Wallace

So little is known, with respect to Henry the Minstrel, that I can scarcely pretend to add any thing to the meagre account which has been given of him by former writers. As we cannot certainly fix the time, we can form no conjecture even as to the place, of his birth. Almost all that can be viewed as an historical record concerning him, is that with which we are supplied by Major. Integrum librum, he says, Guillelmi Vallacei Henricus, a natiuitate luminibus captus, meae infantiae tempore cudit; et quæ vulgo dicebantur, carmine vulgari, in quo peritus erat, conscripsit; (ego autem talibus scriptis solum in parte fidem impertior); qui historiarum recitatione coram principibus victum et vestitum quo dignus erat nactus est. Hist. Lib. IV. c. 15. “Henry, who was blind from his birth, in the time of my infancy composed the whole Book of William Wallace; and committed to writing in vulgar poetry, in which he was well skilled, the things that were commonly related of him. For my own part, I give only partial credit to writings of this description. By the recitation of these, however, in the presence of men of the highest rank, he procured, as he indeed deserved, food and raiment.”

This account, as it merely respects the recitation of his poem, is not inconsistent with what Henry himself says, when he asserts his independence in the composition of it, and declares that the motive by which he was chiefly actuated, was a patriotic desire to preserve the memory of the illustrious deeds of Wallace from oblivion.

Mr. Pinkerton has given 1470 as the date when it may be supposed that Henry appeared in the character of an author. It is generally admitted, indeed, that Major was born in the year 1469. Henry, by reason of his blindness, could not himself have written his poetical effusions; and it may reasonably be supposed, from his dependent and ambulatory mode of life, that he could not employ an amanuensis properly qualified for the task. Hence may we account for the obscurity, and even for the apparent absurdity, of some passages in his work. Bating these imperfections, his descriptions are often so vivid, and his images so just, that he undoubtedly ranks higher, as a poetical writer, than either Barbour or Wyntown, who had all the advantages of a liberal education, such, at least, as the times could afford.

Mr. Pinkerton has thus expressed his sentiments concerning this work: “It has great merit for the age, and is eminently curious. The language in a few places is not sense. When, by altering a word or two, the sense may be restored, attention to this will not only be allowable, but laudable in any proper editor; especially when we consider the singularity of the case, and that the poem is very good sense everywhere, save in perhaps a dozen lines at most.” List of Scotish Poets, xc.

The late elegant author of Specimens of Early English Poets has remarked; “That a man born blind should excel in any science is extraordinary, though by no means without example; but that he should become an excellent poet, is almost miraculous; because the soul of poetry is description. Perhaps, therefore, it may be easily assumed, that Henry was not inferior in point of genius either to Barbour or Chaucer, nor indeed to any poet of any age or country.” Ellis’s Spec. Vol. I. p. 354.

As the venerable Minstrel could not himself have written his poem, succeeding ages have never had it in their power to view him in his proper character. It is unquestionable, however, that he has not, in any edition hitherto published, appeared to such advantage as he might have done. Almost every editor, from the time of Andro Hart downward, used the same unpardonable liberty with his work as with that of Barbour, in attempting to render it more intelligible, by substituting for terms, which had become obsolete, or were going into desuetude, others more generally known. Thus, from gross misapprehension, the very sense of the poet was often lost. Even the edition of Perth, A. 1790, which professes to be an exact transcript from the MS., is still more inaccurate than that of the year 1714.

Although, from his disastrous circumstances, the principal fountain of knowledge was shut up to poor Henry, it is evident that he had made trial of every other within his reach. Knowing the facts of his blindness, itinerary life, and oral publication of his poetry, the generality of readers, it may be presumed, have previously formed a contemptuous idea of the author, as if he had been a common ballad-singer, and have either read his book under the influence of this prepossession, or thrown it aside as unworthy of their attention. But it should be recollected, that the rank of a bard or minstrel was once very high among our forefathers; and that, although it had considerably fallen in repute by the time that Henry flourished, he did nothing that was deemed unworthy of the character when at its highest elevation. The language of Major has, it would appear, been understood according to the prejudices of our own time, not according to the sense which it must still have borne even in that age in which Henry lived, notwithstanding the Act of James II. A. 1449, against “bardis, or vthirs siclyke rinnaris about.” Acts, Parl. X. c. 21. “He procured food and raiment by the recitation of his compositions.” Is this any thing different from what was invariably accounted the privilege of minstrels? Did Henry recite his poetry to the vulgar; did he stroll through cities, towns, or villages with this view? Not a hint of this kind is given; the very reverse is implied in the specification made by the historian. He recited his compositions “in vulgar poetry” indeed, but it was coram principibus, “in the presence of princes,” or “men of the highest rank.” Major uses the most honourable term that he could select, to show that even the most exalted in the kingdom did not deem themselves degraded by admitting the Minstrel into their presence, or by listening to his poetical narrative. He indeed says; Quæ vulgo dicebantur, carmine vulgari, in quo peritus est, conscripsit; but he does not mean by this to affix a stigma on Henry’s style of writing. The use of the term vulgari, if not merely a paronomasia on the preceding one vulgo, can signify nothing more than that Henry did not write, as he himself did, in the language of the learned, which would have been lost even on men of the highest rank in that age. He does not mean to say that the diction of the Minstrel was low, and thus adapted merely to the vulgar; for then men of all ranks spoke in the same manner: but that his work, as being a collection of what was commonly related in Scotland concerning Wallace, was composed in the vernacular tongue. When he uses the phrase, in quo peritus est, he is not to be understood as uttering so gross a solecism, as to say that Henry was well skilled in the language of the lower classes, but that he was an adept in Scottish poetry; for it is evident that in quo more immediately refers to carmine. He designs to throw as little discredit on him by the phrase, victum et vestitum nactus est. For all that he could mean to assert by it is, that as the tables of the great were open to him, where, in former times at least, a minstrel had the prerogative of an honourable seat, he had also, by established custom from time immemorial, as good a right to claim the raiment allotted to his vocation as the baron had to exact military service from his vassals. Hence, when speaking of this procurement, he qualifies his language by the following insertion,—quo dignus erat; applicable not merely to the hereditary claim of minstrels, but to the peculiar merit of Henry as sustaining this character.

I will not pretend to exculpate Henry from the charge of credulity. Far more, however, has been said as to his ignorance than can be well supported. We have no other standard of the measure of his knowledge than his own work; and this, there is every reason to think, much disfigured by unavoidable corruptions. But even judging from this, we have sufficient evidence that, from his early years, he must diligently have used all the means of information which were properly within his reach. He seems to have been pretty well acquainted with that kind of history which was commonly read in that period. He alludes to the history of Hector, of Alexander the Great, of Julius Cæsar, Book VIII. 845, 886, 961, &c., and to that of Charlemagne, whose army, at Ronceval in Navarre, being betrayed by Ganelon, was defeated by the Saracens, Book VIII. 1256. XI. 837. V. Dict. de Trevoux, vo. Rouncevaux. With the romances that were most popular in that age he was perhaps as well acquainted as Barbour. He seems to have been familiar with that of Alexander; as, like the latter, he refers to Gaudifer, Book X. 342. V. Note on The Bruce, B. II. 468.

His acquaintance with the popular romances is perhaps still more apparent from his style of writing. As it abounds, much more than that of Barbour, with poetical allusions to the face of nature, which the poor Minstrel had never beheld, to the change of the seasons, to the supposed influence of the planets or of the constellations; it is more richly strewed with the more peculiar phraseology of the writers of romance; whence a stranger to our chronology might be induced to view the Life of Wallace as of an older date than The Bruce, although nearly a century later. We meet with a variety of terms or phrases in Wallace, which, from the difference of his habits, do not seem to have been familiar with the good Archdeacon of Aberdeen, as frekis, frekis on fold; bane and lyre; brycht, and frely of fassoun, for a fair maid, &c. &c.

It is necessary to observe, that the Minstrel’s mode of expression is often very elliptical. In order to understand his meaning, the reader must therefore recollect, that he very commonly omits the pronouns, whether personal or relative. This, to those who are not familiar with the ancient style, has given him an air of absurdity, and has induced the idea of his being far more illiterate than we can reasonably suppose him to have been. Let us take an example or two among many.

The principal assertion is not, that the defenders were powerful in defence; but that they, being so powerful in defence, guarded their town well. The reader must supply quha, or who, after defendouris.

“Wallace was well acquainted with the mayor, who kept the port of that village.”

The only means that occurred to me for rendering the sense of such elliptical passages more obvious, was to throw in a comma; as, after The mar, in the passage quoted.

It cannot be denied that the feelings of the reader are often harrowed up by the coarse description which the Minstrel gives of the warlike deeds of his hero, and by the delight which he seems to take in those merciless scenes in which the English were the immediate sufferers. But great allowance must be made for him, not merely from the barbarism of the time in which he wrote, and from his want of such opportunities of refinement as even Barbour enjoyed, but from the soreness which every thorough Scotchman still felt, in consequence of the unpardonable treachery, violence, and ferocity of Edward the First, and of those employed under him, and the disgraceful stigma they had endeavoured to fix on a nation that had been always independent and always extremely jealous of its liberty. If the manners of the age do not form a sufficient apology for the cruelty ascribed to Wallace himself; it should be recollected that Scotland had no other chance of liberation from the usurpation of Edward than by the diminution of the number of the invaders, and that it was impossible for a few partisans to retain prisoners. Old Wyntown honestly defends Wallace on the grounds of the provocation given to him, and of his owing the English nothing.

There is a prayer at the beginning of the poem, which had been prefixed by the transcriber. It is thus given in Perth edition, Notes, p. 1.

The first line has been injured in the binding of the MS.; but it would seem that it should rather be read thus:

In all the editions of this work which I have seen, it is divided into twelve books; which are subdivided into chapters or sections, with rubrics prefixed, pointing out the principal matter of each division. I have observed the plan of the MS., which confines the work to eleven books, without any rubrics. Some, indeed, are marked on the margent; but evidently in a different hand-writing, by some early proprietor of the MS.

Mr Pinkerton has said; “The first and best edition I have yet seen is, imprentit at Edinburgh, be Robert Lekprevik, at the expensis of Henrie Charteris; and ar to be sauld in his buith, on the north syde of the gait abone the throne [trone?] Anno Do. MD. LXX. 4to. black letter. A fine copy of this edition is in the British Museum among Queen Elizabeth’s books: this has no title-page; but the second title is, The Actis and Deidis of the illuster and vailyeand Campioun Schir William Wallace, Knicht of Ellerslie.” List of Scotish Poets, XC, XCI.

This edition I have never had an opportunity of inspecting. The oldest that I have seen, after every possible inquiry, is an imperfect one in quarto, formerly the property of Mr George Paton, of the Customs here, now in my possession. It wants the title-page, part of the first leaf, and the last sheet, which must have contained about fifteen pages, besides being imperfect in one or two other places. The title, printed on page first, seems to have been the same with the second title of Edit. 1570, with this difference, that in mine Wallace is denominated “the maist illuster,” &c. Besides that of 1570, Mr Pinkerton mentions only another edition in 4to, Edin. 1594. I have therefore ventured to quote this as the edition of that year.

Dr Mackenzie seems either to have been unacquainted with any prior edition, or to have preferred this to that of 1570; although, from his known character as a writer, it is most probable that he had never compared the editions to which he refers. “This book,” he says, “being highly esteem’d amongst the vulgar, has had many impressions; but the best are these, viz. that printed in the year 1594, and Andrew Hart’s, in the year 1620, both printed at Edinburgh, and that at Glasgow in the year, 1699.” &c.

Besides the edition of 1594, I have compared the MS. with Hart’s, 1620; and with one printed by Gedeon Lithgow, Edinburgh, 1648, which I have not seen mentioned by any writer. It is a neat edition, in small 8vo, black letter, pp. 343, in the square form of our more early publications. It has an introduction, entitled The Printer to the Reader, considerably larger than that prefixed to Hart’s, as it extends to nineteen pages. This contains an abridgment of the History of Scotland from the portentous death of Alexander III. A. 1285, to the year 1318. I have also consulted the Edinburgh edition of 1673, printed by Andrew Anderson, in twelves, pp. 252. This is considerably inferior in execution to the one last mentioned, although it seems to have been taken from it, with some slight changes of the orthography. The introduction to the former is reprinted verbatim; but there is added, after the Table of Contents, a poetical address of “Scrimger to Wallace, by reason of the false Menteith captive at London,” and the reply of “Wallace to Scrimger, his Baner-man.” The following page contains a curious wood-cut of Wallace in armour, with his bow and quiver.

Mr Pinkerton mentions also editions at Edinburgh 1601, Aberdeen 1630, and Glasgow 1665, in 8vo. He adds; “There are many editions of the present [eighteenth] century, but bad. The very worst is that of Edinburgh, 1758, 4to., which the printer very expertly reduced to modern spelling, and printed in black letter, and in quarto; being exactly, in every point, the very plan which he ought not to have followed. The same sagacious personage gave Barbour’s Poem in the same way; and neither selling, (how could they?) the booksellers sometimes tear out the title, and palm them upon the ignorant as old impressions.” List of Scot. Poets, ut sup.

This is the edition which is here quoted in the Notes as that of 1714. For I have been assured, on good authority, that this edition, as well as that of The Bruce, was printed by Robert Freebairn, printer to his Majesty, in the year 1714 or 1715; but that, as he engaged in the rebellion in the year last mentioned, before the work was ready for publication, they were suffered to lie in a bookseller’s ware-house till A. 1758, when they were published, either without titles, or with titles bearing the false date of this year. As to the merit of these editions, I am under the necessity of differing from Mr Pinkerton. To me, the editions printed by Freebairn appear more correct than any of the preceding ones, and his Wallace even preferable to the Perth edition, A. 1790; as, bating the liberty used with regard to the orthography, they, in a great variety of instances, give the sense of the original writers more accurately, having evidently been collated with the MSS. of The Bruce and Wallace in the Advocates’ Library.

I flattered myself, that I might have had it in my power to have enriched this work by some valuable communications from the British Museum. Although, through the good offices of the Earl of Aberdeen, one of the trustees of this national repository, search has been made, nothing of importance has been discovered in regard to this period of our history. Henry Ellis, Esq. of the Museum, who, in the most obliging manner, offered every assistance in his power, has in a letter addressed to his Lordship, furnished two extracts from MSS., which have a claim to attention, at least as matters of curiosity. I shall take the liberty of communicating them in his own language:—

He also mentions a volume in the Cotton Library, marked Claud. D. VII. in which the 13th article is a chronicle written, or rather compiled, with additions, by a Canon of Lanercost priory, illustrative of the ravages in Cumberland towards the latter end of the reign of Edward the First. Several extracts having been made from this for the use of Mr Lysons, he found them extremely valuable, and containing more for his purpose than could be found in print.

Being anxious to bring forward every authentic information that I could possibly collect concerning Wallace, I lately transmitted to Mr Ellis a few queries, especially regarding the Lanercost MS., which had occurred to me in consequence of his former obliging communication; and, while I feel myself deeply indebted to him for the trouble he has taken, and for the promptness of his reply, I cannot pretend to give the substance of it in any language so appropriate as that which he has himself used.

“I must tell you that the Chronicle of Lanercost is a manuscript of peculiar intricacy in its contractions. The first mention which I find in it of William Wallace is in 1297, fol. 208 b. ‘Vix sex mensium tempus elapsum extitit a gravi sacramento supradicto quo se Albanacti fidelitati ac subjectioni Regis Anglorum astrinxerant, cum rediviva perfidorum malitia ad alias versutias ingenium acuit. Nam presul Ecclesiæ Glascuensis proprio agnomine dictus Robertus Wyscardus, semper in proditione primus, cum senescallo primæ’ (the word primæ is dotted under as if to be erased.) ‘terræ nomine Jacobo, novam sibi finxerunt audaciam, quinimo novam proditionis famam, fidem Regi præstitam manifeste infringere non audentes, quendam virum sanguincum Wills. Waleis, qui prius fuerat in Scotia princeps latronum, contra Regem insurgere fecerunt et Papam in sui adjutorium congregare.’

“Then follows the battle of Stirling, in which the notice of the slain contains the following anecdote: ‘Inter quos cedidit thesaurarius Angliæ Hugo de Kersyngham, de cujus corio ab occipite usque ad talum Wills. Waleis latam corrigiam sum fecit, ut inde sibi faceret cingulum ensis sui.’ The subsequent entrance of the Scots into Northumberland is of course noticed, but generally, and without any mention of Wallace’s name. The mention of the retreat of the English to Berwick opens the account of transactions under the year 1298. It is there said, ‘Wills. Waleis non tenuit eis fidem.’

“The Chronicle next mentions, that Edward having settled a truce with the King of France returned, and collecting his army, marched towards Scotland. ‘In festo autem beatæ Mariæ Magdalenæ occurrerunt ei Scoti apud Faukirk cum toto robore suo, duce eorum Willelmo Waleis superius nominato.’ The defeat is then detailed in few words. Some wretched Latin verses follow, of which I give you the only specimen concerning Wallace, viz.—

“Such are the scanty materials relating to Wallace’s history in the Chronicle of Lanercost.

“In 1306, fol. 211 b, we read, ‘Dominus autem Symon Freser Scottus adductus London, prius fuit tractus, postea suspensus, tertio decapitatus, et caput ejus positum super pontem London juxta caput Willelmi Waleis.’ In the same year the Earl of Athol’s head (Comes de Athetel) was placed above that of William Wallace; and in 1307 it is said, ‘In die autem sancto Paschæ Dungallus factus est miles, et infra eandem septimanam captus est dominus Johannes Waleis et ad Regem apud Karl. adductus, qui misit eum London ut ubi caperet idem judicium quod prius acceperat frater suus Willelmus.’” Fol. 212.

We have a similar account in the St Albans Chronicle.

“How Johne, that was Wyllyam Waleys brother, was put to dethe.

“As the gretteste masteyrs of Scotlonde were thus doon to euyll dethe, and destroyed for theyr falsnesse, Johan. that was Wyllyam Waleys brother, was take and doon vnto deth, as Syr Johan erle of Alethes [Athol] was.” Sign. q. vi. b. Edit. 1502.

This account, as regarding Johannes Waleis, must certainly be viewed as a mistake of the writers of these Chronicles. It has originated, perhaps, from the circumstance of two brothers of Robert Bruce, Thomas and Alexander, being made prisoners by Macdowal at Lochrian in Galloway, 9th February, 1306–7, and carried to Edward at Carlisle, who ordered them to instant execution. Or it may respect Sir Reginald Crawfurd, the cousin of Wallace, who was made prisoner with them, and subjected to the same fate. Matthew of Westminster says that their heads were placed on the gates of Carlisle. V. Dalrymple’s Annals, II. 19.

The other queries were;—If, from any of the MSS. in the British Museum, there is ground to suppose that Wallace had ever fought with King Edward in England? If any thing occurs that might have given rise to the story, told by Henry, of an interview with the English queen? If there is any hint as to Wallace having opposed the English in Guienne? If there is any proof that Sir John Menteith was concerned in delivering up Wallace to the English? And if it appears that Menteith acted in concert with Aymer de Valence? To these Mr Ellis gives the following answer:—

“Except at the battle of Falkirk, I see no reason to think that Wallace was ever personally opposed to Edward the First; certainly not during his incursion in 1297, as Edward was then in France. The story of his meeting the queen at St Albans must be a fiction. It is too singular a circumstance, if it had happened, to remain totally unnoticed in any of the English annals. I can find no mention of Wallace’s being in Guienne. I think it was not likely that he should be found there. Scotland and the Border gave him full employ for his short career. No concert is at all noticed in the Lanercost MS. between Aymer de Valence and Sir John Menteith.”

His important communication, in regard to the concern that Menteith himself had in the base transactions referred to, will be found among the proofs which I have collected on this subject, in the Note on Book XI. ver. 948, p. 402.

Having made some inquiries as to the manuscript No. 1226, formerly mentioned, and suggested that, from its orthography, it seems to claim a date prior to the age of Charles the First; Mr Ellis has favoured me with the following reply:—

“The manuscript in the same collection, Num. 1226, is entirely in prose. It occupies about a hundred leaves in small quarto; but is not paged. From the orthography, the manuscript may be somewhat older than I had supposed. It certainly is not before the time of James the First. I think you are correct in supposing it a copy from Henry the Minstrel. In an address ‘To the moist cortews Reader,’ the author says, ‘al thoche this famous historie hathe beine republished heir to foir by hime which deserws great thankis for so worthie a work, yit the gathering of the said historie in a smaller compass may gif moir content vnto some readers,’ &c. From another passage it should seem that additions are interspersed; but evidently without either distinction or authorities.”

Mr Ellis also informs me, that the only old edition of Wallace, in the Museum, besides that of 1570, is the one printed at Aberdeen, in 1630, small octavo.

Proem, v. 1.—Parentage of Wallace, v. 17.—Bruce and Baliol, v. 47.—Battles of Berwick and Dunbar, v. 85.—Baliol deposed, v. 115.—Wallace slays young Selbie at Dundee, v. 203.—Escapes disguised as an old woman, v. 239.—Arrives, with his mother, at Ellerslie, v. 315.—Adventure, when fishing at the water of Irvine, v. 367.

Wallace slays the churl at Ayr, v. 29.—Also Percy’s Steward, v. 84.—Cast into prison in Ayr, v. 153.—Henry’s lamentation for him, v. 160.—Thrown over the wall as dead, v. 252.—Recovered by his nurse, v. 258.—Thomas the Rhymer, v. 288.—Wallace, on his way to Riccarton, slays the Squire Longcastle, v. 360.

Wallace revenges the slaughter of his father and brother at Loudounhill, v. 40.—Slays the knight Fenwick, v. 175.—Sojourns in Clyde’s wood, v. 249.—Makes peace with the English, at the instigation of Sir Ronald Crawfurd his uncle, v. 278.—Slays the buckler-player in Ayr, v. 353.

Percy’s servant slain, v. 31.—Wallace rides towards the Lennox, v. 104.—Visits Earl Malcolm, v. 156.—Character of Fawdoun, v. 185.—The Peel of Gargunnock taken, v. 213.—Wallace crosses Forth, v. 270.—Goes to St. Johnston; and takes the castle of Kinclevin, v. 358.—Battle of Shortwoodshaw, v. 512.—Betrayed by his lemman, escapes from Perth, v. 703.

Wallace traced by a slouth-hound, v. 23.—Goes to Elcho Park, v. 35.—Slays Fawdoun on suspicion, v. 115.—Kerlé kills Heron, v. 145.—Wallace reaches Gask Hall, v. 175.—Ghost of Fawdoun, v. 192.—Wallace slays Butler, v. 238.—Swims across Forth at Cambuskenneth, v. 304.—Finds shelter at Torwood, v. 319.—Here he meets with his uncle, v. 350.—Visits Sir John the Graham at Dundaff, v. 436.—Master John Blair and Parson Gray, v. 538.—Falls in love with a young lady in Lanark, v. 584.—His reasoning against love, v. 622.—He visits her, v. 672.—The English cut the tails of his horses in Lochmaben, v. 731.—He slays Hugh of Moreland, v. 820.—Graystock follows Wallace with three hundred men, and is slain by Sir John the Graham, v. 860.—Lochmaben Castle taken, v. 992.—Also that of Crawford, v. 1075.

Dissertation on love, v. 25.—Wallace marries Miss Bradfute, v. 48.—Being assaulted by the English, retreats to Cartlane Craigs, v. 155.—Hesilrig, to revenge the escape of Wallace, murders his wife, v. 191.—Wallace slays Hesilrig, and drives the English out of Lanark, v. 230.—The battle of Biggar, v. 341.—Wallace disguises himself, v. 435.—Chosen guardian of Scotland, v. 767.—Takes a strength on the water of Cree, v. 803.—Also Turnbery Castle in Carrick, v. 834.—Agrees to a truce at Rutherglen, v. 865.—Resides at Cumnock, v. 936.

Wallace’s vision in Monkton Kirk, v. 57.—Treachery of the English at Ayr, v. 171.—Burning of the Barns, v. 333.—The Friar of Ayr’s Benison, v. 471.—Wallace drives Bishop Beck and Percy out of Glasgow, v. 515.—He seeks Macfadyan, and slays old Rukby at Stirling, v. 623.—Earl Malcolm takes Stirling Castle, v. 727.—Macfadyan killed, v. 862.—Council at Ardchattan, v. 875.—Wallace takes St Johnston, v. 958.—Destroys the English at Dunottar, v. 1042.—Burns an hundred ships belonging to them at Aberdeen, v. 1065.—Besieges the Castle of Dundee, v. 1090.—Battle of Stirling-bridge, v. 1134.—Hugh de Cresyngham slain, v. 1196.—Sir John Menteith takes an oath to Wallace, v. 1259.—Cristal of Seatoun, v. 1275.

A parliament at Perth, to which Corspatrick refuses to come, v. 1.—Wallace fights with him at Dunbar, v. 86.—Bruce and Beik enter Scotland with an army, v. 139.—They, with Corspatrick, are driven out of the country, v. 380.—Wallace invades England, v. 433.—Advances to York, v. 517.—Demands battle of King Edward, v. 550.—The siege of York, v. 741.—Ramswaith burnt, v. 1008.—Poetical description of morning, v. 1181.—The Queen of England sues to Wallace for peace, v. 1215.—This is granted on certain conditions, v. 1510.—Wallace returns to Scotland, v. 1570.—Invited by the King of France to visit him, v. 1619.

Description of Spring, v. 1.—Wallace sets sail for France, v. 47.—Is attacked by Longueville, the Red Reaver, v. 86.—Takes him prisoner, v. 149.—Goes to Paris, v. 300.—Obtains Longueville’s pardon, v. 381.—Passes into Guienne, v. 427.—During his absence the English invade Scotland, v. 550.—He is invited to return, v. 646.—On his return he takes St Johnston, v. 697.—The battle of Black Irnside, v. 779.—Sir John Stewart killed, v. 1103.—Castle of Lochlevin taken, v. 1161.—Also, that of Airth, v. 1281.—Wallace delivers his uncle from prison, v. 1345.—Englishmen burnt in Dunbarton, v. 1376.—The castle kept by Menteith, v. 1395.—Death of the mother of Wallace, v. 1530.—Douglas takes the castle of Sanquhar, v. 1551.—The English lay siege to it, and Douglas is rescued by Wallace, v. 1729.—He lays siege to Dundee, v. 1839.

The battle of Sheriff-muir, v. 19.—Battle of Falkirk, v. 37.—Contention between Wallace and Stewart of Bute, v. 109.—Death of Sir John the Graham, v. 378.—Conference between Wallace and Bruce at Carron, v. 439.—Lamentation of Wallace for the loss of Graham, v. 557.—Edward surprised at Linlithgow, v. 627.—Bruce held in subjection to England, v. 720.—Dundee taken, v. 751.—Wallace resigns his office, v. 762.—Sets sail for France, and meets John of Lynn, v. 797.—The Reaver killed, v. 885.—Menteith engaged to King Edward, v. 972.—Edward invades Scotland, divides the lands, and sends some noblemen to prison, v. 985.—Cumyn enters into a compact with the Bruce, v. 1007.—Different opinions as to the part he acted, v. 1153.

The success of Wallace in Guienne, v. 1.—A French knight seeks to slay him, v. 71.—Wallace slays two champions, v. 149.—His pretended encounter with a lion, v. 195.—He leaves France, and lands at the mouth of Earn, v. 295.—Slays young Butler in Elcho Park, v. 358.—Straits of Wallace and his companions from want of food, v. 553.—Kills five men who come on him while asleep, and provides food for his men, v. 571.—Lays siege to St Johnstoun, and drives the English out of Scotland, v. 707.—Wallange and Menteith plot against Wallace, v. 791.—St Johnstoun taken, v. 854.—Edward Bruce meets Wallace, v. 918.—Wallace invites Robert the Bruce to Scotland, v. 965.—Is betrayed and taken at Rob Royston, v. 995.—Lamentation for the loss of him, v. 1109.—Grief of Longueville, v. 1139.—Robert the Bruce arrives at Lochmaben, v. 1155.—Kills Cumyn, v. 1185.—Vision of a monk of Bury Abbey, v. 1238.—Martyrdom of Wallace at London, v. 1305.—Conclusion, v. 1451.

WALLACE.