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

by Herbert Maxwell

⁠
Sir Henry de Percy.⁠	Sir Robert de Clifford.

CHAPTER IV.

THE CAMPAIGN OF WALLACE.

A.D. 1296-1298.

PRACTICALLY, the whole of Scotland had now owned allegiance to Edward I., and it only remained for him to keep what he had won. He left for the south in the early autumn of 1296, having appointed John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, keeper of the realm, Hugh de Cressingham treasurer, and William de Ormesby justiciar. Disturbance broke out shortly after Edward's departure, for on January 31, 1297, Surrey received strict orders to allow no man to quit Scotland, cleric or layman, and to arrest anyone found carrying letters.

This was probably the beginning of the rising under Wallace. Of the origin and youth of this celebrated man, very little is known, though much has been reported. His biographer, Blind Harry, lived about two centuries later, and his ballad, full as it is of manifest inaccuracy and untruth, is almost valueless, except as showing what history had become in that time under the influence of popular tradition. His work can only be regarded as an attempt to recite the story as Scotsmen of the fifteenth century, reared in incessant warfare with England, would have liked it to be.

Fordun, writing only eighty years after Wallace had won immortal renown, says vaguely that "though among the earls and lords of the kingdom he was looked upon as low-born, yet his fathers rejoiced in the honours of knighthood. His elder brother, also, was girded with the knightly belt, and inherited a landed estate which was large enough for his station."

The name "le Waleys" means "the Welshman," but that would apply to a family belonging to Strathclyde, which was part of ancient Cumbria or Wales, as distinguished from Scotland proper. The accepted opinion is, that William was the younger son of Malcolm le Waleys of Ellerslie near Paisley, and that he got into trouble early from an irregular course of life. Blind Harry's story is that when William was at school at Dundee, the English governor, Selby, seeing the lad dressed in a fine suit of green, asked him how he dared to wear "so gay a weed," and tried to take his knife from him, upon which Wallace "stiket him to the dead, for all his men that 'ssembled round him."

After many wanderings and adventures, Wallace got back to his mother at Ellerslie. She induced her brother, Sir Rainald de Crauford, King Edward's sheriff of Ayr, to obtain from Sir Henry de Percy, Warden of Galloway and Ayr, a protection for her son, and he was sent to Sir Walter Wallace of Richardstoun. One day William had caught a lot of fish in the Irvine, which were taken from him by a party of five soldiers riding past with the Warden. Wallace struck one of them with his fishing-rod, and made him drop his sword, which the lad seized and killed the soldier withal. The others closed round him, but Wallace wounded one in the head, cut off the sword hand of another, and the remaining pair galloped after de Percy, crying to him "to abide and revenge his men, who were being cruelly martyred here in this false region." Percy asked how many had attacked them, and, on hearing there was but one, he laughed and vowed that "by him this day he should not be sought."

Now all this is clearly of the nature of fable, and it is only quoted here as an instance of the sort of stuff to be found in Blind Harry. He credits his hero with a number of murders, killing Englishmen wherever he came across them.

There is much confusion among the different accounts of the rising against the English which took place in the spring of 1297. According to the Chronicle of Lanercost, usually a trustworthy authority, it was begun by Bishop Wishart of Glasgow and James the Steward. Hailes, following the popular legend, attributes it to Wallace and Sir William de Douglas. Wallace would not be influential enough to cause the rising, but undoubtedly he took an active part in it. Prominent among the insurgents were young Andrew de Moray, afterwards Wallace's colleague in command of the movement. Robert de Brus "le viel" was still governor of Carlisle, and thither the young Earl of Carrick was summoned, and made to swear on the consecrated host and the sword of Becket that he would be faithful and vigilant in the service of King Edward. He proved his sincerity forthwith, by making a raid on the lands of Sir William de Douglas; but, according to Hemingburgh, promptly repented, delared that this oath had been extorted from him by force, and joined the Scottish insurgents.

Wallace at this time was under arms in Clydesdale. He surprised and slew the King's sheriff at Lanark, Andrew de Livingston.^[1] Sir Thomas Gray of Hetoun was then an esquire under the sheriff's command, and his son has given, in his Scalacronica, an account of the affair, which he often must have heard his father relate. It is not, however, so ample as might be desired, for Gray was severely wounded in the mêlée, stripped, and left for dead. The heat of two burning houses, one on each side of him, kept life in him till the dawn, when William de Lundy found him and took him to shelter.^[2]

The rising speedily gained strength. Edward was on the point of sailing for Flanders, but he had an able lieutenant in the Earl of Surrey. Sir Henry de Percy and Sir Robert de Clifford advanced against the insurgents, and found them encamped near Irvine, strong in numbers, as is said, but greatly weakened by dissensions. It is not known who was in command; certainly not Wallace, under whom, a young squire of dubious renown, it would have been impossible for men of the standing of the Bishop of Glasgow, the Earl of Carrick, and Sir William de Douglas to serve. Sir Richard de Lundin, disgusted with the state of matters in the Scottish camp, went over at once to the English, declaring he would not fight for a party that could not agree among themselves. The rest soon came to terms. Forsworn as they were already, de Brus, the Steward and his brother, Douglas, and Lindsay craved the King's peace, and set their seals to the following remarkable confession, drawn up for them by the equally perjured Bishop of Glasgow.

"A tutz iceaus qi ceste lettre verrunt ou orrunt: Robert de Brus, Counte de Carrik, Jeames Seneschal de Escoce, Alisaundre de Lindescie, Johan frerre le Seneschal e William de Douglas, salutz en J'h'u Crist. Comme chose seit a vous tutz: qe com nous ensemblent ove la Comune de nos pais esteioms levez encountre nostre Seingnur mon Sire Edward p la grace de Dieux Roys de Engleterre Seingnur de Irelaunde e Dux de Gwyene, e encountre sa pees eioms en sa seingnurie en sa terre de Escoce et de Gauweie fait arsons, homecides e divers roberies e ... estre fait p nous e p les nos: nous pur nous e pur tuz iceaus qi a nous furent adhers de la dite Comune a ceo fayre estre tenuz e sousmis a la volente nostre Seingnur le Reys avauntdit a faire les amendes haut e bas a sa volente des ditz homecides arsons e roberies. Sauve a nous les pointz contenuz en un escrit le quel nous avoms de mon Sire Henri de Percy e mon Sire Robert de Clifforth Cheventeins del ost au noble Rey de Engleterre es parties de Escoce. En temoinaunce de queu chose a cest escrit avoms mis nos seaus.

"Escrit a Irewin le noevime jour du mois de Juyl en le an del regne de Reys Edward vintime quint."

I have given this important document in the original Norman French, as a fair sample of a State paper of the period. Leaving out the formal exordium and conclusion, the vital parts translate as follows:

"... Whereas it is a thing known to you all that we, with the commons of our lands, did rise in arms against our Lord Sir Edward, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Guienne, and against his peace, within his lordship in the land of Scotland and Galloway, have committed arsons, homicides, and various robberies ... we, on our own behalf and on that of those of the said Commons who were our adherents, make submission to the will of our lord the King aforesaid, to make whatsoever amends as may be his pleasure for the said homicides, arsons and robberies saving always the points reserved in a writing which we hold from Sir Henry de Percy and Sir Robert de Clifford, commanders of the host of the noble the King of England in Scotland. In witness whereof we have placed our seals on this writing."

It is difficult to believe that the Earl of Carrick, in joining this insurrection, had any intention of winning back the kingdom for de Balliol. Probably this was the chief point on which the Scottish leaders disagreed. Wallace's subsequent conduct seems to show that his purpose was the restoration of King John; though this may have been strengthened by the submission and desertion of de Brus at Irvine. De Brus's own motives have been brought pretty clearly to light by the production of a document executed simultaneously with that quoted above, wherein the Bishop of Glasgow, James the Steward, and de Lindsay bind themselves in surety for the loyalty of the Earl of Carrick to King Edward, until he should deliver his daughter Marjorie as a hostage into the hands of de Percy and de Clifford. Such serious precaution would scarcely have been taken in the Earl's case, unless he had been regarded as the most dangerous conspirator, pushing his own claim to the throne.

Wallace the landless bore no share in the submission of Irvine. Leaving his wealthy colleagues to make the best terms for themselves and their possessions which they might obtain from their Norman friends, he withdrew with all who would follow him into Selkirk forest.^[3] On July 23d, Sir Hugh de Cressingham wrote from Berwick to King Edward, informing him that Wallace was still holding out.^[4] Hailes mentions Sir Andrew de Moray of Bothwell as the only baron who supported him at this time; but this is an error. In the first place, the titular lord of Bothwell (for the barony had been confiscated by Edward) was Sir William de Moray, an old man living in Lincolnshire by order of the king, in extreme poverty, and subsisting on an allowance from the English Exchequer. In the second place, Wallace's companion was not the knight, Sir Andrew de Moray, but his son, an esquire. Both had been taken prisoners at Dunbar in 1296; Sir Andrew was still confined in the Tower, but his son had been released from Chester Castle, for on August 28, 1297, he received a safe-conduct to visit his father in the Tower.^[5] Of this he can have made no use, for he was killed at the battle of Stirling on September 11th. It is difficult to see in this safe-conduct, granted at such a time, anything except a ruse to get hold of young de Moray, for he was undoubtedly most active against the English all this summer.

The three Scottish chiefs who had made their submission at Irvine surrendered to their parole at Berwick. Nevertheless, one of them, Sir William de Douglas, must have failed to fulfil some of the conditions exacted; for on July 24th, the constable of Berwick wrote to the King, informing him that "Sir William de Douglas is in your castle of Berwick in irons, and in safe keeping, God be thanked, and for a good cause, as one who has well deserved it. And I pray you, if it be your good pleasure, let him not be liberated for any profit nor influence, until you know what the matters amount to in regard to him personally."^[6]

In another letter he says: "Sir William de Douglas has not kept the covenants he made with Sir Henry de Percy; he is in your castle of Berwick in my keeping, and he is still very savage and very abusive (uncore mout sauvage e mout araillez)." Surrey informed the King that Douglas was imprisoned because, though he surrendered voluntarily, he did not produce his hostages on the appointed day as the others did. He was taken to the Tower on October 12th, where he died some time before January, 1299.^[7]

Edward sailed on his expedition to Flanders in August, taking with him many of the Scottish knights captured at Dunbar, who were now released on condition of serving the King against France. Among these were five of the family of Comyn, including John "the Red," besides old Sir William de Moray, Sir Simon Fraser, Sir Richard de Siward, and the Earl of Athol. These gentlemen would be much too ready to exchange prison walls for active service, to feel any scruples about the justice of Edward's quarrel with the King of France.

In the north of Scotland the insurrection still went on, keeping the Bishop of Aberdeen, the Earls of Buchan, Mar, and Strathearn, the Countess of Ross, and others actively engaged in the King's service. The constable of Urquhart Castle reported to Edward on July 25th that young Andrew de Moray had besieged him; but that after a night assault, in which several of the garrison were killed and wounded, the besiegers had drawn off. While de Moray was thus engaged in the north, "with a very great body of rogues (mut grant hoste de felons)," as the Bishop of Aberdeen expressed it in his report to Edward, Wallace was laying siege to Dundee Castle. On hearing, however, that the English army under the Earl of Surrey was approaching, he drew off his troops to guard the fords and bridge of Forth, and encamped near Cambuskenneth Abbey. Surrey had been recalled on August 18th, in order to accompany the King to Flanders, and Sir Brian fitz Alan appointed Governor of Scotland in his place. But Sir Brian had raised a difficulty about his salary (£1128 8s), which he declared was wholly insufficient for his expenses; so, on September 7th, the Prince of Wales wrote on behalf of the absent King, requiring Surrey to remain at his post until Scotland should be at peace.^[8]

Surrey attempted by means of two friars to come to terms with Wallace, but without success, and the English prepared to attack. The Scots lay on and about the Abbey Craig, a picturesque and precipitous height on the north bank of the Forth, which, at the present day is conspicuous among all neighbouring hills by the Wallace Monument, erected thereon in 1861. There was a long wooden bridge across the Forth, the exact position of which is not known. Lord Hailes, accepting the current tradition, suggests that it was at Kildean Ford, about a mile above the present stone bridges. But Wallace's object would undoubtedly be to defend the bridge, which, if situated at Kildean, would have been too far from his position on the Abbey Craig to enable him to do so effectively. The probability is, that this bridge either stood very much where the older of the existing stone bridges now stands, a position affording ready communication between the castle and town of Stirling on the south bank, and Cambuskenneth Abbey on the north bank; or else at a ford lower down, where the river runs nearest to the Abbey Craig. Sir Richard de Lundin (the same who left the Scottish army before the submission of Irvine) vehemently remonstrated when Surrey ordered his vanguard to cross the bridge in face of the enemy, for it was so narrow that not more than two men-at-arms could ride on it abreast. De Lundin offered to show the way over a ford, whereby the Scots might be taken in flank and rear, the main body of English meanwhile keeping them engaged in front. But his strategy was not approved, perhaps because so recent a recruit had not yet secured the confidence of the English commanders. De Cressingham, Treasurer of Scotland, led the way across the fatal bridge, with Sir Marmaduke de Twenge in command of the heavy cavalry. Progress was very slow: it was midday before the English vanguard had formed upon the north bank, and hitherto Wallace had made no sign. But his time had now come. Sending flanking parties along the river banks, he advanced against the front of the enemy and attacked them with fury. Greatly outnumbered, de Cressingham's force was thrown into confusion by this sudden assault, and utterly routed with terrible slaughter. Sir Thomas Gray, whose father, if he was not actually present on that day, knew the ground thoroughly, and, as a soldier, would furnish the chronicler with a trustworthy account of the battle, says that Wallace broke down the bridge which he had allowed the English vanguard to cross, thus separating the enemy into two bodies. De Cressingham, their commander, was slain, and, according to Hemingburgh, flayed, and his skin divided among the victors—erat enim pulcher et grossus nimis "for he was comely, and too fat." On the other hand, the Scots suffered deplorable loss in the death of young Andrew de Moray.

The main body of English, witnessing the disaster

THE ABBEY CRAIG AND WALLACE MONUMENT. SCENE OF THE BATTLE OF STIRLING, SEPTEMBER 11, 1297.

(From a photograph by Valentine Bros., Dundee.)

of their comrades, and being unable to assist them, straightway fell in a panic, set fire to their end of the bridge, and fled, leaving all their baggage. In the whole history of these wars, there is nothing more difficult to understand than the flight of the English army before Wallace's ill-equipped and half-disciplined levies, who were greatly inferior in numbers, and on the far side of the river.

Of course, the immediate result of this tremendous victory—tremendous, that is, as obtained by raw levies over a disciplined and well-equipped force—was that men of all ranks flocked in to the standard of Wallace, who was now recognised as the national champion. Dundee Castle, which on his advance to the Forth, Wallace had left beleaguered by the townspeople, surrendered shortly after the battle. Surrey left the country at the mercy of the Scots, and retreated as far as York, where the barons of northern England were ordered to join him. Wallace marched after him, overrunning Northumberland and Cumberland as far as Newcastle and Carlisle, but Robert de Balliol held the former strength against him, and Henry de Percy the latter. Robert de Brus "le viel" was still governor of Carlisle Castle, but on October 13, 1297, he was directed to give over his command to the Bishop of Carlisle.^[9] No reason is assigned for this, nor is there any cause to suppose that either he or his son was suspected of complicity with Wallace; but affairs wore a threatening aspect, and it is not improbable that need was apparent for a stronger governor than the elder de Brus.

No sooner was the Bishop installed in his command, than the Scots invested Carlisle for twenty-eight days in November and December, 1297. The want of discipline among Wallace's irregular troops was deplorable, and the people of these counties suffered lamentably from their violence and rapacity.^[10] But King Edward was on his way home, and a mighty army of 30,000 men^[11] was gathering to avenge Surrey's misfortunes. Edward de Balliol, son of the ex-King John, was sent to the Tower early in December. Wallace withdrew across the Border, and Surrey was at Roxburgh again on February 16, 1298.

During this campaign a protection was granted to the Prior and Convent of Hexham, which is not easy to explain. It is given by "Andrew de Moray and William Wallace (Wallensis), leaders of the army of Scotland, in the name of the noble Prince Lord John, by the grace of God illustrious King of Scotland," etc. Now Sir Andrew de Moray was, as has been shown, a prisoner in the Tower at this time. That his son had been killed at the battle of Stirling, is clearly certified in an inquisition post mortem held on November 28, 1300,^[12] wherein mention is made of his son, also called Andrew, two and a half years of age, dwelling in Moray, ut credunt, among the King of England's enemies. This son was afterwards brother-in-law of Robert I., and Regent of Scotland. It is not, therefore, clear why Andrew de Moray's name should have continued to appear in Wallace's proclamations.^[13]

It seems to have been about this time that Wallace first assumed the title of Governor of Scotland for King John, though most writers have given an earlier date. It was done with the consent of, and probably at the request of, the representatives of the national party,^[14] who must have felt the need of an official designation for their leader; and there is no reason to doubt that Wallace was perfectly honest in his purpose of governing for, and ultimately restoring, de Balliol. Nevertheless, Fordun probably is just in attributing much of the coldness shown toward Wallace by the Scottish magnates to his assumption of this dignity.

Edward advanced into Scotland, by way of Berwick, in June, 1298. The only important resistance he encountered before reaching Edinburgh was at Dirleton, a strong castle, of which the ruins may still be seen to the west of North Berwick. This was taken, after a stout resistance, by Anthony Beck, the warlike Bishop of Durham. The English headquarters were then fixed at Temple-Liston, to the west of Edinburgh. While waiting the arrival of the fleet in the firth, a serious mutiny broke out among the King's Welsh troops, caused, according to Hemingburgh, by wine served out to them too liberally by royal command. It is stated by the same authority that eighteen clerics were killed by the mutineers, and that the English cavalry, in restoring order, slew many of the Welshmen, and the remainder deserted in a body.

The English army was now in great straits because of delay in the arrival of the fleet with stores. Orders had been already prepared, if not actually issued, to return to Berwick, when news came that the Scots were at Falkirk. Edward at once determined to attack them, and on July 21st, his army moved out to a moor on the east side of Linlithgow and bivouacked. During the night, the King, sleeping on the ground, was trampled on by his charger, and, as is said, two of his ribs were broken. Notwithstanding the pain, he appeared on horseback at dawn, and led the advance.

The Scots were found drawn up on rising and broken ground close to Falkirk. Hemingburgh describes their formation so minutely that, as Hailes observes, he must have received his information from an eyewitness. The pikemen, which formed the bulk of Wallace's army, were disposed in four circular masses (per turmas quatuor, in modus circulorum rotundorum), with mounted spearmen in the middle of each mass.^[15] The intervals between these masses

DIRLETON CASTLE.

(From a photograph by Valentine Bros., Dundee.)

were filled with Selkirk bowmen,^[16] under the command of Sir John of Bonkill, brother of the Steward. The cavalry was formed on the flanks of the line of columns.

A peat moss lay in front of the Scottish position: nevertheless, Edward relied on his cavalry to dislodge the enemy. De Bigod, Earl Marshal, led the first line of cavalry to the attack, and, finding the morass impracticable, made a detour to the left. The Bishop of Durham, in command of the second line, turned to the right, and the two bodies charged the Scots on both flanks simultaneously. The pikemen stood their ground stoutly, but the Scottish cavalry left the field in panic at the first onset. Sir John of Bonkill fell mortally wounded, and Hemingburgh testifies to the devotion of his archers, tall, handsome men, he calls them, who perished round their leader. Still the pikemen held out gallantly, but as often as they repelled the English horse, flights of arrows and showers of sling-stones poured with fatal effect upon their densely serried ranks. At last, Macduff and Graham having fallen, the formation gave way, and terrible carnage ensued. The field of Falkirk was lost and won, and Surrey and Cressingham were avenged.

It is idle to speculate on the numbers of Scots slain. Walsingham puts them at the absurd figure of 60,000, probably three times more than Wallace's entire army. Hemingburgh says 56,000, and Buchanan, writing long afterwards from a Scottish stand-point, 10,000. Of the losses on the English side, some certain information is conveyed by the compensation paid by King Edward for 111 horses, killed in this action, the property of his knights and esquires.^[17] The Scottish chroniclers attempt to explain this great defeat by reason of dissensions between Wallace, Sir John of Bonkill, and Comyn; and the last named knight, who is believed to have commanded the cavalry, has been accused of treachery because his squadron fled. There is not the slightest ground for such a charge. Nothing is known of any disagreement between the Scottish leaders; the subsequent disfavour which fell upon the Comyns would be enough to prompt patriotic historians to repeat any slander about one of that house; but in fact the excellence and numbers of the English cavalry, supported by their famous archers, are quite enough to account for the defeat of the weaker army.

What, it may be asked, was the Earl of Carrick about all this time? Hailes asserts that he joined the national army as soon as Edward crossed the Border. This is founded on the authority of Hemingburgh, who states that, when Edward marched west from Stirling after the battle of Falkirk, Carrick burnt the castle of Ayr, which he held, and retired. But a very different light is thrown upon the attitude of the future King of Scotland while these affairs were running their course, by certain letters lately published. One of these, dated July 3d, three weeks before the battle of Falkirk, is a request to King Edward by the Earl of Carrick for a renewal of protection for three knights who are with him on the King's service in Galloway.^[18] In another document, he is commanded by the King to bring 1000 picked men of Carrick and Galloway to join an expedition about to be made into Scotland.^[19] Seeing, however, that there is some doubt about the exact date of these papers, de Brus's attitude during 1298 must be considered uncertain. The testimony of Scottish and English chroniclers is equally untrustworthy, for it was the aim of each, though with different object, to make it appear that he attached himself early to the national cause.

King Edward rested at Stirling till about August 9th; by September 10th he had reached Carlisle, and on November 19th, being then at Newcastle, he appointed Patrick de Dunbar, Earl of March, his captain of the forces and castles in the east of Scotland. The war went on in a desultory sort of way through the remainder of that year.

Cumberland continued to suffer from raids by parties of Scots, and Carlisle being blockaded closely for twenty-eight days ending December 8, 1297, when the approach of Edward from the north caused the invaders to move off.^[20] Record has been preserved of a grisly incident at this time, of the sort which accounts, in some measure, for Edward's reputation among the Scots for extraordinary cruelty. Eleven hostages had been taken from Galloway at the beginning of Wallace's rising, as security for the loyalty of that province, which was suspected of favouring the cause of Balliol. Now hostages were entitled, under the custom of war, to lenient and even hospitable treatment; nevertheless, these unhappy men, who seem to have been of respectable standing, were imprisoned in Lochmaben Castle by the Earl of Surrey on October 23, 1297. On September 8, 1300, one of them was liberated, Robert MacMaster, the sole survivor of the horrors of those three years.^[21]

1. He is usually called Heselrig, which was probably the name of his lands in Scotland, but Andrew de Livingstone was sheriff in 1396.—Bain, ii., 264, 417.
2. Scalacronica, 123.
3. This forest was at that time reckoned as extending from Selkirk, through Clydesdale, to the borders of Ayrshire.
4. Bain, ii., 238.
5. Ibid., 177, 246.
6. Stevenson, ii., 205 note.
7. Bain, ii., 269.
8. Stevenson, ii., 230.
9. Bain, ii., 244.
10. Bain, ii., 245, 249, 261.
11. Ibid., 245. These figures may be relied on, being taken from the King's order to levy. Hemingburgh, usually a cautious if partial chronicler, is betrayed into the customary exaggeration of his kind in dealing with numbers, and states that there were 7,000 cavalry and 80,000 infantry. No army of that size has assembled in England within living memory.
12. Ibid., ii., 300.
13. Another letter of this date has been found in the archives of Lubeck, issued in the names of Andrew de Moray and William Wallace, giving trading facilities in Scotland to the cities of Lubeck and Hamburg.
14. Anderson's Diplomata Scotiæ, No. 44.
15. This is the formation so frequently alluded to by Barbour and Gray as the "schiltrome."
16. At no period of their history did the Scots rely much on their archers, who were always vastly inferior to the English. It is said that, unlike the English, they did not draw the arrow to the right ear, but discharged it from the hip. The pike was ever the chosen weapon of the Scots, until the introduction of gunpowder, and indeed long after.
17. Bain, ii., 257, 259.
18. Bain, ii., 255.
19. Undated, but assigned by Bain (ii., 268) to the autumn of 1298, though Stevenson (ii., 178) puts it among the papers of 1297.
20. Raine, 155.
21. Raine, 156, 157.