APPENDIX.

I.,page 93.

A YEAR’S EXPENDITURE OF THE KING.

It is now more than eighty years since the Society of Antiquarians published “The Account of the Comptroller of the Wardrobe, of the twenty‐eighth year of king Edward I.,A.D.1299–1300;” and it is probable that few of the readers of this volume have ever seen that publication. It seems desirable, therefore, to give, in this place, a brief sketch of that Account, the whole details of which form a quarto volume. We shall confine ourselves to a few general heads.

The Keeper or treasurer of the Wardrobe acknowledges the receipt, from various sources, of a total sum, within the year, of£58,155 16s. 2d.

II.

He then gives an account of his disbursements, under twelve heads, as follows:—

£ s. d.1.Alms and oblations, for the relief of the poor, or as religious offerings. The payments fill thirty‐one quarto pages, and are of every description. The total for the year1,166 14 92.The next head is that of necessaries bought for the use of the king’s household, and for charges and expenses of ambassadors, messengers, etc.—the total being3,338 19 33.Then follows the victualling and stores for the king’s army in Scotland, and for the supplies for the garrisons of his castles in that country18,638 1 84.Next, gifts and rewards; and payment for horses lost by knights and others in the king’s service4,386 4 55.Allowances to knights of the king’s household; and of foreign troops retained in the king’s service3,077 19 06.Wages of the engineers, archers, and sergeants‐at‐arms of the household1,038 10 77.Wages of foot‐soldiers, archers, artificers, and workmen4,446 9 11”Wages to seamen of the Cinque Ports and other towns1,233 9 88.Expenses of king’s messengers87 11 19.Wages and expenses of the huntsmen, falconers, hawks, etc.77 6 1110.Allowances to knights, bannerets, etc. of the household, for robes714 3 411.Goldsmiths’ and jewellers’ accounts253 15 612.Includes cloth, furs, wax, and other things for the use of the household4,391 19 0Wines and other liquors for the use of the household6,934 6 0Separate account of the queen3,668 2 9Costs and charges of the king’s Chancery581 9 0£54,035 2 7

Alms and oblations, for the relief of the poor, or as religious offerings. The payments fill thirty‐one quarto pages, and are of every description. The total for the year

The next head is that of necessaries bought for the use of the king’s household, and for charges and expenses of ambassadors, messengers, etc.—the total being

Then follows the victualling and stores for the king’s army in Scotland, and for the supplies for the garrisons of his castles in that country

Next, gifts and rewards; and payment for horses lost by knights and others in the king’s service

Allowances to knights of the king’s household; and of foreign troops retained in the king’s service

Wages of the engineers, archers, and sergeants‐at‐arms of the household

Wages of foot‐soldiers, archers, artificers, and workmen

Wages to seamen of the Cinque Ports and other towns

Expenses of king’s messengers

Wages and expenses of the huntsmen, falconers, hawks, etc.

Allowances to knights, bannerets, etc. of the household, for robes

Goldsmiths’ and jewellers’ accounts

Includes cloth, furs, wax, and other things for the use of the household

Wines and other liquors for the use of the household

Separate account of the queen

Costs and charges of the king’s Chancery

To which is added, for some current expenses of the household, the particulars of which do not appear to have been preserved, the sum of £10,969 16s. 0d.

So that the treasurer, on this account, would appear to have been in advance. But there was, doubtless, money daily coming in, and he probably had some bills not yet discharged.

The calculations of Bishop Fleetwood’s tables show the value of money to have been fifteen times as great at that day as it is now. This would make the royal revenue to amount to about £800,000 per annum. Out of which the king paid, in 1300, what would now be about £500,000, for his troops, seamen, garrisons, etc.; about £270,000 for the expenses of his household, exclusive of robes, jewels, huntsmen, and charities; which last item, of alms and oblations, in the money of our time, would be equal to nearly £18,000 a‐year.

II.,page 165.

EDWARD’S OBTESTATION.

At first sight, remembering the constant and earnest attention to religious duties shown by Edward, we were inclined to doubt whether the chronicler might not be in error in ascribing this oath to the king; the more especially since the person addressed was namedBigod; so that it would be easy to fall into such an error. But, looking a little further, we found the pope himself, in a public reception of Edward’s ambassadors, asseverating “per Deum,” that he would do the king justice. So that it seems tolerably clear that even religious men, in those days, thought it lawful to use language similar to that employed by Abraham (Gen. xxiv. 3), by Joab (2 Sam. xix. 7), and by Nehemiah (xiii. 25). As to Edward himself, his whole character assures us, that he never used the Divine name lightly or irreverently.

III.,page 239.

PARLIAMENT OF LINCOLN.

The requests preferred by the barons, and accorded by the king, were the Ist, IInd, IIIrd, IVth, and Vth, the VIIIth, IXth, Xth, and XIth. Those which he did not concede, were the following:—

VI.

“E ce ke mespris est par nul ministre soit amende solom ce ke le trespas le demaunde par auditours a ceo assignez qe ne soient pas suspecionus des Prelates, Contes, e Barons de la terre solom ceo kil mesmes ainz ces houres ad fet e qe ce seit meintenant mis en oevre.”

“Dominus Rex vult providere aliud remedium super hoc sed non per tales auditores.”

VII.

“E qe Viscontes de cest houre en avant respoignet des issues solom ce kil soleient fere en tens son Pere les queles issues unt este e uncore ore sunt a grand apovrissement du peuple. E ke Viscontes ne soient plus haut chargez.”

“Placet Dominus Rege quod de communi consilio provideatur super hoc quam cito commode poterit remedium optimum.”

XII.

“E par ceste choses suzdites ne pount ne osent pas les Prelates de seinte Eglise assenter ke contribucion seit fete de lur biens ne de biens de la clergie en contre le defens le Apostoille.”

“Non placuit Regi: sed communitas Procerium approbavit.”

IV.,page 320.

On the general question, of the character of Edward’s rule, it is quite undeniable thatthere is no reign in English historywhich can compare with it for clemency.

If we turn to that of his weak and unworthy successor, we find it full of hurried executions. Thus, when he took Ledes Castle, he hanged up the governor and eleven knights. When he captured the earl of Lancaster, the earl was immediately sent to the scaffold; and with him fourteen knights and fourteen knights‐banneret.

In the reign of Edward III., we have the execution of the earl of Kent, “son of the great Edward,” of Mortimer and Bereford, and of the earl of Menteith.

In Richard II.’s reign, we find Tresillian and Brambre, Burley and Beauchamp, Berners and Salisbury, and the earl of Arundel, sent to the scaffold.

In Henry IV.’s reign we hear of the execution of the earls of Kent and Salisbury, of lords Lumley and Despencer, of the earl of Huntingdon, of the earl of Worcester, of lord Kinderton, of Sir Richard Vernon, of the earl of Westmoreland, and of the archbishop of York.

Now Edward I.’s reign was not a calm or peaceful one. He had wars abroad and at home, conspiracies, and earls and archbishops opposed to him. Yet, during thirty years, and until the assassination of Comyn, we find, as we have just said, but three political executions—1. David of Snowdon, who in time of peace had stormed a castle, committing high‐treason and murder; 2. Turberville, who had covenanted to assist the landing of the French; and 3. Wallace, who had ravaged two counties with fire and sword, “sparing neither sex nor age.” Say we not truly, then, that for clemency, Edward’s sway is almost without a parallel.

For half a century past, we have had a popular cry for “the abolition of the punishment of death”; and, very naturally, in our popular histories we meet with expressions of indignation, because Edward, in the course of thirty years, brought three persons to trial, and sent them to the scaffold; and because he, in the last year of his reign, capitally punished sixteen or eighteen others for their participation in a murder.

Yet every one of these persons was brought to a fair and open trial, and condemned by fit and competent judges. We censure the king now, believing that in the advance of civilization we have grown vastly more humane. Yet, what is our custom in this gentle and merciful reign of Queen Victoria?

In India, a few years since, we had to deal with some rebel princes, hardly better, but scarcely worse, than David of Snowdon. And how did we treat them? Here is the published narrative of one of the English officers engaged in suppressing the Sepoy rebellion.

Major Hodson writes, from India, in 1857:—“The next day Igot permission to go and bring in the king (of Delhi) and his favourite wife and her son. This was successfully accomplished. I then set to work to get hold of the villain princes. I started for the tomb of the Emperor Humayoon, where they had taken sanctuary. After two hours of wordy strife, they appeared, and I sent them away under a guard…. I then went to look after my prisoners, who, with their guard, had moved towards Delhi. I came up just in time, and seizing a carbine from one of my men, I deliberately shot them one after another. I then ordered the bodies to be taken into the city and thrown out on the Chiboutre, in front of the Kotwallu. In twenty‐four hours, therefore, I had disposed of the principal members of the house of Timur the Tartar.” This narrative is published without the least expression of regret by a clergyman of Trinity College, Cambridge.

Fourteen years more have passed away, and we have now a Republic established in France, professing, of course, universal philanthropy, benevolence, and kindness. And what is one of its latest acts? It has tried deliberately, and has deliberately sentenced to death, a Parislitterateur, for writing seditious articles in a newspaper!

And yet our great king is to be stigmatized as “vindictive” and “cruel,” because he sent to the scaffold a deceitful rebel, on whom he had conferred many favours, and who had attacked a castle, slaying its defenders;—a marauder, who had ravaged two English counties, “sparing neither sex nor age;” and a knot of Scottish traitors, who had assassinated the first noble in Scotland in a church, because he stood in the way of their treasonable purposes.

1Lives of Archbishops, vol. iii., p. 401.

2Oxford Hist. Society, 1864, p. 322.

3History of England, vol. i., p. 406.

4Campbell’s Chancellors, vol. i., p. 159.

5Parker’s Gothic Architecture, p. 161.

6Archæologia, vol. xxix., p. 174.

7Parker, p. 253.

8“Pactum serva.”

9Mackintosh.

10Henry I. at Selby, Richard I. at Oxford, and Henry III. at Winchester.

11Florence of Worcester,A.D.1239.

12Macaulay.

13Devon’s Issues of the Exchequer, p. 18.

14Walter Scott’s Hist. of Scotland, vol. i., p. 68.

15“Annals of Dunstable.”

16The Chronicle of Mailros describes a messenger coming to Edward from his sister, the queen of Scotland; and tells how earl Simon took care to be present, observing every word and gesture that passed between the two.

17Hemingford.

18The extent of this homage became a matter of negociation, and the question was not finally adjusted until some three or four years after.

19Macaulay.

20“The first mention of the term, ‘parliament,’” says Blackstone, “is in the preamble to the ‘Statute of Westminster,’A.D.1275.”

21“He issued,” says Rapin, “writs of enquiry to two commissioners in every county, to enquire what his royalties, and the liberties and prerogatives of his crown were; who were his tenantsin capito;and how many and what fees they held of him. Also of his tenants in ancient demesne—how they had behaved themselves, and in what condition the lands were. Also of the sheriffs, coroners, and bailiffs, and their clerks—whether they had extorted money, or had wronged any one, or had taken bribes. This first step,” says Rapin, “produced a wonderful effect upon the people.”

22“But Edward never faltered in his purpose, and the inquiry went on, at intervals, through a period of more than twenty years.”—Pearson’s Hist. Eng., vol. ii., p. 298.

23This appears to us now a punishment of terrible severity. Yet we ourselves, in the days of George III., were in the habit of hanging men in great numbers for fabricating imitative bank‐notes. All our modern civilization, at the beginning of the present century, had not carried us beyond the usages of Edward’s day.

24“Seldom,” says Mr. Pearson, “has a shameful and violent death been better merited than by a double‐dyed traitor like David, false by turns to his country and his king; nor could justice be better honoured than by making the last penalty of rebellion fall upon the guilty prince, rather than on his followers.”—“History of England,” vol. ii., p. 330.

25Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 431.

26Pearson’s Hist, of England, vol. ii., p. 336.

27Hoare’s edit. of Giraldus Cambrensis.

28Parry’s History of Parliaments, p. 54.

29This custom still exists, after the lapse of more than five hundred years, in some of the midland counties of England.

30“Archæologia,” vol. xxix., p. 169.

31Ibid., p. 174.

32“Archæologia,” vol. xxix., p. 174.

33Sir J. Mackintosh.

34Pearson’s Hist. of England, vol. ii., p. 292.

35Blaauw on “the Barons’ war,” p. 34.

36The “Chronicle of Lanercost” gives us this anecdote of the manners of that day: “Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester, paid a visit to Robert Grosstête, bishop of Lincoln, who received him with great honour, and desired his seneschal to provide a fitting dinner. At table the earl was seated at his host’s right hand, and it was a day when meat was not permitted by the Church. It was customary to eat choice sea wolves [the dog‐fish, still eaten in parts of Normandy], and the servant placed a very fine fish before the bishop, and a smaller one before the earl. The bishop was angry, and said, ‘Take away this fish, or else bring the earl one equally fine.’ The servant said that there was no other so large. ‘Then,’ said the bishop, ‘take away this first and give it to the poor, and bring me one like the earl’s.’”—“Chronicle of Lanercost,” p. 44.

37“Chronicle of Lanercost,”A.D.1291.

38SeeAppendix.

39Castra Regia. Roxburgh Club.

40“Castra Regia,” Roxburgh Club.

41Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 61.

42Had Edward shown any forwardness in interfering in the affairs of Scotland, we may be certain that such interference would have been noticed with censure by all the Scotch historians. Yet, for merely abstaining from such interference, he is thus criticized by one of the fairest of the whole, Mr. Tytler:—“Edward contented himself with observing the turn which matters should take in Scotland, certain that his power and influence would in the end induce the different parties to appeal to him; and confident that the longer time he gave to these factions to quarrel among themselves and embroil the country, the more advantageously would this interference take place.” This criticism is a striking instance of the spirit in which every step taken by Edward is regarded by Scottish writers. He cannot even abstain from interference, without being censured for so abstaining! And yet the whole of this censure rests upon the merest conjecture.

43Rymer’s Fœdera, vol. ii., p. 741.

44Henry’s History, book iv., c. i.

45Tytler’s Scotland, vol. i., p. 84.

46Sir James Mackintosh, accepting Hume’s story without examination, talks of “the circumvention of the estates of Scotland, at Norham, in 1291.” But in the records of the period there is not the slightest trace of any “circumvention.” Edward met the estates of Scotland at their own request. Army he had none, at that time, with him. He met them on equal terms, for public conference. He told them frankly, and at once, in what capacity he came—i.e., as superior lord. They demurred. He then gave them time to deliberate, and appointed a second meeting in the following month. To speak of these proceedings as a “circumvention” is a mere abuse of language.

47Robertson’s Scotland under her Early Kings, vol. i., p. 373.

48Palgrave’s Documents, vol i., p. 25.

49Mr. Tytler, in his account of these transactions at Norham, introduces two quotations, which convey a false idea of their character. From Fordun, he cites these words: “Now,” said Edward to the most confidential of his ministers, “the time is at last arrived when Scotland and its petty kings shall be reduced under my power.” But Fordun wrote in Scotland just one hundred years after, and pretends to give a confidential communication of Edward to one of his ministers, made half a century before he, Fordun, was born.But (2) the “Annals of Waverley,” says Mr. Tytler, tell us, in 1291, that “the king of England, having assembled his privy council and chief nobility, told them that he had it in his mind to bring under his dominion the king and the realm of Scotland, in the same manner that he had subdued the kingdom of Wales.”This would be something like evidence, though of a loose kind, if Mr. Tytler had quoted it fairly. But he has givenonly so muchas suited his purpose. The passage in the “Annals of Waverley” runs thus:—“The king of England, having assembled his privy council and chief nobility, told them that he had it in his mind to bring under his dominion the king and the realm of Scotland, in the same manner that he had subdued the kingdom of Wales. He therefore moved his army into those parts, where in a short time he gained possession of the said kingdom of Scotland.”Thus we see that this passage is only one instance out of hundreds which might be adduced, showing that the old chroniclers often put down under the date of one year facts which properly belong to another. There was, in 1291, no “king” in Scotland to be subdued. Neither did Edward move an army into Scotland, or gain possession of Scotland, until 1296. It is probable enough, that shortly before this, he stated to his council such views as are described in the “Annals.” But then, this all happened, if at all, in 1296,after Baliol had broken faith with him, not in 1291, when the conferences as to the succession were still going on.

But (2) the “Annals of Waverley,” says Mr. Tytler, tell us, in 1291, that “the king of England, having assembled his privy council and chief nobility, told them that he had it in his mind to bring under his dominion the king and the realm of Scotland, in the same manner that he had subdued the kingdom of Wales.”

This would be something like evidence, though of a loose kind, if Mr. Tytler had quoted it fairly. But he has givenonly so muchas suited his purpose. The passage in the “Annals of Waverley” runs thus:—

“The king of England, having assembled his privy council and chief nobility, told them that he had it in his mind to bring under his dominion the king and the realm of Scotland, in the same manner that he had subdued the kingdom of Wales. He therefore moved his army into those parts, where in a short time he gained possession of the said kingdom of Scotland.”

Thus we see that this passage is only one instance out of hundreds which might be adduced, showing that the old chroniclers often put down under the date of one year facts which properly belong to another. There was, in 1291, no “king” in Scotland to be subdued. Neither did Edward move an army into Scotland, or gain possession of Scotland, until 1296. It is probable enough, that shortly before this, he stated to his council such views as are described in the “Annals.” But then, this all happened, if at all, in 1296,after Baliol had broken faith with him, not in 1291, when the conferences as to the succession were still going on.

50Pearson’s Hist., vol. ii., 292.

51Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 88.

52Wyntoun and Fordun, the earliest Scottish historians, writing at the end of the fourteenth and beginning of the fifteenth centuries, bring in a fiction at this part of the story, telling us that Edward, during the arbitration, offered to give the crown to Bruce, if he would agree to hold it of him as feudal lord. But the fact is, as sir F. Palgrave has shown, that Bruce had already accepted the king as his feudal lordlong before this meeting at Norham.

53genealogy 1MALCOLM CANMORE, king of Scotland. A.D. 1056–1093.Married Margaret, sister of Edgar Atheling.|+--------+-------+---+-------+------------------+| | | | |Duncan. Edgar. Alex. I. David I. Matilda—marr. Henry I.| +-----+| |Henry E. of Huntingdon. Empress Matilda.| |+----------+---------+----+------------ || | | |Malcolm IV. William David E. of Huntingdon. |the Lion. | Henry II.| +--+----------------+ || | | +--------+Alex. II. Margaret. Isabel. || | | Rich. I. John.Alex III. Devorgoil. | || | | |Margaret, | | |Q. Norway. | Robt. Bruce. Henry III.| ----------+---------- | || Margaret. JOHN BALIOL, | |Margaret, | | | |Maid of Norway, | | Rob. Bruce, EDWARD I.died 1290. | | E. of Carrick.| | |John Edward ROBERT I.Comyn. Baliol. of Scotland.Macpherson, the editor of Andrew Wyntoun, says, in one of his notes to that author, “It is very surprising that Edward did not claim the crown of Scotland for himself, as heir of Malcolm Canmore, whose grand‐daughter Maud was his great‐great‐grandmother. His great‐grandson, Henry IV., got the crown of England without having so good an hereditary title.”The difference between Edward I. and Henry IV. was, that Edward was a thoroughly just man, and knew that his title was wholly inferior to that of Baliol, or Comyn, or Bruce. Hence, while he never overlooked it, he never advanced it. His unquestionable claim, in 1296, lay in the one fact, that Baliol, Bruce, Comyn, and every lord in Scotland, first admitted him as lord paramount, and then made war against him, the undoubted penalty of which was, forfeiture.

genealogy 1

MALCOLM CANMORE, king of Scotland. A.D. 1056–1093.Married Margaret, sister of Edgar Atheling.|+--------+-------+---+-------+------------------+| | | | |Duncan. Edgar. Alex. I. David I. Matilda—marr. Henry I.| +-----+| |Henry E. of Huntingdon. Empress Matilda.| |+----------+---------+----+------------ || | | |Malcolm IV. William David E. of Huntingdon. |the Lion. | Henry II.| +--+----------------+ || | | +--------+Alex. II. Margaret. Isabel. || | | Rich. I. John.Alex III. Devorgoil. | || | | |Margaret, | | |Q. Norway. | Robt. Bruce. Henry III.| ----------+---------- | || Margaret. JOHN BALIOL, | |Margaret, | | | |Maid of Norway, | | Rob. Bruce, EDWARD I.died 1290. | | E. of Carrick.| | |John Edward ROBERT I.Comyn. Baliol. of Scotland.

Macpherson, the editor of Andrew Wyntoun, says, in one of his notes to that author, “It is very surprising that Edward did not claim the crown of Scotland for himself, as heir of Malcolm Canmore, whose grand‐daughter Maud was his great‐great‐grandmother. His great‐grandson, Henry IV., got the crown of England without having so good an hereditary title.”

The difference between Edward I. and Henry IV. was, that Edward was a thoroughly just man, and knew that his title was wholly inferior to that of Baliol, or Comyn, or Bruce. Hence, while he never overlooked it, he never advanced it. His unquestionable claim, in 1296, lay in the one fact, that Baliol, Bruce, Comyn, and every lord in Scotland, first admitted him as lord paramount, and then made war against him, the undoubted penalty of which was, forfeiture.

54Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 96.

55Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 100.

56De Luc or De Luke was a Florentine merchant or banker, and collector of the Customs.

57Rymer’s Fœdera, vol. ii., p. 597. This, probably, is one of the earliest instances we have of an English king’scheque upon his banker.

58Turner’s History of England, vol. v., p. 75.

59History of England, vol. ii., p. 395.

60Hume adds, very strangely, “Edward had thus fallen intoa like snarewith that which he himself had spread for the Scots.” What “like snare”? Scotland had been placed in his hands on his promise to restore it, which promise he kept. Gascony was placed in the hands of Philip on a similar promise; but that promise was broken. Instead of likeness here is contrast.

61Walter Hemingford.

62Matthew of Westminster.

63Turner’s History of England, vol. v., p. 75.

64Lingard’s Hist., vol. ii., p. 540.

65Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 108.

66Rymer, vol. ii., p. 590.

67Turner’s History of England, vol. i., p. 76.

68Tytler’s History of England, vol. i., p. 110.

69Nor can we, in this instance, attempt to divide the credit between the king and his able chancellor. Robert Burnel had been taken from his side, by death, in October, 1292.

70Macaulay, vol. i., p. 17.

71Wyntoun, the Scottish chronicler, says—“Of these they saved never a man,For prisoners in such awhile,To kepe is dowte and grete perille.”

71Wyntoun, the Scottish chronicler, says—

“Of these they saved never a man,

For prisoners in such awhile,To kepe is dowte and grete perille.”

For prisoners in such awhile,

To kepe is dowte and grete perille.”

72Peter Langtoft writes—“What then did Sir Edward? Peer he had none like;Upon his steed Bayard first he won the dike.”

72Peter Langtoft writes—

“What then did Sir Edward? Peer he had none like;Upon his steed Bayard first he won the dike.”

“What then did Sir Edward? Peer he had none like;

Upon his steed Bayard first he won the dike.”

73Both Tytler and sir W. Scott condescend to borrow an exaggerated statement, that 17,000 persons fell in this storming of Berwick; but the complaint of the regents of Scotland, made a year or two after, states the number at “nearly 8000.” Allowing for some exaggeration, and remembering that some of the dead must have been English, we may believe that the Scotch lost some 5000 or 6000 men—a number not at all remarkable.

74Tytler, vol. i., p. 116.

75Tytler, vol. i., p. 121. But sir Walter Scott says: “Most of the noble and ancient families of Scotland are reduced to the necessity of tracing their ancestors’ names in thefifty‐sixsheets of parchment, which constitute the degrading roll of submission to Edward I.”

76Mackintosh, Hume, etc.

77Pearson’s History, vol. ii., p. 310.

78Among the writs of that time we find many addressed to the sheriffs of counties, wherein the king “requests you to advise and take order how you can assist him with one thousand quarters of wheat, for which he will pay you punctually at Midsummer next.”

79Hemingford says, “Exiratus Rex prorupit in hæc verba, ut dicitur, ‘Per deum, comes, aut ibis aut pendebis.’ Et ille, ‘Per idem juramentum, O Rex, nec ibo nec pendebo.’”—SeeAppendix.

80Matthew of Westminster.

81Pearson’s History of England, vol. ii., p. 399.

82That the name was, in his own day,William Walays, is a fact concerning which there is no room for doubt. TheScalachronica(recently printed by the Maitland Club of Glasgow), was written by one who personally knew the Insurgent leader, and he always writes the nameWalays. Hemingford and Langtoft, two of the best English historians of that day, always write itWalays. In the “Wallace Documents,” printed by the Maitland Club, a Charter is given, granted by the Insurgent leader himself, and there the name standsWalays. A century later, Andrew Wyntoun, one of the earliest and best of the Scottish historians, writing aboutA.D.1420, always speaks ofWalays. Other writers, following the sound only, write ofWalais, orWaleis. But when many other names suffered change—Botteville into Botfield, and De Moleyns into Mullins—Walays also was corrupted into “Wallace.” So entirely has this corruption rooted itself in our English literature, that we shall feel compelled to yield to it, and shall use, in the following pages, the customary name of “Wallace.”

Back to Index Next