Here there is no national pride interfering, to conceal the extent of the discomfiture of the Scots; and it is surprising his Lordship should conceive, that any one would think it necessary to invent what he calls a “_pretty tale_,” for the purpose of soothing the national feelings. Thirty thousand Scots, we presume, may be defeated by ninety or a hundred thousand English, without being _very_ much disgraced by the affair; whereas the English authorities may have been silent on circumstances which tended to diminish the glory of their victory, even had they come to their knowledge. That Cumyn commanded the cavalry is merely a conjecture of his Lordship; but allowing it to have been the case, we conceive there is a material difference between a leader joining in the general flight of his army, and one riding off with part of the forces, and leaving the rest to stand the brunt of the engagement. If Warren had acted so, we presume he would either have been punished as a traitor, or cashiered as a coward. That Cumyn was afterwards elected one of the regents of the kingdom, affords no satisfactory evidence of his having acted correctly. He was at the head of the only entire body of troops in the country, and his faction unbroken--of course, there could be no opposition to his election. And the wonder is, considering the ambition of the man, that under these circumstances he was not appointed sole regent, in place of sharing a divided authority, as will be seen in the sequel, with one who was his inferior in birth, talents, and influence. We cannot see any great improbability of the “_congress_” (as his Lordship calls it) having taken place in the manner described, provided that _Bruce was present_. Wallace had already secured his troops from immediate pursuit. Bruce might think it a favourable opportunity to palliate his conduct at Irvine; and Wallace, who was seldom afraid to come in juxtaposition with any one, might have been easily induced to stand when he hailed him. His Lordship’s objection is founded chiefly on the length of the conversation. Now, if any one will peruse it, even in the most verbose of our historians, he will find that it could not have occupied more than five minutes, which certainly cannot be called “a long conversation,” or at least so long as to afford any thing like a plausible objection to its occurrence. As to Fordun having placed “a narrow inaccessible glen” between the parties, it does not in the least affect the credibility of the account. Few glens are to be found in Scotland, without a river or stream of some description running through them; and in speaking of any of these, it is no uncommon thing for one person to allude to the glen, and another to the river or stream so connected with it.