The Earldom of Menteith

The Earl of Menteith availed himself of the favourable opportunity to overthrow this unpatriotic faction, and suddenly seized the young king while he was holding a court at Kinross, rescuing him, as he said, from the hands of excommunicated traitors; and Alan Durward and the barons who supported him immediately fled to England. Soon after the new government was established, the national party lost their leader. He died suddenly, without male issue, in 1258, and it was believed that he had been poisoned by his wife, in order that she might be free to marry an English knight, named John Russell. There was no satisfactory evidence adduced to prove her guilt, but her marriage to Russell, which took place shortly after, gave colour to the charge. She was in consequence deprived of her earldom, and imprisoned, along with her new husband, and was ultimately expelled the kingdom in disgrace. The Countess appealed to the Pope (Urban IV.) against the injustice which she alleged had been done to her, but the Scottish King and his nobles indignantly repelled the interference of the Roman Pontiff with the affairs of the kingdom. Isabella, daughter of the Countess by Walter Comyn, married her cousin, William Comyn; and after long contention a compromise was effected in the year 1285, and the vast domains of the earldom were divided between the Lady Isabella and the husband of her mothers youngest sister, WALTER STEWART, a son of the High Steward of Scotland, who obtained the title. The new Earl of Menteith, surnamed Bailloch, or the Freckled, was a famous warrior. He joined the disastrous expedition under St. Louis of France, called the Third Crusade, for the recovery of the Holy Sepulchre, and fought with great distinction at the battle of Largs in 1263, at which his elder brother defeated the Norwegians under King Haco. He took a prominent part in the proceedings connected with the contest for the Scottish crown after the death of the Maiden of Norway, and was one of the commissioners nominated by Robert Bruce in his competition with John Baliol. The Earl left two sons, who dropped their paternal surname of Stewart, and assumed that of Menteith. The younger of the two, Sir John Menteith of Ruskie, is the false Menteith who is branded by Scottish tradition and history as the betrayer of the patriot Wallace. Lord Hailes, who sometimes carried his scepticism respecting the statements of the old Scottish historians a great deal too far, discredits the story, which he asserts rests only on tradition and the allegations of Blind Harry. Sheriff Mark Napier, a descendant of Sir John Menteith, has made an elaborate defence of his ancestor from the charge of betraying Wallace; and Mr. Burton designates it as a part of the romance of Wallaces career that he was betrayed by a fellow-countryman and an old companion in arms. Menteith, he adds, held the responsible post of Governor of Dumbarton Castle, and it seems likely that he only performed a duty, whether an agreeable one or not. There is conclusive evidence, however, afforded by documents recently discovered that the charge brought against Menteith is not without foundation. Mr. Fraser, who has discussed this question very fully and impartially in the Red Book of Menteith, and has carefully examined all the documents bearing on the subject, is of opinion that the accusation that Menteith basely betrayed Wallace as his friend rests upon evidence too insufficient to sustain such a charge. But the documents which Mr. Fraser has examined show that Sir John Menteith fought on the patriotic side at the battle of Dunbar in 1296, where he was taken prisoner along with his elder brother; that he afterwards made his peace with Edward I., and supported the claims of that monarch; that he again returned to the patriotic party; that he once more submitted to the English king, and obtained from him the sheriffdom of Dumbarton and the custody of the castle to which Wallace was conveyed after his capture, and that he obtained a share of the reward which Edward had promised to the persons who should be instrumental in delivering the Scottish patriot into the hands of his enemies. It is impossible to speak with certainty as to the extent of friendship that may have existed between Wallace and the vacillating turncoat noble, but there can be no doubt that they must have had intercourse and familiarity. In the Relationes Arnaldi Blair, it is mentioned that in August, 1298, Wallace, Governor of Scotland, with John Graham and John de Men/el/h, and Alexander Scrymegour, Constable of Dundee and Standard-bearer of Scotland, acted together in an expedition into Galloway against the rebels who adhered to the party of Scotland and the Comyns.

There is abundant contemporary evidence to prove that Sir John Menteith was the chief agent in the capture of Wallace. In the Chronicle of Lancaster, written in the thirteenth century, it is stated that William Wallace was taken by a Scotsman, namely, Sir John Menteith, and carried to London, where he was drawn, hanged, and beheaded. In the account of the capture and execution of Wallace contained in the Arundel manuscript, written about the year 1320, it is stated that William Wallace was seized in the house of Ralph Rae by Sir John Menteith, and carried to London by Sir John de Segrave, where he was judged. Fordun, who lived in the reign of King Robert Bruce, when the memory of the exploits of Wallace must have been quite fresh, says: The noble William Wallace was, by Sir John Menteith, at Glasgow, while suspecting no evil, fraudulently betrayed and seized, delivered to the King of England, dismembered at London, and his quarters hung up in the towns of the most public places in England and Scotland, in opprobium of the Scots. Wyntoun, whose Metrical Chronicle was written in 1418, says ” Schyre Jhon of Menteith in tha days Tuk in Glasgow William Walays; And sent hym untill Ingland sune, There was he quartayrd and undone.
The English chronicler, Langtoft, states that Menteith discovered the retreat of Wallace through the treacherous information of Jack Short, his servant, and that he came under cover of night and seized him in bed. A passage in the Scala Chronica, quoted by Leland, says, William Walleys was taken of the Counte of Menteith, about Glasgow, and sent to King Edward, and after was hanged, drawn, and quartered at London. But the most conclusive evidence of all that Menteith took a prominent part in the betrayal and capture of Wallace is afforded by the fact that while very liberal rewards were given to all the persons concerned in this infamous affair, by far the largest share fell to Menteith: he received land to the value of one hundred pounds.
ALEXANDER MENTEITH, sixth Earl of Menteith, elder brother of the false Menteith, fought on the patriotic side in the War of Independence, and in consequence lay for a considerable time in an English dungeon. His son, ALAN MENTEITH, seventh earl, a staunch supporter of Robert Bruce, was taken prisoner at the battle of Methven, in 1306, when the fortunes of the patriot king were at the lowest ebb, was deprived of his estates by Edward I., and died in an English dungeon. He was succeeded by his brother, MURDOCH STEWART, who was killed at the battle of Dupplin, 12th April, 1332. His niece, LADY MARY, only daughter of Earl Alan, who appears to have been under age at the time of her fathers death, now became Countess of Menteith. She married Sir John Graham, who is supposed to have been the younger son of Sir Patrick Graham of Kincardine, ancestor of the Montrose family, and became Earl of Menteith apparently by courtesy through his wife. He accompanied David II. in his invasion of England in 1346. He was present at the battle of Durham, and, when the archers were almost within bowshot, earnestly urged the King to send a body of cavalry to charge them in flank. His advice was unhappily disregarded, and when the archers were about to direct their deadly volleys on the serried ranks of the Scottish spearmen, the Earl exclaimed, ˜Give me but a hundred horse and I engage to disperse them all; so shall we be able to fight more securely. His appeal was, however, unheeded, and hastily leaping upon his horse, and followed only by his own retainers, he rushed upon the advancing bowmen. But his gallant attack was not supported. His horse was killed under him, and after bravely, but vainly, striving to arrest the advance of the enemy, he was compelled to retire to the main body of the Scottish army. After a stout battle, which lasted for three hours, the Earl was taken prisoner, along with his sovereign, and was imprisoned in the Tower of London. By the direct orders of King Edward, he was tried and condemned as a traitor, on the plea that he had at one time sworn fealty to the English King, and was drawn, hanged, beheaded, and quartered.

LADY MARGARET GRAHAM, only child of the heroic Sir John Graham, Earl of Menteith, and Lady Mary his countess, inherited the earldom about the year 1360. She was four times married, twice before she had attained the age of twenty years; and she received five dispensations from the Roman Pontiff to enable her to enter into her successive matrimonial alliances. Her first husband, to whom she was married when she was fourteen, was Sir John Moray of Bothwell, son of Sir Andrew Moray, who was regent of the kingdom during the minority of David II. He died about the close of the year 1351 without issue. The hand of Lady Margaret was next sought in marriage by Thomas, thirteenth Earl of Mar, the last male heir of the ancient race of that house, to whom she was married in 1352; but she was soon after divorced by him, Fordun says by the instigation of the devil and on pretences that were utterly false.
The true reason for this action, says Mr. Frazer, is no doubt to be found in the fact that the Earl of Mar, naturally desirous of having children of his own to succeed to his old and historical earldom of Mar, and finding himself disappointed in this after his union with Lady Margaret Graham, as it is recorded that there were no children of the marriage, separated himself from her, in the hope that by a new matrimonial alliance he might have an heir. He afterwards married Lady Margaret Stewart, Countess of Angus, who was the eldest daughter and heiress of Thomas Stewart, second Earl of Angus. But he was again disappointed, and he died without issue in 1377. Lady Margaret, who was still little more than twenty years of age, was induced to take for her third husband, in 1359, John Drummond, of Concraig, for the sake of healing the fierce feuds that raged between the Menteiths and the Drummonds. He died, however, probably in 1360, for his widow married again in 1361. Her fourth and last husband was Sir Robert Stewart, third son of Robert Stewart, Earl of Strathern, Hereditary High Steward, afterwards King Robert II. of Scotland; and by this marriage she carried the earldom of Menteith back to the race of her maternal ancestors, the Stewarts. ROBERT STEWART was created Earl of Menteith on the 26th of March, 1371, the day on which his father was crowned, and on the 30th of that month the Lady Isabella, Countess of Fife, recognised the Earl as her true and lawful heir-apparent in virtue of the entail made by her father, Sir Duncan, Earl of Fife, in favour of Alan, Earl of Menteith, grandfather of Earl Roberts wife, and of the entail made by Lady Isabella herself and her late husband, elder brother of Sir Robert, in his favour. A meeting of Parliament, held at Scone in April, 1373, ordained that, failing the eldest son of the King and his heirs, the succession to the Crown should devolve on the EARL OF FIFE AND MENTEITH, who was to take precedence of the younger sons of the sovereign. He received numerous grants of land from his father, with whom he seems to have been a favourite, and he was appointed in 1382 to the office of High Chamberlain, left vacant by the death of Sir John Lyon of Glammis.
In consequence of the advanced age of his father, Robert II., and the physical infirmity of his brother, the Earl of Carrick, afterwards Robert III., the Estates deemed it necessary in 1388 to appoint the Earl of Fife and Menteith Guardian of the Kingdom, and he was virtually its ruler thenceforth to the end of his life. In the year 1398 he was created Duke of Albany, at the same time that the Kings eldest son, the Earl of Carrick and Athole, was made Duke of Rothesay. Albany was crafty and ambitious, but he was possessed of great administrative ability, and his pacific policy secured for Scotland under his sway a happy exemption from those wars which for many years had exhausted the resources of the country and retarded all social improvement. His administration was undoubtedly popular; the people regarded him as their friend, the nobles were friendly to him, and his liberality to the Church procured for him the grateful eulogies of the clergy. Wyntoun, the Prior of St. Serfs, in his Metrical Chronicle, descants in glowing terms on the Regents goodly person and lofty stature; his strength, wisdom, chastity, sobriety, and affability; his piety, hatred of Lollards and heretics, and liberality to the Church. He has, however, in various ways received scant justice at the hands of the later historians of Scotland, and has long lain under the evil repute of having been accessory to the murder of his nephew, the dissolute and ill-fated Duke of Rothesay. Sir Walter Scotts romance of the Fair Maid of Perth has contributed not a little to deepen the unfavourable impression formed of Albanys conduct in this matter.

Lord Hailes, after quoting the remission drawn up under the royal seal granted to Robert, Duke of Albany, and Archibald, Earl of Douglas, for the part they took in the apprehension of the prince, says ” From this instrument the following circumstances may be collected 1. The death of David, Prince of Scotland, occasioned a parliamentary inquiry.
2. His uncle, Robert, Duke of Albany, and his brother-in-law, Archibald, Earl of Douglas, were at least suspected of having confined him and put him to death. 3. The result of the inquiry was that the Duke of Albany and the Earl of Douglas avowed that they had confined him, and justified their conduct from the basis of public utility.
4. The King did not hold it as expedient or necessary to publish these motives to the world.
5. It appeared that the ”Prince of Scotland departed this life through Divine Providence, and not otherwise.• The reader will determine as to the import of this phrase. If by it a natural death was intended, the circumlocution seems strange and affected.
6. The Duke of Albany and the Earl of Douglas obtained a remission in terms as ample as if they had actually murdered the heir-apparent.