statement is that ‘the Scottish knights (equestres), when the English came up, fled without a blow, except a few who remained to draw up the schiltrons.’ Among these was Wallace, the real prompter and commander of the battle. His historic speech, ‘I haf brocht you to the ring, hop if you can,’ referring to a well-known dance (Matt. West. p. 451; Hailes, p. 259 n.), was probably meant to glance at the desertion of the knights, and to appeal to the infantry to fight though the knights had fled. The formation of foot soldiers in circles, with lances facing outwards round the whole circumference, though known before, had never been so complete in a Scottish army, and Bruce, if he fought that day with the English, learnt from Wallace a lesson he applied with better success at Bannockburn. The Scots were largely outnumbered. According to the most trustworthy accounts, they were only one-third of the English. But they had the advantage of the ground, and Edward had his own difficulties, if it be true, as stated by Robert de Brunne, that his Welsh troops declined to fight. His brilliant leadership and superior force in cavalry and archers won the day. The loss of upwards of a hundred horses shows that the victory was not bloodless, but only one knight of importance (homo valoris), Sir Brian de Jay, master of the Temple, lost his life. The slaughter of the Scots was by the lowest estimate ten thousand men, and of the leaders there fell Sir John Stewart, Sir John Graham of Dundaff, the fidus Achates of Wallace, and Macduff, the young earl of Fife, whose followers, like the men of Bute, the retainers of Stewart, perished to a man. Wallace retreated with the remnant of the army to Stirling, where he burnt both the town and the castle; but Edward followed on his steps and restored the castle.
From this date authentic evidence as to the life of Wallace, never so full as we could wish, becomes slender, and it is difficult to pick up the threads. After Edward quitted the field of Falkirk, Wallace is said to have returned to bury Graham in Falkirk churchyard. It is disputed whether he was present at the burning of the barns of Ayr, and indeed whether the burning took place after the battle of Falkirk; but this is a point chiefly of local interest. Shortly after Falkirk he gave up the office of guardian ‘at the water of Forth,’ possibly Stirling, and Comyn succeeded to that office. The statement of Blind Harry, which had been doubted, that he went to France to the court of Philip le Bel, probably in the following year, 1299, has been confirmed by documentary evidence; but the minstrel has himself to blame for the doubt by duplicating it, and making the first visit prior to the battle of Falkirk, and apparently after that of Stirling, a point in Wallace's life when there was neither time nor occasion for such a visit.
An important letter by Robert Hastings to Edward, dated 20 Aug. 1299, gives as of recent occurrence a spy's account of a dispute between the leading Scottish nobles in Selkirk Forest, caused by Sir David Graham's demand for Sir William Wallace's lands and goods, as he was going abroad without leave of the guardians. His brother, Sir Malcolm, interposed, and said ‘his brother's lands and goods could not be forfeited till it was found by a jury whether he went out of the kingdom for or against its profit.’ Sir Malcolm and Graham gave each other the lie, and both drew knives. A compromise was made by which Comyn, Bruce, and Lamberton, the bishop of St. Andrews, were to be joint guardians of the realm, while the bishop, as principal, was to have custody of the castles. It is plain the contest lay between the party of Comyn and the party of Bruce, and it deserves notice that Malcolm Wallace sided with the latter and with the bishop, who probably had already entered into a secret league with Bruce. What was decided as to Wallace's lands is not mentioned. On 24 Aug., St. Bartholomew's day, 1299, there is a casual notice that Wallace cut off the supplies from Stirling, then in the hands of an English garrison (Calendar, ii. No. 1949), but which surrendered in December to Sir John de Soulis [q. v.]
The anonymous author of the Cotton manuscript (Claudius D. vi. Brit. Mus.), who, though prejudiced against Wallace, appears to have had special sources of information, mentions in the same year (1299) that Wallace, with five soldiers, went to France to implore the aid of Philip le Bel against Edward, who had been released from his French difficulties by the treaty of Montreuil, and by his marriage, 10 Sept. 1299, to Philip's sister, and was now preparing to renew the war on Scotland. The temporary friendship between England and France led Philip to imprison Wallace when he came to Amiens, and to write to Edward that he would send Wallace to him. Edward answered with thanks, and the request that he would keep Wallace in custody. But Philip changed his mind, and on Monday after All Saints, 1 Nov. 1299 or 1300, probably the latter, there is a letter of introduction by him ‘to his lieges destined for the Roman court’ requesting them
