“In the next five years,” adds Dr Lingard, the “name” of Wallace “is scarcely ever mentioned.” When Scottish affairs are concerned, and more particularly when the character of her deliverer is the subject adverted to, a reference to authorities appears to be extremely irksome, or attended with too much trouble to our learned author. In the present instance, however, we shall not ask him to go farther than the pages of his own work, where he will find matter that might lead him to suspect the truth of the above assertion, as well as the correctness of the view he has taken of the grounds on which our patriot’s popularity is founded. We are informed (vol. iii. p. 227), “The only man whose enmity could give him” (Edward) a “moment’s uneasiness, was Wallace, and in few months he was brought captive to London.” And again, vol. iii. p. 329, “If the fate of Wallace was different from all others, it proves that there was something peculiar in his case which rendered him less deserving of mercy.” If we are to credit our author’s statements, Edward must have been a more nervous character than he has ever been supposed to be, if he could feel “uneasiness” at “the enmity” of a man who had been thus buried in obscurity, and whose “name had scarcely been heard of for five years,”--one who, in the only great battle in which he was successful, held but a subordinate command, and acted during the insurrection in the humble character of a mere partisan, under the direction of others. Surely there was nothing peculiarly aggravating in the case of such a man, to have “rendered him less deserving of mercy” than his more guilty superiors, particularly from _one_ whom our author informs us “was _not_ a blood-thirsty tyrant.” It is strange that it did not appear to Dr Lingard, as a very high degree of praise, that after Wallace had been deprived, by the severe and sanguinary policy of Edward, of all resources save what arose from his own dauntless heart and irresistible arm, that he should still continue to be the only man _whose_ “enmity” could give the oppressor of his country “a moment’s uneasiness.” From this circumstance, and from this alone, arose that “something peculiar” in his case which rendered him obnoxious to the tender mercies of Edward. In conclusion, we cannot help remarking, that the Doctor’s method of substituting, where his prejudices happen to be interested, his own theoretical conjectures, in opposition to the authentic records of the country, is rather an indirect way to the confidence of his reader. P. PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF WALLACE. P. 162.