honour of the holy martyr, Thomas à Becket,—a saint who had been thrust down the throat of his liege-lord with the salutary application of the whip. It would be doing William injustice to doubt the sincerity of the gratitude which instigated him to this act of munificence.

In 1189, Henry II. died, and was succeeded by his son Richard Cœur de Lion. Unlike his father, Richard, though haughty and imperious, was alive to all the noble and virtuous qualities which ought to constitute the character of a king. As soon after the obsequies of his father as decency would permit, he invited William to his court at Canterbury, and magnanimously restored Scotland to her independence. The important document runs thus—“That Richard had rendered up to William, by the grace of God, King of Scots, his castles of Rokesburgh and Berwick, to be possessed by him and his heirs for ever as their own proper inheritance.”

“Moreover, we have granted to him an acquittance of all obligations which our father extorted from him by new instruments, in consequence of his captivity; under this condition always, that he shall completely and fully perform to us whatever his brother Malcolm, King of Scotland, of right performed, or ought of right to have performed, to our predecessors.”[29] “Richard,” says Lord Hailes, “also ordained the boundaries of the two kingdoms to be re-established as they had been at the captivity of William.” He calls them, “the marches of the kingdom of Scotland, (marchiæ regni Scotiæ.”)

“He became bound to put William in full possession of all his fees in the earldom of Huntingdon or elsewhere, (et in omnibus aliis), under the same conditions as heretofore.”

“He delivered up all such of the evidences of the homage done to Henry II. by the barons and clergy of Scotland, as were in his possession, and he declared, that all evidences of that homage, whether delivered up or not, should be held as cancelled.”

“The price which William agreed to pay for this ample restitution, was ten thousand merks sterling.”

It is with difficulty a smile can be suppressed when we find, even in the 19th century, an author of such learning and talents as Dr Lingard, endeavouring to fritter away the meaning and import of the above deed of restitution, by such fallacious reasoning as the following: “The King’s” (Richard I.) “Charter to the King of Scots may be seen in Rymer, i. 64. It is NOT, as sometimes has been supposed, a FORMAL RECOGNITION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF SCOTLAND, but a recognition, on the part of Richard, of all those RIGHTS which Henry had extorted from William for his RANSOM. In lieu of them he received ten thousand pounds, probably the sum which William would have given to Henry. The respective rights of the two crowns, are now replaced on the same footing as formerly. William was to do to Richard whatever Malcolm ought to have done to Richard’s predecessors, and Richard was to do to William whatever they ought to have done to Malcolm, according to an award to be given by eight barons, to be equally chosen by the two Kings. Moreover, William was to possess in England the lands which Malcolm had possessed: and to become the liegeman of Richard for all lands for which his predecessors had been the liegemen of the English Kings. The award was afterwards given, by which it appears that the words libertates, dignitates, honores, debiti, &c. mean the allowances to be made, and the honours to be shewn, to the King of Scots, as often as he came to the English court by the command of his lord the English King, from the moment that he crossed the borders till his return into his own territories, Rym. i. 87. This will explain the clause of Salvis dignitatibus suis, in the oath taken by the Scottish Kings, which some writers have ERRONEOUSLY CONCEIVED TO MEAN, SAVING THE INDEPENDENCE OF THEIR CROWN.”[30] If William was already the vassal of Henry, where was either the policy or the necessity of the latter bringing his right of homage into question, by making it again a subject of negociation? and if it was not for “A FORMAL RECOGNITION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF SCOTLAND” that William paid the ten thousand pounds (merks) to Richard, for what purpose was that sum paid? Henry extorted no money from William for his “RANSOM;” his vanity being amply gratified by the deed of homage. Richard had no claim to 10,000l. from William, without granting him what he considered an equivalent. This equivalent could not have been the independence of the Scottish church; for even during the reign of Henry, we find, by a note appended by the learned author to his work, (vol. ii. p. 397, 3d Edit.), that when the obedience of the Scottish church was demanded by the Archbishop of York, “it was answered that none was due; and the answer, after a long controversy, was confirmed by Pope Clement III. in 1188.”

How “Salvis dignitatibus suis” can be explained so as not to include the independence of the monarch’s crown, we are much at a loss to perceive. One thing, however, is sufficiently apparent, that the sophistry we have quoted ought not to have found a place in a publication of such acknowledged merit as that of Dr Lingard.

As he has evidently allowed the prejudices of the old English chroniclers to warp his judgment in this affair, we may be permitted, in order to place the question on its proper basis, to quote the following short passage from his own work, by which it will be seen that the Lion of England, showed as little pluck as HE of Scotland, when placed in a similar situation.—“In an assembly of the German Princes and English envoys, by the delivery of the cap from his head, he [Richard I.] resigned his crown into the hands of Henry; who restored it to him again to be held as a fief of the empire, with the obligation of a yearly payment of five thousand pounds.”[31] Had this claim been prosecuted against England with the same pertinacity as England advanced her absurd pretensions against Scotland, it is presumed they would have been repelled with similar scorn and derision.

Though the generosity of Richard towards William in the above transaction appears sufficiently conspicuous, yet there was that in the situation of his affairs which rendered it a matter of political expediency. From the arrangements necessarily connected with the crusade, in which he and his barons were about to embark, it became a matter of necessity, before he left Britain, to do something towards smoothing down the mane of the chafed Lion of Scotland. The gracious manner in which the boon was conferred, fixed its proper value in the estimation of the Scots, and “converted an impatient vassal and implacable enemy into a faithful and affectionate ally.”

English historians have, on this occasion, charged Richard with impolicy. Happy would it have been for both countries, if his successors had possessed half the sagacity he displayed on this occasion. The consequence of this prudent measure was a cessation of hostilities between the two nations for nearly a century. This tranquillity—uninterrupted except by the assistance which Alexander II. rendered the English barons, when engaged in protecting their liberties against the encroachments of King John—was highly beneficial to both kingdoms. Intermarriages took place among the nobility, and to such an extent, that there were few families of note but had their connexions; and many became possessed of lands under both governments. Trade rose to be an object of attention, and received encouragement from the legislature. The Scottish burghs emerged from obscurity; and money became so plenty, that, though William had given ten thousand merks for the resignation of the homage of Scotland, and a farther sum of two thousand,[32] to enable Richard to make up the ransom exacted from him by the Emperor, still he was able to offer fifteen thousand merks for Northumberland,[33] besides giving dowries upon the marriage of his two daughters,[34] amounting to fifteen thousand more. The burgesses of the towns had, in this short interval, so much increased their means, as to offer six thousand merks on this occasion. The nobles offered ten thousand; and on the supposition that both ranks tendered according to their ability, it may afford some criterion for judging of their relative situations in pecuniary matters. Though all these drains had been made on the treasury, yet Alexander II. was able to give ten thousand merks, besides lands, as a dowry to his second sister. He also sent[35] two bishops as envoys to Haco, King of Norway, to negociate the purchase of all the Western Isles, which they entreated him to value in fine silver. The overture, though declined by Haco, shows the state of the precious metals among the Scots of those days.

In the year 1234, though the resignation by Richard must have been still fresh in the memory of the English, Pope Gregory IX., at the request of Henry, exhorted Alexander to perform the conditions of the old treaty between Henry II. and William of Scotland. Alexander had too great a regard for the Head of the Papal Church, to let him remain long in ignorance of the impropriety of such exhortations; and with the same spirit which characterized the conduct of his father towards the See of Rome, refused, according to Lord Hailes,[36] “to receive a Legate, whose original commission respected England alone,” as it “might be interpreted in a sense prejudicial to the independency of the Scottish church. It is reported that Alexander consented to his admission, at the joint request of the nobility of both kingdoms, and that he insisted for, and obtained a written declaration from the Legate, that this should not be drawn into a precedent. Certain it is, that the Legate proceeded not beyond Edinburgh, and that Alexander avoided his presence.” It is added, “The Legate sojourned in the principal towns on this side the sea, and having collected a large sum of money, secretly, and without leave asked, he departed from Scotland.”

Lord Hailes continues, “Such was the magnanimity of Alexander II. that the high-spirited Pontiff, Gregory IX. submitted to soothe him by a detail of specious and affected reasons, tending to evince the propriety of a legation in Scotland.” The “church of Scotland,” says that Pope, “acknowledges the Romish see as her immediate mother in things spiritual. To leave her destitute of the consolation of a Legate from us, would be an indignity which we cannot in conscience allow. Were we, by our Legate, to visit the church of England, and yet neglect the neighbouring church of Scotland, she might think us destitute of maternal affection.”

In 1239, Alexander married Mary de Couci, daughter of a powerful baron in Picardy. The politics of this lady’s family were adverse to England, and Henry became jealous of her influence over her husband. Various circumstances occurred to foster the seeds of animosity in the mind of the English monarch; among other things, it was told him that Alexander had said, That “he owed no homage to England for any part of his territories, and would perform none.” Henry secretly prepared for war, by soliciting succour from the Earl of Flanders, and instigating the Irish to invade Scotland; while he collected a numerous army at Newcastle, ready to co-operate with them.

Though the claim of homage was not put forth among the reasons for this display of hostility, yet the real ground of quarrel was well enough understood by the Scots; and on that account the war became so popular, that though Henry had intercepted troops sent to aid Alexander by John de Couci, his brother-in-law, he was enabled to confront his enemy with a formidable body of well appointed cavalry, and nearly one hundred thousand foot, all hearty in the cause, and animated, by the exhortations of their clergy, to the highest pitch of enthusiasm. Under these circumstances, Henry found it expedient to negociate; and his lofty pretensions were softened down to a very moderate and reasonable agreement, viz. “Alexander became engaged to live in amity with England, and never to aid her enemies, unless the English should do him wrong.”

With such a character, Henry found it was in vain to tamper. We, therefore, hear nothing more of Scottish homage till after the death of Alexander, who being succeeded by his son, a child of eight years old, Henry solicited a mandate from Pope Innocent IV. to the effect, “That Alexander, being his liegeman, should not be anointed or crowned without his permission. He also requested a grant of the tenth of the ecclesiastical revenues of Scotland.” To expect that the last request would have been granted, was preposterous; but Henry perhaps imagined, that by angling with two hooks, he might chance to catch one fish. “The Pope honestly and peremptorily rejected both requests; the first, as derogating from the honour of a sovereign prince; the second, as unexampled.” In the mean time, the Scots, without deigning to wait the decision of the Pontiff, proceeded with the coronation of their infant sovereign.

On the 26th December 1252, Alexander III., being about ten years of age, appeared at York, to celebrate his nuptials with Margaret, daughter of Henry III., to whom he had been betrothed in 1242. After doing homage for his estates in England, Henry also demanded that he should do homage for the kingdom of Scotland, as a fief holding of England, “according to the usage recorded in many chronicles.” The answer of Alexander showed that his instructors had not left him unprepared on the subject. He stated, “That he had been invited to York to marry the Princess of England, not to treat of affairs of state, and that he could not take a step so important, without the knowledge and approbation of his Parliament.”[37] Passing over the meanness of Henry, in endeavouring to circumvent a child of ten years old, the futility of thus practising upon a minor, ought to have prevented such a proposal; since he must have known, that although Alexander had even then reached the years of maturity, yet, without the sanction of his Parliament, his compliance was unavailing. Indeed Henry’s attempt to entrap the innocence of his son-in-law, would almost indicate that he was very far advanced in dotage.

Henry appears either to have seen his mistake afterwards, or to have become ashamed of his attempts on Alexander. In 1259, the Pope, having appointed his own chaplain, John de Cheyam, an Englishman, to the vacant see of Glasgow, Henry thus writes to Alexander, who intended the vacancy for Nicolas Moffat, Archdeacon of Teviotdale. “Although he is my subject,” said Henry, “I would not solicit you in his behalf, could any benefit arise to you from your opposition to a man on whom the Pope has already bestowed ecclesiastical jurisdiction.”

In 1260, the Queen of Scotland became enceinte; and being desirous to lie-in at her father’s court, Alexander accompanied her, after the following clause was inserted in their safe-conduct, “That neither the King nor his attendants should be required to treat of state affairs during this visit.” Henry also made oath, that he would return the Queen and her child in safety to the Scots.

In 1263, Henry affected to use his influence with Haco, King of Norway, to desist from his hostile intentions against Scotland. Haco denied such intentions; and Alexander, who perhaps questioned the sincerity of Henry’s interference, sent the Steward of Scotland to demand payment of the arrears of his daughter’s dowry. Henry made a partial payment of five hundred merks, and promised the remainder in two instalments, one at Michaelmas 1263, and the other at Easter 1264. “I appoint such distant terms,” said he, “because I mean to be punctual, and not to disappoint you any more.” “To an English reader,” says Lord Hailes, “this might seem incredible; but the original instrument exists.”

In 1268, Prince Edward, son of Henry, being about to engage in a crusade, Pope Clement IV., at the instigation of the English court, ordered the Scottish clergy to pay a tenth of their revenues to the King of England, to aid the undertaking. This indirect attempt on their liberties was resisted by Alexander and his ecclesiastics, who spurned at the obnoxious assessment, though they declared their willingness to furnish their proper quota of crusaders. Adam Earl of Carrick, and David Earl of Athol, with other barons, engaged in the expedition.

On Michaelmas day 1278, Alexander, being present in the English Parliament, swore fealty to Edward, in general terms, for the lands held by him of the Crown of England. Edward accepted it, “saving the claim of homage for the kingdom of Scotland, whenever he or his heirs should think proper to make it;” an early development of the views of this ambitious monarch, which did not escape the notice of Alexander.

No further measures inimical to the independence of Scotland, appear to have been taken till 1284, when Edward applied to Pope Martin IV. for “a grant of the tenths collected in Scotland for the relief of the Holy Land.” The conduct of the Pontiff, however, showed the opinion he entertained of the request. He made the grant under these conditions, all equally unpalateable or inconvenient to the royal applicant: They were, “That Edward himself should assume the cross before Christmas,—obtain the consent of the King of Scots—and, out of the money levied, supply the Scottish crusaders.”

The following year, Scotland was deprived of the prudent and watchful guardianship of her monarch; who was killed by an accident, 16th March 1285–6. At a grand council held at Scone, 11th April 1286, a regency was appointed for the government of the kingdom. The lineage of Alexander had become extinct in his person, with the exception of an infant grandchild, daughter of Eric, King of Norway. This female, whose right to the crown had been solemnly acknowledged by the Scottish barons in 1284, was deemed by Edward a desirable match for his son; and he lost no time in despatching ambassadors to Scotland to negociate a marriage. From the comparatively good understanding that had prevailed between the two countries during the late reign, he found the Scots no way opposed to his views. The proposal was therefore entertained; and, on the 18th July 1290, the regents, clergy, and baronage of Scotland, having met the ambassadors of England at Brigham, situated on the north bank of the Tweed, between Coldstream and Kelso, a treaty was concluded, consisting of fourteen articles; in all of which not the slightest allusion is made to any superiority over Scotland, with the exception of the following clause:—“Saving always the right of the King of England, and of all others which, before the date of this treaty, belonged to him, or any of them, in the marches, or elsewhere, or which ought to belong to him, or any of them, in all time coming.”

In the salvo thus artfully introduced, we have a continuation of that quibbling, sinister, and narrow-minded policy, which marked the conduct of the English Government in this disgraceful affair. After the question had been so completely set at rest, it was extremely irritating for the Scots, whenever any national calamity befel them, to be annoyed by the perpetual recurrence of such barefaced attempts upon their liberties. Though the Kings of Scotland repeatedly did homage to the Kings of England, for the lands they held in that country, it was no more than what the latter submitted to do to those of France. When the English, therefore, strove, by such insidious measures, to entrap the inexperience of the Scottish Kings, and to encroach on the independence of their crown, it engendered among those who had the honour of their country at heart, a bitterness of spirit, which, as the attempts were persevered in, settled down to a deep-rooted and inextinguishable animosity. There was no scarcity of men in both countries, who had sufficient penetration to see, and judgment to appreciate, the advantages that might have been secured to all, were the whole island united under one head. But, from the ungenerous policy of the English, this desirable object could not be attained, except by a sacrifice on the part of the Scots, of all that honourable minds hold dear,—THE GLORIES OF A LONG AND UNCONQUERED LINE OF ANCESTRY, THEIR OWN INDEPENDENCE, AND THE CONSEQUENT DEGRADATION OF THEIR OFFSPRING. These were the terms which the English unjustly demanded; and such terms the Scottish nation as sternly rejected.[38] Events have shown the soundness of their judgment; and their posterity may learn, from the history of Ireland, the extent of gratitude to which their patriotism is entitled.

The question of homage has now been traced from its origin to the negociation of Edward with the Scots at Brigham. Had all other evidence respecting the independence of Scotland been destroyed, the existence of this treaty would alone have annihilated the pretensions of Edward: For, if the King of Scots had been the liegeman of the English monarch, his daughter, or any unmarried female succeeding to the throne of Scotland, would of necessity have been a ward of the English crown. Can it, therefore, for a moment be supposed, that Edward I., a prince so feelingly alive to what he considered his prerogative, and whose political sagacity and intimate acquaintance with the whole system of jurisprudence had procured for him the title of the “English Justinian,” would have so far forgotten what was due to himself, as to submit to negociate, where he had a right to command?

The views, however, of both parties in the above treaty, were not destined to be realized. The young Queen, the object of such solicitude, and on whom the hopes of the Scottish nation were suspended, sickened on her voyage, and died at Orkney about the end of September 1290. No provision had been made for the succession to the Scottish crown, beyond the offspring of Alexander; and, as Lord Hailes judiciously remarks, “the nation looked no farther, and perhaps it durst not look farther.” Under these circumstances, the sceptre of Scotland became a bone of contention between the leaders of two powerful factions; and there being no third party in the country able to control and enforce the submission of the unsuccessful claimant, it was deemed expedient to submit their pretensions to the arbitration of the King of England. Edward, who watched every opportunity of aggrandizing himself at the expense of his neighbours, had determined, whether solicited or not, to interfere in the disposal of the Scottish crown. Having summoned the barons of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Westmoreland, Cumberland, and Northumberland, (among whom were Bruce and Baliol, the two competitors for the Scottish throne), to meet him, with horse and foot, at Norham, on the 5th June, he desired the nobility and clergy of Scotland to assemble at the same place on the 10th May.

A conference accordingly was held, when Edward commanded Roger le Brabazon, Justiciary of England, to inform the assembly in his name, “That he had considered the difficulties in which the kingdom of Scotland was involved by the death of Alexander and his offspring, and the dangers arising from disputed succession: That his good will and affection to the whole nation, and to each individual in it, were sincere, for in their defence he himself was interested: That he had called the Scots to meet him at this place, with the view that justice might be done to all the competitors, and the internal tranquillity of the kingdom established: That he had undertaken a long journey to do justice, in person, to all, as Superior and Lord Paramount of the Kingdom of Scotland: That he meant not to encroach on the rights of any man; but, on the contrary, as Lord Paramount, to administer ample and speedy justice to all.”

That his purposes might be the more effectually accomplished, he required their hearty recognition of his title as Lord Paramount; and he declared his willingness to use their advice in the settlement of the nation.

The whole assembly stood motionless and silent. At length some one had the courage to utter these words:—‘No answer can be made while the throne is vacant.’ ‘By holy Edward!’ cried the King, ‘By holy Edward, whose crown it is that I wear, I will vindicate my just rights, or perish in the attempt!’”[39] The Scots requested a delay in order to inform those of their countrymen who were absent; and, in consequence, the proceedings were put off till the next day. A further delay was then requested; and they were allowed a term of three weeks. By that time, Edward knew that the barons he had summoned would be assembled in arms.

This power was, no doubt, intended to insure the submission of the Scots. Enemies, however, more dangerous than the English barons, were at work in their councils. Amongst the secret emissaries of Edward, William Frazer, Bishop of St Andrew’s, and one of the Regents, acted with treacherous duplicity towards his colleagues. A partisan of Baliol, he scrupled at no means, however disgraceful, provided they advanced the interest of his employer.[40] Conduct of this kind could not well be concealed; it quickly engendered animosity and distrust among those who adhered to the interest of Bruce. Weakened, therefore, by their jealousies, and disunited by their conflicting interests, the aristocracy of Scotland soon became as subservient as the crafty usurper could desire.

Edward, finding them in this manner moulded to his purpose, and wishing to take away the appearance of compulsion, appointed the Scots to meet him at Upsettlington, within the boundary of their own country. The Bishop of Bath, who was the Chancellor of England, resumed the proceedings of the adjourned meetings. He stated, that “by various evidences, it sufficiently appeared that the English Kings were Lords Paramount of Scotland, and, from the most distant ages,[41] had either possessed, or claimed that right; that Edward had required the Scots to produce their evidences or arguments to the contrary, and had declared himself ready to admit them, if more cogent than his own, and upon the whole matter to pronounce righteous judgment; that as the Scots had produced nothing, the King was resolved, as Lord Paramount, to determine the question of the succession.”[42]

The Scots were right in refraining from the discussion of a question which they knew had long since been set at rest. Had they entered the arena, they would have found themselves but ill prepared to meet the lawyers of Edward,[43] who had possessed themselves of the chronicles and other writings that were kept in those Scottish monasteries, which had been under the charge of English ecclesiastics. These records were afterwards found to differ essentially from those kept in monasteries where Scottish churchmen had the superiority. In the muniments of the former, every thing favourable to Scotland, respecting the question, had either been suppressed, or rendered nugatory by interpolation; while in the archives of the latter, her ancient independence and unsullied reputation, were as clearly manifested. A reference, however, to these falsified documents, surprised and bewildered the inexperienced among the Scots.

It was part of the policy of Edward to increase the difficulties of coming to a decision, by encouraging new candidates to come forward; as their claims, though futile, alarmed the original competitors, and rendered them more obsequious to his will. At this meeting eight claimants appeared for the crown, and they were afterwards increased to ten; all of whom, including Bruce and Baliol, acknowledged Edward as Lord Paramount of Scotland, and agreed that seizine of the kingdom and its fortresses should be delivered to Edward; “because,” said they, “judgment cannot be without execution, nor execution without possession of the subject of the award.” Edward was to find security for the faithful restitution of his charge in two months from the date of his award.

In consequence of this agreement, Scotland and her fortifications were surrendered into the hands of her artful adversary on the 11th June 1291.

An universal homage was now required; and during the summer, many churchmen, barons, and even burgesses, swore fealty to the usurper.

CHAPTER III.
BIRTH, PARENTAGE, AND EARLY YEARS OF WALLACE.

Sir William Wallace was descended from a respectable family in the west of Scotland. His father, who enjoyed the honour of knighthood, was Laird of Elderslie and Auchinbothie, and married the daughter of Sir Raynald, or, according to some, Sir Hugh Crawford, sheriff of Ayr. The exact period when the ancestors of Wallace first settled in this country, is a matter of uncertainty.[44] It is, however, very probable that they were originally from Normandy; and those who support this opinion, mention one Eimerus Galleius, as the immediate progenitor of the Scottish family of this name. This person appears as a witness to the charter of the Abbey of Kelso, founded by David I. about the year 1128, and is supposed to have been the father of Richard Wallace, one of the witnesses to the charter of the Abbey of Paisley, founded in 1160, by Walter, High Steward of Scotland. From the Steward he received a grant of a considerable portion of the district of Kyle, which he named Richardton or Ricardtown, after himself. This Ricard or Richard, who was the most powerful vassal of the Stewards in Kyle, granted to the monks of Melrose the lands of Barmon and Godeneth, with their pertinents; and this grant, as appears from the Chart. of Melrose, No. 127., Caledonia, III. p. 488, was confirmed by the second Walter the Steward. Richard was succeeded by his eldest son, also named Richard, who appears to have altered, or softened down the name into Walays. Respecting this last person, no particulars have been related, except that he was cotemporary with Alan the High Steward, who died about 1204. He was succeeded by his younger brother Henry Walays, who acquired some lands under the Steward in Renfrewshire, early in the 13th century; which lands descended by inheritance to Adam Walays, who is stated to have been living in the year 1259, and to have had two sons, Adam and Malcolm. Adam, being the eldest, succeeded to the family estate of Ricardtown. Malcolm, the father of our hero, received the lands of Elderslie, and married, as we have already stated, the daughter of the Sheriff of Ayr. Some writers assert this to have been his second marriage; and farther, that by his first he had two daughters, one of whom was married to Thomas Haliday or Halliday, who held lands under Bruce in Annandale; while others maintain that he had only two sons, Malcolm[45] and William, the former by the first marriage, and the latter by the daughter of Sir Hugh Crawford. It is, however, more than probable that these two sons were the issue of one marriage; as Wyntown, who mentions the circumstance of his having an elder brother, takes no notice of their being born of different mothers. His elder brother is, by some, supposed to have been killed along with his father, Sir Malcolm, in a skirmish with the English; but this statement seems at variance with Wyntown’s couplet—

“Hys eldare Brodyre the herytage
Had, and joysyd in his dayis.”

Vol. ii. p. 91.

From which it would appear, that the “eldare brodyre” outlived the father, since he succeeded to “the herytage;” and though he may have fallen by the hands of the English, it must have been subsequent to the death of his father.

Sir William, the subject of our narrative, was born in the reign of Alexander III. The precise year of his birth is not mentioned in any record at present known to exist. It is usual, however, for our historians to commence their accounts of him in 1297, as if he had then, for the first time, burst forth upon the notice of his countrymen, though they are represented as being already prepared to place implicit confidence in his talents as a leader, without any explanation of his previous deeds to merit the honourable distinction. In the preface to one edition of Blind Harry, he is stated to have been about twenty-seven years of age at the time of his execution. This, however, would imply a precocity of stature and strength, and a maturity of judgment too miraculous not to be dwelt on at greater length by those early writers who have handed down his story. If he was twenty-seven in 1305, he would consequently be only nineteen in 1297. Can it be supposed that a youth of that age, without influence, and without fame, would have been able to persuade men, his superiors in birth, years and experience, to array themselves under his banner, and submit to his control? In the work of the Minstrel we are told

“Fourty and fyve off age, Wallace was cauld,
That tym that he was to [the] Southeron sauld.”

As this, however, is at variance with what is elsewhere stated in the same work, it is probably an error of the transcriber, who may have mistaken “thirtie” for “fourty,” as we find it is said, in “Buke Fyrst,” in alluding to our hero, “Scotland was lost quhen he was bot a child.” The term “child” here made use of, is not to be considered as inferring that degree of infancy usually understood in our day, but a youth acting, or able to act, as page or squire to some feudal superior. That this is the Minstrel’s meaning, is evident from the following lines,

“Yhit he was than semly, stark and bald;
And he of age was bot auchtene yer auld,”

an age inconsistent with his being 45 at the time of his death. If we are to suppose that Henry dated the loss of Scotland from the solemn surrender of the kingdom, and all its fortifications, to Edward on the 11th June 1291, it will nearly correspond with the correction now offered; and if his words are to be taken in the strict literal sense, that he was thirty-five years of age on the day he was betrayed to the English, it will follow, that he was born on the 5th August 1270. Wyntown, who first introduces him to notice in the spring of 1297, says that he had already distinguished himself in such a manner, as to have excited the envy and animosity of the English soldiers. In accordance with the above date, Wallace would then be in his twenty-seventh year; which, considering that there was no open rupture to call forth the fiery spirits of the age till 1296, was allowing him no more than a reasonable time for spreading his fame among the English garrisons stationed in Scotland.

1291. His early years are said to have been passed under the superintendence of his uncle, a wealthy ecclesiastic at Dunipace in Stirlingshire, from whom he received the first rudiments of his education. This worthy man had been at great pains in storing his mind with the choicest apophthegms to be found in the Latin classics, particularly those where the love of liberty is most powerfully recommended; and the efforts of the tutor were amply rewarded by the amor patriæ excited in the breast of the pupil. How long he remained at Dunipace is uncertain; but he appears to have been at Elderslie in 1291, when the order for an universal homage of the people of Scotland was promulgated by Edward, in his assumed character of Lord Paramount. “All who came were admitted to swear fealty. They who came and refused, were to be arrested, until performance; they who came not, but sent excuses, to have the validity of their excuses tried in the next parliament; they who neither came nor sent excuses, to be committed to close custody.”[46] The family of Elderslie appear to have been among the last class of recusants. Sir Malcolm, setting all the penalties of non-conformity at defiance, resolutely refused to take an oath so subversive of the independence of his country. Aware, however, that the strength of his fortalice at Elderslie was insufficient to protect him against the consequences of his refusal, he retired with his eldest son to the fastnesses of the Lennox, while William, along with his mother, sought the protection of a powerful relation at Kilspindie in the Carse of Gowrie; and from this latter place he was sent to the seminary attached to the cathedral of Dundee, to receive what farther education the learning of the age afforded. Here he contracted a sincere and lasting friendship with his biographer, John Blair, a young man at that time of great promise, who, on finishing his studies, became a Benedictine monk, and afterwards officiated as chaplain to his heroic friend.

With this faithful companion, and other youths of similar dispositions, Wallace used to lament over the degradation to which the country was daily subjected; and, fired with indignation at the growing insolence of the English soldiers, he formed an association among his fellow-students for the purpose of defending themselves, and restraining the wanton outrages of the intruders, by chastising their aggressions whenever the parties were to be found in convenient situations. This, from the licentious habits of the soldiery, frequently occurred; and seldom were they allowed to escape, without experiencing the effects of their vengeance.

In these juvenile bickerings, too unimportant to attract the attention of those in authority, Wallace had frequent opportunities of displaying that dexterity and strength, with which Nature had so amply endowed him. In him, his companions found united all the qualifications they could desire in a leader—a head to devise, and a hand to execute, the most daring enterprises—a fertile imagination ever teeming with stratagems—and a prudence and foresight which provided against all contingencies; so that, when once he determined on any project, however difficult, they were always confident of its being crowned with success.

It is not to be imagined that an association of young men, among whom talents and bravery were distinguishing characteristics, would not feel deeply interested in the momentous crisis to which their country was approaching. The ambition of Edward, and his designs against the independence of their native land, were too apparent to escape the notice of any who had not an interest in appearing wilfully blind. The subserviency of those who represented the aristocracy was, therefore, regarded by their countrymen with feelings of humiliation and shame. It happened unfortunately for their characters, as well as for the safety of the country, that most of the nobility held possessions on both sides of the Tweed; and their selfishness dictated a line of policy extremely dangerous to the independence of Scotland. A wish to preserve their estates in both countries inclined them to a ready obedience to whatever side was most likely to gain the preponderance. Edward, who, in addition to his conquests on the Continent, had annexed the principality of Wales to the English crown, appeared to them, in the distracted state of their country’s affairs, as very likely to consolidate Britain under his powerful and energetic sway. Under these feelings, they vied with each other in their endeavours to propitiate the usurper by disgraceful compliances. The poorer gentry, however, entertained sentiments of a different description, and watched the progress of the submission respecting the succession with feverish impatience.

1291. Since the surrender of the Regents on the 11th June, the different towns and castles of Scotland had been garrisoned by English soldiers. Between the military and the inhabitants, as might have been expected, brawls were of no unfrequent occurrence—and in those which came under the notice of our hero, he seldom remained an inactive spectator. Gilbert de Umfraville[47] being removed from the command of the castles of Dundee and Forfar, one Selby, the head of a freebooting family in Cumberland, was appointed to succeed him. His son, a fiery and impetuous youth, having too rashly insulted Wallace, the latter struck him dead on the spot with his dagger; and, though surrounded by the train of his insulter, effected his escape to the house of a female dependent, who concealed him from his pursuers. Besides young Selby, two or three others, who attempted to intercept him in his flight, were either killed or severely wounded. The case, therefore, became one of too serious a nature to be overlooked. The prudent management of his preserver enabled him to quit the town without being observed. An act of outlawry followed this slaughter; and Wallace was hunted from covert to covert by the emissaries of the constable, who, eager to revenge the death of his son, offered great rewards for his apprehension. His success in eluding his pursuers was equal to the boldness of his offence.[48]

After lurking among the woods and impenetrable recesses of the country, till the heat of the pursuit had subsided, Wallace ventured to communicate with his relations at Kilspindie. The anxiety of his mother respecting his fate required to be relieved; and, in obedience to her solicitation, to remove himself further from the scene of danger, he agreed to accompany her on a pilgrimage to the shrine of St Margaret at Dumfries. The dress required for this purpose afforded a suitable disguise; and the respect paid by the English to a saint of the royal blood of their country, insured, in those days of superstition, all the facilities which their situation required.

While our hero was thus employed, his father, it would appear, had become obnoxious to the English; but in what manner, we are left entirely to conjecture. Whether they had endeavoured to apprehend him, for disobedience to the order already alluded to, or if, driven from his house and his resources, he found himself constrained to retaliate upon his oppressors the injuries they had inflicted, are circumstances respecting which all authorities are silent.

An unfortunate rencounter, however, appears to have taken place in the district of Kyle in Ayrshire, between Sir Malcolm, at the head of a few of his retainers, and a party of the English, under an officer of the name of Fenwick; in which, after a gallant resistance, the Scots were defeated and their chieftain slain. Blind Harry asserts, that the brother of Wallace also fell on this occasion; but he is evidently mistaken, as it has already been shown from Wyntown, that Sir Malcolm was succeeded in his estate by his eldest son.

The death of his father was not calculated to lessen the animosity which Wallace had hitherto entertained towards the English. Thirsting for revenge, he spurned the offers of some of his relations, who proposed to use their influence to get the act of outlawry recalled; and having placed his mother under the charge of his uncle Sir Raynald Crawford, he again betook himself to the woods.

The talents, strength, and dexterity of the young outlaw, soon attracted to his fortunes a number of reckless and intrepid spirits, inclined alike from habit and from circumstances, to prefer a life of savage and unrestrained liberty, to the uncertain and degrading protection of those, who, though wearing the mask of friendship, were daily wounding their feelings, by their encroachments on the independence of their country.

1292. As Scotland, at that time, abounded with game of every description, Wallace and his companions found no difficulty in maintaining themselves in their woodland retreats; from whence also they could issue forth to surprise the English, and supply themselves with those necessaries which their situation otherwise prevented them from obtaining. However well disposed the regency and barons of Scotland might have been to submit to the claims of England, it was quite different with the nation; and the proceedings of Wallace, though not sanctioned by the shadow of government which still lingered in the country, were viewed by the poorer classes of the Scots, not only with indulgence, but with approbation. From the prevalence of this feeling, he derived many important advantages, and much useful information respecting the movements of his enemies.

At this early period of his history, his conduct is said to have drawn upon him the notice of Thomas of Ercildoune, otherwise named Thomas the Rymer. This shrewd observer of the “signs of the times,” so highly appreciated his talents and hardihood, as to risk his prophetic fame, then in its zenith, by pointing him out to his countrymen as the man destined to restore the ancient glory of Scotland. His matchless strength and acute wit, joined to the sagacity with which he gave effect to his stratagems, tended, no doubt, to impress the seer with this favourable opinion. Among the stories told of his early years, the following are perhaps entitled to a preference, on account of their being, as Lord Hailes observes, “characteristical.”

One day, having visited Ayr in disguise, his attention was attracted by a crowd collected near the quarters of the military. In the midst of a circle of his own countrymen, there stood an Englishman of huge dimensions, playing off his raillery against the Scots, and offering, for a groat, an opportunity of avenging any injury they might have received from the English, by permitting the best among them to exert their utmost strength in striking a blow upon his back with a pole which he held in his hand; accompanying this absurd declaration with certain ridiculous gestures and scurrilous language, while his mailed companions, with arms akimbo, stood loitering around, laughing, and enjoying the humour of their bulky buffoon. Wallace approached, and tendered treble the sum for the permission offered. This was readily agreed to by the jester, who winked to his companions as he prepared to fulfil the conditions. The wary Scot had observed the trick; and, grasping the pole above the place where it was intended to give way, he let fall a blow with such good will, that the spine yielded to its force, and the foolish witling sunk with a groan at the feet of his companions. Instantly the swords of the English were out to revenge the slaughter of their favourite. One of them, advancing towards the offender, received a blow on the head, which laid him lifeless across the body of the jester. Surrounded on all sides by the increasing numbers of his adversaries, he plied his weapon with a rapidity and a force which kept the most forward of them at bay. Over the steel bacinet of a powerful trooper, the fatal pole was shivered to pieces. Others, seeing him, as they imagined, disarmed by this accident, rushed forward, expecting to overwhelm him with their numbers; but on drawing his sword, which he had concealed under his dress, they as quickly receded from the well-known power of his arm. Having, by his trusty blade, cleared the way to one of the outlets of the town, he was there attacked by two of the boldest of the garrison, who had not before mingled in the fray. The object of one of them appeared to be, to engage him in a little sword-play, and thus give his party an opportunity of hemming him in, but Wallace, aware of the value of his time, broke through the guard of his artful opponent, with a blow which clove him to the teeth; while the other, in the act of retreating, received a thrust through an opening in his armour, which, reaching his vitals, laid him senseless by the side of his companion. Five of the English soldiers had now fallen beneath the arm of the youthful warrior; and the rest seemed so averse to come within his reach, that he had time to gain a little copse in the neighbourhood, where he had left his horse before he entered the town, and, bounding into the saddle, the hardy trooper was soon beyond the reach of any fresh assistance they might procure. Horse and foot were, however, soon on the alert; but after a long and a fruitless pursuit, they were obliged to return,—some of those who had already witnessed his prowess no way displeased at their want of success.

The entire absence of any thing like fear, seems to have formed the most prominent feature in the character of Wallace. Although he had so narrowly escaped on the above occasion, and also aware of the ease with which he could be recognised, yet it was not long before he ventured back to the same place. The occasion was as follows:

A report had circulated about the country, that on a day named, a celebrated English prize-fighter would exhibit on the esplanade at Ayr, as a general challenger. An occurrence of this kind had powerful attractions, in an age when every man required to know something of the use of a sword. Scots, as well as English, became deeply interested as the day of exhibition drew on; and Wallace, instigated partly by curiosity, and partly by a wish to acquire information respecting the numbers and the motions of his enemies, determined to be present. Having equipped himself and fifteen of his companions with dresses which concealed their habergeons, he proceeded to the scene of action. Their horses they left in a place of safety outside the town, and then made their entry from different directions, in such numbers as would not attract the notice of their enemies.

In the midst of the crowd collected to witness the feats of the English champion, Wallace stood, with his face partially concealed in his cloak, to all appearance an unconcerned spectator, till he saw several of his countrymen, who had been baffled by the superior dexterity of their more practised antagonist, afterwards scoffed at, and otherwise insulted by the English soldiery. The feelings which this conduct excited were displayed on the fine expressive countenance of our hero, in such a manner as did not escape the notice of the victor; and the latter, flushed with his success, invited him to a trial of his skill. Wallace readily accepted the challenge; and, drawing his sword, prepared for the onset. The ease and grace with which he handled his weapon soon convinced the English that their “bukler-player” had at last engaged in a perilous enterprise. His art and agility appeared unavailing against the cool self-possession of the Scot, who, after a few passes, became the assailant; and a blow, which descended with the rapidity of lightning, laid the arrogant gladiator dead at his feet. This unexpected interruption of their amusement irritated the English; but when they discovered, in the successful combatant, the bold and audacious outlaw with whom they had been so lately engaged, they eagerly crowded round, and endeavoured to prevent his escape. Unappalled by the numbers with whom he was environed, he dealt his blows in all directions with unerring and deadly effect, while his followers, drawing their swords, attacked those who were nearest them with a fury that spread consternation and uproar through the whole assemblage.

The English, finding themselves assailed from so many quarters, conceived that they were surrounded by a multitude of enemies. Wallace, always first in the place of danger, according to the homely, but expressive phraseology of Blind Harry, “Gret rowme” about him “maid;” and the enemy had already begun to give way, when an additional force from the castle made its appearance. The battle was now renewed with redoubled fury on both sides; and the capture of our hero being the principal object in view, he became the subject of their most inveterate hostility. The few, however, who ventured within his reach, soon paid the forfeit of their temerity. Having collected his companions in a body, he fearlessly advanced into the centre of the English, diminishing their numbers with every stroke of his broadsword, while his followers pressed with determined ferocity upon those who attempted to intercept him. From the increasing number of his opponents, he at last became apprehensive of having his retreat cut off, if the unequal contest were much longer protracted. Placing himself, therefore, in front of the battle he ordered them to make the best of their way, while he endeavoured to prevent the enemy from harassing their rear. By incredible exertions, they at last regained their post at the outside of the town; and, mounting their horses, they were soon lost to their pursuers amid the shades of Laglane woods, leaving about thirty of the English, among whom were three knights belonging to Northumberland, dead upon the streets of Ayr.

These, and similar exploits, appear to have furnished employment to Wallace, during the time that the English held possession of the country under the nominal authority of the Scottish regency. It will now, however, be necessary to revert to the proceedings on the Border.

CHAPTER IV.
ACCESSION OF BALIOL—SIEGE OF BERWICK—BATTLE OF DUNBAR.