R. WALLACE’S DESCENDANTS. Page 167.
Reading edition
R. WALLACE’S DESCENDANTS. Page 167.
Wallace appears to have left a daughter, whose legitimacy has been called in question, but on very slender grounds. In Chalmers’s Caledonia, vol. i. p. 579, we find the following passage:—“It has been said that Wallace left no legitimate issue; but he had a natural daughter, who married Sir William Baillie of Hoprig, the progenitor of the Baillies of Lamington.” It has never been disputed, that the lady by whom Wallace had this daughter was the heiress of Lamington, in right of her father, Sir Hew de Bradfute; it would therefore have been satisfactory, if the learned author above mentioned had explained how the Baillies of Hoprig came to the possession of Lamington. If the daughter of Wallace was legitimate their succession appears the natural consequence of the marriage of Sir William Baillie; if not, the manner in which they became possessed of that property requires elucidation. That Wallace and the heiress of Lamington were lawfully married, is asserted by Henry, who draws the following picture of their connubial happiness:—
“Quhat suld I say, Wallace was playnly set To luff hyr best in all this warld so wid; Thinkand he suld off his desyr to get; And so befell be concord in a tid, That sho [was] maid at his commaund to bid; And thus began the styntyn aff this stryff: Begynnyng band, with graith witnes besyd, Myn auctor sais, sho was his rychtwyss wyff. Now leiff in pees, now leiff in gud concord! Now leyff in blyss, now leiff in haill plesance! For scho be choss has bath hyr luff and lord. He thinkis als, luft did him hye awance, So ewynly held be favour the ballance, Sen he at will may lap hyr in his armyss. Scho thankit God off hir fre happy chance, For in his tyme he was the flour off armys. Fortoune him schawit hyr fygowrt doubill face, Feyll syss or than he had beyne set abuff: In presoune now, delyuerit now throw grace, Now at vness, now in to rest and ruff; Now weyll at wyll, weyldand his plesand luff, As thocht him selff out off aduersité; Desyring ay his manheid for to pruff, In cairage set apon the stagis hye. The werray treuth I can nocht graithly tell, In to this lyff how lang at thai had beyne: Throuch natural course of generacioune befell, A child was chewyt thir twa luffaris betuene, Quhilk gudly was, a maydyn brycht and schene.” Buke Sext, 41–69.
According to the above authority, the offspring of this marriage was first united in the bands of wedlock to an Esquire of the name of Shaw. Whether this was any connection of William de Shaw, mentioned at page 106, vol. i. of this work, as witnessing the charter of James, Lord High Steward of Scotland, along with some other friends of Wallace, we have no means of ascertaining. We are told, however, that
“Rycht gudly men come off this lady ying.”
Whether these were the issue of the marriage with Shaw, or of that afterwards contracted with Baillie of Hoprig, or of both, it is difficult to determine. It is probable, as Sir William Baillie is designated, of Hoprig, and his descendants as proprietors of Lamington, that they may have succeeded to the inheritance, after the offspring of the first marriage had become extinct. It has also been advanced, as an argument against the legitimacy of the daughter of Wallace, that she inherited none of the property of her father. Those, however, who started this objection, would have done well to have shown, that Wallace possessed property to which she could have succeeded. It does not appear that he was ever personally invested in any of the lands belonging to the family. And mention is made of his brother Malcolm having left a son of the name of John, in whom the succession was prolonged, till it merged in the family of Craigie. In Langtoft’s Chronicle, vol. ii. p. 338, we have an account of the capture and execution of a Sir John de Wallace, who is there called a brother of Sir William. This is evidently a mistake, and might very easily arise from the closeness of the connection between the two parties. Another “John Walays of Elryslà” (Elderslie) is taken notice of as among the witnesses to the charter of Robert, Duke of Albany; and, from the family title being preserved, it is highly probable that the stock of Sir Malcolm Wallace had not then become extinct.