Chapter 37

47Paid Simon Kingesman, master of the Margaret of Kipavene, for freight of 30 quarters of wheat from Kirkcudbright to Dublin, to be ground there, and carriage of the same to Ayr, for the use of the King’s army in that place—Wages for self and 12 seamen, from 2. till 15. August, both included, 15 daysL.2 9 0To the same, for pilotage of said vessel0 6 8L.2 15 8Paid Wewmund Gegge, of the Savoy of Tynemouth, freight of 143 quarters of wheat, from Kirkcudbright to Whitehaven, to be ground, and carriage of the same to Ayr, for the King’s army in that place—Wages for self and 9 seamen, 5. till 14. August, both included, 10 daysL.1 7 6[N. B. Wages of master 6d. and seamen 3d. per day, during the expedition to Scotland in 1300.]Average wages per day. viz.Labourers2d.Plasterers3d.Miners3d.Masons4d.Carpenters4d.Smiths4d.Boys, or Apprentices2d.Prices of Oats per quarter.1300.Jan.At Holderness2s. 2d.p. 212—July.At Newcastle-upon-Tyne2s. 6d.p. 113Price of Wheat per quarter.1300.June.At Cawode, near York4s.p. 108Prices in Scotland in 1285.Oats 4d., and Bear 8d. and 10d. per boll. Wheat 16d. and20d.BBIt has been already stated (page 39 of vol. I.), that the money of both countries was of equal value at this time.48From the following entry in the Wardrobe Account, it would appear, that in this expedition the English were provided with nets for fishing in the rivers and lakes of Scotland “Reginaldo Janetori pro 2 reth’empt, per ipsum ad piscandum in repariis et stagnis in partibus Scocie ad opus Regis per manus proprias, apud Kirkudbright.” 4s.2d.Vide Wardrobe Account for the year1300.p.65.49Wyntown.50“That tyme wes in his cumpanyA knycht off France, wycht and hardy;And quhen he in the watyr swaSaw the king pass, and with him taHys leddyr wnabasytly,He saynyt him for the ferly,And said; ‘A Lord! quhatt sall we sayOff our lordis off Fraunce, that thaiWith gud morsellis fayrcis thair pawnchis,And will bot ete, and drynk, and dawnsis;Quhen sic a knycht, and sa worthyAs this, throw his chewalry,Into sic perill has him set,To wyn a wrechyt hamillet!’With that word to the dik he ran;And our eftre the king he wan.”The Bruce,Buke Sext, p. 177–8.51This circumstance is thus corroborated by a note attached to the Perth edition of Wallace. The editor, it would seem, had been present on the occasion:“About thirty years ago, when the burying vault of the parish church of Kinfauns happened to be opened, I was shewed a helmet made of thick leather, or of some such stuff, painted over with broad stripes of blue and white, which I was told was part of the fictitious armour in which the body of Thomas of Longueville had been deposited. Henry says, he was of large stature, and the helmet, indeed, was a very large one.”—P. 24 of Notes in 3d Volume.52SeeAppendix, L.53TheCroyz Gneytzwas held in great veneration, in consequence of its being supposed to contain part of the wood of the real cross.The Black Roodof Scotland was one of the national monuments carried off by Edward. Its sanctity was considered equal to that of theblack stonesof Iona; and an oath made upon it, gave the same stability to a contract. It was the favourite crucifix of Queen Margaret. The cross was of gold, about the length of a palm—the figure of ebony, studded and inlaid with gold. A piece of the true cross was also supposed to be enclosed in it.Aldred, p. 349 apud Twisden.—Hailes, vol. i. p. 41.54In Dr Jamieson’s edition of Blind Harry, this circumstance is thusprinted:—“Bot maister Blayr spak nothing off himsell,In deid off armes quhat awentur he fell.Schir Thomas Gray, was than preyst to Wallace,Put in the buk how than hapnyt this caceAt Blayr was in, [and] mony worthi deid,Off quhilk him selff had no plesance to reid.”B. x. 893–898.In the Perth edition of Wallace, the words in the third line stand thus:—“I Thomas Gray, yan preist to Wallace,” &c. On this reading, the Perth editor, with propriety, founds a very strong argument in favour of theexistenceof Blair’s work, and of the fidelity of Henry’s translation. The difference in the two editions appeared so very important, as to induce a friend of the writer to refer to the original manuscript in the Advocates’ Library, when it was found that the rendering of the Perth editor was strictly conformable to the original text, “thus affording,” as the above mentioned friend observes, “a triumphant argument in Henry’s favour; for it seems to represent him as in the very act of versifying his “auctor.” What authority Dr Jamieson has for the version he has given, must remain with himself to explain.55SeeAppendix, M.56The havoc made, and the oppressions sustained by the inhabitants, are thus described by Barbour, p. 9, vol. i. ofThe Bruce.“Fra Weik anent Orkenay,To Mullyrs nwk in Gallaway;And stuffyt all with Ingliss men.Schyrreffys and bailyheys maid he then;And alkyn othir officeris,That for to gowern land afferis,He maid off Ingliss nation;That worthyt than sa rych fellone,And sa wykkyt and cowatouss,And swa hawtane and dispitouss,That Scottis men mycht do na thingThat euir mycht pleyss to thar liking.Thar wyffis wuld thai oft forly,And thar dochtrys dispitusly:And gyff ony of thaim thair at war wrath,Thai watyt hym wele with gret scaith;For thai suld fynd sone enchesoneTo put hym to destructione.And gyff that ony man thaim byHad ony thing that wes worthy,As horss, or hund, or othir thing,That war pleasand to thar liking;With rycht or wrang it wald have thai.And gyff ony wald them withsay;Thai suld swa do, that thai suld tyneOthir land or lyff, or leyff in pyne.For thai dempt thaim eftir thair will,Takand na kep to rycht na skill.A! quhat thai dempt thaim felonly!For gud knychtis that war worthy,For litill enchesoune, or than nane,Thai hangyt be the nekbane.”57On the charge which has been made against Edward, for destroying the records and monuments of Scotland, Lord Hailes thus expresses himself:—“While the English were at Scone, they carried off some of the charters belonging to the abbey, and tore the seals from others. This is the only well-vouched example which I have found of any outrage on private property committed by Edward’s army. It is mentioned in a charter of Robert I.; and we may be assured that the outrage was not diminished in the relating.” Had this escaped from any other pen than that of a lawyer, it might have been considered as proceeding from ignorance; but being from a Judge on the Bench, we are at a loss what term to apply to it. The charter of Robert I. (Chart. Scone, 26.) was given in order to confirm former grants, and thus replace those which either had been carried off, or had their seals torn from them. To have inserted a narrative ofallspoliations of a similar nature, which Edward and his army had committed in Scotland, would have beenirrelevant; and we conceive that the expense of engrossing into aprivatecharter what belonged to the annals of the country, would not have been relished by the brethren of Scone. Had a case of expenses, incurred, in a manner so uncalled for, come under his Lordship’s review, we presume he would have sustained the objections of the defender. All that could appear with propriety in the charter, was an account of the destruction of those prior grants, which rendered a new charter necessary; and this document, if it proves any thing, proves the wanton and destructive malice of the invaders, when they would not permit even private property, the destruction of which could be of no service to themselves, to escape their violence. It would be of no avail, where Lord Hailes is concerned, to quote Scottish authorities in support of the charge against Edward, as a destroyer of public records; we shall therefore give the following extract, from the works of a learned, intelligent, and candid Englishman—an evidence which, we presume, few of his Lordship’s admirers will object to:—“King Eugene VII., about the beginning of the eighth century, is said to have ordered the depositing of all records, and books relating to the history of Scotland, at Icolm-kill; where he caused their old library (much neglected and decayed) to be pulled down and rebuilt in a very splendid manner, for this sole use and purpose. How long they continued there, and how well that excellent King’s design was answered, I know not; but it is now too sad a truth, that most of these venerable remains of antiquity are quite perished; and it is generally agreed, that they were destroyed on three remarkable occasions. The first of these was, when our King Edward the First, having claimed the sovereignty of Scotland, made a most miserable havock of the histories and laws of that kingdom; hoping that, in a short time, nothing should be found in all that country, but what carried an English name and face. To this end, he forbad, on severe penalties, the keeping of any such books or records; and proceeded so far as even to abolish the very name of Claudius Cæsar in his famous round temple, which he ordered to be called, as it is to this day, Arthur’s Hoff, pulling away the stone which preserved the memory of that great emperor and his conquests. That a great deal of this story is true, appears from the scarcity of Scotch records in our State-archives in England. Amongst the foreign treaties in the Exchequer, there are about 70 original instruments, bagged up, and inscribed, “Scotia ante Unionem:” And in the Tower, about 100 Rolls, relating to the affairs of that kingdom, under the title of Scotia. The former of these begin at the reign of Edward the First, and end with that of Queen Elizabeth; and the latter commences as before, but falls no lower than the reign of Edward the Fourth, the rest being to be looked for in the Chapel of the Rolls. But these are all the produce of our own country; and, instead of enriching us with the spoils of our neighbours, seem rather to prove, that King Edward had an equal spite at the ancient records of both kingdoms—so little is there of apology to be made for so notorious a destroyer of the public registers, together with the private monuments, evidences, and conveyances of lands! I do not doubt but the reason of such barbarity has been justly enough assigned, by those who represent him as “having a jealous eye over any thing that might encourage his new vassals to rebel, endeavouring to root out all memorials of the nobility, and to embase their spirits, by concealing from them their descent and qualities.” I have seen a manuscript list of such records as were carried off by his order. It begins,Ista monumenta subscripta capta fuerunt in thesaurario de Edinburg in presentia Abbatum de Dunfermelyn & de S. Cruce de Edinburg, & Johannis de Lythegranes, Guil-de Lincoln, & Thos. de Fisseburn & Guil-de Dumfreys, custodis rotulorum regni Scotiæ; et deposita sunt apud Berwick per præceptum Edwardi regis Angliæ & superioris domini Scotiæ. Videlicet, &c. After the recital of them, the catalogue ends:In quorum omnium testimonium tam predictus dominus rex Edwardus Angliæ & superior dominus Scotiæ quam predictus dominus Joh: de Balliolo rex Scotiæ, huic scripto, in modum chirographi confecto, sigille sua alternatim fecerunt apponi. dat. apud Novum Castrum super Tynam 30 die mensis Decembris anno dom. 1292, & regni prædicti domini Edwardi regis Angliæ & superioris domini Scotiæ, 21mo.The second great loss of the Scotch records, happened upon the mighty turn of the Reformation; when the monks, flying to Rome, carried with them the register-books, and other ancient treasure of their respective monasteries. The third, and killing blow, was given them by Oliver Cromwell; who brought most of the poor remains that were left into England; and they likewise were mostly lost in their return by sea. SeeNicolson’s Scottish Historical Library, p. 71, 72, 4to Edition.58It is possible that these noblemen may have been some way or other connected with the depôt of silver, alluded to at page 159 of vol. I, as having been found at Ascog in Bute.59If we may credit Langtoft, Comyn, Frazer and Wallace, were lurking in the neighbourhood of Dunfermline at the time, and supported themselves by plunder. His words are,“The lord of Badenauh, Freselle & WaleisLyued at theues lauh euer robband alle weis.Thei had no sustenance, the werre to mayntene,Bot skulked opon chance, & robbed ay betuene.”60“He brint all the Chronicles of Scotland, with all maner of bukis, als weill of devyne seruyce as of othir materis, to that fyne that the memorye of Scottis suld peris. He gart the Scottis wryte bukis efter thevse of Sarum, and constranit thaym to say efter that vse.”—Boeth.“Salysbery oyss our clerkis than has tane.”Wallace, B. x. 1006.61Fordun relates, that when this offer was made to Wallace, and on his being pressed by his friends to comply, he thus expressed himself:—“O! desolated Scotland, too credulous of fair speeches, and not aware of the calamities which are coming upon you! If you were to judge as I do, you would not easily put your neck under a foreign yoke. When I was a boy, the priest, my uncle, carefully inculcated upon me this proverb, which I then learned, and have ever since kept in my mind:—“Dico tibi verum,Libertasoptima rerum;Nunquam servili, sub nexu vivito, fili.”“I tell you a truth,—Liberty is the best of things, my son, never live under any slavish bond.”“Therefore, I shortly declare, that if all others, the natives of Scotland, should obey the King of England, or were to part with the liberty which belongs to them, I and those who may be willing to adhere to me in this point, will stand for the liberty of the kingdom; and by God’s assistance, will only obey the King, viz. John Baliol, or his Lieutenant.”62This is evidently a corruption ofLoup de guerre.63The existence of the bond or covenant between Bruce and Cumyn, though subjected to the doubts of Lord Hailes, is recorded by all our respectable authorities. The objections of his Lordship arose from the difficulty the parties would have experienced in effecting the contract. “It must be held extraordinary,” says our learned annalist, “that the two conspirators met together, should have committed such a secret to writing, as if it had been a legal covenant to have force in a court of justice; but more extraordinary still, that they should have done this at the imminent hazard of intrusting their lives and fortunes to the fidelity of a third party; for I presume, it will be admitted, that two Scottish barons, in that age, could not have framed such an indenture without assistance.” His Lordship, in his zeal to diminish the authority of preceding historians, often forgets the manners and customs of the age respecting which he writes, and assimilates them too closely to those of his own times. Were it not for this, he would have seen neither difficulty nor danger in two barons of such extensive territorial possessions and feudal influence, procuring a person properly qualified, and whose secrecy, had it been doubted, they would have had no hesitation ineffectually securing, either by imprisonment or otherwise. Even if their power did not extend to this, as the bond was not left in the possession of the drawer, where was the danger? Would any person whose education enabled him to frame such an instrument, have been so extremely foolish as attempt to charge two of the most powerful noblemen of the kingdom with treason, without the least shadow of proof to support the accusation? Bonds of manrent were never intended to be brought into a court of law, and all his Lordship’s experience would not have furnished him with a single instance of an attempt to enforce the fulfilment of such a contract by legal means. Bonds of this kind were entered into for the purpose of strengthening the feudal connections of the parties; and infidelity under such compacts carried its punishment along with it, by the want of confidence it created among the other feudal proprietors. That such bondsmen were looked upon with extreme jealousy by the Legislature, is sufficiently evident from the conduct of James II. towards Lord Douglas; “a court of justice,” therefore, was not the place to get their penalties recognised.The transaction is thus related by Wyntown, with whom Barbour agrees in every particular, and by which it will be seen, that “the two conspirators” did not “meettogether,” as his Lordship asserts, but were riding together to Stirling; and the instrument was drawn and sealed the same night in thatplace:—“Quhen all this sawe the Brws Robert,That bare the Crowne swne eftyrwart,Gret pytté of the folk he had,Set few wordis tharof he mád.A-pon á tyme Schyr Jhon Cwmyn,To-gydder rydand frá Strevylyn,Said til hym, ‘Schyr, will yhe noucht se,How that governyd is this cuntré?Thai sla oure Folk but enchesown,And haldis this Land agayne resown;And yhe thar-of full Lord suld be.For-thi gyve ye will trow to me,Yhe sall gere mak yhow thare-of Kyng;And I sall be in yhoure helpyng,Wyth-thi yhe gyve me all the Land,That yhe hawe now in-til yhoure hand,And gyve that yhe will noucht do swá,Na swilk a State a-pon yhowe tá,All hale my Landis sall yhowris be;And lat me tá the State on me,And bryng this Land owt of Thryllage.For thare is nother man ná pageIn all this Land na thayne sal beFayne to mak thaime selfyn fre.’“The Lord the Brws hard his karpyng,And wend he spak bot faythful thyng:And for it lykyd til his will,He gave swne his Consent thare-til,And sayd, ‘Syne yhe will, it be swá,I will blythly a-pon me táThe State; for I wate, I have Rycht:And Rycht oft makis the febil wycht.’“Thus ther twa Lordis accordyt are.That ilke nycht than wryttyne wareThare Indentwris, and Aithis madeTil hald all, that thai spokyn had.”V. ii. p. 12364It is with regret that we find this recreant’s name in the list of the defenders of Stirling. Emancipation from a dungeon, and the prospect of attaining to great riches, were no doubt powerful motives. Whether the following relation in Henry has any subsequent connection with this individual, we must leave our readers to determine. If it does, he appears to have received from the hand of our hero the recompence of his labours.The small party of adherents which still clung to the fortunes of Wallace and the cause of independence, were reduced to the greatest distress for want of provisions. Our hero had left them, in order to look out for a place where they might obtain supplies; and, while wandering through the wilds of Lorn, overcome by hunger and fatigue, he threw himself down in despair at the entrance of a forest, when the following adventure occurred tohim:—“Out off thair sycht, in till a forest syd,He sat him doun wndyr ane ayk to bid;His bow and suerd he lenyt till a tre,In angwyss greiff, on grouff so turned he.His petows mynd was for his men so wrocht,That off him selff litill as than he roucht.‘O wrech!’ he said, ‘that neuir couth be contentOff our gret mycht that the gret God the lent:Bot thi fers mynd, wylfull and wariable,With gret lordschip thow coud nocht so byd stable;And wylfull witt, for to mak Scotland fre;God likis nocht that I haiff tane on me.Fer worthyar of byrth than I was born,Throuch my desyr wyth hungyr ar forlorn:I ask at God thaim to restor agayn;I am the causs, I suld haiff all the pain.’Quhill studeand thus, whill flitand with him sell,Quhill at the last apon slepyng he fell.Thre days befor thar had him folowed fyve,The quhilk was bound, or ellis to loss thair lyff:The erl off York bad thaim so gret gardoun,At thai be thyft hecht to put Wallace doun.Thre off thaim was all born men off Ingland,And twa was Scottis, that tuk this deid on hand;And sum men said, thar thrid brothir betraissedKyldromé eft, quhar gret sorow was raissed.A child thai had, qubilk helpyit to ber mettIn wildernes amang thai montans grett.Thai had all seyn disseuyring off WallaceFra his gud men, and quhar he baid on cace;Amang thyk wod in cowert held thaim law,Quhill thai persawyt he couth on sleping faw.And than thir fyve approchit Wallace neir;Quhat best to do, at othir can thai speir.A man said thus: ‘It war a hie renoun,And we mycht qwyk leid him to Sanct Jhonstoun,Lo, how he lyis; we may our grippis waill;Off his wapynnys he sal get nane awaill.We sall him bynd in contrar off hys will,And leid him thus on baksyd off yon hill,So that his men sall nothing off him knaw.’The tothir thre assentit till his saw;And than thir fyve thus maid thaim to Wallace,And thocht throw force to bynd him in that place.Quhat, trowit thir fyve for to hald Wallace doun?The manlyast man, the starkest off persoun,Leyffand he was; and als stud in sic rycht,We traist weill, God his dedis had in sycht.Thai grippyt him, than out off slepe he braid;‘Quhat menys this? rycht sodandly he said,About he turnyt, and wp his armys thrang;On thai traytouris with knychtlik fer he dang.The starkast man in till his armys hynt he,And all his harnys he dang out on a tree.A sword he gat son efter at he rayss,Campiounlik amang the four he gais;Euyr a man he gert de at a dynt.Quhen twa was ded, the tothir wald nocht stynt;Maid thaim to fle; bot than it was na but,Was nane leyffand mycht pass fra him on fut.He folowed fast, and sone to ded thaim brocht;Than to the chyld sadly agayn he socht,‘Quhat did thow her?’ The child with [ane] paill face,On kneis he fell, and askyt Wallace grace.‘With thaim I was, and knew nothing thair thocht;In to seruice, as thai me bad, I wrocht.’‘Quhat berys thow her?’ ‘Bot meit, the child can say.’Do, turss it wp, and pass with me away,Meit in this tym is fer bettyr than gold.”65According to Henry, Gilbert Grymsby, or, as he is called by the Scots, Jop, was employed in this mission.66This young man is said by Henry to have been a son of Menteith’s sister. Langtoft calls him a servant, and says his name wasJock Short.67From Robroyston Wallace could easily make his way to the Clyde; cross the river and keep his appointment with Bruce, who was to have approached from the south, without coming in sight of any of the English stationed at Glasgow. The burrow-muir was situated on the south side of the Clyde.68The circumstance of this person being the last friend whom our hero was destined to behold, would, independent of his own personal merits, have rendered him an object of curiosity to a great proportion of our readers. The following account is taken from the notes of the editor of the Perth edition of Blind Harrie; and, as any thing which the writer has yet met with, rather tends to confirm than invalidate the statement, he shall submit it to the reader in the words of the learned and intelligent author:—“William Ker, commonly called Kerlie, or Ker Little, was ancestor of the Kers of Kersland. He, as well as many others, was compelled to swear the unlawful oath of fealty to Edward, August 5. 1296.“He joined Wallace at the castle of the Earl of Lennox, September 1296, and went with him immediately on his first northern expedition. He and Stephen of Ireland were the only two of Wallace’s men who survived the battle along the north side of the River Erne, November 1296.“He was the constant friend and companion of Wallace on all occasions, and is sometimes called his steward: In 1305, when Wallace was taken prisoner at Robrastoun, a solitary village near Glasgow, William Ker only was with him. They were found both asleep, and Ker was killed in the scuffle.“Henry says, that William Ker had large inheritance in the district of Carrick in Air-shire. That his ancestor was brought from Ireland by King David I., and defeated, with the assistance of seven hundred Scots, nine thousand Norwegians who had landed at Dunmoir. Some of the Norwegians were drowned in Doun, and others slain upon the land. King David gave him the lands of Dunmoir in reward of his bravery.“It may be remarked, that Dun Hill, or, as it is commonly called, Norman or Northman Law, a high hill on the estate of Dunmure, in the north-east part of Fife, and parish of Abdie, has on the top of it the remains of Danish intrenchments. The hill on the north side declines all the way to the river or Frith of Tay, which has Dundee at the mouth of it. The constant tradition is, that the Danes or Norwegians carried the spoil of the country to the top of this hill, where the natives could have no access to them; and after having collected it there, carried it down on the other side to their ships in the river.”69“At Robroystone Sir William Wallace was betrayed and apprehended by Sir John Menteith, a favourite of Edward I. of England. After he was overpowered, and before his hands were bound, it is said he threw his sword into Robroyston loch. An oaken couple, or joist, which made part of the barn in which the Scottish hero was taken, is still to be seen in this neighbourhood, and may yet last for ages.”—Stat. Acc. viii.481, 482.The latter part of the above quotation is perfectly correct. The oaken joist was to be seen till within these ten years past; it has now entirely disappeared, being carried off by that tribe of pseudo-antiquarians, ycleped Relic-fanciers.70SeeAppendix, N.71This report may have originated in some facetious remark, which probably escaped from him on hearing that one William Wallace had, by the voice of his fellow-citizens, attained to the honour of being Lord Mayor of London, when the success of the Scots compelled Edward to grant an extension of the liberties of his people. His election is stated, at p. 85, vol. i. of this work, to have taken place in 1296. This mistake the author begs leave to correct; the election occurred in April 1298. The coincidence is rather singular. See Lambert’s Survey of London, vol. i. p. 167.72That Edward was mean enough to subject Wallace to a piece of mockery of this kind, appears evident, from the same contemptible artifice, to excite derision, being again resorted to in the case of Sir Simon Frazer, who was not only habited in an unbecoming and ridiculous garb, but also had “a gerland on ys heued of the neweguyse.” This expression is taken from the ancient ballad made on the execution of Frazer, as may be seen in the account we have given of that warrior; and which seemed evidently to allude to the recent exhibition made of Wallace, on whose person “the newe guyse” was no doubt first introduced;—and, as Sir Simon was executed only about twelve months afterwards, the phrase would be perfectly applicable, as the circumstance must have been fresh in the minds of the people.—SeeApp.L.73SeeAppendix, O.74This appears to have been the only article of property that Wallace died possessed of.75This, in all probability, was the mark of the wound inflicted by the Lancaster bowman mentioned at page 162 of volume I.76SeeAppendix, P.77SeeAppendix, Q.78This circumstance seems to have been keenly felt and lamented, as a subject of national disgrace, by some of the historians of England. In addition to the anathemas poured forth by Peter Langtoft, on account of the obstinacy of their northern neighbours—the mortification evinced by Hardyng in the following lines, is highly complimentary to the independent spirit of Scotland. This acknowledged spy, and detected forger, was sent down by his government, in the reign of Henry V., for themeanpurpose of stealing away the treaty with Robert Bruce, in which the independence of Scotland was recognised.“Englande and Wales as to their soueraygneTo you obey, whiche shuld thinke shame of ryght,To se Scotlande thus proudly disobeyne,Agayne them two that bene of greate myght,It is a shame to euery mannes syght,Sith Iohn Baylioll his ryght of it resygnedTo kyng Edward, why is it thus repugned?”Hardyng’s Chronicle, p. 413–414.In the two last lines, the writer of the Chronicle founds the pretensions of England to the superiority over Scotland, on the resignation of Baliol. This title he no doubt considered aspreferableto any claims previously got up; and we would recommend Dr Lingard to follow his example; for, bad as it is, the supporters of it are not liable to meet with those stubborn historical facts which stand in the way of the advocates for a more venerable antiquity. To show the sincerity which dictates this advice, we shall revert once more to pages 443 and 444, vol. iii. of the Doctor’s work, where we are told, on the authority of Rymer, that the words “libertates, dignitates, honores debiti,” &c. “mean the allowances to be made, and the honours to be shown, to the King of Scots, as often as he came to the English court, by the command of his lord the King of England,from the moment that he crossed the Borders till his return into his own territories.” Had the vassalage of the King of Scotland been of that unqualified nature which the Doctor labours to establish, how comes it that his “allowances” only commencefrom the moment he crossed the Border, andceasedas soon as hereturned to his own territories—merely, we presume, becausehe was in his own territories. Had it been otherwise, he would doubtless have been found entitled to those expenses or allowances,from the timehe lefthis own domicile, in whatever part of Scotlandthat domicilemay have been situated.79SeeAppendix, R.80However singular this statement may appear to some, the author is happy in having it in his power to produce the most incontrovertible evidence of the fact—SeeApp.A.81Appendix, S.82SeeAppendix, T.83Vol. iii. 8vo ed. p. 343–355.; and vol. ii. of 4to ed. p. 459–468, 470.84Lingard, vol. iii. p. 356. 3d Edition.85In the recovery of a document connected with the hero of Scotland, which had thus lain in obscurity for so long a period, the writer feels himself particularly called upon to express his grateful acknowledgments to T. G. Repp, Esq. of the Advocates’ Library, and his friend E. K. Sieveking, Esq., Syndic of the city of Hamburgh.86The writer is inclined to believe, that, in copying the antiquated original, Badsington has been put down by the transcriber in a mistake for Haddington. He has left it, however, in charge of a note of interrogation, for the purpose of inviting his readers to the exercise of their critical acumen.87Our readers will be gratified to learn, that Dr Lappenberg has been for some time engaged on a highly interesting work relating to the origin of the Hanseatic League, in the course of which there will appear upwards of 400 documents which have escaped the research of former writers, illustrative of the state of commerce among the nations of Europe between 1170 and 1370. A considerable number of these documents, we understand, relate to the mercantile transactions of England and Scotland; and a publication of this kind cannot fail to be anxiously looked for, by all who set a value upon well-authenticated historical information.88Seep. 203.

[N. B. Wages of master 6d. and seamen 3d. per day, during the expedition to Scotland in 1300.]

Prices in Scotland in 1285.

Oats 4d., and Bear 8d. and 10d. per boll. Wheat 16d. and20d.B

BIt has been already stated (page 39 of vol. I.), that the money of both countries was of equal value at this time.

48From the following entry in the Wardrobe Account, it would appear, that in this expedition the English were provided with nets for fishing in the rivers and lakes of Scotland “Reginaldo Janetori pro 2 reth’empt, per ipsum ad piscandum in repariis et stagnis in partibus Scocie ad opus Regis per manus proprias, apud Kirkudbright.” 4s.2d.Vide Wardrobe Account for the year1300.p.65.

Vide Wardrobe Account for the year1300.p.65.

49Wyntown.

50“That tyme wes in his cumpanyA knycht off France, wycht and hardy;And quhen he in the watyr swaSaw the king pass, and with him taHys leddyr wnabasytly,He saynyt him for the ferly,And said; ‘A Lord! quhatt sall we sayOff our lordis off Fraunce, that thaiWith gud morsellis fayrcis thair pawnchis,And will bot ete, and drynk, and dawnsis;Quhen sic a knycht, and sa worthyAs this, throw his chewalry,Into sic perill has him set,To wyn a wrechyt hamillet!’With that word to the dik he ran;And our eftre the king he wan.”The Bruce,Buke Sext, p. 177–8.

“That tyme wes in his cumpanyA knycht off France, wycht and hardy;And quhen he in the watyr swaSaw the king pass, and with him taHys leddyr wnabasytly,He saynyt him for the ferly,And said; ‘A Lord! quhatt sall we sayOff our lordis off Fraunce, that thaiWith gud morsellis fayrcis thair pawnchis,And will bot ete, and drynk, and dawnsis;Quhen sic a knycht, and sa worthyAs this, throw his chewalry,Into sic perill has him set,To wyn a wrechyt hamillet!’With that word to the dik he ran;And our eftre the king he wan.”The Bruce,Buke Sext, p. 177–8.

The Bruce,Buke Sext, p. 177–8.

51This circumstance is thus corroborated by a note attached to the Perth edition of Wallace. The editor, it would seem, had been present on the occasion:“About thirty years ago, when the burying vault of the parish church of Kinfauns happened to be opened, I was shewed a helmet made of thick leather, or of some such stuff, painted over with broad stripes of blue and white, which I was told was part of the fictitious armour in which the body of Thomas of Longueville had been deposited. Henry says, he was of large stature, and the helmet, indeed, was a very large one.”—P. 24 of Notes in 3d Volume.

51This circumstance is thus corroborated by a note attached to the Perth edition of Wallace. The editor, it would seem, had been present on the occasion:

“About thirty years ago, when the burying vault of the parish church of Kinfauns happened to be opened, I was shewed a helmet made of thick leather, or of some such stuff, painted over with broad stripes of blue and white, which I was told was part of the fictitious armour in which the body of Thomas of Longueville had been deposited. Henry says, he was of large stature, and the helmet, indeed, was a very large one.”—P. 24 of Notes in 3d Volume.

52SeeAppendix, L.

53TheCroyz Gneytzwas held in great veneration, in consequence of its being supposed to contain part of the wood of the real cross.The Black Roodof Scotland was one of the national monuments carried off by Edward. Its sanctity was considered equal to that of theblack stonesof Iona; and an oath made upon it, gave the same stability to a contract. It was the favourite crucifix of Queen Margaret. The cross was of gold, about the length of a palm—the figure of ebony, studded and inlaid with gold. A piece of the true cross was also supposed to be enclosed in it.Aldred, p. 349 apud Twisden.—Hailes, vol. i. p. 41.

Aldred, p. 349 apud Twisden.—Hailes, vol. i. p. 41.

54In Dr Jamieson’s edition of Blind Harry, this circumstance is thusprinted:—“Bot maister Blayr spak nothing off himsell,In deid off armes quhat awentur he fell.Schir Thomas Gray, was than preyst to Wallace,Put in the buk how than hapnyt this caceAt Blayr was in, [and] mony worthi deid,Off quhilk him selff had no plesance to reid.”B. x. 893–898.

54In Dr Jamieson’s edition of Blind Harry, this circumstance is thusprinted:—

“Bot maister Blayr spak nothing off himsell,In deid off armes quhat awentur he fell.Schir Thomas Gray, was than preyst to Wallace,Put in the buk how than hapnyt this caceAt Blayr was in, [and] mony worthi deid,Off quhilk him selff had no plesance to reid.”B. x. 893–898.

B. x. 893–898.

In the Perth edition of Wallace, the words in the third line stand thus:—“I Thomas Gray, yan preist to Wallace,” &c. On this reading, the Perth editor, with propriety, founds a very strong argument in favour of theexistenceof Blair’s work, and of the fidelity of Henry’s translation. The difference in the two editions appeared so very important, as to induce a friend of the writer to refer to the original manuscript in the Advocates’ Library, when it was found that the rendering of the Perth editor was strictly conformable to the original text, “thus affording,” as the above mentioned friend observes, “a triumphant argument in Henry’s favour; for it seems to represent him as in the very act of versifying his “auctor.” What authority Dr Jamieson has for the version he has given, must remain with himself to explain.

55SeeAppendix, M.

56The havoc made, and the oppressions sustained by the inhabitants, are thus described by Barbour, p. 9, vol. i. ofThe Bruce.“Fra Weik anent Orkenay,To Mullyrs nwk in Gallaway;And stuffyt all with Ingliss men.Schyrreffys and bailyheys maid he then;And alkyn othir officeris,That for to gowern land afferis,He maid off Ingliss nation;That worthyt than sa rych fellone,And sa wykkyt and cowatouss,And swa hawtane and dispitouss,That Scottis men mycht do na thingThat euir mycht pleyss to thar liking.Thar wyffis wuld thai oft forly,And thar dochtrys dispitusly:And gyff ony of thaim thair at war wrath,Thai watyt hym wele with gret scaith;For thai suld fynd sone enchesoneTo put hym to destructione.And gyff that ony man thaim byHad ony thing that wes worthy,As horss, or hund, or othir thing,That war pleasand to thar liking;With rycht or wrang it wald have thai.And gyff ony wald them withsay;Thai suld swa do, that thai suld tyneOthir land or lyff, or leyff in pyne.For thai dempt thaim eftir thair will,Takand na kep to rycht na skill.A! quhat thai dempt thaim felonly!For gud knychtis that war worthy,For litill enchesoune, or than nane,Thai hangyt be the nekbane.”

56The havoc made, and the oppressions sustained by the inhabitants, are thus described by Barbour, p. 9, vol. i. ofThe Bruce.

“Fra Weik anent Orkenay,To Mullyrs nwk in Gallaway;And stuffyt all with Ingliss men.Schyrreffys and bailyheys maid he then;And alkyn othir officeris,That for to gowern land afferis,He maid off Ingliss nation;That worthyt than sa rych fellone,And sa wykkyt and cowatouss,And swa hawtane and dispitouss,That Scottis men mycht do na thingThat euir mycht pleyss to thar liking.Thar wyffis wuld thai oft forly,And thar dochtrys dispitusly:And gyff ony of thaim thair at war wrath,Thai watyt hym wele with gret scaith;For thai suld fynd sone enchesoneTo put hym to destructione.And gyff that ony man thaim byHad ony thing that wes worthy,As horss, or hund, or othir thing,That war pleasand to thar liking;With rycht or wrang it wald have thai.And gyff ony wald them withsay;Thai suld swa do, that thai suld tyneOthir land or lyff, or leyff in pyne.For thai dempt thaim eftir thair will,Takand na kep to rycht na skill.A! quhat thai dempt thaim felonly!For gud knychtis that war worthy,For litill enchesoune, or than nane,Thai hangyt be the nekbane.”

57On the charge which has been made against Edward, for destroying the records and monuments of Scotland, Lord Hailes thus expresses himself:—“While the English were at Scone, they carried off some of the charters belonging to the abbey, and tore the seals from others. This is the only well-vouched example which I have found of any outrage on private property committed by Edward’s army. It is mentioned in a charter of Robert I.; and we may be assured that the outrage was not diminished in the relating.” Had this escaped from any other pen than that of a lawyer, it might have been considered as proceeding from ignorance; but being from a Judge on the Bench, we are at a loss what term to apply to it. The charter of Robert I. (Chart. Scone, 26.) was given in order to confirm former grants, and thus replace those which either had been carried off, or had their seals torn from them. To have inserted a narrative ofallspoliations of a similar nature, which Edward and his army had committed in Scotland, would have beenirrelevant; and we conceive that the expense of engrossing into aprivatecharter what belonged to the annals of the country, would not have been relished by the brethren of Scone. Had a case of expenses, incurred, in a manner so uncalled for, come under his Lordship’s review, we presume he would have sustained the objections of the defender. All that could appear with propriety in the charter, was an account of the destruction of those prior grants, which rendered a new charter necessary; and this document, if it proves any thing, proves the wanton and destructive malice of the invaders, when they would not permit even private property, the destruction of which could be of no service to themselves, to escape their violence. It would be of no avail, where Lord Hailes is concerned, to quote Scottish authorities in support of the charge against Edward, as a destroyer of public records; we shall therefore give the following extract, from the works of a learned, intelligent, and candid Englishman—an evidence which, we presume, few of his Lordship’s admirers will object to:—“King Eugene VII., about the beginning of the eighth century, is said to have ordered the depositing of all records, and books relating to the history of Scotland, at Icolm-kill; where he caused their old library (much neglected and decayed) to be pulled down and rebuilt in a very splendid manner, for this sole use and purpose. How long they continued there, and how well that excellent King’s design was answered, I know not; but it is now too sad a truth, that most of these venerable remains of antiquity are quite perished; and it is generally agreed, that they were destroyed on three remarkable occasions. The first of these was, when our King Edward the First, having claimed the sovereignty of Scotland, made a most miserable havock of the histories and laws of that kingdom; hoping that, in a short time, nothing should be found in all that country, but what carried an English name and face. To this end, he forbad, on severe penalties, the keeping of any such books or records; and proceeded so far as even to abolish the very name of Claudius Cæsar in his famous round temple, which he ordered to be called, as it is to this day, Arthur’s Hoff, pulling away the stone which preserved the memory of that great emperor and his conquests. That a great deal of this story is true, appears from the scarcity of Scotch records in our State-archives in England. Amongst the foreign treaties in the Exchequer, there are about 70 original instruments, bagged up, and inscribed, “Scotia ante Unionem:” And in the Tower, about 100 Rolls, relating to the affairs of that kingdom, under the title of Scotia. The former of these begin at the reign of Edward the First, and end with that of Queen Elizabeth; and the latter commences as before, but falls no lower than the reign of Edward the Fourth, the rest being to be looked for in the Chapel of the Rolls. But these are all the produce of our own country; and, instead of enriching us with the spoils of our neighbours, seem rather to prove, that King Edward had an equal spite at the ancient records of both kingdoms—so little is there of apology to be made for so notorious a destroyer of the public registers, together with the private monuments, evidences, and conveyances of lands! I do not doubt but the reason of such barbarity has been justly enough assigned, by those who represent him as “having a jealous eye over any thing that might encourage his new vassals to rebel, endeavouring to root out all memorials of the nobility, and to embase their spirits, by concealing from them their descent and qualities.” I have seen a manuscript list of such records as were carried off by his order. It begins,Ista monumenta subscripta capta fuerunt in thesaurario de Edinburg in presentia Abbatum de Dunfermelyn & de S. Cruce de Edinburg, & Johannis de Lythegranes, Guil-de Lincoln, & Thos. de Fisseburn & Guil-de Dumfreys, custodis rotulorum regni Scotiæ; et deposita sunt apud Berwick per præceptum Edwardi regis Angliæ & superioris domini Scotiæ. Videlicet, &c. After the recital of them, the catalogue ends:In quorum omnium testimonium tam predictus dominus rex Edwardus Angliæ & superior dominus Scotiæ quam predictus dominus Joh: de Balliolo rex Scotiæ, huic scripto, in modum chirographi confecto, sigille sua alternatim fecerunt apponi. dat. apud Novum Castrum super Tynam 30 die mensis Decembris anno dom. 1292, & regni prædicti domini Edwardi regis Angliæ & superioris domini Scotiæ, 21mo.The second great loss of the Scotch records, happened upon the mighty turn of the Reformation; when the monks, flying to Rome, carried with them the register-books, and other ancient treasure of their respective monasteries. The third, and killing blow, was given them by Oliver Cromwell; who brought most of the poor remains that were left into England; and they likewise were mostly lost in their return by sea. SeeNicolson’s Scottish Historical Library, p. 71, 72, 4to Edition.

58It is possible that these noblemen may have been some way or other connected with the depôt of silver, alluded to at page 159 of vol. I, as having been found at Ascog in Bute.

59If we may credit Langtoft, Comyn, Frazer and Wallace, were lurking in the neighbourhood of Dunfermline at the time, and supported themselves by plunder. His words are,“The lord of Badenauh, Freselle & WaleisLyued at theues lauh euer robband alle weis.Thei had no sustenance, the werre to mayntene,Bot skulked opon chance, & robbed ay betuene.”

59If we may credit Langtoft, Comyn, Frazer and Wallace, were lurking in the neighbourhood of Dunfermline at the time, and supported themselves by plunder. His words are,

“The lord of Badenauh, Freselle & WaleisLyued at theues lauh euer robband alle weis.Thei had no sustenance, the werre to mayntene,Bot skulked opon chance, & robbed ay betuene.”

60“He brint all the Chronicles of Scotland, with all maner of bukis, als weill of devyne seruyce as of othir materis, to that fyne that the memorye of Scottis suld peris. He gart the Scottis wryte bukis efter thevse of Sarum, and constranit thaym to say efter that vse.”—Boeth.“Salysbery oyss our clerkis than has tane.”Wallace, B. x. 1006.

“Salysbery oyss our clerkis than has tane.”Wallace, B. x. 1006.

“Salysbery oyss our clerkis than has tane.”

Wallace, B. x. 1006.

61Fordun relates, that when this offer was made to Wallace, and on his being pressed by his friends to comply, he thus expressed himself:—“O! desolated Scotland, too credulous of fair speeches, and not aware of the calamities which are coming upon you! If you were to judge as I do, you would not easily put your neck under a foreign yoke. When I was a boy, the priest, my uncle, carefully inculcated upon me this proverb, which I then learned, and have ever since kept in my mind:—“Dico tibi verum,Libertasoptima rerum;Nunquam servili, sub nexu vivito, fili.”“I tell you a truth,—Liberty is the best of things, my son, never live under any slavish bond.”“Therefore, I shortly declare, that if all others, the natives of Scotland, should obey the King of England, or were to part with the liberty which belongs to them, I and those who may be willing to adhere to me in this point, will stand for the liberty of the kingdom; and by God’s assistance, will only obey the King, viz. John Baliol, or his Lieutenant.”

“Dico tibi verum,Libertasoptima rerum;Nunquam servili, sub nexu vivito, fili.”

“I tell you a truth,—Liberty is the best of things, my son, never live under any slavish bond.”

“Therefore, I shortly declare, that if all others, the natives of Scotland, should obey the King of England, or were to part with the liberty which belongs to them, I and those who may be willing to adhere to me in this point, will stand for the liberty of the kingdom; and by God’s assistance, will only obey the King, viz. John Baliol, or his Lieutenant.”

62This is evidently a corruption ofLoup de guerre.

63The existence of the bond or covenant between Bruce and Cumyn, though subjected to the doubts of Lord Hailes, is recorded by all our respectable authorities. The objections of his Lordship arose from the difficulty the parties would have experienced in effecting the contract. “It must be held extraordinary,” says our learned annalist, “that the two conspirators met together, should have committed such a secret to writing, as if it had been a legal covenant to have force in a court of justice; but more extraordinary still, that they should have done this at the imminent hazard of intrusting their lives and fortunes to the fidelity of a third party; for I presume, it will be admitted, that two Scottish barons, in that age, could not have framed such an indenture without assistance.” His Lordship, in his zeal to diminish the authority of preceding historians, often forgets the manners and customs of the age respecting which he writes, and assimilates them too closely to those of his own times. Were it not for this, he would have seen neither difficulty nor danger in two barons of such extensive territorial possessions and feudal influence, procuring a person properly qualified, and whose secrecy, had it been doubted, they would have had no hesitation ineffectually securing, either by imprisonment or otherwise. Even if their power did not extend to this, as the bond was not left in the possession of the drawer, where was the danger? Would any person whose education enabled him to frame such an instrument, have been so extremely foolish as attempt to charge two of the most powerful noblemen of the kingdom with treason, without the least shadow of proof to support the accusation? Bonds of manrent were never intended to be brought into a court of law, and all his Lordship’s experience would not have furnished him with a single instance of an attempt to enforce the fulfilment of such a contract by legal means. Bonds of this kind were entered into for the purpose of strengthening the feudal connections of the parties; and infidelity under such compacts carried its punishment along with it, by the want of confidence it created among the other feudal proprietors. That such bondsmen were looked upon with extreme jealousy by the Legislature, is sufficiently evident from the conduct of James II. towards Lord Douglas; “a court of justice,” therefore, was not the place to get their penalties recognised.The transaction is thus related by Wyntown, with whom Barbour agrees in every particular, and by which it will be seen, that “the two conspirators” did not “meettogether,” as his Lordship asserts, but were riding together to Stirling; and the instrument was drawn and sealed the same night in thatplace:—“Quhen all this sawe the Brws Robert,That bare the Crowne swne eftyrwart,Gret pytté of the folk he had,Set few wordis tharof he mád.A-pon á tyme Schyr Jhon Cwmyn,To-gydder rydand frá Strevylyn,Said til hym, ‘Schyr, will yhe noucht se,How that governyd is this cuntré?Thai sla oure Folk but enchesown,And haldis this Land agayne resown;And yhe thar-of full Lord suld be.For-thi gyve ye will trow to me,Yhe sall gere mak yhow thare-of Kyng;And I sall be in yhoure helpyng,Wyth-thi yhe gyve me all the Land,That yhe hawe now in-til yhoure hand,And gyve that yhe will noucht do swá,Na swilk a State a-pon yhowe tá,All hale my Landis sall yhowris be;And lat me tá the State on me,And bryng this Land owt of Thryllage.For thare is nother man ná pageIn all this Land na thayne sal beFayne to mak thaime selfyn fre.’“The Lord the Brws hard his karpyng,And wend he spak bot faythful thyng:And for it lykyd til his will,He gave swne his Consent thare-til,And sayd, ‘Syne yhe will, it be swá,I will blythly a-pon me táThe State; for I wate, I have Rycht:And Rycht oft makis the febil wycht.’“Thus ther twa Lordis accordyt are.That ilke nycht than wryttyne wareThare Indentwris, and Aithis madeTil hald all, that thai spokyn had.”V. ii. p. 123

The transaction is thus related by Wyntown, with whom Barbour agrees in every particular, and by which it will be seen, that “the two conspirators” did not “meettogether,” as his Lordship asserts, but were riding together to Stirling; and the instrument was drawn and sealed the same night in thatplace:—

“Quhen all this sawe the Brws Robert,That bare the Crowne swne eftyrwart,Gret pytté of the folk he had,Set few wordis tharof he mád.A-pon á tyme Schyr Jhon Cwmyn,To-gydder rydand frá Strevylyn,Said til hym, ‘Schyr, will yhe noucht se,How that governyd is this cuntré?Thai sla oure Folk but enchesown,And haldis this Land agayne resown;And yhe thar-of full Lord suld be.For-thi gyve ye will trow to me,Yhe sall gere mak yhow thare-of Kyng;And I sall be in yhoure helpyng,Wyth-thi yhe gyve me all the Land,That yhe hawe now in-til yhoure hand,And gyve that yhe will noucht do swá,Na swilk a State a-pon yhowe tá,All hale my Landis sall yhowris be;And lat me tá the State on me,And bryng this Land owt of Thryllage.For thare is nother man ná pageIn all this Land na thayne sal beFayne to mak thaime selfyn fre.’“The Lord the Brws hard his karpyng,And wend he spak bot faythful thyng:And for it lykyd til his will,He gave swne his Consent thare-til,And sayd, ‘Syne yhe will, it be swá,I will blythly a-pon me táThe State; for I wate, I have Rycht:And Rycht oft makis the febil wycht.’“Thus ther twa Lordis accordyt are.That ilke nycht than wryttyne wareThare Indentwris, and Aithis madeTil hald all, that thai spokyn had.”V. ii. p. 123

V. ii. p. 123

64It is with regret that we find this recreant’s name in the list of the defenders of Stirling. Emancipation from a dungeon, and the prospect of attaining to great riches, were no doubt powerful motives. Whether the following relation in Henry has any subsequent connection with this individual, we must leave our readers to determine. If it does, he appears to have received from the hand of our hero the recompence of his labours.The small party of adherents which still clung to the fortunes of Wallace and the cause of independence, were reduced to the greatest distress for want of provisions. Our hero had left them, in order to look out for a place where they might obtain supplies; and, while wandering through the wilds of Lorn, overcome by hunger and fatigue, he threw himself down in despair at the entrance of a forest, when the following adventure occurred tohim:—“Out off thair sycht, in till a forest syd,He sat him doun wndyr ane ayk to bid;His bow and suerd he lenyt till a tre,In angwyss greiff, on grouff so turned he.His petows mynd was for his men so wrocht,That off him selff litill as than he roucht.‘O wrech!’ he said, ‘that neuir couth be contentOff our gret mycht that the gret God the lent:Bot thi fers mynd, wylfull and wariable,With gret lordschip thow coud nocht so byd stable;And wylfull witt, for to mak Scotland fre;God likis nocht that I haiff tane on me.Fer worthyar of byrth than I was born,Throuch my desyr wyth hungyr ar forlorn:I ask at God thaim to restor agayn;I am the causs, I suld haiff all the pain.’Quhill studeand thus, whill flitand with him sell,Quhill at the last apon slepyng he fell.Thre days befor thar had him folowed fyve,The quhilk was bound, or ellis to loss thair lyff:The erl off York bad thaim so gret gardoun,At thai be thyft hecht to put Wallace doun.Thre off thaim was all born men off Ingland,And twa was Scottis, that tuk this deid on hand;And sum men said, thar thrid brothir betraissedKyldromé eft, quhar gret sorow was raissed.A child thai had, qubilk helpyit to ber mettIn wildernes amang thai montans grett.Thai had all seyn disseuyring off WallaceFra his gud men, and quhar he baid on cace;Amang thyk wod in cowert held thaim law,Quhill thai persawyt he couth on sleping faw.And than thir fyve approchit Wallace neir;Quhat best to do, at othir can thai speir.A man said thus: ‘It war a hie renoun,And we mycht qwyk leid him to Sanct Jhonstoun,Lo, how he lyis; we may our grippis waill;Off his wapynnys he sal get nane awaill.We sall him bynd in contrar off hys will,And leid him thus on baksyd off yon hill,So that his men sall nothing off him knaw.’The tothir thre assentit till his saw;And than thir fyve thus maid thaim to Wallace,And thocht throw force to bynd him in that place.Quhat, trowit thir fyve for to hald Wallace doun?The manlyast man, the starkest off persoun,Leyffand he was; and als stud in sic rycht,We traist weill, God his dedis had in sycht.Thai grippyt him, than out off slepe he braid;‘Quhat menys this? rycht sodandly he said,About he turnyt, and wp his armys thrang;On thai traytouris with knychtlik fer he dang.The starkast man in till his armys hynt he,And all his harnys he dang out on a tree.A sword he gat son efter at he rayss,Campiounlik amang the four he gais;Euyr a man he gert de at a dynt.Quhen twa was ded, the tothir wald nocht stynt;Maid thaim to fle; bot than it was na but,Was nane leyffand mycht pass fra him on fut.He folowed fast, and sone to ded thaim brocht;Than to the chyld sadly agayn he socht,‘Quhat did thow her?’ The child with [ane] paill face,On kneis he fell, and askyt Wallace grace.‘With thaim I was, and knew nothing thair thocht;In to seruice, as thai me bad, I wrocht.’‘Quhat berys thow her?’ ‘Bot meit, the child can say.’Do, turss it wp, and pass with me away,Meit in this tym is fer bettyr than gold.”

The small party of adherents which still clung to the fortunes of Wallace and the cause of independence, were reduced to the greatest distress for want of provisions. Our hero had left them, in order to look out for a place where they might obtain supplies; and, while wandering through the wilds of Lorn, overcome by hunger and fatigue, he threw himself down in despair at the entrance of a forest, when the following adventure occurred tohim:—

“Out off thair sycht, in till a forest syd,He sat him doun wndyr ane ayk to bid;His bow and suerd he lenyt till a tre,In angwyss greiff, on grouff so turned he.His petows mynd was for his men so wrocht,That off him selff litill as than he roucht.‘O wrech!’ he said, ‘that neuir couth be contentOff our gret mycht that the gret God the lent:Bot thi fers mynd, wylfull and wariable,With gret lordschip thow coud nocht so byd stable;And wylfull witt, for to mak Scotland fre;God likis nocht that I haiff tane on me.Fer worthyar of byrth than I was born,Throuch my desyr wyth hungyr ar forlorn:I ask at God thaim to restor agayn;I am the causs, I suld haiff all the pain.’Quhill studeand thus, whill flitand with him sell,Quhill at the last apon slepyng he fell.Thre days befor thar had him folowed fyve,The quhilk was bound, or ellis to loss thair lyff:The erl off York bad thaim so gret gardoun,At thai be thyft hecht to put Wallace doun.Thre off thaim was all born men off Ingland,And twa was Scottis, that tuk this deid on hand;And sum men said, thar thrid brothir betraissedKyldromé eft, quhar gret sorow was raissed.A child thai had, qubilk helpyit to ber mettIn wildernes amang thai montans grett.Thai had all seyn disseuyring off WallaceFra his gud men, and quhar he baid on cace;Amang thyk wod in cowert held thaim law,Quhill thai persawyt he couth on sleping faw.And than thir fyve approchit Wallace neir;Quhat best to do, at othir can thai speir.A man said thus: ‘It war a hie renoun,And we mycht qwyk leid him to Sanct Jhonstoun,Lo, how he lyis; we may our grippis waill;Off his wapynnys he sal get nane awaill.We sall him bynd in contrar off hys will,And leid him thus on baksyd off yon hill,So that his men sall nothing off him knaw.’The tothir thre assentit till his saw;And than thir fyve thus maid thaim to Wallace,And thocht throw force to bynd him in that place.Quhat, trowit thir fyve for to hald Wallace doun?The manlyast man, the starkest off persoun,Leyffand he was; and als stud in sic rycht,We traist weill, God his dedis had in sycht.Thai grippyt him, than out off slepe he braid;‘Quhat menys this? rycht sodandly he said,About he turnyt, and wp his armys thrang;On thai traytouris with knychtlik fer he dang.The starkast man in till his armys hynt he,And all his harnys he dang out on a tree.A sword he gat son efter at he rayss,Campiounlik amang the four he gais;Euyr a man he gert de at a dynt.Quhen twa was ded, the tothir wald nocht stynt;Maid thaim to fle; bot than it was na but,Was nane leyffand mycht pass fra him on fut.He folowed fast, and sone to ded thaim brocht;Than to the chyld sadly agayn he socht,‘Quhat did thow her?’ The child with [ane] paill face,On kneis he fell, and askyt Wallace grace.‘With thaim I was, and knew nothing thair thocht;In to seruice, as thai me bad, I wrocht.’‘Quhat berys thow her?’ ‘Bot meit, the child can say.’Do, turss it wp, and pass with me away,Meit in this tym is fer bettyr than gold.”

65According to Henry, Gilbert Grymsby, or, as he is called by the Scots, Jop, was employed in this mission.

66This young man is said by Henry to have been a son of Menteith’s sister. Langtoft calls him a servant, and says his name wasJock Short.

67From Robroyston Wallace could easily make his way to the Clyde; cross the river and keep his appointment with Bruce, who was to have approached from the south, without coming in sight of any of the English stationed at Glasgow. The burrow-muir was situated on the south side of the Clyde.

68The circumstance of this person being the last friend whom our hero was destined to behold, would, independent of his own personal merits, have rendered him an object of curiosity to a great proportion of our readers. The following account is taken from the notes of the editor of the Perth edition of Blind Harrie; and, as any thing which the writer has yet met with, rather tends to confirm than invalidate the statement, he shall submit it to the reader in the words of the learned and intelligent author:—“William Ker, commonly called Kerlie, or Ker Little, was ancestor of the Kers of Kersland. He, as well as many others, was compelled to swear the unlawful oath of fealty to Edward, August 5. 1296.“He joined Wallace at the castle of the Earl of Lennox, September 1296, and went with him immediately on his first northern expedition. He and Stephen of Ireland were the only two of Wallace’s men who survived the battle along the north side of the River Erne, November 1296.“He was the constant friend and companion of Wallace on all occasions, and is sometimes called his steward: In 1305, when Wallace was taken prisoner at Robrastoun, a solitary village near Glasgow, William Ker only was with him. They were found both asleep, and Ker was killed in the scuffle.“Henry says, that William Ker had large inheritance in the district of Carrick in Air-shire. That his ancestor was brought from Ireland by King David I., and defeated, with the assistance of seven hundred Scots, nine thousand Norwegians who had landed at Dunmoir. Some of the Norwegians were drowned in Doun, and others slain upon the land. King David gave him the lands of Dunmoir in reward of his bravery.“It may be remarked, that Dun Hill, or, as it is commonly called, Norman or Northman Law, a high hill on the estate of Dunmure, in the north-east part of Fife, and parish of Abdie, has on the top of it the remains of Danish intrenchments. The hill on the north side declines all the way to the river or Frith of Tay, which has Dundee at the mouth of it. The constant tradition is, that the Danes or Norwegians carried the spoil of the country to the top of this hill, where the natives could have no access to them; and after having collected it there, carried it down on the other side to their ships in the river.”

“William Ker, commonly called Kerlie, or Ker Little, was ancestor of the Kers of Kersland. He, as well as many others, was compelled to swear the unlawful oath of fealty to Edward, August 5. 1296.

“He joined Wallace at the castle of the Earl of Lennox, September 1296, and went with him immediately on his first northern expedition. He and Stephen of Ireland were the only two of Wallace’s men who survived the battle along the north side of the River Erne, November 1296.

“He was the constant friend and companion of Wallace on all occasions, and is sometimes called his steward: In 1305, when Wallace was taken prisoner at Robrastoun, a solitary village near Glasgow, William Ker only was with him. They were found both asleep, and Ker was killed in the scuffle.

“Henry says, that William Ker had large inheritance in the district of Carrick in Air-shire. That his ancestor was brought from Ireland by King David I., and defeated, with the assistance of seven hundred Scots, nine thousand Norwegians who had landed at Dunmoir. Some of the Norwegians were drowned in Doun, and others slain upon the land. King David gave him the lands of Dunmoir in reward of his bravery.

“It may be remarked, that Dun Hill, or, as it is commonly called, Norman or Northman Law, a high hill on the estate of Dunmure, in the north-east part of Fife, and parish of Abdie, has on the top of it the remains of Danish intrenchments. The hill on the north side declines all the way to the river or Frith of Tay, which has Dundee at the mouth of it. The constant tradition is, that the Danes or Norwegians carried the spoil of the country to the top of this hill, where the natives could have no access to them; and after having collected it there, carried it down on the other side to their ships in the river.”

69“At Robroystone Sir William Wallace was betrayed and apprehended by Sir John Menteith, a favourite of Edward I. of England. After he was overpowered, and before his hands were bound, it is said he threw his sword into Robroyston loch. An oaken couple, or joist, which made part of the barn in which the Scottish hero was taken, is still to be seen in this neighbourhood, and may yet last for ages.”—Stat. Acc. viii.481, 482.The latter part of the above quotation is perfectly correct. The oaken joist was to be seen till within these ten years past; it has now entirely disappeared, being carried off by that tribe of pseudo-antiquarians, ycleped Relic-fanciers.

The latter part of the above quotation is perfectly correct. The oaken joist was to be seen till within these ten years past; it has now entirely disappeared, being carried off by that tribe of pseudo-antiquarians, ycleped Relic-fanciers.

70SeeAppendix, N.

71This report may have originated in some facetious remark, which probably escaped from him on hearing that one William Wallace had, by the voice of his fellow-citizens, attained to the honour of being Lord Mayor of London, when the success of the Scots compelled Edward to grant an extension of the liberties of his people. His election is stated, at p. 85, vol. i. of this work, to have taken place in 1296. This mistake the author begs leave to correct; the election occurred in April 1298. The coincidence is rather singular. See Lambert’s Survey of London, vol. i. p. 167.

72That Edward was mean enough to subject Wallace to a piece of mockery of this kind, appears evident, from the same contemptible artifice, to excite derision, being again resorted to in the case of Sir Simon Frazer, who was not only habited in an unbecoming and ridiculous garb, but also had “a gerland on ys heued of the neweguyse.” This expression is taken from the ancient ballad made on the execution of Frazer, as may be seen in the account we have given of that warrior; and which seemed evidently to allude to the recent exhibition made of Wallace, on whose person “the newe guyse” was no doubt first introduced;—and, as Sir Simon was executed only about twelve months afterwards, the phrase would be perfectly applicable, as the circumstance must have been fresh in the minds of the people.—SeeApp.L.

73SeeAppendix, O.

74This appears to have been the only article of property that Wallace died possessed of.

75This, in all probability, was the mark of the wound inflicted by the Lancaster bowman mentioned at page 162 of volume I.

76SeeAppendix, P.

77SeeAppendix, Q.

78This circumstance seems to have been keenly felt and lamented, as a subject of national disgrace, by some of the historians of England. In addition to the anathemas poured forth by Peter Langtoft, on account of the obstinacy of their northern neighbours—the mortification evinced by Hardyng in the following lines, is highly complimentary to the independent spirit of Scotland. This acknowledged spy, and detected forger, was sent down by his government, in the reign of Henry V., for themeanpurpose of stealing away the treaty with Robert Bruce, in which the independence of Scotland was recognised.“Englande and Wales as to their soueraygneTo you obey, whiche shuld thinke shame of ryght,To se Scotlande thus proudly disobeyne,Agayne them two that bene of greate myght,It is a shame to euery mannes syght,Sith Iohn Baylioll his ryght of it resygnedTo kyng Edward, why is it thus repugned?”Hardyng’s Chronicle, p. 413–414.In the two last lines, the writer of the Chronicle founds the pretensions of England to the superiority over Scotland, on the resignation of Baliol. This title he no doubt considered aspreferableto any claims previously got up; and we would recommend Dr Lingard to follow his example; for, bad as it is, the supporters of it are not liable to meet with those stubborn historical facts which stand in the way of the advocates for a more venerable antiquity. To show the sincerity which dictates this advice, we shall revert once more to pages 443 and 444, vol. iii. of the Doctor’s work, where we are told, on the authority of Rymer, that the words “libertates, dignitates, honores debiti,” &c. “mean the allowances to be made, and the honours to be shown, to the King of Scots, as often as he came to the English court, by the command of his lord the King of England,from the moment that he crossed the Borders till his return into his own territories.” Had the vassalage of the King of Scotland been of that unqualified nature which the Doctor labours to establish, how comes it that his “allowances” only commencefrom the moment he crossed the Border, andceasedas soon as hereturned to his own territories—merely, we presume, becausehe was in his own territories. Had it been otherwise, he would doubtless have been found entitled to those expenses or allowances,from the timehe lefthis own domicile, in whatever part of Scotlandthat domicilemay have been situated.

“Englande and Wales as to their soueraygneTo you obey, whiche shuld thinke shame of ryght,To se Scotlande thus proudly disobeyne,Agayne them two that bene of greate myght,It is a shame to euery mannes syght,Sith Iohn Baylioll his ryght of it resygnedTo kyng Edward, why is it thus repugned?”Hardyng’s Chronicle, p. 413–414.

Hardyng’s Chronicle, p. 413–414.

In the two last lines, the writer of the Chronicle founds the pretensions of England to the superiority over Scotland, on the resignation of Baliol. This title he no doubt considered aspreferableto any claims previously got up; and we would recommend Dr Lingard to follow his example; for, bad as it is, the supporters of it are not liable to meet with those stubborn historical facts which stand in the way of the advocates for a more venerable antiquity. To show the sincerity which dictates this advice, we shall revert once more to pages 443 and 444, vol. iii. of the Doctor’s work, where we are told, on the authority of Rymer, that the words “libertates, dignitates, honores debiti,” &c. “mean the allowances to be made, and the honours to be shown, to the King of Scots, as often as he came to the English court, by the command of his lord the King of England,from the moment that he crossed the Borders till his return into his own territories.” Had the vassalage of the King of Scotland been of that unqualified nature which the Doctor labours to establish, how comes it that his “allowances” only commencefrom the moment he crossed the Border, andceasedas soon as hereturned to his own territories—merely, we presume, becausehe was in his own territories. Had it been otherwise, he would doubtless have been found entitled to those expenses or allowances,from the timehe lefthis own domicile, in whatever part of Scotlandthat domicilemay have been situated.

79SeeAppendix, R.

80However singular this statement may appear to some, the author is happy in having it in his power to produce the most incontrovertible evidence of the fact—SeeApp.A.

81Appendix, S.

82SeeAppendix, T.

83Vol. iii. 8vo ed. p. 343–355.; and vol. ii. of 4to ed. p. 459–468, 470.

84Lingard, vol. iii. p. 356. 3d Edition.

85In the recovery of a document connected with the hero of Scotland, which had thus lain in obscurity for so long a period, the writer feels himself particularly called upon to express his grateful acknowledgments to T. G. Repp, Esq. of the Advocates’ Library, and his friend E. K. Sieveking, Esq., Syndic of the city of Hamburgh.

86The writer is inclined to believe, that, in copying the antiquated original, Badsington has been put down by the transcriber in a mistake for Haddington. He has left it, however, in charge of a note of interrogation, for the purpose of inviting his readers to the exercise of their critical acumen.

87Our readers will be gratified to learn, that Dr Lappenberg has been for some time engaged on a highly interesting work relating to the origin of the Hanseatic League, in the course of which there will appear upwards of 400 documents which have escaped the research of former writers, illustrative of the state of commerce among the nations of Europe between 1170 and 1370. A considerable number of these documents, we understand, relate to the mercantile transactions of England and Scotland; and a publication of this kind cannot fail to be anxiously looked for, by all who set a value upon well-authenticated historical information.

88Seep. 203.

Back to Index Next