“About thirty years ago, when the burying vault of the parish church of Kinfauns happened to be opened, I was shewed a helmet made of thick leather, or of some such stuff, painted over with broad stripes of blue and white, which I was told was part of the fictitious armour in which the body of Thomas of Longueville had been deposited. Henry says, he was of large stature, and the helmet, indeed, was a very large one.”--P. 24 of Notes in 3d Volume. [52] See Appendix, L. [53] The _Croyz Gneytz_ was held in great veneration, in consequence of its being supposed to contain part of the wood of the real cross. _The Black Rood_ of Scotland was one of the national monuments carried off by Edward. Its sanctity was considered equal to that of the _black stones_ of Iona; and an oath made upon it, gave the same stability to a contract. It was the favourite crucifix of Queen Margaret. The cross was of gold, about the length of a palm--the figure of ebony, studded and inlaid with gold. A piece of the true cross was also supposed to be enclosed in it. _Aldred, p. 349 apud Twisden._--_Hailes_, vol. i. p. 41. [54] In Dr Jamieson’s edition of Blind Harry, this circumstance is thus printed:-- “Bot maister Blayr spak nothing off himsell, In deid off armes quhat awentur he fell. Schir Thomas Gray, was than preyst to Wallace, Put in the buk how than hapnyt this cace At Blayr was in, [and] mony worthi deid, Off quhilk him selff had no plesance to reid.” B. x. 893-898. In the Perth edition of Wallace, the words in the third line stand thus:--“_I Thomas Gray, yan preist to Wallace_,” &c. On this reading, the Perth editor, with propriety, founds a very strong argument in favour of the _existence_ of Blair’s work, and of the fidelity of Henry’s translation. The difference in the two editions appeared so very important, as to induce a friend of the writer to refer to the original manuscript in the Advocates’ Library, when it was found that the rendering of the Perth editor was strictly conformable to the original text, “thus affording,” as the above mentioned friend observes, “a triumphant argument in Henry’s favour; for it seems to represent him as in the very act of versifying his “auctor.” What authority Dr Jamieson has for the version he has given, must remain with himself to explain. [55] See Appendix, M. [56] The havoc made, and the oppressions sustained by the inhabitants, are thus described by Barbour, p. 9, vol. i. of _The Bruce_.