“Some of the English historians have stained their pages with low invectives against Wallace. Carte, in particular [Hist. v. ii. p. 290.], labours hard to prove him a traitor to King Edward, whose _mercy_ he praises. That he was a traitor, he proves from his being a native of Galloway, _or_ the Cambrian territories, which, _he says_, the kings of Scotland held in vassalage of the crown of England, and because the subvassals were, in cases of rebellion, subject by the feudal law to the same forfeitures and penalties as the immediate vassal. “A man must feel himself very much pinched for arguments, when he has recourse to such as are confessedly not founded on reason, and to quibbles and perversion of facts. Clydesdale, the ancient kingdom of Strathcluyd, one of the first independent kingdoms established in Britain by the expulsion of the Romans, which for many centuries withstood the attacks of the Angles, Pichts, Scots, and Norwegians, and had the honour to produce STEWART, DOUGLAS, and WALAYS, was never pretended to be any part of the territories of which the kings of England claimed the superiority. So the pretence that Walays was a traitor, in consequence of the place of his birth, falls to the ground; and the pretence of rebellion is equally unfounded, unless the noble exertions of a free people against the unjustifiable attempts of a neighbouring prince to subject them to his dominion, are to be branded with the name of rebellion. Well may the spirit of the noble Walays forgive those writers for accusing him of inhumanity and rebellion, who have extolled the clemency of Edward I.”--_Notes to Wyntoun’s Chronicle_, vol. ii. p. 503. The inclination to detract from the merits of Wallace, does not appear to have become entirely extinct among the historians of England. Dr Lingard thus expresses himself respecting our hero: “It may perhaps offend the national partiality of some among my readers, but I greatly suspect that Wallace owes his celebrity as much to his execution as to his exploits. Of all the Scottish chieftains who deserved and experienced the enmity of Edward, he alone perished on the gallows; and on this account his fate called forth and monopolized the sympathy of his countrymen.”--Vol. iii. p. 227. On this Mr Tytler remarks, “It is not true, that of all the Scottish chieftains who deserved Edward’s enmity, Wallace was the only one who perished on the gallows. Sir Nigel Bruce, Sir Christopher Seton, John Seton, the Earl of Athol, Sir Simon Fraser, Sir Herbert de Morham, Thomas Boys, Sir David Inchmartin, Sir John de Somerville, Sir Thomas and Sir Alexander Bruce, both brothers of the king, and Sir Reginald Crawfurd, were all hanged by Edward’s orders in the course of the year 1306, within a year of the execution of Wallace. So much for the accuracy of the ground on which Lingard has founded his conjecture, that Wallace owes his celebrity ‘to his execution.’”