alone, whose early success first caused him to be joined by Douglas, and afterwards by the Bishop and the Steward, along with Lindsay, Moray, and Lundy. Indeed, instead of playing the part ascribed to him by Lingard, the patriotism of the Steward and the Bishop, was of that lukewarm and short-lived kind which little deserves the name. It did not outlive eight weeks; and they seized the first opportunity to desert Wallace and the cause of freedom. The attack upon Ormesby the Justiciary took place some time in May 1297; and on the 9th of July of the same year, did Bishop Wishart, this patriot assertor of Scottish independence, negociate the treaty of Irvine, by which he and the other Scottish barons, with the single exception of Wallace and Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell, submitted to Edward. Lingard’s other hero, the High Steward, who is brought in to divide the glory with Wallace, was actually in the English service at the battle of Stirling; and although he secretly favoured the Scottish cause, he did not openly join his countrymen till he saw the entire destruction of Surrey’s army. I may remark, in concluding this note, that the idea of an attack upon Wallace, and an eulogy on the clemency of Edward, has probably not even the merit of originality. It appears to be borrowed from Carte, vol. ii. p. 290; but it is only the idea which is taken. The clumsy and absurd argument of Carte is discarded, and a far more ingenious hypothesis, with a new set of facts, is substituted in its place. On reading over Hemingford again, I find one expression which may perhaps have suggested this theory of Lingard. Hemingford says, speaking of Bruce, p. 120, that he joined the Bishop of Glasgow and the Steward, ‘qui tocius mali fabricatores exstiterant.’ Yet this is inconsistent with his own account in p. 118, and is not corroborated, so far as I know, by any other historian.”