Book ix. 1909-1942.

The subjoined extract, from Fordun, fully corroborates the statements from the Minstrel:--

“Erat staturâ procerus, corpore giganteus, facie serenus, vultu jocundus, humeris latus, ossibus grossus, ventre congruus, lateribus protelus, aspectu gratus, sed visu ferus; renibus amplus, brachiis et cruribus vigorosus; pugil acerrimus, et omnibus artubus fortissimus et compactus. Insuper sic eum Altissimus et ipsius vultum varium quâdam hilaritate favorabili insigniverat, ita dicta et facta illius quodam cœlesti dono gratificaverat ut omnia fidorum corda Scotorum solo aspectu sibi conciliaret in gratiam et favorem. Et nec mirum: erat enim in donis liberalissimus, in judiciis æquissimus, in consolatione tristium compatientissimus, in consilio peritissimus, sufferentia patientissimus, in locutione luculentissimus,--super omnia falsitatem et mendacia prosequens, ac proditionem detestans; propter quod fuit Dominus cum eo, per quem erat vir incunctis prosperé agens; ecclesiam venerans, ecclesiasticos reverens, pauperes et viduas sustentans, pupillos et orphanos refovens, oppressos relevans, furibus et raptoribus insidians, et sine pretio super eos, justitiam exercens et rigorem. Cujuscemodi justis operibus, quia quam maximé Deum gratificabót ipse propterea omnia ejus opera dirigebat.”--_Lib._ x. cap. 28.

Q.

REMINISCENCE OF WALLACE.

Page 163.

Among the few speeches of Wallace which we have on record, the following is mentioned by English writers, as having been addressed by him to the Scottish schiltrons, on the eve of the battle of Falkirk:--“I haif brocht you to the ring, hap gif you cun.” Respecting the meaning of these words, however, there is no agreement between Scottish or English writers. Walsingham has it, “I haif brocht you to the King, hop gif you cun;”--on which Lord Hailes very properly remarks:--

“This speech of Wallace has generally been related and explained in a sense very different. I must therefore give my reasons for having departed so widely from the common opinion. _Walsingham_, p. 75, says, ‘Dicens eis patriâ linguâ,--_I haif brocht you to the_ King, _hop gif you cun_.’ This short speech has always appeared to me as utterly inconsistent with the character of Wallace. It is commonly understood to mean, ‘I have brought you to the King, hope if you can hope.’ To say nothing of the impropriety of the appellation of _King_, bestowed by Wallace on Edward, the sentiment, ‘hope, if you can hope,’ seems only fit for the mouth of a coward or a traitor. Abercrombie, perceiving this, has given a more plausible interpretation of the word _hop_. He renders the phrase thus, ‘_Fly_ if you can;’ as if Wallace had meant to say, ‘_Fight_, for you cannot fly.’ There is nothing incongruous in this sentiment; but surely it did not merit to be recorded: Neither was it strictly true; for the Scottish army might have retired with unbroken forces into the forest which lay in the rear. The only satisfactory interpretation of Wallace’s address to his troops, is to be found in _W. Westm._ p. 451, ‘Ecce adduxi vos ad _annulum_ charolate (chorolate) sive tripudiate vos, sicut melius scitis.’ _King_, in Walsingham, ought to be _ring_. The words of Wallace were, ‘I haif brocht you to the ring, hap gif you cun.’ _The ring_ means the dance _à la ronde_. _Douglas_ translates ‘Exercet Diana _choros_,’ Æneid ii., thus, ‘Ledand _ring-dances_,’ p. 28. l. 42. ‘Te lustrare _choros_,’ Æneid vii., thus: ‘To the scho led _ring-sangis_ in karoling,’ p. 220, l. 31. Elsewhere, in his own person, he says, ‘Sum sang _ring-sangis_,’ Prologue, xii. B. p. 402, l. 33. That _hap_ or _hop_ is understood of dancing, is also plain from _Douglas_. He thus paraphrases ‘Hic exultantes Salios,’ Æneid, viii.

‘The dansand Preistis, clepit _Salii_, _Happand_ and singand.’ P. 267, l. 21.

“I need not prove, that ‘gif you cun’ implies ‘if you have skill,’ or, ‘according to your skill.’ The verb is obsolete; but the noun and the adjective are still remembered. ‘Let my right hand forget its _cunning_,’ ‘a _cunning_ artificer,’ ‘a _cunning_ man.’ _Langtoft_, vol. ii. p. 305, as translated by Brunne, reports the words thus: “To the renge ere ye brouht, hop now if ye wille.” But he does not seem to have understood the import of the words.”

The above is all learned enough; but his lordship has stopped short in his explanation, and left his readers as much in the dark, as any of his predecessors, respecting the meaning or propriety of such a phrase in the mouth of a general, on the commencement of a great battle. Some of our readers perhaps require to be told that _schiltron_ means a body of men drawn up in a circle.[105] The war-dance of the Scots and other northern nations, as is well known, was performed round a large fire. Each warrior’s hand was firmly clasped in that of his neighbour. Their motion was at first slow, and gradually increased, till their rapidity almost rivalled the velocity of the whirlwind. When arrived at this state of fury, if any luckless wight slipped his hold, or otherwise became unsteady, the impetus which he and his fellows had acquired, pitched him headlong amid the flames, when his endeavours to extricate himself from the blaze, and regain his place, formed the chief sport of his companions. To render the schiltron the most formidable figure for defensive operations, steadiness was all that was requisite. When Wallace, therefore, on the rapid advance of the English, addressed his soldiers in the manner alluded to, he gave utterance to the happiest thought, in the fewest words, that perhaps ever presented itself to the mind of genius in a case of emergency. The striking similarity between their form of battle and their favourite dance, was apparent to all; and the impending conflict became instantly stript of its terrors, by a playful allusion to an amusement with which they were familiar, while it flashed upon their minds with all the conviction of experience, that on the preservation of their ranks their safety depended. The behaviour of the schiltrons on that fatal day showed that they understood the address of their leader better than any of its subsequent commentators.

R.

WALLACE’S DESCENDANTS.

Page 167.

Wallace appears to have left a daughter, whose legitimacy has been called in question, but on very slender grounds. In Chalmers’s Caledonia, vol. i. p. 579, we find the following passage:--“It has been said that Wallace left no legitimate issue; but he had a natural daughter, who married Sir William Baillie of Hoprig, the progenitor of the Baillies of Lamington.” It has never been disputed, that the lady by whom Wallace had this daughter was the heiress of Lamington, in right of her father, Sir Hew de Bradfute; it would therefore have been satisfactory, if the learned author above mentioned had explained how the Baillies of Hoprig came to the possession of Lamington. If the daughter of Wallace was legitimate their succession appears the natural consequence of the marriage of Sir William Baillie; if not, the manner in which they became possessed of that property requires elucidation. That Wallace and the heiress of Lamington were lawfully married, is asserted by Henry, who draws the following picture of their connubial happiness:--

“Quhat suld I say, Wallace was playnly set To luff hyr best in all this warld so wid; Thinkand he suld off his desyr to get; And so befell be concord in a tid, That sho [was] maid at his commaund to bid; And thus began the styntyn aff this stryff: Begynnyng band, with graith witnes besyd, _Myn auctor sais, sho was his rychtwyss wyff_. Now leiff in pees, now leiff in gud concord! Now leyff in blyss, now leiff in haill plesance! For scho be choss has bath hyr luff and lord. He thinkis als, luft did him hye awance, So ewynly held be favour the ballance, Sen he at will may lap hyr in his armyss. Scho thankit God off hir fre happy chance, For in his tyme he was the flour off armys. Fortoune him schawit hyr fygowrt doubill face, Feyll syss or than he had beyne set abuff: In presoune now, delyuerit now throw grace, Now at vness, now in to rest and ruff; Now weyll at wyll, weyldand his plesand luff, As thocht him selff out off aduersité; Desyring ay his manheid for to pruff, In cairage set apon the stagis hye. The werray treuth I can nocht graithly tell, In to this lyff how lang at thai had beyne: Throuch natural course of generacioune befell, A child was chewyt thir twa luffaris betuene, Quhilk gudly was, a maydyn brycht and schene.”

_Buke Sext_, 41-69.

According to the above authority, the offspring of this marriage was first united in the bands of wedlock to an Esquire of the name of Shaw. Whether this was any connection of William de Shaw, mentioned at page 106, vol. i. of this work, as witnessing the charter of James, Lord High Steward of Scotland, along with some other friends of Wallace, we have no means of ascertaining. We are told, however, that

“Rycht gudly men come off this lady ying.”

Whether these were the issue of the marriage with Shaw, or of that afterwards contracted with Baillie of Hoprig, or of both, it is difficult to determine. It is probable, as Sir William Baillie is designated, of Hoprig, and his descendants as proprietors of Lamington, that they may have succeeded to the inheritance, after the offspring of the first marriage had become extinct. It has also been advanced, as an argument against the legitimacy of the daughter of Wallace, that she inherited none of the property of her father. Those, however, who started this objection, would have done well to have shown, that Wallace possessed property to which she could have succeeded. It does not appear that he was ever personally invested in any of the lands belonging to the family. And mention is made of his brother Malcolm having left a son of the name of John, in whom the succession was prolonged, till it merged in the family of Craigie. In Langtoft’s Chronicle, vol. ii. p. 338, we have an account of the capture and execution of a Sir John de Wallace, who is there called a brother of Sir William. This is evidently a mistake, and might very easily arise from the closeness of the connection between the two parties. Another “John Walays of Elryslà” (Elderslie) is taken notice of as among the witnesses to the charter of Robert, Duke of Albany; and, from the family title being preserved, it is highly probable that the stock of Sir Malcolm Wallace had not then become extinct.

S.

ON THE TREACHERY OF MENTEITH.

Page 169.

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

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

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

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

“In the Leynhouss a quhill he maid repayr; Schyr Jhon Menteth that tym was captane thar.”

B. viii. 1595.

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

“In peess thai duelt, in trubyll that had beyn, And trewbut payit till Ingliss capdanis keyn. Schyr Jhon Menteth the castell had in hand: Bot sum men said, thar was a prewa band Till Sotheroun maid, be menys off that knycht, In thar supplé to be in all his mycht.”

B. ix. 1393.

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

“John de Menteth is designated by Arnold Blair, _immanis proditor_; and the writer proceeds to curse him as if with bell, book, and candle.--_Relations_, p. 8.

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

“Twa monethis still he duelt in Dumbertane; A houss he foundyt apon the roch off stayne; Men left he thar till bygg it to the hycht.”

B. viii. 1599.

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

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

“Fra Gamlis peth the land obeyt him haill, Till Ur wattir, baith strenth, forest, and daill. Agaynis him in _Galloway_ hous was nayne.”

B. vi. 793-5.

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

“It may be added, that Bower expressly asserts that Wallace, ‘suspecting no evil, was fraudulently and treacherously seized _at_ Glasgow by Lord John de Menteth.’ _Scotichron._ xii. 8. Bower again refers to the treacherous conduct of Menteth towards Wallace when afterwards relating a similar plan which he had laid for taking King Robert Bruce prisoner, under pretence of delivering up to him the Castle of Dunbarton, on condition of his receiving a hereditary right to the lieutenancy of the Lennox; v. Lib. xii. c. 16, 17, Vol. ii. 243. These two chapters are not in all the MSS., but are found in those of Cupar, Perth, and Dunblane. Now, Bower was born anno 1385; _Ibid._ ii. 401. The date assigned to the Scotichronicon, as published with his Continuation, is 1447, and that to the Minstrel’s Poem, 1470; v. Pinkerton’s Maitland Poems, Intr. lxxxvi-lxxxix. It is therefore impossible that Bower could have borrowed the account given of Menteth from Blind Harry. Bower was born, indeed, only eighty or eighty-one years after the fact referred to; and, considering the elevation of the character of Wallace, and the great attachment of his countrymen even to this day, as well as the multitude of his enemies, it is totally inconceivable that a whole nation, learned and unlearned, should concur in imputing this crime to one man, _without_ the most valid reasons.

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

A thousand thre hundyr and the fyft yhere Eftyr the byrth of oure Lord dere, Schyre John of Menteth in tha days Tuk in Glasgw Willame Walays, And send hym in-til Ingland swne. Thare wes he quartaryd and wndwne Be dyspyte and hat Inwy: Thare he tholyd this Martyry.

_Cron._ viii. c. 20.

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

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

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

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

‘Sir Jon of Menetest serwed William so nehi, He tok him whan he wend lest, on nyght his leman bi. That was thorght treson of Jak Schort his man, He was the encheson, that Sir Jon so him nam.’ p. 329.

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

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

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

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

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

T.

SINGULAR LEGEND.

Page 169.

This monkish legend Henry has carefully preserved; and as it affords a specimen of the superstition of the age, we shall give it a place for the gratification of the curious among our readers.

“Wyss clerkyss yeit it kepis in remembrans, How that a monk off Bery abbay than, In to that tym a rycht religiouss man; A yong monk als with him in ordour stud, Quhilk knew his lyff was clene, perfyt, and gud. This fadyr monk was wesyd with seknace, Out off the warld as he suld pass on cace, His brothyr saw the spret lykly to pass; A band off him rycht ernystly he coud ass. To cum agayn and schaw him off the meid, At he suld haiff at God for his gud deid. He grantyt him, at his prayer to preiff, To cum agayn, gyff God wald geiff him leiff. The spreyt, changyt out off this warldly payn, In that sammyn hour cum to the monk agayn. Sic thing has beyn, and is be woice and sycht. Quhar he apperyt, thar schawyt sa mekill lycht, Lyk till lawntryns it illumynyt so cler, At warldly lycht thar to mycht be no peyr, A woice said thus:--‘God has me grantyt grace That I sall kep my promess in this place.’ The monk was blyth off this cler fygur fayr; Bot a fyr brand in his forheid he bayr, And than him thocht it myslikyt all the lawe. ‘Quhar art thou spreyt? Ansuer, sa God the sawe.’ ‘In purgatory.’--‘How lang sall thow be thair?’ ‘Bot halff ane hour to com, and litill mair. Purgatory is, I do the weill to wit, In ony place quhar God will it admyt. Ane hour of space I was demed thar to be; And that passis, supposs I spek with the. Quhy has thow that, and all the layff so haill?’ ‘For off science I thocht me maist awaill. Quha prydys tharin, that laubour is in waist, For science cummys bot off the haly Gaist.’ ‘Eftir thi hour, quhar is thi passage ewyn?’ ‘Quhen tym cummys,’ he said, ‘to lestand hewin.’ ‘Quhat tym is that? I pray the now declar.’ ‘Twa ar on lyff mon be befor me thar.’ ‘Quhilk twa ar thai?’ The verité thow may ken, ‘The fyrst has bene a gret slaar of men. Now thai him kep to martyr in London toun On Wednyssday, befors king and commoun. Is nayn on lyff at has sa mony slayn.’ ‘Brodyr,’ he said, ‘that taill is bot in wayn; For slauchtyr is to God abhominabill.’ Than said the spreyt, ‘Forsuth this is no fabill. He is Wallace, defendour off Scotland, For rychtwyss war that he tok apon hand. Thar rychtwysnes is lowyt our the lawe; Tharfor in hewyn he sall that honour hawe. Syn a pure preyst, is mekill to commend; He tuk in thank quhat thing that God him send. For dayly mess, and heryng off confessioun, Hewin he sall haiff to lestand warysoun. I am the thrid, grantyt throw Goddis grace.’ ‘Brothir,’ he said, ‘tell I this in our place, Thai wyll bot deym, I othir dreym or ráwe.’ Than said the spreyt:--‘This wetnes thow sall hawe. Your bellys sall ryng, for ocht at ye do may, Quhen thai hym sla, halff ane hour off that day.’ And so thai did, the monk wyst quhat thaim alyt Throuch braid Bretane, the woice tharoff was scaylyt, The spreyt tuk leyff at Goddis will to be, Off Wallace end to her it is peté; And I wald nocht put men in gret dolour, Bot lychtly pass atour his fatell hour.”