Though there be no direct evidence of the fact, yet there is reason to conjecture, that both Wallace and his brother were present at the battle of Dunbar. It has already been shown, from respectable authority, that Sir Malcolm outlived his father; and, in the work of the Minstrel, we have an account, though rather obscure, of the manner in which he met his death. He is represented as surrounded by a multitude of enemies, and bravely defending himself on his knees, with all the energy of despair, after he had been hamstrung, in order to prevent his escape. Being at last borne down by a mass of spearmen, he was unmercifully put to death.[56] Though Henry does not mention when this took place, yet, from the previous comparative tranquillity which reigned in the country, the conflict of Dunbar appears most likely to have been the scene of so deadly a struggle; and the close intimacy which Wallace afterwards maintained with the family of Graham, may have originated in the circumstance of his brother and himself having been among the few who stood by their chief, Sir Patrick,[57] on this disastrous occasion. The banner of Sir Richard Siward (_black, with a white cross flowered at the ends_)[58] still floated on the battlements of the Castle of Dunbar. To this place many of the Scottish barons fled for refuge. The protection they received, however, was of short duration. The fortress, according to agreement, was surrendered to Warren. On this Lord Hailes remarks, “Our historians impute this also to treachery; and they accuse the Governor, Richard Siward. But this charge is manifestly unjust. Siward had agreed to surrender the castle, if it was not relieved within three days; and it was not relieved.” His Lordship is sometimes rash in bringing charges against the historians of his country. The treason of Siward did not consist in delivering the castle, according to agreement, but in _making that agreement_. There is enough in the fact of his consenting to surrender one of the strongest and most commanding fortresses in the country, in so short a time, to warrant the charge they have made against him. That the Scots nobles were ignorant of the terms, is evident from their flying to it, after the battle, as to a place of safety, which they would not have done, had they known that they were instantly to be delivered over in chains to the mercy of the enemy. Siward could have no certainty of his being succoured in three days, as the Scottish army, according to his Lordship’s account, only came in sight “on the _third_ day;” and if any accident had detained it, Dunbar must have been surrendered on the day following. Besides, if Lord Hailes had referred to Vol. II. p. 274, 275, of the Chronicle of Peter Langtoft, an Englishman, and a favourite authority of his own, he would have found not only the statement of Scottish authors confirmed, but a regular detailed account of the treason. That his Lordship, in the face of such evidence, should