CHAPTER V.

WALLACE AGAIN TAKES REFUGE IN THE WOODS.--ORGANIZES A SYSTEM OF WARFARE.--HARASSES THE ENGLISH IN THEIR CANTONMENTS.--CONFLICT OF BEG.--BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES OF HIS EARLY COMPANIONS.--HIS DRESS AND ARMOUR.--ANECDOTE OF THE RELATIVE PERSONAL PROWESS OF WALLACE AND BRUCE.

Wallace, who had been stigmatized by the English as an outlaw and a robber, found it necessary, after the battle of Dunbar, to withdraw to his former mountainous retreat, from whence he would, no doubt, observe the gaudy pageant of the feudal power of England, as it traversed the devoted land in all the insolent security of conquest. And while the national distress deepened around, and every tale that reached him was fraught with tidings of the misery of his enslaved and degraded countrymen, the resources of the enemy, and the possibility of emancipating the beloved land of his nativity, formed the subject of his unceasing reflections. He had observed, that the reverses which the Scots had sustained in the field, arose more from a want of subordination and discipline among themselves, than from any superior valour on the part of their enemies. He was aware of, and deeply lamented, the jealousy and treachery which existed among the nobility, and their readiness to stoop in the most servile manner[63] to the will of the Usurper, if they might thereby obtain even a temporary exaltation for their party; and he justly conceived, that by banding together a few resolute spirits, allied to no faction, but, like himself, attached to the general good, that more could be done toward the restoration of his country’s independence, than by all the tumultuous hordes which the treacherous and disunited chieftains could bring together. Fully impressed with this conviction, his days and nights were passed in extending the number of his followers, and in organizing a system of warfare, which was soon destined to spread terror and dismay among the invaders. The _elite_ of every district were instructed and disciplined in a manner peculiarly his own. With the simple, but well-known sounds of his bugle-horn, he could regulate all their operations. At the appearance of danger, he could disperse them, to seek more secure retreats,--or rally them around him, as circumstances might require. This mode of discipline, either by himself or his most trusty associates, he secretly extended over a great part of the Lowlands of Scotland; so that either amidst the fastnesses of Carrick, the deep recesses of Cartland, or on the shores of the Lomond, the rallying note of their country’s liberator was followed by the prompt appearance of well-armed warriors at their respective places of muster.

The prowess which he had displayed in his encounters with the English--his almost miraculous escapes--and the prediction given out in the name of the Seer of Ercildowne,[64] of his being destined to deliver Scotland from the tyranny of England,--all conspired to excite the hopes, and gain him the confidence, of the less wealthy classes of his countrymen.

His tactics were admirably fitted for harassing the foes he had to contend with. The fortresses in their possession were surrounded by secret enemies, ever on the watch to discover and convey to their leader any information that might enable him to way-lay their convoys, or surprise them in their strongholds. It was in vain the warders kept watch on their lofty stations: distant as the eye could reach, no enemy appeared, no foreboding sound met their ear, to warrant them in disturbing the tranquillity of the revellers within. Far in the woodlands, the sound of a horn might be heard; but it passed away unregarded, as proceeding from some lonely forester going his rounds. The drawbridge is let down to admit fuel or provisions for the garrison;--the loads are thrown in, the entrance of the gate;--the porter knocked on the head, and the burden-bearers bristle into resolute or well-armed assailants;--the wine-cup is dashed from the hands of the astonished governor, who is only made sensible of his situation by the carnage that ensues;--the castle demolished, and the spoil divided among his followers, who are now allowed to return home. Wallace, meanwhile, attended perhaps by a few select worthies, pursues his way, to call forth the avenging swords of his adherents, in some more remote part of the kingdom.

Such were the fruits of that admirable system of warfare which Wallace was engaged in explaining and enforcing at the meetings of his nonjuring countrymen, during the winter of 1296, and which it has been thought proper to allude to at this stage of the history, in order that the reader may be able to comprehend the possibility of certain of those exploits which afterwards obtained for the heroic champion of the Scots, the applause and admiration of mankind.

The spring of 1297 had scarcely set in before the _guerrilla_-parties thus formed began to molest the invaders; and so persevering and successful were their attacks, that in a very short time, throughout the whole range of the forest of Clydesdale, Wallace and his followers held undisputed sway; and, emerging from parts least expected by the enemy, surprised and cut off their convoys. The English garrison which occupied Bothwell Castle made several attempts to drive them from their concealments in the woods, but all their efforts had ended in discomfiture and disgrace; while the prisoners left in the hands of the Scots were hung up at different parts, along the skirts of the forest, as a warning to all hostile intruders. These proceedings of the insurgents alarmed and perplexed the English, as it kept them in profound ignorance of the numbers they had to cope with. Left to their own conjectures, their heated imaginations peopled the impenetrable recesses of the woods with swarms of fierce and merciless enemies, headed by a chief against whose sword the strongest of their armour afforded but a feeble protection.

While the Scots were thus engaged, their leader received advice that a strong convoy was on its way from England for the supply of the garrison of Ayr, under the command of Fenwick, the person who headed the attack so fatal to Sir Malcolm Wallace. Roused by the hopes of avenging the death of his father, our hero determined to way-lay the party. For this purpose he selected fifty of those on whose strength and courage he could place the greatest reliance; and thus attended, he set forward to occupy a position on the road the enemy had to pass. It was night when the little band of patriots reached the spot from whence they meant to make their attack; but hearing nothing of the advance of Fenwick, he ordered his men to take shelter for the night in a neighbouring wood. The morning was pretty far advanced, when two scouts, whom Wallace had sent forward at day-break, returned with the intelligence that the enemy was at hand. Having arranged his men for the onset, his friend, John Blair, offered up prayers for their success, which were scarcely over before the English came in sight. Fenwick, on observing the small body of Scots that awaited his approach, felt perfectly assured of taking them, and the far-famed chieftain, whom he suspected to be their leader, prisoners with him to Ayr; and congratulated himself on the satisfaction which the capture of the bold outlaw would afford to his superiors. This pleasing reverie was, however, disturbed by a rapid movement of the Scots, who, charging with their long spears, threw his advance into confusion, and, following up their advantage with the most daring intrepidity, carried disorder to the very centre of his squadron; where, undismayed by the superior numbers that surrounded them, Wallace and his brave companions fought with all the fury of exasperated lions. The repeated charges of the English were repulsed and returned with such increasing vigour and resolution as alarmed and confounded their commander. Wherever he turned his eyes, the sword of the Scottish chief seemed clearing a path toward him; helmet after helmet disappeared beneath his ponderous weapon; and the whole exertion of his mighty arm seemed directed towards the hated Fenwick. Conscious of the justice of that vengeance which inspired our hero with more than usual ferocity, the English chief would gladly have avoided a personal rencounter. His attempts to escape, however, were in vain,--the brand of the vengeful Scot reached him at last; and the blow, though broke by the intervening sword of a trooper, fell with sufficient force to strike him from the saddle. Falling on the opposite side of the horse, Wallace had not the satisfaction of giving the deathblow;--this was an honour reserved for Robert Boyd, one of his most intimate companions. Although Fenwick was thus slain, yet the conflict continued with great obstinacy. The English, under one Bowmond, who was second in command, made great efforts to retrieve the advantages they had lost. The Scots, however, maintained their ground with inflexible resolution, while the sword of their chief was rapidly increasing the gaps in the ranks of their enemies. Adam Wallace, the promising heir of Riccardtoun,[65] had the good fortune to come in contact with the leader of the English; and, after an obstinate engagement, the intrepid Bowmond fell beneath the hand of the youthful Scot. Deprived of their leaders, the English now fled in the utmost confusion, leaving one hundred of their companions on the field. The Scots pursued them only so far as to make their victory certain; and, returning to the spoil, found their labours amply rewarded. A numerous train of waggons, loaded with flour, wine, and all sorts of provisions, with warlike stores in abundance, and two hundred draught-horses, besides money and other valuables, fell into the hands of the victors, who, after dividing their booty, and appropriating part of it to the relief of the oppressed inhabitants in the neighbourhood, departed to secure the remainder in their inaccessible retreats among the then extensive forests of Clydesdale.

The result of this affair with Fenwick was not less encouraging to the Scots, than prejudicial to the English. The valuable convoy, which the latter had been thus deprived of, was a subject of serious regret to Percy; more particularly, as it appeared irretrievable--his foraging parties having already exhausted the district under his controul, and reduced the inhabitants to the most wretched expedients, in order to maintain their miserable existence. The fields remained in a great measure uncultivated; and those among the commons who were fortunate enough to possess a cow, endeavoured to conceal her as their only resource. The poor starveling was bled as often as nature would permit; and the blood, boiled to a consistency, formed almost the sole repast of the unhappy owners. Percy, already aware of the impoverished situation of the country, had husbanded the resources of the garrison, in order to make them hold out till the arrival of the expected supplies. Under these circumstances, his disappointment may be easily conceived, when the disordered remains of Fenwick’s party arrived at Ayr without a leader, to give an account of their disaster, every man being at liberty to tell his own story; and, as might be expected, all of them agreed in exaggerating the number of the Scots, and the gigantic stature and strength of their chief. Percy, even from the most favourable view of the affair, could only see the embarrassing situation in which he was placed. The uncertainty of procuring supplies by land was but too evident; and to bring them by sea was equally precarious, as the Scottish ships were still numerous on the coast, and had not acknowledged the sovereignty of Edward, but in the unsettled state of the country, continued to capture all the English vessels that came in their tract.

In this battle, which was fought at a place called Beg,[66] above Allanton, in the parish of Galston, few of any note among the Scots were slain. Of those present on the occasion, the following names have been handed down--Sir Andrew Murray, Sir William Douglas, Robert Boyd, Alexander Scrimgeor, Roger Kilpatrick, Alexander Auchinleck, Walter Newbigging, Stephen of Ireland, Hugh Dundas, John Kneland or Cleland, Ruthven, Sir David Barclay, Adam Curry, John Blair and Thomas Gray. In justice, therefore, to these brave and early confederates of our hero, we shall appropriate the remaining part of this chapter, to such notices of them as our scanty materials may afford. The following account of the first of those worthies is taken from the Peerage and Baronage of Scotland.

_Sir Andrew de Moravia, dominus de Bothwell_, succeeded his brother Sir William Murray, in the Lordship of Bothwell. This Sir William was chamberlain to Alexander III., and a man of singular merit; but dying without issue in 1294, he was succeeded by his no less meritorious brother, who also filled the office of chamberlain under the short reign of Baliol. Sir Andrew married a daughter of Sir John Cumin, Lord of Badenoch, by whom he had two sons, Sir Andrew and Sir William, the former of whom was associated in the command of the Scottish army when led by Wallace to the invasion of England. He also was chamberlain to Bruce, and regent of the kingdom in the minority of David II. He married Lady Christian Bruce, sister of the immortal King Robert, by whom he had two sons, John and Robert. His brother William was the progenitor of the Murrays of Abercairnie. The present “Sir Andrew sat in parliament in 1290, and appears to have sworn fealty to Edward 1291. When Sir William Wallace raised the standard of national independence, and when the other powerful barons deserted the cause, he was the only person of consequence who adhered to Wallace.”

_Sir William Douglas_, designated the Hardy, succeeded his brother Hugh. He was also known by the name of _Long Leg_, and reckoned to be a very handsome and powerful man, surpassing most of his countrymen in stature. He appears to have been present in the Parliament at Brigham in 1289, as his name is appended to the letter addressed by “the community of Scotland,” to Edward I., as “_Guillame de Duglas_.” He swore fealty to Edward in the Chapel of Thurston, 5th July 1291. His first wife was Elizabeth, a near connection of the Steward of Scotland, who died shortly after her marriage. His second was Eleanor, the widow of William de Ferrier. She being a ward of the English crown, had an assignation of the manors of Stubbings and Woodham Ferriers in Essex (part of her husband’s lands), until she should have her dowry set forth; which, being soon after assigned to her, she came to Scotland, there to obtain her right to such lands as her husband had possessed in that kingdom. But being at Tranent, (the manor-house of Helen la Zusche), expecting the like assignation, Sir William de Duglas came and forcibly carried her off.[67] As the lady had made oath before she left England, not to marry without the royal consent;--to save appearances, and to preserve her property, a complaint was made of the aggression, and Edward sent his precept to the sheriff of Northumberland, to seize all the goods and chattels of the said William de Duglas which were in his bailiwick; but shortly after, in 1291, in consequence of a fine of 10_l._ to the King, his permission was obtained. In 1296, Sir William had the command of the Castle of Berwick, which he surrendered to the English, being allowed to march out with the honours of war, after taking an oath never to bear arms against England. Such oaths, however, in that age it was reckoned more dishonourable to keep than to break. The following account of some of his exploits is from Hume of Godscroft’s History of the House of Douglas:

“When he” (Sir William) “heard that William Wallace was risen up, and had taken open banner against the English, he joined with him; by which accession of forces, Wallace’s army was much increased and strengthened. Yet they were not always together; but, according to the occasion, and as opportunity did offer, they did divide their companies, and went to several places, where they hoped to get best advantage of the enemy, and where there needed no great army, but some few companies at once. In these adventures, Lord William recovered from the English the castles of Desdier and Sanquhair.

“The manner of his taking the castle of Sanquhair is said to have been thus:--There was one Anderson that served the castle, and furnished them with wood and fuel, and had daily access to it upon that occasion. The Lord Douglas directs one of his trustiest and stoutest servants to deal with him, or to find some means to betray the castle to him, and to bring him within the gates only.

“Anderson, either persuaded by entreaty, or corrupted with money, gave my Lord’s servant, called Thomas Dickson, his apparel and carriages, who, coming to the castle, was let in by the porter for Anderson. Dickson stabbed the porter, and gave the signal to his Lord, who lay near by with his companions, set open the gates, and received them into the court. They, being entered, killed the captain and the whole of the English garrison, and so remained masters of the place. The captain’s name was Beauford, a kinsman of his own Lady Ferrars, who had oppressed the country that lay near him very insolently. One of the English that had been in the castle, escaping, went to the other garrisons that were in other castles and towns adjacent, and told them what had befallen his fellows, and withal informed them how the castle might be recovered. Whereupon, joining their forces together, they came and besieged it. Lord Douglas, finding himself straitened, and unprovided of necessaries for his defence, did secretly convey his man Dickson out at a postern, or some hidden passage, and sent him to William Wallace for aid. Wallace was then in Lennox, and, hearing of the danger Douglas was in, made all haste he could to come to his relief. The English, having notice of Wallace’s approach, left the siege, and retired towards England; yet not so quickly but that Wallace, accompanied by Sir John Graham, did overtake them, and killed five hundred of their number before they could pass Dalswinton. By these, and such like means, Wallace, with his assistants, having beaten the English from most part of their strengths in Scotland, did commit the care and custody of the whole country, from Drumlanrig to Ayr, to the charge of the Lord Douglas. Now, however, there be no mention of these things in our chronology; yet, seeing the Book of Wallace (which is more particular in many things) speaks of them, and the charter of the house of Symington, descended lineally of the said Thomas Dickson, who, for this and his other like services done to the Lord, and afterward to his good son Sir James, got the twenty merk land of Hesle-side, which his posterity doth still enjoy, holding of the Lords of Douglas and Angus; and there is no doubt to be made, but he hath done much more in his assistance he gave Wallace, than is recorded or extant any where; there being no likelihood that, in these so busy times, these two valiant and brave warriors did lie idle, although the particulars lie buried in deep silence.” The above account is fully confirmed by the manuscript history of the House of Douglas, written by Thomas Chambers, who adds, that “Sir William, before the battle of Falkirk, was betrayed into the hands of the English, and conveyed to Berwick, and from thence to York, where he was keeped close prisoner in the castle until his death, which took place in 1302, and was buried in a little chapel (now decayed) at the south end of the bridge.” The banner of Douglas was “_azure a chiffe sylvir_.”[68]

_Sir Robert Boyd_, or _Boyt_.--This bold and hardy warrior was also one of those who swore fealty to Edward I., when he overran Scotland in 1296; but throwing off his disgraceful allegiance in 1297, he became ever after the inseparable companion of Wallace. His father, in consequence of the gallantry he displayed at the battle of Largs, obtained a grant of lands in Cunningham from Alexander III., and was the near neighbour of Sir Raynald Crawford of Crosby,[69] the uncle of Wallace; the castles of the two families could communicate by signals with each other.

_Kneland_, or _Cleland_, _Edward Little_ and _Thomas Haliday_, all near relatives of Wallace, whose names are frequently mentioned with applause by the authors who write of this period.

_Stephen of Ireland._--This brave and useful soldier, is sometimes called Stephen Ireland; but this is only by modern writers. Blind Harry, and other ancient authors, invariably designate him as _of Ireland_. It is highly probable that he was one of those self-expatriated Irish noblemen, whose love of liberty induced them to seek, in foreign countries, what they could no longer hope for at home. Whatever his birth may have been, he appears to have come to Scotland at an early period, perhaps in the reign of Alexander III., and seems, from his being occasionally employed as a guide in the expeditions of Wallace, to have had such a knowledge of the country, as could only be acquired by a long residence in it. Through all the variety of fortunes which attended Sir William Wallace, and amid the desertions of some of his opulent countrymen, Stephen of Ireland adhered to him with inflexible fidelity, and also induced others of his countrymen to come over to the assistance of the Scots.

_John Blair_ and _Thomas Gray_.--The former of these worthy ecclesiastics has already been mentioned as the schoolfellow of our hero. After quitting Dundee, he went to finish his studies at Paris, where, under the most eminent masters of the day, his progress did not belie the early promise of his genius; and he returned to Scotland a confirmed patriot, and an accomplished scholar. The latter had the pastoral charge of Libertown, yet considered it no dereliction from his duties to attend and assist in the emancipation of his country. Of his literary talents we have reason to form the highest opinion, from the circumstance of John Blair admitting him into the honour of assisting in composing the history of their far-famed friend. This work, though it now goes all under the name of Blair, was then known to have been the joint composition of these worthies. Where Thomas Gray received his education, is a matter of uncertainty; but it is highly probable that he also finished his studies along with his friend at Paris, and returned with him to Scotland; as we hear nothing of him previous to the rencounter with Fenwick. It is not unlikely that, on this occasion, John Blair was installed in his office of chaplain; and that he got this preference from the circumstance of the other being already provided for, as they both appear, from their learning and patriotism, to have been equally deserving of the affection and confidence of their countrymen.

_Alexander Scrimgeor._--This faithful patriot was the representative of an ancient and respectable family in the neighbourhood of Dundee; and as he most probably received his education along with Wallace, he would no doubt have been one of the association already alluded to. He enjoyed, in right of his ancestors, the honour of carrying the banner of Scotland; and for his faithful discharge of this duty, he was afterwards appointed by Wallace to the office of Constable[70] of Dundee; which honour being hereditary, remained in the family till after the restoration of Charles II., when the representative of the family was created Earl of Dundee; on whose death, without immediate issue, the heirs were unjustly deprived of their honours and immunities. The family, however, continues to be represented by the Scrymgeours of Birkhill, now the Wedderburns of that Ilk.--_Stat. Acc._ vol. viii. p. 239.

_Walter Newbigging_, otherwise _Gualter de Somerville_.--This gentleman was of English extraction, and the son of William de Somerville, Baron of Linton, and Margaret Newbigging, heiress of that Ilk, the daughter of Walter Newbigging, which lands he inherited in right of his mother. This accounts for his being called Walter Newbigging, or of Newbigging. His father, William de Somerville, distinguished himself at the battle of Largs, and was a constant attendant at the court of Alexander III., with whom he was in high favour, and held the office of grand falconer, a place at that time of considerable importance. Walter, the subject of our present inquiries, received from his father a _ten merk land_ within the barony of Linton, which enabled him to make an early appearance at court, where his good qualities and noble deportment attracted the notice of Alexander, from whose hand he received the honour of knighthood, and distinguished himself at the tournament held shortly after in honour of the marriage of Prince Alexander with the daughter of the Earl of Flanders, at Roxburgh Castle. While in attendance at court, he formed an acquaintance with Sir David Barclay of Towie, in Aberdeenshire, whose sister Effie, or Euphemia, he afterwards married in 1281; and at Aberdeen, the same year, he entered into a bond of manrent, or manred, as it was sometimes called, with his brother-in-law. These obligations were very common among the gentry of Scotland, and often productive of great disorder in the country. By this marriage he had a son named David, whom he devoted to the cause of his country’s independence, when he himself joined the standard of Wallace. This youth we shall afterwards have occasion to notice. It may not be improper to remark, that Somerville, the author of “The Chase,” was a scion from the English stock of this ancient and respectable family.

_David de Barclay._--Abercromby mentions a Sir Fergus Barclay, as being one of the early adherents of Wallace; but there is reason to believe he is partly in error. Sir David Barclay, as we have already seen, was brother-in-law to Sir Walter Newbigging, with whom he had entered into a bond of manrent, by which they were mutually bound to appear in arms in support of the same cause, provided it was not against the royal prerogative. When we find both the surnames associated together on this occasion, we may reasonably suppose they are the same persons who contracted the obligation, and had thought the present a very proper opportunity for acting upon it.[71]

“_Hugh de Dundas_ was the son of Serle de Dundas, who swore fealty to Edward I. in 1296 and in 1300. His son, Sir Hugh, was a man of singular merit and fortitude, and joined the brave Sir William Wallace in defence of the liberties of Scotland, and embraced every opportunity to exert his courage against the enemies of his country. He died in the reign of King Robert Bruce, and was succeeded by his son.”--_Douglas’s Scottish Baronage._

* * * * *

After the foregoing brief notices of the early companions of Wallace, the curious reader may not be displeased, if, before concluding this chapter, we present some account of the dress and armour in which our hero appeared at the battle of Beg. The following description is from the Minstrel, and is given with a minuteness which induces a belief that it is a literal translation from the work of Blair, so often mentioned;--it is at least of value, not only from its containing the ideas entertained on the subject by a man of no mean genius, upwards of three hundred years ago, but as it also agrees with the description elsewhere handed down of the kind of armour in use at the period:--

“A habergione vndyr his goune he war, A steylle capleyne in his bonet but mar; His glowis of plait in claith war couerit weill, In his doublet a closs coler of steyle; His face he kepit, for it was euir bar, With his twa handis, the quhilk full worthi war.”

_Buke Thryd_, p. 31.

The “_habergione_” was a piece of defensive armour early in use among the Scots, and even worn by some Highlanders and Isles-men so late as the 17th century. It was a sort of chain or ringed mail, extremely light and flexible, allowing the greatest freedom to the motions of the wearer, and was equally well adapted for combat on foot or on horseback. It was variously constructed according to the prevailing taste. The most approved were those brought from Asia by the crusaders, in the early part of the reign of Alexander III. They consisted of four rings joined to a fifth, and all rivetted;--they were sometimes double. Towards the end of the 13th century, this description seems to have been in general use, both in England and Scotland. They had the form of shirts, and were quite impervious to an arrow.

The “_goune_” which the Minstrel alludes to, as covering the “habergione,” we conceive to mean the surcoat, or coat of arms,--a fashion introduced into Britain in the 13th century. It is thus described by Dr Meyrick:--“The surcoat, which had been adopted by the crusaders in the 13th century, to prevent their armour from being heated by the sun’s rays, a mode still continued by the Mamelukes in Egypt, was at first of merely variegated patterns, but soon became embellished with the same armorial bearings as the shield;--hence, the expression ‘coat of arms.’ It was a long loose dress, without sleeves, open before and behind, for the convenience of riding, and girted round the waist by the _cingulum militare_, or belt. It was put on over the hauberk, and reached to the neck; and when the hood was placed on the head, it was covered by it as far as the shoulders. The front and back were emblazoned alike.”

This piece of dress appears to have been the same as the tabard. It is thus taken notice of by Thomas Hearne: “_Tabard_, a jacket, jerkin, mandilion, or sleeveless coat, worne in times past by noblemen in the warrs; but now only by heralds, and is called their coat-of-arms in service.” Verstegan tells us, in his _Restitution of Decayed Intelligence_, “That _tabert_ was anciently a short gown, that reached no further than the mid-leg, that it remaineth for the name of a gown in Germanie and in the Netherlands, and that in England, it is now the name only of _a herald’s coat_.” But what Stowe tells us, in his _Survey of London_, is more remarkable, where, talking of several fair inns in Southwark, he takes occasion to speak of the Tabard Inn as the most ancient of them, and thereupon writes thus: “Amongst the which innes, the most ancient is the Tabard, so called of the signe, which, as wee now term it, is of a jacket, or sleevelesse coate, whole before, open on both sides, with a square collar, winged at the shoulders: a stately garment, of old time commonly worne of noblemen and others, both at home and abroad in the wars; but then (to-wit, in the warres) their armes embroidered, or otherwise depict upon them, that every man by his coate of armes might bee knowne from others: But now these tabards are onely worne by the heralds, and bee called their coates-of-armes in service.” Allusion is also made, by Wyntown, to the tabard of John Baliol, who, on being stript of the ensigns of royalty by his _magnanimous_ conqueror, the “_pelure_” or fur, was also torn from his tabard. The passage is curious:--

“This Jhon the Balliol on purpos He tuk, and browcht hym til Mwnros; And in the castell of that Town, That than wes famows in renown, This Jhon the Ballyol dyspoylyd he Of all hys Robys of Ryaltè. The Pelure thai tuk off hys Tabart, (Twme Tabart he wes callyt eftyrwart.)”

_Wyntown_, vol. ii. p. 88.

The “_steylle capleyne_,” it is very likely, may have been taken from the “_chapelle de fer_,” or “iron hat,” which, the same writer says, had a rim and convex crown, and was worn over the capuchon or hood. “After being placed on the head, it was kept from turning round, when struck, by cords, with which it was fastened to the shoulders. The effigy of Sir Roger de Trompington not only gives its form, but shows that it was sometimes held to the body by means of a chain. It was ornamented in front with a cross fleury, the transverse bar of which was pierced with occularia, or openings for the sight.” That worn by Wallace, however, does not appear to have had this advantage, for

“_His face he kepit, for it was euir bar, With his twa handis._”

The limbs were usually defended at this time, by being encased in boiled leather, on which knee-plates of iron, and guards for the shin-bones, were fixed; these, with a round or triangular shield, painted with the armorial bearings of the wearer, formed the defensive armour of the period.

Wallace’s favourite weapon appears to have been a long and ponderous two-handed sword, which his prodigious strength enabled him to wield with the greatest ease.[72] The mace and spear were also at times used by him; and for close rencounters in castles, peels, and other confined situations, he was furnished with a dagger for each hand, of a particular kind, having guards, which extended above the wrist, between which the hand passed; and grasping a transverse bar about an inch from the spring of the dagger, the weapon projected from the centre of the first, like the horn of an unicorn. This sort of dagger was often attached, by a kind of hinge, to the arm-plate, and could be folded back under the arm between the wrist and the elbow when not in use, and secured and concealed in that position by the cloth gloves, which our hero appears to have worn over his “glowis of plate.”[73]

Having said thus much of the dress and equipment of Wallace, the following anecdote respecting his strength and personal appearance, may not be unacceptable to the reader; it is translated from Hector Boëce by the learned editor of Morrison’s edition of Blind Harry, who thus introduces it. “Though this author (Boëce) in general is not much to be credited, yet it would be hard not to believe him in an instance which happened near his own time, and in which, if he had spoken falsely, he could immediately have been detected. The anecdote in another respect is curious, as it affords an example of longevity, not unsimilar to that of the Irish Countess of Desmond, who attained a still more advanced age.

“The date is the year 1430. At that time, James I. was in Perth; and perhaps having heard _Henry the Minstrel_[74] recite some of Wallace’s exploits, found his curiosity excited to visit a noble lady of great age, who was able to inform him of many ancient matters. She lived in the castle of Kinnoul, on the opposite side of the river, and was probably a widow of one of the Lords of Erskine, a branch of whose family continued to be denominated from the barony of Kinnoul, till about the year 1440. It was Boëce’s manner to relate an event as circumstancially as if he had been one of the parties, and engaged in it; I shall therefore give the anecdote in his own manner, by translating his words:

“‘In consequence of her extreme old age, she had lost her sight, but all her other senses were entire; and her body was yet firm and lively; she had seen William Wallace and Robert Bruce, and frequently told particulars concerning them. The King, who entertained a love and veneration of greatness, resolved to visit the old lady, that he might hear her describe the manners and strength of the two heroes, who were admired in his time, as they now are in our’s. He therefore sent a message, acquainting her that he was to come to her next day. She received the message gratefully, and gave immediate orders to her handmaids to prepare every thing for his reception in the best manner, particularly that they should display her pieces of tapestry, some of which were uncommonly rich and beautiful. All her servants became busily employed, for their work was in some degree unusual, as she had not for a long time been accustomed to receive princely visitors. The next day, when told the King was approaching, she went down into the hall of her castle, dressed with as much elegance and finery as her old age and the fashion of the time would permit; attended by a train of matrons, many of whom were her own descendants, of which number some appeared more altered and disfigured by age than she herself was. One of her matrons having informed her that the king was entering the hall, she arose from her seat, and advanced to meet him so easily and gracefully, that he doubted of her being wholly blind. At his desire she embraced and kissed him. Her attendant assured him that she was wholly blind; but that, from long custom, she had acquired these easy movements. He took her by the hand and sat down, desiring her to sit on the same seat next to him. And then, in a long conference, he interrogated her respecting ancient matters. He was much delighted with her conversation. Among other things, he asked her to tell him what sort of a man William Wallace was? what was his personal figure? what his courage? and with what degree of strength he was endowed? He put the same questions to her concerning Bruce. Robert, she said, was a man beautiful, and of a fine appearance. His strength was so great, that he could easily have overcome any mortal man of his time:--But in so far as he excelled other men, he was excelled by Wallace, both in stature and in bodily strength; for, in wrestling, Wallace could have overcome two such men as Robert was.

“‘The King made some inquiries concerning his own immediate parents, and his other ancestors; and having heard her relate many things, returned to Perth, well pleased with the visit he had made.’” (_Boeth. Hist._ i. xvii.)