O. ON THE MARTYRDOM OF WALLACE. Page 159.

O. ON THE MARTYRDOM OF WALLACE. Page 159.

The following account is given by Langtoft of the capture, sentence, and execution of Wallace:

“The martyrdom of Wallace,” says the editor of Wyntoun’s Chronicle, “is thus described, in a ballad written about a year after, when the head of Sir Simon Frazer, one of the heroes of Roslin, was set up beside those of Wallace and Lewellyn, the last sovereign of Wales.

“Thus did Edward glut his vengeance on the dead body of this worthy man, whose living soul all his power never could subdue.

“Some of the English historians have stained their pages with low invectives against Wallace. Carte, in particular [Hist. v. ii. p. 290.], labours hard to prove him a traitor to King Edward, whose mercy he praises. That he was a traitor, he proves from his being a native of Galloway, or the Cambrian territories, which, he says, the kings of Scotland held in vassalage of the crown of England, and because the subvassals were, in cases of rebellion, subject by the feudal law to the same forfeitures and penalties as the immediate vassal.

“A man must feel himself very much pinched for arguments, when he has recourse to such as are confessedly not founded on reason, and to quibbles and perversion of facts. Clydesdale, the ancient kingdom of Strathcluyd, one of the first independent kingdoms established in Britain by the expulsion of the Romans, which for many centuries withstood the attacks of the Angles, Pichts, Scots, and Norwegians, and had the honour to produce Stewart, Douglas, and Walays, was never pretended to be any part of the territories of which the kings of England claimed the superiority. So the pretence that Walays was a traitor, in consequence of the place of his birth, falls to the ground; and the pretence of rebellion is equally unfounded, unless the noble exertions of a free people against the unjustifiable attempts of a neighbouring prince to subject them to his dominion, are to be branded with the name of rebellion. Well may the spirit of the noble Walays forgive those writers for accusing him of inhumanity and rebellion, who have extolled the clemency of Edward I.”—Notes to Wyntoun’s Chronicle, vol. ii. p. 503.

The inclination to detract from the merits of Wallace, does not appear to have become entirely extinct among the historians of England. Dr Lingard thus expresses himself respecting our hero: “It may perhaps offend the national partiality of some among my readers, but I greatly suspect that Wallace owes his celebrity as much to his execution as to his exploits. Of all the Scottish chieftains who deserved and experienced the enmity of Edward, he alone perished on the gallows; and on this account his fate called forth and monopolized the sympathy of his countrymen.”—Vol. iii. p. 227.

On this Mr Tytler remarks, “It is not true, that of all the Scottish chieftains who deserved Edward’s enmity, Wallace was the only one who perished on the gallows. Sir Nigel Bruce, Sir Christopher Seton, John Seton, the Earl of Athol, Sir Simon Fraser, Sir Herbert de Morham, Thomas Boys, Sir David Inchmartin, Sir John de Somerville, Sir Thomas and Sir Alexander Bruce, both brothers of the king, and Sir Reginald Crawfurd, were all hanged by Edward’s orders in the course of the year 1306, within a year of the execution of Wallace. So much for the accuracy of the ground on which Lingard has founded his conjecture, that Wallace owes his celebrity ‘to his execution.’”

Respecting the inaccuracies of Dr Lingard on this subject, we shall give another extract from the same authority. “He,” Dr Lingard “observes, that after the surprise of Ormesby the Justiciary, by Wallace and Douglas, other independent chieftains arose in different counties, who massacred the English, and compelled their own countrymen to fight under their standards. These other independent chieftains are brought in ‘for the nonce’ by Dr Lingard. They are utterly unknown to the contemporary historians, English and Scottish. But they do not appear upon the stage without a use. On the contrary, they first multiply like Falstaff’s men in buckram, ‘into numerous parties,’ and then act a principal part in the next sentence; for the historian goes on to observe, ‘that the origin and progress of these numerous parties had been viewed with secret satisfaction by the Steward of Scotland, and Wishart the Bishop of Glasgow, who determined to collect them into one body, and to give their efforts one common direction. Declaring themselves the assertors of Scottish independence, they invited the different leaders to rally around them; and the summons was obeyed by Wallace and Douglas, by Sir Alexander Lindsay, Sir Andrew Moray, and Sir Richard Lundy,’ vol. iii. p. 305. This last sentence is one of pure and gratuitous invention, without a shadow of historical authority to support it. The numerous and independent parties and chieftains who rose in different counties—the silent satisfaction with which they were contemplated by the Bishop of Glasgow and the High Steward—their determination to collect them into one body, and to give them one common direction—their declaring themselves the assertors of Scottish independence—their summons to the different leaders to rally round them, and the prompt obedience of this summons by Wallace, Douglas, and the rest—are facts created by the ingenuity of the historian. They seem to be introduced for the purpose of diminishing the reputation of Wallace; and the impression they leave on the mind of the reader, appears to me to be one totally different from the truth. The Steward and the Bishop of Glasgow are the patriot chiefs under whom Douglas and Wallace, and many other independent chieftains consent to act for the recovery of Scottish freedom; and Wallace sinks down into the humble partisan, whose talents are directed by their superior authority and wisdom. Now, the fact is exactly the reverse of this. The Steward and Wishart, encouraged by the successes of Wallace and Douglas, joined their party, and acted along with them in their attempt to free Scotland; but neither Fordun, nor Wynton, nor Bower gives us the slightest ground to think that they acted a principal part, or any thing like a principal part, in organizing the first rising against Edward. On the contrary, these historians, along with Trivet and Walsingham, Tyrrel and Carte, ascribe the rising to Wallace alone, whose early success first caused him to be joined by Douglas, and afterwards by the Bishop and the Steward, along with Lindsay, Moray, and Lundy. Indeed, instead of playing the part ascribed to him by Lingard, the patriotism of the Steward and the Bishop, was of that lukewarm and short-lived kind which little deserves the name. It did not outlive eight weeks; and they seized the first opportunity to desert Wallace and the cause of freedom. The attack upon Ormesby the Justiciary took place some time in May 1297; and on the 9th of July of the same year, did Bishop Wishart, this patriot assertor of Scottish independence, negociate the treaty of Irvine, by which he and the other Scottish barons, with the single exception of Wallace and Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell, submitted to Edward. Lingard’s other hero, the High Steward, who is brought in to divide the glory with Wallace, was actually in the English service at the battle of Stirling; and although he secretly favoured the Scottish cause, he did not openly join his countrymen till he saw the entire destruction of Surrey’s army. I may remark, in concluding this note, that the idea of an attack upon Wallace, and an eulogy on the clemency of Edward, has probably not even the merit of originality. It appears to be borrowed from Carte, vol. ii. p. 290; but it is only the idea which is taken. The clumsy and absurd argument of Carte is discarded, and a far more ingenious hypothesis, with a new set of facts, is substituted in its place. On reading over Hemingford again, I find one expression which may perhaps have suggested this theory of Lingard. Hemingford says, speaking of Bruce, p. 120, that he joined the Bishop of Glasgow and the Steward, ‘qui tocius mali fabricatores exstiterant.’ Yet this is inconsistent with his own account in p. 118, and is not corroborated, so far as I know, by any other historian.”

Among other singular passages in the work of the learned Doctor, we cannot omit taking notice of the following: “The only great battles in which Wallace is known to have fought, are those of Stirling and Falkirk. In the first he was victorious; but he must share the glory of the action with Sir Andrew Murray, who was certainly his equal in command, perhaps his superior. In the second he was defeated, and the defeat was the most disastrous that Scotland ever experienced. In the history of the next five years, his name is scarcely ever mentioned.” Scottish historians never pretended that there was any battle of equal importance to those of Stirling and Falkirk, in which Wallace was engaged. But where Dr Lingard could get his information, that Sir Andrew Murray held a superior, or even an equal command with him, it is not easy to conjecture. In Scottish authors, evidences to the contrary are innumerable; and if Dr Lingard had not preferred substituting his own “perhaps,” in place of historical record, he might have proofs in direct opposition to the statement he has made, and that even from English authors, with whom he appears to be familiar.

At the treaty of Irvine, for the submission of the Scottish barons, when all deserted Wallace but Sir Andrew Murray, it is mentioned in the instrument as having been notified to Wallace “Escrit à Sire Willaume,” and the name of Sir Andrew is not even alluded to. This would certainly not have been the case, had he held even an equal command, much less a superior.—Fœdera, T. ii. p. 774.

In the Chronicle of Langtoft, page 297, we have an account of the battle of Stirling, which is thus introduced:—

The chronicler, after telling us that Wallace was the head and justice of the Scots—expressions which embrace a pretty extensive prerogative—proceeds to narrate the operations of the day, in which he speaks of Wallace as the only commander opposed to Warren: nor does he even hint of any individual who had a right to “divide the glory” of the victory with him: on the contrary he says,

Sir Andrew Murray is not even mentioned by Langtoft. That he fought bravely, and died nobly in defence of his country, is what no one will attempt to deny, and the same might be said of many more who were present on that occasion; but being the only man amongst a timid and backsliding aristocracy, who acted with patriotism and spirit in so trying a time, his name has been handed down to the grateful remembrance of posterity.

“In the next five years,” adds Dr Lingard, the “name” of Wallace “is scarcely ever mentioned.” When Scottish affairs are concerned, and more particularly when the character of her deliverer is the subject adverted to, a reference to authorities appears to be extremely irksome, or attended with too much trouble to our learned author. In the present instance, however, we shall not ask him to go farther than the pages of his own work, where he will find matter that might lead him to suspect the truth of the above assertion, as well as the correctness of the view he has taken of the grounds on which our patriot’s popularity is founded. We are informed (vol. iii. p. 227), “The only man whose enmity could give him” (Edward) a “moment’s uneasiness, was Wallace, and in few months he was brought captive to London.” And again, vol. iii. p. 329, “If the fate of Wallace was different from all others, it proves that there was something peculiar in his case which rendered him less deserving of mercy.” If we are to credit our author’s statements, Edward must have been a more nervous character than he has ever been supposed to be, if he could feel “uneasiness” at “the enmity” of a man who had been thus buried in obscurity, and whose “name had scarcely been heard of for five years,”—one who, in the only great battle in which he was successful, held but a subordinate command, and acted during the insurrection in the humble character of a mere partisan, under the direction of others. Surely there was nothing peculiarly aggravating in the case of such a man, to have “rendered him less deserving of mercy” than his more guilty superiors, particularly from one whom our author informs us “was not a blood-thirsty tyrant.” It is strange that it did not appear to Dr Lingard, as a very high degree of praise, that after Wallace had been deprived, by the severe and sanguinary policy of Edward, of all resources save what arose from his own dauntless heart and irresistible arm, that he should still continue to be the only man whose “enmity” could give the oppressor of his country “a moment’s uneasiness.” From this circumstance, and from this alone, arose that “something peculiar” in his case which rendered him obnoxious to the tender mercies of Edward. In conclusion, we cannot help remarking, that the Doctor’s method of substituting, where his prejudices happen to be interested, his own theoretical conjectures, in opposition to the authentic records of the country, is rather an indirect way to the confidence of his reader.