THE immediate outcome of the victory of Stirling
Bridge was the clearance of the English out of the realm of Scotland. At the
same time, the success gave no measure of the relative strength of the two
countries, now fully transformed from friendly neighbours into bitter
enemies. It in no way diminishes the glory of Wallace to recognise the
accidental weakness of the English at Stirling—the illness of Warenne, the
headstrong folly of Cressingham, and the absence of Edward in Flanders.
Wallace, on the other hand, had also his own disadvantages in men and means,
owing especially to the fatal operation of the feudal machinery of society.
He was grievously weakened by the absence of adherents of hereditary name
and territorial importance; and yet the presence of such adherents was soon
destined to paralyse his efforts. Whatever the difficulties of
Edward—foreign expeditions, vexatious claims of intractable barons, or lack
of ready money—he could always in the last resort raise a large army of
veteran troops, against which the raw levies of Wallace could not possibly
hold a plain field. But then Wallace had the courage never to submit or
yield. The military determination of such a conflict could not lie in a
single decisive battle; it could be reached only through long years of
desultory and embittered warfare. Yet the victory of Stirling was
all-important to the Scots, in demonstrating that even the mighty armies of
England might be disastrously overthrown, and that Scotland might, after
all, succeed in throwing off the intolerable yoke of foreign domination. It
was a star of hope.
There can
be little doubt as to the course taken by the Scots leaders after the
expulsion of the English. They summoned a council or convention at St.
Johnston. At this council they elected William Wallace and Andrew de Moray
'generals of the army of Scotland,' with full civil powers as well, in the
name of King John. By the victory of Stirling, Wallace stood forth the
foremost man in Scotland. He had held the leadership, and he had proved
himself worthy. But while his deserts were beyond cavil, there was a natural
reluctance on the part of the barons to serve under such a 'new man'; and,
to obviate this difficulty, it was necessary, or at least desirable, to join
with him in command a representative of the baronage. The choice of Andrew
de Moray was no doubt suggested by his conspicuous services, especially his
recent action in Moray, and his conduct at the bridge. Baronial
considerations may also explain the official precedence of Moray's name.
Some of the chroniclers say that Sir Andrew de Moray, his father, fell at
Stirling; but Sir Andrew was lying safe in the Tower of London. The report
of an inquisition at Berwick in 1300 incidentally mentions that it was
Andrew de Moray himself that fell at Stirling, but this must be a blunder.
The fallen Moray must have been some other member of the brave and prolific
family of Morays.
For all
practical purposes, at any rate, the interests of the country were in the
keeping of Wallace, and he undoubtedly proceeded to establish order with a
firm hand and with unflagging energy. One of the most powerful of the Scots
nobles, Patrick Earl of March, did not appear to the summons to council. The
general feeling, Harry tells us, ran in favour of proceeding against him
without delay. Wallace, however, deprecated such brusqueness of action, and
induced the Council to despatch a special invitation to the Earl, urging him
to come and take his proper place in the counsels of his countrymen.
Patrick, however, returned an insulting answer, contemptuously pointed at
Wallace, whom he called a 'King of Kyle'; implying thereby much what
Langtoft means when he calls Wallace a 'master of thieves'; for Kyle
signifies 'forest,' as well as designates the district of Wallace's birth.
Thereupon Wallace at once went against him, defeated him in a hard fight
near Dunbar, and took his castle, Patrick himself escaping into England.
Even after the expedition into England, which was no doubt now resolved
upon, had reached Berwick, Wallace, it is said, on learning that certain
recalcitrants as far north as Aberdeen ignored the summons to render aid,
left Moray in charge and proceeded at once to the spot, where he promptly
hanged such as failed to furnish a good excuse. Wallace appears to have
carried out consistently the rule of driving furth of Scotland every
Englishman, layman or ecclesiastic; unless exception must be made of the
garrison of Roxburgh. Scotland for the Scots! On the death of Fraser, he had
William de Lamberton appointed Bishop of St. Andrews, defeating the
opposition of William Comyn, brother of the Earl of Buchan.
The military situation was but a temporary respite,
and required instant preparation for both attack and defence. The condition
of the country was lamentable. The land south of Forth had been denuded of
everything likely to afford subsistence to the invaders; and what the Scots
had not drawn off had been eaten up or destroyed by the English troops.
Throughout Scotland there was severe scarcity, if not actual famine, with
pestilence in its track. In view of relieving the pressure at home, and of
adding to the supplies from the plenty of the northern counties of England,
as well as of heartening his men and people by striking a counterblow to the
enemy in their own territory, Wallace—or the Council— projected a strong
foray across the border. For that enterprise, however, it was necessary to
make adequate preparations.
Wallace appears to have not rested content with marshalling afresh his
Stirling forces, with the later recruits that flocked to his standard. He is
stated to have now made a deliberate attack upon the feudal vassalage, which
hampered him so menacingly. He is said to have divided the country into
military districts, establishing district muster-rolls of all persons
between sixteen and sixty, capable of bearing arms. Over every four men he
appointed a fifth; over every nine, a tenth; over every nineteen, a
twentieth; and so on upwards. A gibbet frowning over every parish enforced
respect to the conscription; examples were not wanting. The barons were
threatened with imprisonment or confiscation in case they offered any
obstacle to the incorporation of their vassals in the army of liberation.
The particular process outlined by the later historian Bower may be no more
than his own interpretation of facts he little understood; but there need be
no hesitation in believing that Wallace at this time made some strenuous
effort of reorganisation, directed to blunting the force of feudal
influences, as well as to rendering his army both, more flexible and more
efficient.
At the same time
it is certain that his mind was much occupied in devising means of
alleviation of the internal distress occasioned by the prolonged inflictions
of foreign invasion and foreign occupation. The trading activity of the
seaports, animated by settlers from the Continent, notably by enterprising
Flemings, had permeated and vivified the whole country; but the wars had
seriously checked the streams of business across the North Sea, as well as
the inland trade and industry. That Wallace took energetic measures of
amelioration has been happily placed beyond question by Lappenberg's
discovery (1829) of a most significant letter still extant in the archives
of the city of Lubeck. This letter, which is in Latin, may be rendered thus:
'Andrew de Moray and William Wallace, the Generals of
the army of the realm of Scotland, and the Community of the same realm, to
the prudent and discreet men and well-beloved friends, the Mayors and
Commons of Lubeck and Hamburg, greeting, and increase ever of sincere
friendship.
'We have learned
from trustworthy merchants of the said realm of Scotland that you, of your
own goodwill, lend your counsel, aid, and favour in all matters and
transactions touching us and the said merchants, although we on our part
have previously done nothing to deserve such good offices; and all the more
on that account are we bound to tender you our thanks and to make a worthy
return. To do so we willingly engage ourselves to you, requesting that you
will make it known among your merchants that they can have safe access to
all the ports of the realm of Scotland with their merchandise; for the realm
of Scotland, thank God, has been recovered by war from the power of the
English. Farewell.
'Given at
Hadsington (Haddington), in Scotland on October ii, in the year of Grace
1297.
'We further request you
to have the goodness to forward the business of John Burnet and John Frere,
merchants of ours, as you would wish us to forward the business of merchants
of yours. Farewell. Given as above.'
Moray and Wallace, it is to be noted, designate
themselves 'the Generals,' and join with themselves 'the Community' of
Scotland. They are Joint-Guardians in effect, though not in official name.
The Scots army mustered on Roslin Moor. As it
approached the border, the English settlers in Roxburgh and Berwick mostly
fled into Northumberland, whence the Northumbrians themselves were fleeing
to the protection of Newcastle. Towards the end of October, the Scots
streamed into England, and ravaged Northumberland at will, molested only in
its fringes by occasional and trifling sallies from strongholds like Alnwick
Castle. Here they derived effective assistance from the local knowledge and
strong arm of Sir Robert de Ros of Wark; and they apparently made Rothbury
Forest a rallying ground. They next directed their march to Carlisle; but
Carlisle, like Alnwick, was too strongly fortified to yield to besiegers
unprovided with 'engines.' We have the Bishop's word for it, however, that
they wasted the country for some thirty leagues around; and the chroniclers
tell us how they traversed Englewood Forest and Allerdale with fire and
sword, penetrating as far as to the Derwent at Cockermouth. Crossing country
again from Cumberland, with designs on the bishopric of Durham, they were
repelled by a timely storm—hail, snow, and hard frost—invoked by St.
Cuthbert. Many of them, Hemingburgh affirms, perished from hunger and cold.
Thereupon they fell back on Hexham.
At Hexham Priory, which Comyn's expedition had left in
ruins some eighteen months before, the Scots found only three canons, who
had valorously ventured to return. These now took refuge in their oratory,
which they had newly erected in the midst of the desolation, there to die,
should such be the will of God, in the odour of holiness. 'Show us the
treasury of your church,' roared the marauders, brandishing their spears,
'or you shall instantly die.' 'It is no long time,' stoutly replied one of
the canons, 'since you and your people carried off pretty well everything we
possessed, and what you have done with it you know best yourselves. Since
then, we have got together but a few things, as you now see.' At this
moment, Wallace himself opportunely entered, and, ordering his men to fall
back, requested that one of the canons would celebrate mass. On the
elevation of the Host, Wallace went out to lay aside his arms, and, when the
celebrant was about to receive the sacred elements, the Scots crowded up to
him, with the intention of snatching away the chalice. He retired into the
sacristy to wash his hands. Then the rapacity of the soldiers broke loose.
They seized the chalice from the altar, where the canon had left it in
unsuspecting confidence, the napkins, the altar ornaments, and the very mass
book the canon had been using. Wallace, on his return, found the canon in
bewildered consternation, and instantly ordered the culprits to be sought
for and beheaded. They were not found, says the historian ruefully, for the
seeking was without intention of finding. Wallace, however, took the canons
under his immediate protection, warning them to keep close to his person,
for his men were full of mischief, and little amenable either to law or to
punishment. This story, Canon Raine thinks, 'was probably told to the
historian by his brother canon, William de Hexham, who migrated from the
north to Leicester in 1321.' Knighton of Leicester, however, copied or
adapted the story from Hemingburgh; but Hemingburgh himself may have got it
at Guisborough in Yorkshire in some such direct way. It forms a very
striking episode, and it fits in perfectly with Wallace's grant of two
charters—one of protection and one of safe-conduct—to the Prior and convent.
The violence of the soldiery of the time, Scots or
English, is a fact, demanding such blame or palliation as may be fairly
evoked by the circumstances of each case. The specific protections now
issued by Wallace, as certified by Hemingburgh, himself an English
chronicler, constitute a conspicuous and irrefragable testimony to the
hero's humanity. Did Wallace's conduct touch the old chronicler himself? At
this story he drops his usual epithet for Wallace—'that notorious bandit' (ille
lairo). We refrain from pressing the obvious contrasts to Wallace's
considerate action. The charter of protection to the Prior and convent of
Hexham may be rendered thus:
'Andrew de Moray and William Wallace, Generals of the army of Scotland, in
the name of the renowned Prince Lord John, by the grace of God, the
illustrious King of Scotland, with the consent of the Community of the same
realm, to all men of the said realm to whom the present writing shall come,
greeting,—
'Know that we, in
the name of the said King, have duly taken the Prior and convent of Hexham
in Northumberland, their lands, their men, and the whole of their
possessions, including all their goods, movable and immovable, under the
firm peace and protection of the said Lord King and of ourselves. Wherefore
we strictly forbid that any one presume to do them any evil, annoyance,
injury, or offence in their persons, lands, or goods, under penalty of
forfeiture of all the offender's property to the said Lord King, or to put
them, or any one of them, to death, under penalty of loss of life and limbs.
These presents to remain in force for one year and no longer.
'Given at Hexham, November 7.'
A letter of safe-conduct was at the same time granted
in the following terms:-
'Andrew de Moray and William Wallace . . . (as before).
'Know that we have received one canon of Hexham, with
his squire and two attendants, to the safe and secure conduct of our King
and of ourselves, to enable them to come to us wherever we may be, whenever
it shall be necessary and expedient for the said house. And therefore, in
the name of the said Lord King, we order and strictly enjoin you, all and
every, that, when any canon of the said house, with the squire aforesaid and
his attendants, shall come to you with the object of coming to us, bearing
the present letter, you conduct them to us under safe charge, in such manner
that no one shall molest them in their persons or in their belongings in any
respect, under penalty of forfeiture of all the offender's property to the
King, or shall put them or any of them to death, under penalty of loss of
life and limbs. These presents to remain force during our pleasure.'
Moray and Wallace are still 'the Generals of the army
of Scotland,' but now it is further stated that they are acting in the name
of King John. The deposition of John is defiantly ignored. It has been
supposed that between October 11 and November 7, John had sent them a
commission authorising them to act under his sanction. This is not
impossible; but the step would have involved extreme risk of personal danger
to himself, however it might have strengthened the official influence of the
Generals. It seems too hazardous to conjecture that the fresh expression
implies a fresh sanction, obtained in such circumstances. One had rather
regard it as simply a fuller statement of the view that the Generals now, if
not all along, held as to the nature of their position. There seems little
reason, however, to doubt that the Council had from the first resolved that
all official acts should be in the name of King John.
Having spent two days at Hexham, the expedition headed
for Newcastle, burning Ritton on the way. The garrison of Newcastle showed
fight, and the garrison of Durham also; otherwise there was no opposition.
The Scots had no means to enter upon an effective siege, and accordingly
they wasted no efforts upon an attempt. They recrossed the border about
Christmas, having worked their will in the three northern counties for the
best of two months.
The
narratives of the inroad are, perhaps unavoidably, somewhat confused. The
movements of the Scots seem to have been exceedingly rapid; they may, not
improbably, have come and gone in relays, keeping temporary headquarters in
Rothbury Forest; and it may be that the incidents are not all treated in
their right order. But the general account of a comprehensive ravage of the
three northern counties from Tweed to Tyne and Derwent, during November and
December, is solid fact. The effects of the visitation may be partly
gathered from Hemingburgh's narrative. 'During that time,' he says, 'the
praise of God ceased in all the monasteries and churches of the whole
province from Newcastle-upon- Tyne to Carlisle; for all the monks, canons
regular, and other priests, servants of the Lord, had fled, with (one may
say) the whole of the common folk, from the face of the Scots.' We cannot
attend Harry on his rambles to two sieges of York and a descent upon St.
Albans (to say nothing of the Queen's embassy) much less can we go with
Boece as far as Kent—which his editor, however, boldly converts into 'Tyne.'
About the same time, Sir Robert de Clifford, the
Warden of the Western Marches, had executed a diversion by way of reprisal.
He sallied from Carlisle with ioo men-at-arms and (says Hemingburgh) 20,000
chosen foot soldiers, crossed the Solway, and ravaged Annandale with fire
and sword, carrying back considerable booty. The raiders returned to
Carlisle on Christmas Eve. Probably Clifford had in fact no great force at
command, even if the levies ordered for him in Lancashire in the middle of
November had by this time joined him. Towards the end of February he made a
like foray, and burnt the town of Annan, but apparently this was a less
forcible effort than the raid of December.
Meantime extensive preparations had been in progress
in England for a fresh expedition against the Scots. Edward was still in
Flanders. After Stirling Bridge, Warenne had gone to consult with Prince
Edward at York. On September 24, the northern barons, who had been summoned
to join the Prince in London, were directed to join Warenne; and Clifford
and Fitz Alan were instructed to act in concert with him. On October 23,
Ormsby received orders to raise levies numbering over 35,000 men. On October
26, it was ordered that provisions and stores should be forwarded from all
the eastern seaboard, by sea and land, to Holy Island or Newcastle. On
December 10, an order was issued for levies to be raised in Wales, and to be
ready at Durham or Newcastle by January 28 at the latest. On the same day
Warenne was formally appointed to the command. The available strength of
England was to be hurled against Scotland.
The main body of the English army was to assemble at
York on January 20. On the 14th a parliament was held. The English magnates
attended in great force, and their goodwill was conciliated by a
confirmation of Magna Carta (with certain additional concessions) and of the
Forest Charter, sent by Edward from Flanders. The Scots nobles that had been
summoned 'neither came nor sent.' Warenne proceeded to Newcastle. There, on
January 28, Hemingburgh says, he marshalled 2000 armed horse, over 1200
unarmed horse, and more than 100,000 foot, including the Welsh contingent;
and the army was steadily augmented as it advanced. Warenne relieved
Roxburgh and recovered Berwick, the Scots having retired before his
overwhelming force. There, however, his expedition was stayed by a despatch
from Edward, announcing the conclusion of peace with France, and directing
Warenne to hold Berwick, but not to undertake any enterprise of importance
till he himself should arrive. Warenne therefore temporarily disbanded his
army, retaining with him in Berwick 100 armed horse and some 20,000 foot
from Wales and from the remoter parts of England.
The retreat of the English before the Scots at Stan-
more is very differently related by Scots and English historians; and the
Scots writers are undoubtedly wrong in stating that Edward himself was
present. It can be readily explained by the orders to Warenne; and, in any
case, it is of no importance. Plainly the Scots were unable to hold the open
field. How Wallace was engaged immediately after the retreat from Roxburgh,
where he is said to have been personally in command, we do not know. It
seems probable that, amidst all his concern for the military situation, he
was not neglecting the internal reorganisation of the country. Under date
March 29, 1298, he granted to Alexander Scrymgeour the hereditary
Constableship of Dundee 'for his faithful service and aid in bearing the
Royal Banner in the army of Scotland,' a service he was then actually
performing. The charter bears to be granted by 'Sir William Wallace,
Guardian of the realm of Scotland and leader of the armies of that realm, in
the name of the renowned Prince Lord John, by the Grace of God, the
illustrious King of Scotland, with the consent of the community of the said
realm.' In the body of the document the grant is stated to be made 'by the
consent and approbation of the magnates of the said realm.' 'The common seal
of the aforesaid realm of Scotland' is stated to be impressed on the
charter, and the seal of John is attached. The place of grant is Torphichen.
Andrew de Moray is no more in joint authority—very
likely he had died; and Wallace is officially designated 'Guardian of the
realm of Scotland.' He may, as is usually said, have been elected in the
Forest of Selkirk —a very wide place in those days; and the immediate reason
may possibly have been the expediency of an undivided authority in the face
of an overwhelming army of invasion. Lord Hailes says he 'assumed' the
title; but if this means that Wallace adopted the title without having it
conferred on him, the suggestion is wholly improbable. It is interesting to
know that on December 5, 1303 (?1300) Bruce, as one of the Guardians,
recognised and enforced this charter.
It is a point of small importance when or by whom, if
ever, Wallace was formally knighted. But since it has been made an occasion
for carping at Wallace, we may cite an English political song in default of
better authority. Philip of France, in a letter quoted on a subsequent page,
styles him nil/es, but the objectors say that may mean simply 'soldier.' The
song says—
That is to say: - 'Now return to Scotland the
malignant people; and to William is given the knightly pledge—knighthood:
from a robber he becomes a knight, as from a raven a swan; the unworthy
takes the seat, when there is none worthy by.' Thanks to the 'malignant'
poet. The writer of the Cottonian MS., referring to this song, states that
it was one of the foremost Scots earls that girded Wallace with the belt of
knighthood; but he places the date just before, not after, the foray into
England.
Edward landed at
Sandwich on March 14, and lost no time in pushing forward the Scottish
expedition. He accommodated his nobles with a promise of reconfirmation of
the charters, the York confirmation not having been made in England. Fresh
orders were issued for provisions, the Carlisle depot to be specially
supplied from Ireland. A parliament was held at York on May 25, the place
and date originally fixed for the muster. Again, it is stated, the Scots
nobles summoned 'neither came nor sent.' On May 27, Edward issued orders to
the sheriffs to have their men up at Roxburgh by June 23; and next day he
appointed Earl Patrick Captain of Berwick Castle. Meantime he sought
inspiration at the shrines of St. John of Beverley and of two other less
famous saints. On reaching Roxburgh, he found his army ready to march.
According to Hemingburgh, there were 3000 armed horse, 4000 unarmed horse,
and So,000 foot, consisting largely of Welsh and Irish. At the head of this
immense force, Edward advanced to Kirkliston.
By this time Sir Aymer de Valence and Sir John Siward,
who had sailed direct from Flanders, had landed in Fife. Wallace found them
in the Forest of Blackearnside, and defeated them severely on June 12. He is
said to have lost Sir Duncan Balfour, Sheriff of Fife, and perhaps Sir
Christopher Seton, while Sir John the Graham was badly wounded. This is one
of Blind Harry's great fights. One would much like to have certain authority
for his statement that Wallace, in a respite from actual fighting in the
heat of the day instead of taking much needed rest, carried water in a
helmet from a neighbouring brook for the relief of his wounded men. We
should not hesitate to accept it, on a general impression of the character
and temperament of the Guardian. Having reasserted his authority in Fife,
Wallace drew south again to keep the English army under observation.
The English army lay at Kirkliston. Edward had
suffered much annoyance from parties sallying on the fringes of his army
from Dirleton and two other castles and he had sent the Bishop of Durham to
reduce them. The Bishop found his task by no means an easy one. He was not
well furnished either with provisions or with engines, and the garrison of
Dirleton fought him manfully. He sent a messenger to Edward, a truculent
soldier, Sir John Fitz Marmaduke. With a sub- humorous reply to Antony,
Edward is said by Hemingburgh to have thus instructed Fitz Marmaduke: 'You
are a relentless soldier, Marmaduke. I have often had to reprove you for too
cruel exultation over the death of your enemies. But return now whence you
came, and be as relentless as you choose—you will deserve my thanks, not my
censure. But look you do not see my face again till these three castles are
razed to the ground.' The three castles were soon taken and burnt down.
Still Edward waited anxiously for his provision ships
from Berwick, which had been long detained by contrary winds. There was
little to be got from the country around, for the Scots had adopted the
usual tactics and cleared the land before the approach of the enemy. The
army began to feel the sharp pinch of hunger. The Scots, perfectly aware of
the plight of the English, were keeping close in touch with them, ready to
harass the anticipated retreat. At last some provisions arrived, including
200 casks of wine, which Edward did not hesitate to distribute freely. Two
of the casks, it is stated, went to the Welsh, who had broken down greatly,
many of them having died. Some of the Welshmen incontinently got drunk,
raised a quarrel with some of the English, and eventually developed an
affray, killing eighteen English ecclesiastics, possibly peacemakers, and
wounding many more. A party of English horse, excited by the disturbance,
charged upon the Welsh, and killed eighty of them, the rest taking to
flight. If, as Hemingburgh says, there were 40,000 Welsh—or even, as another
writer says, io,000—the two casks look like a niggardly proportion,
monopolised by a few. The whole of the Welsh contingent stood aloof in deep
dudgeon, and it was believed in the English camp that they would go over to
the Scots, unless some steps were taken to mollify their resentment. Edward,
relying no doubt on his mounted troops, treated the camp rumours with
contempt: 'What matter if enemies join with enemies? Let them go where they
please; we will beat the Scots and them too.' But still the gripe of hunger
tightened upon his men, and it must have been a cruel moment for him when at
last he gave the order to prepare to retire upon Edinburgh.
Suddenly, however, the order was reversed, much to the
astonishment of the uninstructed camp. Early in the morning of July 21, the
King had learned that the Scots army was but a few leagues off, near
Falkirk, in the Forest. He at once put his men under arms, and moved
steadily forward to seek the enemy. That night the English encamped some way
east of Linlithgow, lying on their arms in the fields. The horses had
nothing to eat—'nothing but hard iron,' and were kept in readiness beside
their riders. On this occasion Edward himself met with an awkward accident,
attributed to a page's lack of care. His destrier trampled on him as he lay
asleep, says Hemingburgh; and, as news of his hurt passed through the army,
there arose shouts of treason and exclamations that the enemy were on them.
According to Rishanger, there broke out a terrible uproar in the camp at
daybreak, under the impression that the enemy were at hand; and the King's
steed, catching the excitement, threw him as he mounted, and kicked him in
the side, breaking two ribs. Both accounts testify to a lively sense of
insecurity in the English camp. Edward, with the stoical firmness of a
veteran, mounted another horse, and advanced with his army.
As day broke on July 22, Edward passed Linlithgow.
With the growing light, he discovered the Scots posted on an opposite
eminence, in preparation for battle. Wallace now lacked the natural strength
of the slopes of the Abbey Craig, but he again signalised his military
ability by a masterly disposition of his troops—masterly, yet desperately
daring. The real strength of the Scots cannot be even approximately
estimated but though one English chronicler mentions that prisoners said
there were 300,000 foot, and another English scribe numbers them at over
200,000, and yet another imaginative English annalist says ioo,000 of them
were slain, it is extremely unlikely that they approached the numbers of the
English. Be this as it may, Wallace threw the whole of his infantry in
front, disposing them in four circular bodies or schiltrons, exactly
analogous to the modern square to receive cavalry, the front rank sitting on
their heels, the next ranks successively rising, and all presenting to the
foe an oblique 'wood of spears.' The intermediate spaces were occupied by
the archers, under the command of Sir John Stewart of Bonkill, the Steward's
brother. The cavalry were placed in the rear: even the English chroniclers
do not number these higher than i000. The front of the position was
protected by a morass—a peat moss, or turf bog; and it was further
strengthened by a stockade, consisting of long stakes firmly driven into the
ground and connected securely by ropes. On the military theory of the day,
which laid all stress on ironclad horse and relegated footmen to
contemptuous subordination, the Scots were hopelessly inferior. It may
safely be said that no competent living general, except Wallace, would have
dared to meet Edward in the open field on such terms; and it seems all but
certain that even Wallace would not have dared it otherwise than as a
desperate alternative to an impossible retreat. The dispositions completed,
Wallace is said to have addressed his first line in one of his crisp, gay,
and homely speeches: 'I have brought you to the ring: hop (dance) if you
can.' The remark glows with the joy of battle, and thrills with the
general's confidence in the prowess of his men.
On the English side, there is no record of the
dispositions of the infantry—a comparatively unconsidered quantity. The
cavalry was massed in two main divisions: the first under the Earl Marshal,
and the Earls of Hereford and Lincoln; the second under the warlike Bishop
of Durham and Sir Ralph Basset of Drayton. The rest of the army, horse and
foot, was immediately under the King himself.
Edward opened the attack by ordering the Welsh to
advance, no doubt making a preliminary trial of their temper. The Welsh,
however, 'from the inveterate hatred they bore the King' (says Rishanger),
declined to move; possibly with an idea of joining eventually the side that
should prove victorious. Edward accordingly gave the signal to the first
cavalry division. The Earl Marshal rode straight ahead, ignorant of the peat
bog in front; but, after a little embarrassment, he led his men round the
west side, and dashed upon the Scots right. The Bishop was before him,
however; having known of the bog, and led his men round the east end, he had
already struck the left of the foremost Scots schiltrons. The hedge of
stakes had gone down with a crash. The Scots cavalry, witnessing the
combined shock of the English horsemen, incontinently fled without striking
a blow—all except a few, who had been specially detailed to head the
schiltrons. The bowmen were the next to fail, though not with dishonour.
Their commander, Sir John Stewart, fell from his horse, while directing the
operations of the Selkirk Forest contingent, and was killed in the thickest
of the onset. His men—fine tall men, says Hemingburgh - bravely, though
vainly, formed around him, and fell by his side. The spearmen of the
schiltrons, however,
'still
made good Their dark impenetrable wood,
Each stepping where his comrade stood, The instant
that he fell.'
The defence
was undoubtedly magnificent. The cavalry could neither break up the circles
nor ride them down, and many a saddle was stoutly emptied. At last a large
body of infantry was brought up, armed partly with arrows, partly with
stones, which grievously harassed the Scots, and eventually disorganised the
front-line. The moment the edge of the schiltron showed a gap, the cavalry
dashed in, and the battle was converted into a massacre.
The Scots losses must have been very heavy: one
annalist runs them up to 'about' ioo,000—'like snow in winter'-'the living
could not bury the dead'; Hemingburgh is content with 50,000 foot slain,
besides some 30 horsemen, and an unknown number drowned. Sir John Stewart
and his men of Bute, and Macduff and his men of Fife, died where they stood.
Sir John the Graham is also said to have fallen: Wallace's lament over his
dead body forms one of the finest passages in Harry's poem. The most
distinctive loss on the English side was Sir Brian le Jay, the Master of the
Templars in England. The English loss in common folk cannot even be guessed
at: one patriotic scribe places it at 'about 30 foot.' The romance of this
history is no monopoly of poor old Harry's.
Lord Hailes remarks on 'the fatal precipitancy of the
Scots.' 'If,' he says, 'they had studied to protract the campaign, instead
of hazarding a general action at Falkirk, they would have foiled the whole
power of Edward, and reduced him to the necessity of an inglorious retreat.'
But there surely can be no question that this was the very policy of
Wallace, now as ever; and we have seen how very near Edward was to a retreat
upon Edinburgh, which must soon have been extended to a retreat into
England. If this be so, the real question is, Why did the policy fail? The
Scots were, of course, keeping as close to the English as was consistent
with safety, in order to take advantage of the opportunities offered by a
retreat necessitated by hunger. Were they suddenly caught, so as to be
unable to retire without excessive danger? The greater probability seems to
be that they were ; for it is inconsistent with Wallace's stern assertion of
authority to believe that he would have yielded his better judgment to the
urgency even of the Steward and Comyn. How came it about, then, that a
general of Wallace's discretion, vigilance, and personal activity allowed
himself to be caught?
The
Scots chroniclers tell of grave and heated dissension among the Scots
captains. Comyn is said to have worked on the pride of the Steward so as to
induce him to claim to lead the van. We can quite believe that Wallace, on
hearing this claim offensively urged, 'burnt as fire,' as Harry says he did.
It was not, as Hailes jeeringly misrepresents, a question of 'the punctilio
of leading the van of an army which stood on the defensive.' The claim was
simply an insolent usurpation of the plain function of the Guardian of
Scotland—a claim, too, preferred by a noble whose conduct had aggravated
Wallace's difficulties in making a Scots Guardian of Scotland so much as a
possibility. Wallace's resentment was most just and proper the absence of it
would have been contemptible pusilIanimity;, and it is impossible to doubt
that Wallace would sooner have died on the spot, at the hands of the English
or otherwise, than have submitted for a moment to any such pretension on the
part of any man living, Balliol alone excepted. Nor is it at all in
consonance with one's conception of the character of Wallace, that he would,
as Harry says he did, have stood apart, under the constraint of a heated
vow, and let the Steward be borne down by the enemy: such a representation
is no less degrading than preposterous. Boece is no authority, indeed, but
it is interesting to remark that he explicitly denies Harry's version, and
says Wallace fought and was.unable to help the Steward as a far more
probable story. Whatever dissensions there may have been—and it is far from
improbable that baronial pride did give rise even to violent dissensions -
still such dissensions would, as Hailes remarks, have had no 'influence on
their conduct in the day of battle.' But the proposition must be guarded by
a proviso neglected by Hailes; and that essential proviso is, that all the
men were honest patriots. For the moment, there need be no question as to
the temporary patriotism of the Steward.
It is different with Comyn. Comyn is believed, almost
with certainty, to have commanded the cavalry, and the cavalry fled at mere
sight of the first shock on the schiltrons, without striking a blow, or even
with Basset, and what was to happen to the foot circles. Bruce thinks the
truth of the matter is this: Baliol, 'one cavalry, seeing that they were
greatly outnumber the English cavalry, and far less effectively equipped
were intimidated and fled. But they knew all that before. Even if they had
remained on the field, Hailes thinks, though they might have preserved their
honour, they never could have turned the chance of the day. It was natural,
he adds, for such of the infantry as survived to impute their disaster to
the defection of the cavalry; a natural pride would ascribe their flight to
treachery rather than to pusillanimity. Well, the readiness to invoke
treachery as an explanation of such reverses is very familiar; but it does
not follow that it is always untrue. It is impossible, however, to impute
cowardice to Comyn personally; nor does Hailes do so. But it is equally
impossible to impute cowardice, without proof, to Comyn's men, any more than
to the humbler men of the schiltrons. This, however, is what Hailes quietly
postulates; for he says the commander must follow his men, as Warenne did
from Stirling Bridge, though he forgets that Warenne did not budge till it
was plain to everybody that the day was disastrously lost. Comyn could not
have been unaware of Wallace's expectations from the schiltrons, based on
tried experience in many another, if smaller, combat. Whether or not his
active assistance would have turned the day, is beyond positive decision;
but the stubborn resistance of the schiltrons shows that an additional force
of 1000 horse would have proved very materially helpful. In any case, the
very least Comyn could have done would have been to attempt to break the
force of the attack on the schiltrons, and when the schiltrons were finally
broken, to have protected the rear of the retreat, as no doubt Wallace
himself did with a body of his devoted lieutenants. Pusillanimity is no
appropriate name for such glaring misconduct as Comyn's.
Hailes finds ample exculpation of Comyn in the fact
that he was presently chosen one of the Guardians, in succession to Wallace.
It is said that Sir John general of Wallacie Guardian on Wallace's
resignation, activity allowed hn de Soulis was associated with Comyn The
Scots If so, who elected Comyn? And was sion amc.illanimity' at Falkirk a
recommendation? We woriw the nature of the next election, at Peebles, on
August 19, 1299, when the assembly was a scene of violence, and the
Guardians practically elected themselves by way of temporary accommodation
of their warring ambitions.
The election of Comyn, now or subsequently, does not in the smallest degree
'indicate that the charge of treachery is of later concoction.' The positive
and strong assertions of the Scots chroniclers are not to be so lightly set
aside. One does not expect an English chronicler to mar the glory of the
English King by any mention of extraneous aid of such a quality. Yet
Hemingburgh remarks a fact that is at any rate very suggestive. He says it
was Earl Patrick and the Earl of Angus that brought the news of the Scots
position to Bishop Bek, and then the three introduced a youth to tell the
King the information he was supposed to have spied out. Earl Patrick and the
Earl of Angus were nearly related to Comyn; and the Comyn envy of Wallace
was undoubtedly intense and bitter. Yet Comyn did not go over to Edward; on
the contrary, he was presently made a Guardian of Scotland. Did Comyn scheme
to get rid of Wallace, either by the sword of the English in a hopeless
battle, or by the unpopularity attendant upon a great military disaster? We
should be glad to discover some less dastardly reason for his ignominious
conduct at Falkirk.
There is
great unanimity among the Scots chroniclers that, apart from the treachery
of Comyn and his adherents, the essential cause of the disaster at Falkirk
was the action of Robert Bruce. They say that the schiltrons resisted every
attempt to force them, till Bruce and Bek came round in the rear, and broke
the line. This is a very fine illustration of the irony of fate, but it is
not history. Bruce was certainly not on the field, neither was he at this
time in Edward's allegiance; scarcely a month before (June 24) Edward had
ordered his goods and chattels in Essex to be sold UJ). It is possible that
this very grave blunder arose from confounding Bruce with Basset, and a
flank with a rear attack. Presently, too, Bruce was elected one of the
Guardians in the name of Balliol—.' one of those historical phenomena which
are inexplicable,' says Hailes, rather helplessly.
The remnants of the Scots army drew off from Falkirk
towards the north, burning the town and castle of Stirling as they passed.
So far Edward pursued them. Having repaired the castle and garrisoned it
strongly with Northumbrians, he is said to have harried St. Andrews and St.
Johnston. He then passed through Selkirk Forest to the west, where he found
that Bruce had burnt down Ayr Castle and retired into Carrick, but he could
not pursue for want of provisions. Continuing his journey through Annandale,
Edward took Lochmaben Castle and burnt it. At Carlisle he held a parliament,
and distributed lands in Scotland to his deserving officers— lands in
prospect rather than in possession and, having arranged affairs at Durham
and Tynemouth, he settled down at Cottingham to spend his Christmas in the
neighbourhood of the comforting shrine of St. John of Beverley.
Shortly after Falkirk, whether at the Scots Water or
at a convention in St. Johnston, Wallace is said to have resigned
voluntarily the office of Guardian of Scotland. The Scots writers attribute
this step to his recognition of the impossibility of maintaining the
independence of his country in co-operation with the jealous nobles. There
is much reason to accept this explanation. Not one of the brood could be
relied on, except to undermine his authority. He may therefore have
determined to stand by himself henceforth, as he had done before, aided by
such as might choose to attach themselves to his standard. In the political
conditions of the time this result would be not only not surprising, but, to
all appearance, inevitable. The envy and malice of the magnates, the natural
leaders of the nation, had driven from the wheel of State the one man that
was then capable of steering the shattered bark to a safe and quiet haven.
Comyn and Soulis are said to have been the new
Guardians, and, in place of Soulis, Lamberton and Bruce were added at
Peebles in August 1299. Yet it may be worth while to keep an open eye for
further light on the question, whether Wallace did not remain Guardian till
near the latter date, resigning only in view of his purpose to visit France.
|