It has been said, that Wallace “left no legitimate issue; but had a _natural_ daughter, who married Sir William Baillie of Hoprig, the progenitor of the Baillies of Lammington.” Caledonia, I. 579. From the reference here made in a foot-note to Crawfurd’s Hist. Renfrew, 61, and Ruddiman’s Index Dipl. Scotiæ, 121, one might have supposed that these writers had brought some proof of the illegitimacy of this daughter. But it does not appear that the idea of illegitimacy had once entered into the mind of Crawfurd. He merely says of Wallace: “He left issue only one daughter, who was married to Sir William Baillie of Hoprig,” &c.; adding, “the lands of Elderslee returned to the family of Craigie.” Ruddiman merely says; “Reliquisse unam filiam Willelmus dicitur, quam uxorem duxit D. Willelmus Baillie de Hoprig,” &c.
The only thing that has the semblance of a proof that Wallace was not married, is what follows in the same note. “The estate of Ellerslie went to the Wallaces of Ricardton, as his nearest male heirs.” But their being _male_ heirs might be the reason of their inheriting this property. Besides, it does not seem fully ascertained, whether our illustrious champion was ever personally vested in these lands. It is admitted by the author of Caledonia, in a preceding note, p. 578, that “both Wyntoun and Harry concur in speaking of the great Wallace as the _second_ son of Sir Malcolm.” Lord Hailes says: “He was the younger son of a gentleman in the neighbourhood of Paisley. Such is the opinion generally received.” Annals, I. 245. It must be admitted, however, that Bower, in his continuation of Fordun, says that “Andrew, the elder brother of William, and honoured with the order of knighthood, being guilefully slain by the English, William succeeded to a sufficient patrimony in lands for his state, which he left to be held by his posterity.” Scotichron. II. Lib. xi. c. 28.
Unless we should suppose the Minstrel determined to lie in the face of evidence, his appeal, in the passage quoted, to his _auctor_, shews the general belief of the country at the time of his writing, and even during the life of Mr. John Blair, to whom he seems to appeal, that Wallace was married. Now, it is well known that Blair was the bosom friend and the faithful associate of Wallace; and, being a priest, it may reasonably be conjectured that he was the person who celebrated the marriage.