Whether these were the issue of the marriage with Shaw, or of that afterwards contracted with Baillie of Hoprig, or of both, it is difficult to determine. It is probable, as Sir William Baillie is designated, of Hoprig, and his descendants as proprietors of Lamington, that they may have succeeded to the inheritance, after the offspring of the first marriage had become extinct. It has also been advanced, as an argument against the legitimacy of the daughter of Wallace, that she inherited none of the property of her father. Those, however, who started this objection, would have done well to have shown, that Wallace possessed property to which she could have succeeded. It does not appear that he was ever personally invested in any of the lands belonging to the family. And mention is made of his brother Malcolm having left a son of the name of John, in whom the succession was prolonged, till it merged in the family of Craigie. In Langtoft’s Chronicle, vol. ii. p. 338, we have an account of the capture and execution of a Sir John de Wallace, who is there called a brother of Sir William. This is evidently a mistake, and might very easily arise from the closeness of the connection between the two parties. Another “John Walays of Elryslà” (Elderslie) is taken notice of as among the witnesses to the charter of Robert, Duke of Albany; and, from the family title being preserved, it is highly probable that the stock of Sir Malcolm Wallace had not then become extinct. S. ON THE TREACHERY OF MENTEITH. Page 169. In the account of the capture of Wallace, we have thought it advisable to follow, in a great measure, the statement given by the Minstrel. It is, we conceive, the only rational one we are possessed of; and as the authority of the author has been supported by the Tower records, and other incontrovertible muniments, in matters of comparatively trifling importance, it would be unfair to doubt his veracity on so important a part of the history of his hero, particularly when all the notices we have in other writers, tend more or less to confirm the truth of what he asserts. Lord Hailes, however, has attempted to remove the odium which has for these five hundred years been attached to the memory of Menteith; but his efforts to exculpate the Judas of Scotland, have been viewed by the generality of his countrymen in rather an unfavourable light. In the remarks his Lordship has made on the subject, we cannot discover that acuteness which frequently appears in his other writings. Dr Jamieson has thus replied to him: