It is said by Lord Hailes, in speaking of Henry, that “he is an author whom every historian copies, yet no historian but Sir Robert Sibbald will venture to quote.” This, though intended as a sneer by the learned annalist, may be viewed as complimentary to the candour of Sir Robert, who, while he avails himself of the facts related by another, is not above acknowledging the obligation. Considering the situation of this unfortunate but ingenious man, no author had ever a stronger claim on the indulgence of his readers. Blind from his birth, he was deprived of the advantage of correcting the manuscript of his work, while his poverty prevented him from procuring an amanuensis capable of doing justice to his talents. Hence we find a number of errors and omissions, that from the ease with which they can be rectified, appear evidently the faults of transcribers. Succeeding historians, far from making the allowance which his case demanded, have acted towards him with a degree of peevish hostility exceedingly unbecoming. Because his dates do not always correspond with the transactions he records, he has been termed a “_liar_” a “_fabulist_,” “_a man blind in more respects than one_;” with other appellations no less unworthy of themselves than unmerited by him. When it is considered that there is no circumstance connected with Wallace mentioned by subsequent writers, but what had already found a place in the work of the Minstrel;--that they had no other story to give than what he had previously given;--and that they must either repeat what he had already stated, or remain silent: we are led to conclude, that he could not have so effectually pre-occupied the ground, without having very complete information regarding the subject of his biography. This information, he tells us himself, was derived from a memoir written in Latin by John Blair, assisted by Thomas Gray, the former chaplain to Wallace, and the latter parson of Liberton, both eye-witnesses of the transactions they relate. It follows, therefore, that Scottish authors, having obtained, in a great measure, their information respecting Wallace from the pages of Blind Harry, their characters, as historians, become seriously involved with the fate of him whom they have so unceremoniously vituperated. Under these circumstances, it appears a very proper subject of inquiry, to ascertain whether he has, or has not executed his task with becoming fidelity. Were the memoir of Blair extant, this matter could very soon be determined; but having long since disappeared, doubts are now entertained of its ever having been in existence. Sir Robert Sibbald has published a few fragments, entitled _Relationes quædam Arnaldi Blair, Monachi de Dumfermelini, et Capellani D. Willielmi Wallas, Militis 1327_. Though these are merely transcripts from the Scotichronicon of Fordun, yet some have supposed them to have been the groundwork on which Blind Harry founded his poem. This opinion,