Guerilla chieftain is also the style applied to Wallace by his biographer in the English Cyclopædia-who observes that how far "the guerilla warfare maintained by Wallace and his associates" contributed to excite and spread the spirit of resistance to the English government, we have scarcely the means of judging; though it seems probable that it aided materially in producing the general insurrection which broke out in the spring of 1297,* but which "appears to have been but an ill-cemented confederacy." It was on the 11th of September in that year that the battle of Stirling Bridge was fought, resulting in the exclusion of the English from all Scotland, plus the always debatable town of Berwick on the Tweed. "Availing himself of this panic, and of the exhilaration of his countrymen, Wallace pursued the fugitives across the border; and putting himself at the head of a numerous force, he entered England on the 18th of October, and remaining till the 11th of November, wasted the country with fire and sword from sea to sea, and as far south as to the walls of Newcastle.' It was after his triumphal return from this "great sensation" movement, that Wallace assumed the title of Guardian of the Kingdom in the name of King John-Baliol, to wit, now living as Edward Plantagenet's half-ward, half-prisoner, or as some express (if not explain) it, "in a sort of free custody," in the Tower of London. Earlier than this, was Wallace a recognised knight. As in 1298 he styled himself, in an extant charter, "Willelmus Walays miles, Custos Regni Scotia, et ductor exercituum ejusdem,"-so in the treaty of Irvine, a year before, he is entitled "Sir Willaume"-the honour of knighthood having been probably conferred upon him, according to wont, by some other knight, one of his fellow-men-at-arms, after he emerged from the dubious distinction of a leader of outlaws† into the blaze and fame of Guardian of the Realm, and Commander-in-Chief of its armies. The summer of '98 saw the Scots defeated at Falkirk with prodigious slaughter. A universal rout ensued, which did not, however, put an end to the war, though it was taken advantage of by the native nobility to degrade Sir William from his office as Custos Regni Scotia. Hume relates the "factions, jealousies, and animosities," that divided the nobles, and distracted all their councils. "The elevation of Wallace, though purchased by so great merit and such eminent services, was the object of envy to the nobility, who repined to see a private gentleman raised above them by his rank, and still more by his glory and reputation." So either *The history of Wallace down to the year 1297 [he was probably born about 1270] is entirely legendary, and only to be found in the rhymes of Harry the Minstrel; though many of the facts which Harry relates still live as popular traditions in the localities where the scenes of them are laid, whether handed down in that way from the time when they happened, or only derived from his poem, which long continued to be the chief literary favourite of the Scottish peasantry."-Engl. Cyclop., VI. 486. Harry the Minstrel, or Blind Harry, is supposed to have lived a matter of two centuries later than his hero. His metrical historico-biography of Wallace is professedly a translation of the Latin narrative by John Blair, Sir William's fast friend and private chaplain. The English annalists Trivet and Hemingford were contemporaries of Wallace, and contribute a few facts as ana pour servir to his would-be biographers. he resigned, or they deprived him of office, and he "retained only the command over that body of his followers, who being accustomed to victory under his standard, refused to follow into the field any other leader." Michelet designates him "the heroic chief of the clans"*-the idea of Scotland and that of clanship, as Michelet's English (or rather, perhaps, British, North British) translator observes, being apparently so identified in the minds of Englishmen, let alone foreigners, that it is not surprising to find M. Michelet falling into this error with regard to Wallace."+ Professor Masson pronounces no nation in the world to be more factitious" than the Scotch-more composite as regards the materials out of which it has been constructed; but he claims for it, notwithstanding, by reason of its very smallness, for one thing, a more intense consciousness of its nationality, and a greater liability to be acted upon throughout its whole substance by a common thought or common feeling, than England. Even as late as the year 1707, he remarks, the entire population of Scotland did not exceed one million; and if, going farther back, we fancy this small nation placed on the frontier of one so much larger, and obliged continually to defend itself against the attacks of so powerful a neighbour, we can have no difficulty in conceiving how, in the smaller nation, the feeling of a central life would be sooner developed and kept more continuously active. "The sentiment of nationality is essentially negative; it is the sentiment of a people which has been taught to recognise its own individuality by incessantly marking the line of exclusion between itself and others." Almost all the great movements of Scotland, as a nation, have accordingly, as the Professor points out, been of a negative character-that is, movements of self-defence-the War of National Independence against the Edwards being the first of his examples in proof. And no doubt so good a Scotsman would have in the leader of that War a very "parfit gentil knight," embodying the poet's picture of another patriot: God gave him reverence of laws Yet stirring blood in Freedom's cause A spirit to his rocks akin, The eye of the hawk, and the fire therein.§ Mr. Selby Watson, it has been remarked, would no doubt be dreadfully shocked at Mr. Clifford's memorable comparison of his hero to Nana Sahib. Yet is the Saturday Reviewer of both these partyhistorians disposed in some sort to accept, and to some extent to justify the comparison. The English of Edward's time, he argues, looked on William Wallace much as the English of our time looked on Nana Sahib; while there are, doubtless, multitudes in India who look on Nana Sahib much as Scotchmen still look upon William Wallace. In both cases, the traitor and murderer of one side is the patriot and martyr of the other. A perfectly impartial judge might perhaps say that Hindoos and Scots *Histoire de France, t. iii. c. 2. † G. H. Smith. See "Scottish Influence in British Literature," in David Masson's collected Essays, 1856. § S. T. Coleridge. Sir William Wallace, the Scottish Hero. A Narrative of his Life and Actions. By the Rev. J. S. Watson, M.A., F.R.S.L. 1861. The Greatest of all the Plantagenets. By Edmund Clifford. 1860. were both naturally justified in revolting, but that the English government, in both cases, was no less justified in putting down the revolt. He would probably add that, whatever inherent righteousness there was in the cause either of William Wallace or of Nana Sahib, was unavoidably put out of sight by the monstrous form which the revolt took in both cases. "We fear," continues the reviewer, "that he would have to add that the revolt of our own days was suppressed with much more of heedless cruelty than the revolt of the thirteenth century. There is no evidence that the young officers of King Edward's army had any amusements analogous to the modern diversion of 'potting pandies.' "We are in no way anxious to depreciate any merits which William Wallace may really have possessed. He lived in a rude country and in a rude age. At the same time, we are inclined to doubt whether the thirteenth century was not, on the whole, less cruel than some of those which followed it, and still more whether Scotland at least was not a less rude country then than in some later times. At any rate, William Wallace belonged to that class of irregular warriors who often rise in the noblest of causes, but who, to say the least, can seldom keep their followers from disgracing their cause by cruel and treacherous deeds. If Nana Sahib is too bitter a pill to swallow, we shall at least not be far wrong in comparing William Wallace to some of the less reputable of the Spanish guerilla chiefs, and some of the less reputable of the Greek leaders in the War of Independence. It is certainly not a harsh judgment if we say that he was probably not unlike such a man as Theodore Kolokotrônês-a cross between robber and patriot, in which each character prevails in turn. We fancy that the Barabbas of the Gospel was something of the same order, and that he is unfairly wronged by those readers who take him for a mere vulgar burglar or highwayman. We can have no doubt that plenty of specimens of the type may be found at this moment [December, 1861], both in a good cause and in a bad, among the insurgents of Herzegovina and among the Bourbonist chiefs of Naples. Anyhow, it is absurd to compare William Wallace, as we have seen him compared, with Kosciuszko, with Washington, and with William the Silent. One might as well bracket Kolokotrônês with Mavrokordatos, or Barabbas with Judas Maccabæus. And in any case, what Wallace was is matter for the severe historical inquirer,' not for writers who wilfully and avowedly play with truth. And, above all, the honour of England and of England's greatest king must not be sacrificed to the ideas'* which William Wallace's 'countrymen may have ever loved to cherish.'"+ It is freely conceded by this same rather "severe historical inquirer," for whom Mr. Watson no more thought of writing than did Miss Porter when she concocted "The Scottish Chiefs," that a defence of Edward the First against Scottish calumnies in no way implies any condemnation of the Scots for revolting against him-there being many cases in which it is alike impossible to blame subjects for revolting, and to blame rulers for suppressing their revolt. No doubt the Scots had wrongs-he says; and * Mr. Watson explicitly professes, or confesses, that his "history" (founded on Blind Harry) is "not written for the severe historical inquirer," and that he, the writer," will be content if the story convey to the reader that idea of Wallace which his countrymen have ever loved to cherish."-Preface to Sir Wm. Wallace, the Scottish Hero. † Saturday Review, No. 319. no doubt they were justified in revolting: that is, the Scottish nation was justified whether an English subject, like Robert Bruce, who had sworn faith to Edward over and over again, was justified in heading them, is quite another matter-the case for William Wallace's revolt being far clearer than the case for the revolt of Robert Bruce. The only doubt propounded by the reviewer is, whether a man who was guilty of some of the most ferocious brutalities recorded in history is to be extolled as a perfect hero, and whether the reputation of such a Prince as Edward the First is to be sacrificed to his.* All this is a sad departure from the old standpoint which saw in Wallace a spotless patriot and perfect chevalier-a chieftain whose heart, and brain, and strong hand, and all-subduing voice, enabled him to unite a distracted people against the common foe, and effectually employ All meaner angers to augment one rage Of home, which sense of loyal faith made sweeter, The power which bids them wither at its grasp, His soul as with a breastplate. So he's armed.† The author of an Historical Parallel between Wallace and Aristomenes, while he owns that lack of historical materials prevents the possibility of accurately depicting Sir William's character, or of drawing the line minutely between truth and fiction-so that although we see a form of commanding and colossal proportions, we yet see it but dimly, and the features must be filled up from our own imaginations-can nevertheless trace "indomitable courage, constancy, and patriotism" in the Knight of Ellerslie; and pleads that if these lofty qualities were "sometimes sullied by ferocity," yet, "in justification of the sympathy and interest which his career excites," may be urged not only the character of the age, and the sufferings endured by Scotland under the English yoke, but also the "exacerbation of temper which must necessarily arise from a life of con "Mr. Watson seems to share Lord Palmerston's difficulty in understanding the difference between sovereignty and suzerainty. Edward no more claimed to be King of Scots in 1291 than the Sultan claims to be Prince of Wallachia. He only claimed, as his father had done before him, to be the external over-lord. All ̧ Scotland recognised that superiority in him. His whole conduct in the dispute for the Scottish Crown was what might have been expected from one whom all Christendom looked to as her most righteous prince. He submitted all matters to a fairly chosen mixed commission. He held the Scottish castles in pledge till the matter was settled, and then honestly gave them back to the new king... Undoubtedly, the Scots soon found that the suzerainty in the hands of Edward was something more practical than it had been in the hands of his wretched father and grandfather. So was the royal power felt to be in England itself. It was not till the resignation of John of Balliol, in 1296, that Edward professed to enter on the sovereignty of Scotland as a forfeited fief. The Scots swore allegiance over and over again, and over and over again they broke it. As long as Edward lived, every revolt was followed by a reconquest, and most assuredly no conqueror of those days, hardly any conqueror of any days, ever shed so little blood off the field of battle. If, as is so often said, William Wallace had never sworn allegiance to Edward, that doubtless makes a difference in William's own personal position, but it is a difference of which the king could hardly be expected to take any notice." -Saturday Review, No. 319, p. 590. †Talfourd, The Castilian. stant hardship and danger. Hunted continually from morass to forest, denied the enjoyment of domestic happiness, dependent upon his own right hand for the security which was to be found only in the death of his pursuers, it is rather matter for regret, than for stern censure, if in the hour of victory the call of mercy was unheeded."* And in further ex tenuation, the same apologist submits, that to control the excesses of his followers does not seem always to have been in the power even when (or even if) it was in the wish of their chief; and that it is reasonable and consistent with the bitter spirit of national enmity which long prevailed, to conjecture that the blind minstrel, who is his principal biographer, consulted the passions and prejudices of his hearers no less by exaggerating the deeds of vengeance acted by his hero, than his hair-breadth escapes, and almost superhuman might. Any way, Blind Harry was sure of his public. For, especially on Scottish soil, -has a Champion risen in arms to try His country's virtue, fought, and breathes no more; And far above the mine's most precious ore The least small pittance of bare mould they prize Scooped from the sacred earth where his dear relics lie.† Let centuries roll on, and the relics will advance in value at a rate of geometric progression. Infinite even, in such a case, are the ramifications of relic-worship, with its affinities however shadowy and distant. "Your cup, my dear madam," writes Burns to a lady who claimed descent from Sir William, douce Mrs. Dunlop, "arrived safe. I had two worthy fellows dining with me the other day, when I, with great formality, produced my whigmeleerie cup, and told them that it had been a family piece among the descendants of Sir William Wallace. This roused such an enthusiasm that they insisted on bumpering the punch round in it; and by-and-by, never did your great ancestor lay a Suthron more completely to rest than for a time did your cup my two friends."+ Indeed, Burns himself was unbounded in Wallace-worship, and loved to have it so. One of the two first books he ever read in private, as he relates in his autobiographical letter to Dr. Moore, was "The History of Sir William Wallace," which, he more freely than gracefully avows, "poured a Scottish prejudice into my veins, which will boil along there till the floodgates of life shut in eternal rest."§ "In those boyish days," we read in another letter of his, "I remember in particular being struck with that part of Wallace's story where these lines occur Syne to the Leglen wood, when it was late, To make a silent and a safe retreat. I chose a fine summer Sunday, the only day my line of life allowed, and walked half a dozen of miles to pay my respects to the Leglen wood, with as much devout enthusiasm as ever pilgrim did to Loretto; and, as I explored every den and dell where I could suppose my heroic countryman to have lodged, I recollect (for even then I was a rhymer) that my heart glowed with a wish to be able to make a song on him in some measure * J. H. Malkin, Historical Parallels, vol. ii. |