and came to Werk on Tweed: to Corspatrick of Dunbar he sent to ask his counsel, for he knew the country well, and he was brought to the king's presence, and by a subtil band (covenant) they cordyt (agreed) upon this thing." He proceeds to explain that the thing they cordyt, or determined on, was, that Dunbar should proceed to Berwick, and at midnight deliver the town to the English. "Earl Patrick," he continues, "then went to Berwick. He was received and truly trusted; the king followed with his renowned army, when the town after midnight was at rest. Then Corspatrick arose, and let the bridge and the portcullis down, and drew up the gates, so that his banner could be seen; and the army was aware of it, and drew towards him, and Edward entered, and hastily 'gar'd slay' 7,050 men.' So that by this false conduct no true Scotsman escaped.

Now we know from Hemingford, an English contemporary historian, of excellent authority, that one principal part of Blind Harry's assertion is perfectly accurate, although the fact does not appear in our common historians. Patrick, Earl of March, whom the Minstrel denominates Corspatrick, and some of the English chronicles, Earl Patrick with the black beard, did resort to Edward when he was encamped at Werk; and Hemingford (vol. i. p. 102) gives us the original bond or agreement which they cordyt between them, dated 25th March, 1295, the last day of the year 1295. Berwick, we know, was taken by the English on the 30th of the same month, which brings it into the year 1296. So far, therefore, we find the * Wallace, by Jamieson, p. 4.

Minstrel corroborated; and if the curious reader will look into the second volume of the "Chronicle of Langtoft," also a contemporary English authority, he will find a further confirmation of this

account.

In what manner Dunbar got possession of the gates, and on the advance of Edward opened them to the English, does not appear in the poem of the Minstrel, who informs us that his narrative is merely introductory to the "Life of Wallace," and, therefore, that he does not delay upon it.

"I may not put all thai dedis in rhyme
Of Cornykle-why suld I tarry lang?
To Wallace now briefly will I gang,

Scotland was lost when he was but a child."

But we see in Buchanan that a report was spread by Edward, of the approach of Baliol at the head of an army; and we learn from Fordun, (vol. ii. p. 160,) that "it was by means of the standard of a certain earl (who, says he, shall be nameless, lest his fraud should be repeated) that the citizens of Berwick were circumvented." The sentence is taken by Fordun from a monkish poem, written in Leonine verse, and probably coeval with the taking of the town.

"Hic villæ turmas caute statuit perimendas,
Cujusdam fraude, qui semper erit sine laude,
Vexillum cujus cives decipit-et hujus
Nomen siletur, Comitis ne fraus iteretur."

We see,

Through all this it is not difficult to discover the truth, if we put together these various circumstances derived from different sources. from the account of Carte, that Edward had not given orders for the attack of the town by his

ships, or the assault of the barricades by his army. The ships sailed in, mistaking the muster of the army for the preparations of an assault; and the army attacked the town, not with the idea of storming it, but merely for the purpose of covering the retreat of the ships. We next gather from Hemingford and Henry the Minstrel, that, in a secret council held between Edward, and Patrick, Earl of March, the Scottish noble proposed a scheme by which he trusted to deliver Berwick into the hands of the English king, which piece of treachery he accomplished. We learn from Buchanan, that Edward caused reports to be spread by some Scots of the Bruce faction,* that Baliol was in the neighbourhood with a large army, and that, seeing an army or body of cavalry advance, the principal persons in the town, imagining it was the king, hastened out to meet them; and lastly, we are informed by Fordun, that the mode in which the citizens were deceived was by the "standard or banner of a certain earl," whose name he passes over in silence, lest his fraudulent stratagem should be again repeated. The reason assigned is absurd; the true motive for the author of the monkish lines concealing the name of the delinquent was, that the treason had prospered, and its author was in power. Now, another ancient historian, quoted by Hutchinson in his History of Durham, informs us that

*This is a remarkable expression, and it serves to corroborate Henry the Minstrel; for we learn from Hemingford, vol. i. p. 102, that at this time "Bruce, the son of the Competitor, and his son, Robert Bruce, afterwards king, along with Dunbar, Earl of March, and the Earl of Angus, had repaired to Edward, and renewed their oaths of homage." Dunbar, therefore, was a lord of the Bruce faction.

the manner in which Berwick fell into the hands of Edward was this:-The English king, after in vain attempting to carry the town, pretended to raise the siege, having spread a report, which soon reached the citizens, that Baliol was advancing at the head of an army. He then marched away, but returned suddenly and secretly, during the night, and, concealing the greater part of his force by the nature of the ground, sent forward a detachment upon whose standard the royal arms of Scotland were emblazoned; whereupon the citizens, imagining it to be Baliol himself, precipitately and tumultuously opened their gates, and found, when it was too late, that they were enemies instead of friends. Edward then pushed on with the main body of his army, and the town was carried and sacked. Who does not in this account at once detect the "standard of the earl which deceived the citizens?"

"Vexillum cujus cives decipit, et hujus

Nomen siletur: Comitis ne fraus iteretur.”

The whole story, then, runs thus:-Corspatrick, or Patrick, Earl of Dunbar, came to Werk, and had a secret consultation with Edward, who found Berwick too strong to be taken by open assault; and this minute particular, which is a key to the whole truth, which does not appear in any other Scottish historian, and which is corroborated by Hemingford, we learn solely from Henry the Minstrel. They agreed to employ stratagem ; a report was spread that Baliol was at hand with his army; Edward struck his tents, and raised the siege, but secretly, under cover of night, returned. Dunbar, at the head of an advanced

party, and having the royal arms of Scotland on his standard, proceeded to the gates, and the reader already knows the result-the town was betrayed, and mercilessly sacked and plundered. Now, what is the inference which I draw from this, and from which I do not see how any one, who will candidly weigh the evidence, can escape?-simply this: that the account of the taking of Berwick, by Henry the Minstrel, although garbled, is corroborated by the most authentic contemporary documents, both English and Scottish, and that when he composed it, he must have had access to some accurate chronicle of the times.

Let me take another example. Henry's account of the taking of Dunbar, by Edward, might be shown to be minutely confirmed by the "Rotuli Scotia," vol. i. p. 22; and by the valuable English Chronicle of Langtoft. He affirms that four Scottish earls, namely, Mar, Menteith, Athole, and Ross, threw themselves into the Castle of Dunbar.

"Thir four erlis enterit in that place,

Of Mar, Menteith, Athol-Ross upon cace."

Now, in turning to Langtoft, we at first find something like a contradiction, or at least an omission, on the part of Henry, for this English author gives us only three earls

"Rosse, Menteith, Assetelle, thir Erlis thrie."

But, looking to Trivet, p. 288, another contemporary chronicler, we find the missing nobleman, Mar: again, after the defeat of the Scots, at Dunbar, and the termination of the campaign, the Minstrel informs us of the precaution he took to