S. ON THE TREACHERY OF MENTEITH. Page 169.

S. ON THE TREACHERY OF MENTEITH. Page 169.

In the account of the capture of Wallace, we have thought it advisable to follow, in a great measure, the statement given by the Minstrel. It is, we conceive, the only rational one we are possessed of; and as the authority of the author has been supported by the Tower records, and other incontrovertible muniments, in matters of comparatively trifling importance, it would be unfair to doubt his veracity on so important a part of the history of his hero, particularly when all the notices we have in other writers, tend more or less to confirm the truth of what he asserts. Lord Hailes, however, has attempted to remove the odium which has for these five hundred years been attached to the memory of Menteith; but his efforts to exculpate the Judas of Scotland, have been viewed by the generality of his countrymen in rather an unfavourable light. In the remarks his Lordship has made on the subject, we cannot discover that acuteness which frequently appears in his other writings. Dr Jamieson has thus replied to him:

“The account given of the treachery of Menteth, is one of those points on which Sir D. Dalrymple shows his historical scepticism. He introduces it in language calculated to inspire doubt into the mind of the reader; observing, that ‘the popular tradition is, that his friend, Sir John Menteth, betrayed him to the English.’—Annals, i. 281. It is rather strange that he should express himself in this manner, at the very moment that he quotes the Scotichronicon on the margent; as if this venerable record, when a modern should be disposed to adopt a theory irreconcileable with its testimony, were entitled to no higher regard than is due to ‘popular tradition.’

“He adds,’Sir John Menteth was of high birth, a son of Walter Stewart, Earl of Menteth.’ I can perceive no force in this remark, unless it be meant to imply that there never has been an instance of a man of noble blood acting the part of a traitor. On the same ground, we might quarrel with all the evidence given of the conspiracies formed against Robert Bruce; and even call in question the murder of that amiable and accomplished prince, James I.

“But ‘at this time,’ we are told, ‘the important fortress of Dumbarton was committed to his (Menteith’s) charge by Edward.’ Here, it would seem, the learned writer fights the poor Minstrel with his own weapons. For I find no evidence of this fact in the Fœdera, Hemingford, or the Decem Scriptores; and Lord Hailes has referred to no authority; so that there is reason to suspect, to use his own language, that he here ‘copies’ what ‘is said by Blind Harry, whom no historian but Sir Robert Sibbald will venture to quote.’ If Harry’s narrative be received as authority, it is but justice to receive his testimony as he gives it. Now, in the preceding part of his work, he represents Menteth as holding the castle of Dunbarton at least with the consent of Wallace, while acknowledged as governor of Scotland. It would appear, indeed, that the whole district of the Lennox had been intrusted to him.

“But even at this time there was something dubious in the conduct of Menteth. While he retained the castle, the English held the town under Edward.

“It is perfectly conceivable, that, although it was known to Wallace that Menteth had some secret understanding with the English, this artful man might persuade him that he only wished an opportunity of wreaking the national vengeance on them, or at least of more effectually serving the interest of Wallace when he saw the proper time. Although Wallace had been assured that Menteith had taken an oath of fealty to Edward, he would have had no more reason for distrusting him than for distrusting by far the greatest part of the nobility and landholders of Scotland, who, as they believed, from the necessity of despair had submitted to the usurper.

“John de Menteth is designated by Arnold Blair, immanis proditor; and the writer proceeds to curse him as if with bell, book, and candle.—Relations, p. 8.

“Sir David aims another blow at this account, in the following words;—‘That he had ever any intercourse of friendship or familiarity with Wallace, I have yet to learn.’ But the truth is, the worthy Judge does not seem disposed to learn this. It is difficult to say what evidence will satisfy him. The incidental hints, in the preceding part of the poem, in regard to Wallace’s connection with Menteth, all perfectly agree with the mournful termination. Such confidence had he in him, according to the Minstrel, that he not only resided in Dunbarton Castle for two months, while Menteth had the charge of it, but gave orders for building ‘a house of stone’ there, apparently that he might enjoy his society.

“But, independently of the testimony of Blind Harry, Bower expressly asserts the co-operation of Menteith with Wallace, Graham, and Scrymgeour, in the suppression of the rebellious men of Galloway. ‘In hoc ipso anno (1298), viz. xxviii. die mensis Augusti, dominus Wallas Scotiæ custos, cum Johanne Grhame et Johanne de Menteth, militibus, necnon Alexandro Scrimzeour constabulario villæ de Dundee, et vexillario Scotiæ, cum quinquagentis militibus armatis, rebelles Gallovidienses punierunt, qui regis Angliæ et Cuminorum partibus sine aliquo jure steterunt.’

“These words, which seem to be a quotation, in the Relationes of Blair, from the Scotichronicon, are not found in the MSS. from which Goodall gave his edition. They appear to have formed the commencement of the xxxii. chapter of the eleventh book, one of the two chapters here said to be wanting. Now this, whether it be the language of Bower, or of Blair, could not have been borrowed from the Minstrel, for the circumstance is overlooked by him. It seems to refer to that period of the history of Wallace, in which he is said to have made a circuit through Galloway and Carrick.

“It is to be observed, that John Major expressly affirms the treachery of Menteth, as acting in concert with Aymer de Valloins, Earl of Pembroke. He says, that Menteth was considered as his most intimate friend; ‘ipsi Vallacco putatus amicissimus.’ Hist. Fol. lxxiii. Now, although he rejects many of the transactions recited by Blind Harry ‘as false,’ so far is he from insinuating the slightest hesitation as to this business, that he formally starts an objection as to the imprudence of Wallace in not being more careful of his person, and answers it by remarking, that ‘no enemy is more dangerous than a domestic one.’ He differs from the Minstrel in saying that Wallace was ‘captured in the city of Glasgow.’

“It may be added, that Bower expressly asserts that Wallace, ‘suspecting no evil, was fraudulently and treacherously seized at Glasgow by Lord John de Menteth.’ Scotichron. xii. 8. Bower again refers to the treacherous conduct of Menteth towards Wallace when afterwards relating a similar plan which he had laid for taking King Robert Bruce prisoner, under pretence of delivering up to him the Castle of Dunbarton, on condition of his receiving a hereditary right to the lieutenancy of the Lennox; v. Lib. xii. c. 16, 17, Vol. ii. 243. These two chapters are not in all the MSS., but are found in those of Cupar, Perth, and Dunblane. Now, Bower was born anno 1385; Ibid. ii. 401. The date assigned to the Scotichronicon, as published with his Continuation, is 1447, and that to the Minstrel’s Poem, 1470; v. Pinkerton’s Maitland Poems, Intr. lxxxvi–lxxxix. It is therefore impossible that Bower could have borrowed the account given of Menteth from Blind Harry. Bower was born, indeed, only eighty or eighty-one years after the fact referred to; and, considering the elevation of the character of Wallace, and the great attachment of his countrymen even to this day, as well as the multitude of his enemies, it is totally inconceivable that a whole nation, learned and unlearned, should concur in imputing this crime to one man, without the most valid reasons.

“Wyntown finished his ‘Cronykil,’ anno 1418. He, it is generally believed, was born little more than fifty years after the butchery of our magnanimous patriot. Sir David Dalrymple could not, one would suppose, reasonably object to his testimony. Let us hear it.

“I shall only add an important proof from the Lanercost MS., referred to in the Preliminary Remarks.106 ‘Captus fuit Willelmus Waleis per unum Scottum, scilicet per dominum Johannem de Mentiphe, et usque London ad Regem adductus, et adjudicatum fuit quod traheretur, et suspenderetur, et decollaretur, et membratim divideretur, et quod viscera ejus comburentur, quod factum est; et suspensum est caput ejus super pontem London, armus autem dexter super pontem Novi Castri super Tynam, et armus sinister apud Berwicum, pes autem dexter apud villam Sancti Johannis, et pes sinister apud Aberden.’ Fol. 211. Mentiphe is obviously an erratum for Menteith.”

Mr Tytler, in the “Notes and Illustrations” to the first volume of his History of Scotland, has also handled this subject with considerable ability. We shall select the following, as affording additional arguments to those already advanced by Dr Jamieson. In alluding to the evidence afforded by the Lanercost MS., that intelligent writer observes, “We cannot be surprised that Lord Hailes should have been ignorant of this passage, as he tells us, Annals, vol. ii. p. 316, he had not been able to discover where the MS. of Lanercost was preserved.

“The same excuse, however, will not avail him as to the next piece of evidence, of Menteth’s having seized Wallace. It is contained in Leland’s extract from an ancient MS. Chronicle, which Hailes has elsewhere quoted; I mean the Scala Chronicle, preserved in Corpus Christi Library, Cambridge. In Leland’s Collect., vol. i. p. 541, we have this passage from the Chronicle. ‘Wylliam Waleys was taken of the Counte of Menteth about Glaskow, and sent to King Edward, and after was hangid, drawn, and quarterid at London.’ This is only Leland’s abridgment of the passage, which in all probability is much more full and satisfactory in the original. Yet it is quite satisfactory as to Menteth’s guilt.

“The next English authority is Langtoft’s Chronicle, which Hailes has himself quoted in his Notes and Corrections, vol. ii. p. 346. It is curious, and as to Menteith’s guilt perfectly conclusive.

“We learn from this, that Sir John Menteth prevailed upon Wallace’s servant, Jack Short, to betray his master, and came under cover of night, and seized him in bed, ‘his leman bi,’ and when he had no suspicion of what was to happen. How Hailes, after quoting this passage, which was written more than two centuries before Blind Harry, should have represented this poor minstrel as the only original authority for the guilt of Menteth, is indeed difficult to determine.”

“Having given these authorities, all of them prior to Blind Harry, it is unnecessary to give the testimony of the more modern writers. The ancient writers prove incontestably, that Sir John de Menteth, a Scottish baron, who had served along with and under Wallace against the English, deserted his country, swore homage to Edward, and employed a servant of Wallace to betray his master into his hands; that he seized him in bed, and delivered him to Edward, by whom he was instantly tried, condemned, and hanged. It was natural that the voice of popular tradition should continue from century to century, to execrate the memory of such a man. Whether Menteth was the intimate friend of Wallace, or what precise degree of familiarity existed between them, it is now not easy to determine, nor is it of any consequence as to his guilt. Indeed it is impossible to regard, without a smile the weak and inconclusive evidence, if it deserves so grave a name, on which Hailes has founded what he calls his Apology for Menteth, which, after all, seems to be borrowed from Carte, vol. ii. p. 289. Lord Hailes also remarks, “It is most improbable, that Wallace should have put himself in the power of a man whom he knew to be in an office of distinguished trust under Edward;” and almost in the same breath paraphrases the lines of Langtoft, in which it is stated that his capture was effected through the treason of Jack Short, whose brother Wallace is said to have slain. Surely the confidence was as imprudent in the one case as it would have been in the other. It may be observed, however, that if there had been a possibility of rescuing the name of Menteith from the execrations of his country, the task would not have remained for the learned annalist to perform. The great family interest which he possessed, was sufficient to protect him from punishment, not only for his treachery to Wallace, but also for his subsequent perfidy to Bruce. Yet though that interest was powerfully exerted to screen him from the consequences of his demerits, not a single effort was made to remove the dishonourable stain from his character.

The following transaction, which has already been alluded to, is quite consistent with the conduct ascribed to him by the Minstrel. It will also account for the impunity which attended his crimes.

“About this time, there happened a passage not unworthy to be related, in regard to the variety of providences, in a narrow compass of time. John Menteith, who betrayed his friend Wallace to the English, and was therefore deservedly hated by the Scots, received, amongst other rewards, the government of Dumbarton castle from the English. When other forts were recovered, that only, or but very few with it, held out for the English. And because it was naturally impregnable, the king dealt with the governor, by his friends and kindred, to surrender it. He demanded the county or earldom of Lennox, as the price of his treachery and surrender. Neither would he ever so much as hear of any other terms. In this case the King wavered and fluctuated in his mind what to do. On the one side, he earnestly desired to have the castle; yet, on the other, he did not so much prize it, as for its sake to disoblige the Earl of Lennox, who had been his fast and almost his only friend in all his calamities. But the Earl of Lennox hearing of it, and coming in, soon decided the controversy, and persuaded the King, by all means to accept the condition. Accordingly the bargain was made as John Monteith would have it, and solemnly confirmed. But when the King was going to take possession of the castle, a carpenter, one Roland, met him in the wood of Colquhoun, about a mile from it; and having obtained liberty to speak with the King, concerning a matter of great importance, he told him what treachery the governor intended against him; nay, and had prepared to execute it. It was this:—In a wine-cellar concealed, and underground, a sufficient number of Englishmen were hid, who, when the rest of the castle should be given up, and the King secure, were to issue forth upon him as he was at dinner, and either to kill, or take him prisoner. This being thus related, the King, upon the surrender of the other parts of the castle by John, being kindly invited to a feast, refused to eat; till, as he had searched all other parts of the castle; so, he had viewed that wine-cellar also. The governor excused it, pretending that the smith, who had the key, was out of the way, but that he would come again anon. The King, not satisfied therewith, caused the door to be broke open, and so the plot was discovered. The Englishmen were brought forth in their armour, and being severally examined, confessed the whole matter; and they added also another discovery, viz. that a ship rode ready in the next bay to carry the King into England, The complices in this wretched design were put to death; but John was kept in prison, because the King was loth to offend his kindred, and especially his sons-in-law, in so dangerous a time: for he had many daughters, all of them very beautiful, and married to men rich enough, but factious. Therefore, in a time of such imminent danger, the battle drawing near wherein all was at stake, lest the mind of any powerful man might be rendered averse from him, and thereby inclined to practise against him, John was released out of prison, upon this condition, (for the performance whereof his sons-in-law undertook), that he should be placed in the front of the battle, and there, by his valour should wait the decision of Providence. And indeed the man, otherwise fraudulent, was in this faithful to the King; for he behaved himself so valiantly, that that day’s work procured him not only pardon for what was past, but large rewards for the future.”—Buchanan’s Hist. vol. i. p. 310.

It may here be mentioned, that, since the Note on page 152 was printed off, we have learned from one, whose researches, and connection with the name, entitle him to express an opinion, that the M’Kerlies of Wigtonshire are descended from Kerlé, or Kerlie, who, with Sir William Wallace and Stephen of Ireland, carried by assault the Fort of the Black-Rock of Cree, or Cruggleton Castle, and who was the last friend that clung to the fortunes of his master. Although the records of the burgh of Witham furnish no information on the subject, being all of a date subsequent to the Reformation, it is still handed down by tradition, that the M’Kerlies were once proprietors of Cruggleton Castle.