“I shall only add an important proof from the Lanercost MS., referred to in the _Preliminary Remarks_.[106] ‘_Captus_ fuit Willelmus Waleis per unum Scottum, scilicet per dominum Johannem de Mentiphe, et usque London ad Regem adductus, et adjudicatum fuit quod traheretur, et suspenderetur, et decollaretur, et membratim divideretur, et quod viscera ejus comburentur, quod factum est; et suspensum est caput ejus super pontem London, armus autem dexter super pontem Novi Castri super Tynam, et armus sinister apud Berwicum, pes autem dexter apud villam Sancti Johannis, et pes sinister apud Aberden.’ Fol. 211. _Mentiphe_ is obviously an _erratum_ for _Menteith_.” Mr Tytler, in the “Notes and Illustrations” to the first volume of his History of Scotland, has also handled this subject with considerable ability. We shall select the following, as affording additional arguments to those already advanced by Dr Jamieson. In alluding to the evidence afforded by the Lanercost MS., that intelligent writer observes, “We cannot be surprised that Lord Hailes should have been ignorant of this passage, as he tells us, Annals, vol. ii. p. 316, he had not been able to discover where the MS. of Lanercost was preserved. “The same excuse, however, will not avail him as to the next piece of evidence, of Menteth’s having seized Wallace. It is contained in Leland’s extract from an ancient MS. Chronicle, which Hailes has elsewhere quoted; I mean the Scala Chronicle, preserved in Corpus Christi Library, Cambridge. In Leland’s Collect., vol. i. p. 541, we have this passage from the Chronicle. ‘_Wylliam Waleys was taken of the Counte of Menteth about Glaskow_, and sent to King Edward, and after was hangid, drawn, and quarterid at London.’ This is only Leland’s abridgment of the passage, which in all probability is much more full and satisfactory in the original. Yet it is quite satisfactory as to Menteth’s guilt. “The next English authority is Langtoft’s Chronicle, which Hailes has himself quoted in his Notes and Corrections, vol. ii. p. 346. It is curious, and as to Menteith’s guilt perfectly conclusive. ‘Sir Jon of Menetest serwed William so nehi, He tok him whan he wend lest, on nyght his leman bi. That was thorght treson of Jak Schort his man, He was the encheson, that Sir Jon so him nam.’ p. 329. “We learn from this, that Sir John Menteth prevailed upon Wallace’s servant, Jack Short, to betray his master, and came under cover of night, and seized him in bed, ‘his leman bi,’ and when he had no suspicion of what was to happen. How Hailes, after quoting this passage, which was written more than two centuries before Blind Harry, should have represented this poor minstrel as the only original authority for the guilt of Menteth, is indeed difficult to determine.”