# Robert the Bruce and the struggle for Scottish independence/The Death of Wallace

| Sir John de Maxwell. | Sir Ingelram de Umfraville. |
CHAPTER V.
THE DEATH OF WALLACE.
A.D. 1299-1305.
THE Earl of Carrick took a more decided line in 1299. On August 20th, Sir Robert de Hastings wrote from Roxburgh a long letter to King Edward of more than common interest, reporting a recent foray made by the Scots under Sir Ingelram de Umfraville, Sir William de Balliol, and others, on Selkirk Forest, then in the keeping of Sir Simon Fraser. Moreover, there had been a meeting held between Bishop Lamberton of St. Andrews, the Earls of Carrick, Buchan, and Menteith, with Sir John Comyn "le fiz" (the Red Comyn) and the Steward of Scotland, in order to plan the surprise of Roxburgh Castle. De Hastings had employed a spy to gain intelligence of their movements, who described how these barons fell out about a demand made by Sir David de Graham for Sir William Wallace's property, as Wallace was going abroad without leave. Wallace's brother, Sir Malcolm, ​objected to this, on which Sir David and he gave each other the lie, and drew their daggers. Sir John Comyn seized the Earl of Carrick by the throat, while his kinsman, Buchan, grappled with the Bishop of St. Andrews. However, no blood was shed, and a final agreement was come to that the Bishop, the Earl of Carrick, and Sir John Comyn should be Guardians of the realm; the first named, as principal, having custody of the castles. Carrick and Sir David de Brechin started the same day for Galloway and Annandale, where they attacked Lochmaben Castle, held by Sir Robert de Clifford for the King of England. Buchan and Comyn left for the Highlands, and the Steward and the Earl of Menteith went to raise Clydesdale. The Bishop remained at Stobo, in Selkirk Forest, of which Sir Robert de Keith was appointed warden, with 100 barbed horse and 1500 foot, besides the forest bowmen, to raid the English Marches withal. De Umfraville was appointed sheriff of Roxburgh. This fresh distribution of offices, regarded in the light of subsequent events, is sufficiently remarkable.
Little that is definite is known of Wallace's movements after his defeat at Falkirk, but it may be readily believed that he had lost some of his ascendency in consequence of that event. At all events, the meeting of barons above described may be assumed as hostile to his influence, or de Brus would not have been there. Wallace had, however, been carrying on hostilities in the north, and made a dash at a convoy of supplies for Stirling Castle on St. ​Bartholomew's Day. His journey abroad, of which the prospect had so profoundly disturbed the harmony of the conclave at Selkirk, was undertaken in the early summer of 1299, with the object of securing the active assistance of King Philip of France and, what was of even greater importance, the favour of the Pope to the Scottish cause. In both of these objects he succeeded eventually; though at first it seemed as though he had run his head into a noose. Philip, being at the time anxious to gain Edward's good-will, put Wallace in prison, and wrote to inform Edward of what he had done, asking if he would accept the custody of the late governor of Scotland. Edward, as may be supposed, accepted the offer eagerly, for the subjugation of Scotland had come to be much nearer his heart than any questions of Continental territory. But something induced Philip to change his mind. He not only set Wallace free, but wrote a letter to Pope Boniface VIII., commending "our beloved William de Walois knight of Scotland" to the favour of his Holiness. The Pope, in turn, wrote to Edward on June 27th, commanding him to desist from his attempts to conquer Scotland, which he claimed as the property of the Holy See, and to release the Bishop of Glasgow and other ecclesiastics.
King Philip had already, in the previous summer, attempted to include the Scots, as his allies, in the truce concluded with Edward at the treaty of Provins, ​which the English King peremptorily refused, on the ground that Scotland was his property, and that he possessed the fealty of its prelates and nobles. But any monarch, in those days of ecclesiastical statesmanship and authority, might well hesitate to dispute a claim put forth by the Head of the Church of Rome.
On November 13th, the three Guardians, who were then besieging Stirling Castle, wrote to Edward, offering to cease hostilities on the mediation of the King of France. Edward was, at the moment, pushing forward preparations for a fresh expedition into Scotland; but matters were not going so smoothly between him and his barons as was their wont. A muster of 16,000 men, ordered at Newcastle for the 24th, was postponed by proclamation till December 13th; and when that date came, the barons refused to advance, because of the stormy weather. Stirling, therefore, had to be left to its fate. John Sampson, the constable, with his garrison of 90 men, surrendered to Sir John de Soulis, after suffering severe privation.
The Highlands and Islands were now pretty free from the English. Even in the Lowlands, besides Stirling, the castles of Bothwell and Caerlaverock were held for the Guardians. Of the last named place, Sir John de Maxwell was the lord, who, if Blind Harry may be believed, had entertained Wallace there after the capture of Tibbers and other places in Nithsdale. Caerlaverock stood perilously ​near Lochmaben, where the English had a strong garrison. Robert de Felton, the constable, wrote to the King in October, 1299, informing him that Caerlaverock was the occasion of great mischief to his garrison and people, but that he (Felton) had scored a success lately against the enemy, and that at the moment of writing the head of the Constable of Caerlaverock adorned the great tower of Lochmaben. He added that the people of Scotland had been made aware of the new alliance between England and France, and were greatly discouraged thereby. He implored the King to turn his face towards Scotland, and his enemies would disperse.
Edward was not slow to act on the invitation. Early in 1300 he ordered large supplies to be collected in England and Ireland, and forwarded to Berwick and Skinburness. Sixteen thousand foot were summoned to muster at Carlisle, where the King, the young Prince of Wales, and the barons joined the army on June 24th. The splendour and perfect equipment of this host have been minutely described by a poet who accompanied the Court. This period was the very noontide of chivalry, and the bard has enthusiastically set forth the names, arms, and personal qualities of all the knights. Heraldry was at that time more than merely ornamental; the various arms served to indicate with precision ​the different knights in the field just as in modern armies different corps are distinguished by their uniforms. The chivalrous science had not been degraded, as it subsequently came to be, to minister to the genealogical pride of great seigneurs. The charges on the shields were kept distinct and brilliantly coloured, so that they might be recognised easily on parade and in battle.
Early in July, King Edward advanced from Carlisle to lay siege to Maxwell's castle of Caerlaverock with 3000 men. "The blaze of gold and silver," says the poet, "and the radiance of rich colours, displayed by the embattled host, illuminated the valley which they occupied.... Those of the castle, seeing us arrive, might, as I well believe, deem that they were in greater peril than they could remember ever before.... The English knights were habited, not in coats and surcoats, but were mounted on costly and powerful chargers and were well and securely armed against surprise. There were many rich caparisons embroidered on silks and satins: many a beautiful pennon fixed to the lances and many a banner displayed.... The days were long and fine: they proceeded by easy journeys, arranged in four squadrons."
CAERLAVEROCK CASTLE.
(From a photograph by Valentine Bros., Dundee.)
​spoilt, and some were killed. But King Edward had brought with him a strong siege train. Battering-rams of the newest design, and robinets and catapults throwing huge stones made such havoc of the defences that at the end of the second day a white flag was displayed from the gate tower in token of surrender. An English arrow, as is said, pierced the hand of him who held it, pinning it to his face. When the garrison marched out, the besiegers were astonished to find how few men composed it.
Of the gallant sixty, many, says the chronicler of Lanercost, were hanged on the trees near the castle as rebels, by order of the King. The author of the Siege of Caerlaverock, however, states that their lives were spared by the King's clemency.
From Caerlaverock the English advanced into eastern Galloway, where, although it was the peculiar territory of the Balliols, Edward had some reason to expect support, for the Celtic chiefs of that province had never ceased to resent its partition, under feudal law, among the three daughters of Alan, their last lord. Besides, in 1296, when Balliol first revolted, Edward had conciliated the people of Galloway by releasing from the prison where he had lain for more than fifty years, Thomas, the natural son of Alan, whom they had desired to make their lord. He had, at the same time, restored by proclamation all their ancient liberties and customs, and, at the request of the said Thomas, promised a revision of rents and other favours. In effect, King Edward met with no resistance in Galloway, and his accounts ​show that he was scrupulous to pay for all supplies delivered for the use of his army.
But there remained a more potent influence for him to conciliate than the chiefs of the south-west. Pope Boniface's claim to the kingdom of Scotland had been delivered to him during the siege of Caerlaverock. It cannot have been agreeable reading for the proud King, but even the most puissant monarch of Europe had to weigh his thoughts well before incurring the frown of the Vice-gerent of God. So Edward began by releasing Wishart, Bishop of Glasgow, who thereupon took the oath of fealty to the King of England for the fourth time, swearing on the consecrated host, the gospels, the cross of St. Neot, and the Black Rood of Scotland. Nothing is more remarkable in the political history of this period than the freedom with which great men perjured themselves, except, indeed, the value which men continued to attach to the security of an oath.
On October 30th, at the instance of the King of France, a truce was concluded at Dumfries, to endure between England and Scotland till the following Pentecost. This truce Philip exerted himself to get prolonged, but in vain.
England was in no mood at the moment to brook further foreign interference, for Edward and his Parliament were busy at Lincoln drawing up a spirited reply to the Pope's claim to Scotland as a fief of the See of Rome. In matters spiritual, England, her King and people, were the dutiful servants of Holy Church; but in temporal affairs—"Hands ​off!" The answer went back, ratified by a hundred seals of English earls, barons, and knights. Voluminous arguments, drawn from sources so remote as Brutus the Trojan, were addressed to his Holiness, to prove the inalienable right of the Kings of England in the Scottish sovereignty. The Pope was informed that he had been deceived by certain "enemies of peace and sons of rebellion, then resident at his Court," wherein the reference to Wallace and his companions is not obscure. The letter concluded that "upon a due consideration and treating of the contents of your memorable letter, the common and unanimous consent of all and singular was, is, and will be, God willing, for ever: that our lord the King ought not to answer judicially before you, nor submit his rights over the realm of Scotland, nor any other of his temporal rights whatsoever, to your doubtful judgment." Whatever opinion may be held of the justice of Edward's claim over Scotland, it must be admitted that he, entertaining no doubts on the matter, played a noble part in its defence, and never did the English Parliament act with greater courage and dignity than they did in supporting their monarch through this controversy.
Preparations for resuming the war on the expiry of the truce were pushed on with energy. King Edward himself took command of 12,000 men at Berwick, assigning to the Prince of Wales, then sixteen years old, the chance of winning his spurs with another army mustered at Carlisle.
Neither force encountered much fighting. Except ​the capture of Bothwell Castle, the King had no prize to show when he went into winter quarters at Linlithgow in the autumn of 1301; while the Prince, after traversing Galloway without resistance, found his flank threatened by a force in the hills about Loch Dee, and persevered no further.
All this time the Earl of Carrick continued to act a double part. He was still, in name, one of the Guardians of Scotland, and, as such, was bound to hostility with England. Nevertheless, on February 16, 1302, King Edward, being then at Roxburgh, granted, at the instance of the Earl of Carrick, pardon to one Hector Askeloc for the slaughter of Cuthbert of Galloway; and before the end of April following, the Earl and his Carrick tenants had been received to the King's peace. Simultaneously, on April 6th, King Philip was writing a letter to the Earl of Carrick and John Comyn, "Guardians of Scotland in the name of King John," to say that he had received their envoys, the Abbot of Jedburgh and Sir John Wishart, and fully understood the letters and messages; that he was moved to his very marrow by the evils brought on their country, praised them for their constancy to their King (John), and urged them to persevere. As for the assistance they asked for, he was carefully considering how he could help them, but, bearing in mind the dangers of the road, he had given his mind to the Bishop of St. Andrews (Lamberton), for whom he desired full credence. Philip's precaution was ​not superfluous. This letter fell into the hands of King Edward, though perhaps not till the bishop was taken some years afterwards. Later in the same year the Earl of Carrick attended Edward's Parliament held in October. The fact is, it behoved him to have a keen eye to his own interests at this time. His father, the old Lord of Annandale, was approaching his end, and the son's rights as heir to the valuable English estates were in jeopardy.
Edward was now straitened for means to pay his troops. A serious mutiny broke out at Berwick in the autumn of 1301, because of arrears of pay; the commanders of other garrisons were clamouring for money; so on January 26, 1302, another truce was brought about by French intervention, to endure till St. Andrew's Day, November 3Oth. Five days before the expiry of this truce, that between England and France was extended till Easter, 1302; but King Edward would not yield to Philip's desire that the Scots should be included in it.
In the summer of 1302 the national party received an important recruit in the person of Sir Simon Fraser, hitherto a trusted official in the English service, who had served in the Earl of March's company at the siege of Caerlaverock. He deserted from Wark Castle, and carried off the armour and horses of his comrade Sir William de Dunolm. He joined Comyn the Guardian, and the first we hear of him under his new colours is at the battle of ​Roslyn, February 24, 1303, where Comyn and he defeated Sir John de Segrave. Comyn and the Bishop of St. Andrews were now acting alone as Guardians of Scotland. Bruce appears to have decided at last to join his fortunes to the English, for among those summoned to meet Edward at Roxburgh on May 12, 1303, was the Earl of Carrick, with all the men-at-arms he could muster and 1000 foot from Carrick and Galloway. On July 14th he received an advance of pay from the King, being at the time Edward's sheriff of Lanark and governor of Ayr Castle.
Enormous expense on men and material was incurred for this season's campaign. Two fortified wooden bridges, for the passage of the Forth, were brought from Lynn-Regis under escort of thirty vessels, besides siege engines in great number and variety. The Scots were well-nigh overpowered. Brechin Castle fell about the beginning of August; Stirling remained the only place of strength still holding out.
On February 9, 1304, Comyn and his friends surrendered on terms at Strathord. These terms cannot, under the circumstances, be considered illiberal, for, with certain exceptions, the offenders were not to suffer in life or limb, by imprisonment or disinheritance. Among those thus leniently dealt with were Sir Edmund Comyn of Kilbride, Sir John de Graham, Sir John de Vaux, Sir Godfrey de Roos, Sir John de Maxwell, and Sir Pierre de Prendergast. ​The incorrigible Bishop of Glasgow, John Comyn, de Soulls, James the Steward, Sir Simon Fraser, and Thomas du Bois were sentenced to various terms of exile, from one to three years, but these periods were afterwards shortened on condition that the culprits should regain the King's favour by exerting themselves to capture Wallace, who was beyond the pale of mercy. There was something manifestly unjust in the decree that treated thus lightly the offences of trebly forsworn subjects, and dealt so harshly with one who had never done fealty to Edward. The English King was every inch a soldier; it had been better for his renown to extend some of his sympathy to the most valiant of his foes. But he was far from doing so. On March 2, 1304, he wrote an impatient letter to the Earl of March reproaching him with slackness in proceeding against Wallace. "We are much astonished," he said, "why you act so leisurely, unless it be to fulfil the proverb
Quant la guerre fu finée Si trest Audegier sespée.
(when the war was finished then Audegier drew his sword)." Next day, strict orders were issued to Sir Alexander of Abernethy, who was in pursuit of Wallace in the parts about Menteith, that on no account were any terms to be offered to him and his followers, except unconditional surrender, It is not pleasant to read another letter written by the ​King on the same day to the Earl of Carrick, applauding his diligence in hunting the patriot, and urging him earnestly "as the cloak is well made, so also to make the hood."
Edward held a Parliament at St. Andrews in mid-Lent, 1304, where the Earl of Carrick and the Bishop of Glasgow attended, after which the siege of Stirling was begun in earnest. The King wrote to the Prince of Wales, directing him to strip lead from all the churches near Perth and Dunblane, taking care not to uncover the roofs over the altars, It is no more than fair to add that the war material thus appropriated was scrupulously paid for at a subsequent date.
Robert de Brus "le viel," Lord of Annandale, died about this time, and the Earl of Carrick went to London and Essex to look after his succession and collect his rents. Of the latter, he wrote to the King at the beginning of April to say that he had not succeeded in getting a penny. But besides his private affairs, de Brus, from prudential motives, was diligent in the King's service—none more so; and on April 16th Edward wrote thanking him for sending siege engines to Stirling. On May 1st orders were issued from Stirling for inquisitions on the Earl's lands in Essex, Huntingdon, and Middlesex, after which, on June 14th, de Brus, having done homage ​and fealty, was served heir, and three days later his debts to the King were respited. It would be idle to refuse to see, in Bruce's dutiful attitude to King Edward, the anxiety of the heir to secure his rich inheritance. So hardly shall they that have riches ————!
The storm, long gathering, at length burst on Sir William de Oliphant and the gallant defenders of Stirling Castle. High on their precipitous rock they had watched the vast preparations for their destruction; and now thirteen great engines, the very latest inventions of military science, hurled missiles against the walls and wildfire into the castle. These machines all bore names, registered as precisely as those of modern battle-ships. There were the Lincoln and the Segrave, the Robinet and the Kingston, the Vicar and the Parson, the Berefrey, the Linlithgow, the Bothwell, the Prince's, the Gloucester, the Dovedale, and the Tout-le-monde, besides a mighty "war-wolf," the like of which had never been seen. An oriel window was built in the King's house in the town, in order that the Queen and her ladies might watch the progress of the siege. Outside, in the town, it was a pleasant picnic in the summer weather, but within the fortress provender soon began to run low; yet no sign of surrender was made till July. On the 20th of that month Oliphant submitted unconditionally, but Edward would not allow any of his troops to enter the castle till he had tried on it the effect of his war-wolf (tauntqz il eit ferru ove le Lup ​de guerre). The garrison were warned to seek what shelter they could before the shot was fired.
Oliphant and his men were afterwards made to go through a humiliating mummery of contrition for the benefit of the ladies, with pretended tears (tremulos et quasi cum lacrymis), and then were shipped off to various castles in England as prisoners of war. Oliphant remained a prisoner till 1308, when he was released on giving security for good behaviour, and there is reason to believe he then entered the English service.
The earliest mention of Edward de Brus, the Earl of Carrick's brother, occurs in this campaign. His name appears in the roll of the Prince of Wales's army on April 6, 1304. It is not clear who "Monsieur Guillem de Breouse" was, whose name is included in the list of English nobility present with King Edward at the siege of Stirling, but probably he belonged to one of the collateral branches of the family in the south.
All the fortresses of Scotland were now in English hands, but there was no security as long as Wallace remained at liberty. Extraordinary efforts, therefore, were made to capture him. The sentences of exile on John Comyn, de Lindsay, Graham, and Simon Fraser were remitted, on condition that, among them, they should take Wallace before December 20th; James the Steward, de Soulis, and de Umfraville were warned not to come within the King's power until that should be accomplished.
​At last, in the summer of 1305, Sir William Wallace fell into the hands of his enemies. Popular tradition has covered with infamy the memory of Sir John de Menteith, his friend, for having betrayed him; but Sir John had been since March 20, 1304, governor of the castle and sheriffdom of Dunbarton, and there is no evidence to connect him with the treachery. If treachery there was, as is far from unlikely, the real traitor was probably one Rawe Raa (Ralf Ray), in whose house in Glasgow, according to a paper in the Arundel collection, Wallace was taken. This Rawe or Ralf may be identified with Ralf de Haliburton, taken prisoner at Stirling, and released on condition of securing Wallace. The same individual is probably referred to as "le vallet qui espia Will de Waleys," and received a reward of forty marks. One hundred marks were divided among others who took part in the capture, and Menteith, to whose custody as governor of the district he would be committed, received £151. It is quite possible that Menteith had been, and perhaps remained, a personal friend of Wallace; a fact quite sufficient to attract popular odium to his name, although in receiving the prisoner and delivering him up to justice ​he was doing no more than his plain duty as King Edward's officer.
The trial, for which the commission was issued on August 18th, was hurried through with indecent haste. The prisoner arrived in London on August 22, 1305, and was lodged in the house of one William de Leyre, in Fenchurch parish. Next day he was taken on horseback to Westminster, accompanied by the mayor, sheriffs, aldermen, and others, and brought before his judges in the great hall. There he was set on the south bench, crowned with laurel in mockery, "forasmuch as it was commonly reported that he had said in times past that he ought to wear a crown in that hall." On being arraigned as a traitor by Sir Peter Malory, the King's Justiciary, he protested that he was no traitor to the King of England, in that he had never sworn fealty to him. True as this plea undoubtedly was, it could hardly be considered relevant by those who admitted and supported Edward's claim as rightful King of Scotland by conquest; inasmuch as Wallace, they argued, was none the less a rebel because, being a Scotchman, he had refused to swear fealty. He was, therefore, convicted of treason, as well as sacrilege, homicide, robbery, and arson, and sentenced to be drawn from Westminster to the Tower, from the Tower to Aldgate, and so to Smithfield, where he should be hanged. All this was carried out on the same day. As a homicide and robber he was hanged; as an outlaw he was beheaded; for his "enormous villany, done to God and Holy Church ​in burning churches and vessels containing the body of Christ and relics of the saints," his entrails were taken out and burnt; as a traitor, his head was fixed on London Bridge, and his quarters suspended on gibbets at Newcastle-on-Tyne, Berwick, Stirling, and Perth. For it was held by mediæval statesmen that the majesty of the law could not be defended by simple death; multiple and carefully classified indignity was decreed in this world to every mortal organ of the offender, while ecclesiastics might be trusted to chase the spirit into everlasting torments in the next.
Authentic particulars relating to Wallace's brief career are so exceedingly scanty, that the inventory of papers found with him when he was taken assumes an interest it might not otherwise possess, especially as the papers themselves have not been preserved. They consisted of letters of safe-conduct from King Haco of Norway, King Philip of France, and John de Balliol, with the confederations and ordinances made between Wallace and the magnates of Scotland.
* ↑ Bain, ii., 525.
* ↑ Bain, ii., 518.
* ↑ National MSS., vol. i., p. lxv.
* ↑ Fœdera.
* ↑ Bain, ii., 498.
* ↑ Ibid., 279.
* ↑ The Roll of Caerlaverock, written in Norman French, is preserved in the British Museum. Sir Harris Nicolas, who first edited it for publication in 1828, attributed it to Walter of Exeter, a monk. But there seems no reason to ascribe the poem to him rather than to anyone else.
* ↑ Bain, ii., 328.
* ↑ Ibid., 331.
* ↑ Bain, ii., 330.
* ↑ Ibid., 343.
* ↑ Ibid., 310.
* ↑ Ibid., 314.
* ↑ Ibid., 334.
* ↑ Bain, 348.
* ↑ Ibid., 355.
* ↑ Ibid., 372.
* ↑ Ibid., 377.
* ↑ Ibid., 352.
* ↑ Palgrave, ii., p, cxxxvii., et seq.
* ↑ Stevenson, ii., 471.
* ↑ Bain, ii., 383.
* ↑ Stevenson, ii., 481.
* ↑ Bain, ii., 400. There is a warning in these inquisitions against too implicit reliance on early documents. Bruce's age is variously stated therein at 22, 28, and 30 years. He was, in fact, just under 28.
* ↑ Bain, ii., 420.
* ↑ Wardrobe Accounts.
* ↑ Palgrave, 274.
* ↑ It is not known when, or at whose hands, Wallace received knighthood, but he is commonly referred to as "Sir William" in contemporary documents. In his indictment at Westminster, however, he is termed simply "Willelmus le Waleys," i.e., William the Welshman.
* ↑ Bain, ii., 384.
* ↑ Ibid., 448. His name appears erased in the list of prisoners.
* ↑ Palgrave, 295.
* ↑ Stow's Chronicle.