_Than demyt he, the fals Sotheroun amang,_ _How thai best mycht the Scottis barownis hang._ _For gret_ bernys _that tyme stud in till Ayr,_ _Wrocht for the king, quhen his lugyng wes thar;_ _Byggyt about, that no man entir mycht,_ _Bot ane at anys, nor haiff off othir sicht._ _Thar ordand thai thir lordis suld be slayne._--V. 23.
Here the Minstrel introduces his account of the savage transaction ascribed to Edward I., in causing the greatest part of the barons of the west of Scotland to be hanged, without trial, under the semblance of peace; and of the vengeance taken by Wallace, in what has been usually called “the burning of the BARNS OF AYR.”
Before examining this account, I may observe, that instead of _For gret bernys_, as in MS., Edit. 1594 reads, _Four_ greit barnis; and that of 1620, to the same purpose, _Foure greit barnes_. Perhaps I ought to have adopted this reading, especially as the conjunction _for_, with which ver. 25 commences, does not seem necessary as marking the connection with the words preceding.
The story of the destruction of these buildings, and of the immediate reason of it, is supported by the universal tradition of the country to this day; and local tradition is often entitled to more regard than is given to it by the fastidiousness of the learned. Whatever allowances it may be necessary to make for subsequent exaggeration, it is not easily conceivable that an event should be connected with a particular spot, during a succession of ages, without some foundation.
Sir D. Dalrymple deems this story “inconsistent with probability.” He objects to it, because it is said “that Wallace, accompanied by Sir John Graham, Sir John Menteth, and Alexander Scrymgeour, constable of Dundee, went into the west of Scotland to chastise the men of Galloway, who had espoused the part of the Comyns and of the English;” and that, “_on the 28th August 1298_, they set fire to some granaries in the neighbourhood of Ayr, and burned the English cantoned in them.” Annals, I. 255, N. Here he refers to the relations of Arnold Blair, and to Major, and produces three objections to the narrative. One of these is, that “Comyn, the younger of Badenoch was the only man of the name of Comyn who had any interest in Galloway, and he was at that time of Wallace’s party.” The other two are; that “Sir John Graham could have no share in the enterprize, for he was killed at Falkirk, 22d July, 1298;” and that “it is not probable that Wallace would have undertaken such an enterprize immediately after the discomfiture at Falkirk.” Although it had been said by mistake that Graham and Comyn were present, this could not invalidate the whole relation; for we often find that leading facts are faithfully narrated in a history, when there are considerable mistakes as to the persons said to have been engaged.