Respecting the inaccuracies of Dr Lingard on this subject, we shall give another extract from the same authority. “He,” Dr Lingard “observes, that after the surprise of Ormesby the Justiciary, by Wallace and Douglas, other independent chieftains arose in different counties, who massacred the English, and compelled their own countrymen to fight under their standards. These other independent chieftains are brought in ‘for the nonce’ by Dr Lingard. They are utterly unknown to the contemporary historians, English and Scottish. But they do not appear upon the stage without a use. On the contrary, they first multiply like Falstaff’s men in buckram, ‘into numerous parties,’ and then act a principal part in the next sentence; for the historian goes on to observe, ‘that the origin and progress of _these numerous parties_ had been viewed with secret satisfaction by the Steward of Scotland, and Wishart the Bishop of Glasgow, who determined to collect them into one body, and to give their efforts one common direction. Declaring themselves the assertors of Scottish independence, they invited the different leaders to rally around them; and the summons was obeyed by Wallace and Douglas, by Sir Alexander Lindsay, Sir Andrew Moray, and Sir Richard Lundy,’ vol. iii. p. 305. This last sentence is one of pure and gratuitous invention, without a shadow of historical authority to support it. The numerous and independent parties and chieftains who rose in different counties--the silent satisfaction with which they were contemplated by the Bishop of Glasgow and the High Steward--their determination to collect them into one body, and to give them one common direction--their declaring themselves the assertors of Scottish independence--their summons to the different leaders to rally round them, and the prompt obedience of this summons by Wallace, Douglas, and the rest--are facts created by the ingenuity of the historian. They seem to be introduced for the purpose of diminishing the reputation of Wallace; and the impression they leave on the mind of the reader, appears to me to be one totally different from the truth. The Steward and the Bishop of Glasgow are the patriot chiefs under whom Douglas and Wallace, and many other independent chieftains consent to act for the recovery of Scottish freedom; and Wallace sinks down into the humble partisan, whose talents are directed by their superior authority and wisdom. Now, the fact is exactly the reverse of this. The Steward and Wishart, encouraged by the successes of Wallace and Douglas, joined their party, and acted along with them in their attempt to free Scotland; but neither Fordun, nor Wynton, nor Bower gives us the slightest ground to think that they acted a principal part, or any thing like a principal part, in organizing the first rising against Edward. On the contrary, these historians, along with Trivet and Walsingham, Tyrrel and Carte, ascribe the rising to Wallace