“Having given these authorities, all of them prior to Blind Harry, it is unnecessary to give the testimony of the more modern writers. The ancient writers prove incontestably, that Sir John de Menteth, a Scottish baron, who had served along with and under Wallace against the English, deserted his country, swore homage to Edward, and employed a servant of Wallace to betray his master into his hands; that he seized him in bed, and delivered him to Edward, by whom he was instantly tried, condemned, and hanged. It was natural that the voice of popular tradition should continue from century to century, to execrate the memory of such a man. Whether Menteth was the intimate friend of Wallace, or what precise degree of familiarity existed between them, it is now not easy to determine, nor is it of any consequence as to his guilt. Indeed it is impossible to regard, without a smile the weak and inconclusive evidence, if it deserves so grave a name, on which Hailes has founded what he calls his Apology for Menteth, which, after all, seems to be borrowed from _Carte, vol. ii. p. 289_. Lord Hailes also remarks, “It is most improbable, that Wallace should have put himself in the power of a man whom he knew to be in an office of distinguished trust under Edward;” and almost in the same breath paraphrases the lines of Langtoft, in which it is stated that his capture was effected through the treason of Jack Short, whose brother Wallace is said to have slain. Surely the confidence was as imprudent in the one case as it would have been in the other. It may be observed, however, that if there had been a possibility of rescuing the name of Menteith from the execrations of his country, the task would not have remained for the learned annalist to perform. The great family interest which he possessed, was sufficient to protect him from punishment, not only for his treachery to Wallace, but also for his subsequent perfidy to Bruce. Yet though that interest was powerfully exerted to screen him from the consequences of his demerits, not a single effort was made to remove the dishonourable stain from his character. The following transaction, which has already been alluded to, is quite consistent with the conduct ascribed to him by the Minstrel. It will also account for the impunity which attended his crimes.