hopeless case to lead one thousand men against the half of the English cavalry (who numbered four thousand in all), and, moreover, under every disadvantage as to arms, equipments, and spirits. In short, to suppose Mr. Tytler right, it is not necessary to condemn Lord Hailes, who, whether we call Comyn and his followers more treacherous or more timid, has clearly the best of the controversy on every point. The taking of Wallace is another matter on which Hailes is sharply assailed, and, as we think, without sufficient grounds. "The popular tradition (writes Lord H.) is, that Wallace was betrayed by Sir John Monteith, his familiar friend, by an act of domestic treason.' Now, Lord Hailes does not deny, what is stated by every historian, and proved by documents, that Sir John Monteith, a Scottish man of rank in the English interest, a Juramentado, in the modern phrase, and governor of Dunbarton Castle, was the person by whom the champion of Scotland was delivered to the English. This, we repeat, is a fact admitted by Lord Hailes. But he denies that part of the tradition which affirmed that Wallace was connected with Monteith by any intercourse of friendship or familiarity.' So, indeed, it is said by Blind Harry, whom every historian copies, yet whom no historian, save Sir Robert Sibbald, will venture to quote. But, notwithstanding the authority of this romantic writer, it is most improbable that Wallace should have voluntarily put himself in the power of a man whom he knew to be in an office of distinguished trust under Edward. Again, Lord Hailes complains, 'My apology for Monteith has been received with wonderful disapprobation by many readers, for it contradicts vulgar traditions, and that most respectable authority, Blind Harry.' Those who condemn Sir John Monteith ought to condemn him for having acknowledged the government of Edward, and for having accepted an office of trust under him, not for having discharged the duties of that office.' Finally, Lord Hailes shows, from the coincidence of a passage in Arnold Blair's relations, with a curious passage in Langtoft's chronicles, that Wallace was not, properly speaking, betrayed by Sir John Monteith, in whom he reposed no trust, but that he was betrayed to him, by the agency of a servant, called Jack Short, who, in consequence of ill-will conceived against his master, gave such information as enabled Sir John to take Wallace prisoner near Glasgow. On these passages Mr. Tytler rears the following charge : 'I have elsewhere observed that Lord Hailes is fond of displaying his ingenuity in white-washing dubious characters, and that, with an appearance of hypercritical accuracy, in his remarks upon other historians, he is often glaringly inaccurate himself. His note upon Sir John 2A2 Menteth Menteth is an instance of this. He represents the fact, that his friend Menteth betrayed Wallace to the English, as founded upon popular tradition-and the romance of Blind Harry, Wallace's rhyming biographer.'-vol. i. p. 443. Mr. Tytler proceeds to urge the various authorities, which, in addition to that of Blind Harry, affirm that Monteith was the captor of Wallace. But this is no fair statement of the question. Lord Hailes has repeatedly stated the same fact, and has only apologized for the apostate chieftain, so far as to show that Sir John betrayed no confidence reposed by Wallace in him personally. It may be very wrong to whitewash dubious characters; but, on the other hand, the very devil may be painted blacker than he is; and the difference is something between describing a man as a betrayer of his country, an adherent to the interest of her enemies, and a persecutor of her martyrs, and presenting him as, at the same time, the familiar and trusted friend of the hero whom he delivered to the vengeance of foreigners. Mr. Tytler is a Scottish lawyer, and well knows the difference betwixt murder and murder under trust. After all, we are far from thinking Sir John Monteith suffers much injustice in the common relation. He who employs domestic treason cannot complain if, being the instigator, he is also represented as the chief perpetrator of the villainy; nor need it be thought wonderful if, in course of time, the mere agent shall be forgotten, and the sum total of infamy attached to the name of him who was principal in the conspiracy. Few Scottish men, we suspect, having read the palliatives offered for Monteith, will be the less inclined to join in the hearty execration against him and his master, Edward, and the benediction on the memory of Wallace, with which Arnold Blair, the military chaplain of that heroic person, closes his Relations. Damnandus sit dies nativitatis Joannis de Monteith, et excipiatur nomen suum ex libro vitæ; maledictus sit in eternum inhumanus iste tyrannus; cum nobilis ille Scotorum ductor pro suæ virtutis præmio vitam æternam habebit in sæcula sæculorum. Amen. The third and last instance of a seeming desire to cavil with Lord Hailes, which we shall mention, occurs in Mr. Tytler's account of the manner in which the Countess of Buchan was confined by Edward I., for having acted a conspicuous part at the coronation of Robert Bruce in 1506. This lady, a personal object of Edward's spleen, was lodged (says Matthew of Westminster) in a species of cage, composed of wooden and iron bars, and established in one of the towers of the castle of Berwick. From this description, some authors, adopting too strictly the idea of a cage, have represented it as hung over the walls in such a way as birdcages birdcages are now suspended, thus exposing the unfortunate countess to the scorn and ridicule of all passengers. On this point, Lord Hailes has hesitated, and producing the order for the lady's confinement, has argued that the mode of providing for her rigid imprisonment is inconsistent with the story of Matthew of Westminster. Mr. Tytler lays lance in rest in behalf of the old chronicler. 'Lord Hailes,' he says, 'observes, that "to those who have no notion of any cage but one for a parrot, or a squirrel, hung out at a window, he despairs of rendering this mandate intelligible." I know not what called forth this peevish remark, but any one who has noticed the turrets of the ancient feudal castles, which hang like crowns, or cages, on the outside of the walls, and within one of which the countess's cage was to be constructed, will be at no loss to understand the tyrannical directions of Edward, and the passage of Mathew of Westminster.'vol. i. p. 451. Now the question here disputed seems to rest on the interpretation which shall be put on Matthew's phrase that the lady's crib was so constructed and so placed on the wall, ut possent eam transeuntes conspicere. If this is to be received as only meaning that the passengers should be rendered aware, by seeing this particular cabin, that the countess was lodged in disgraceful captivity, we can easily conceive it was so. But then there is no room to challenge Lord Hailes's explanation. If, on the contrary, we must necessarily receive the phrase in its literal sense, as implying that the Countess of Buchan was put in an open cage or crib, like one of those in which wild beasts are shown, pervious to the eyes of all men, who were to behold her sleeping or waking, at meals and at toilette, and equally accessible to every blast of heaven-we suspect that if such penance was ever inflicted, the very effects of the climate would prevent it from lasting long. We will take a crowned and Gothic steeple well known to Mr. Tytler (that of Saint Giles, in Edinburgh), and ask how long any living thing, except, perhaps, a jackdaw, could exist among the knops and pinnacles of the flinty coronet. Unless, however, we back Matthew of Westminster to this extent, there is no difference that we can trace betwixt him and Lord Hailes. Both of them must have known that, as there is even in the lowest depth a deeper still, so every ancient prison contained interior places of confinement, called cages, strongly constructed with bars of wood and iron, to secure turbulent captives, or augment the durance of those to whom it was determined to use severity. Louis XI.'s castle of Loches was furnished with several such cages, of new and terrible construction. There was one, also, in the jail of Edinburgh, -the old Heart of Mid-Lothian'-which, when that building was was pulled down, was purchased by the magistrates of a neighbouring town, and is, perhaps, still in being. The cage of the countess was probably of the same nature, but placed in a conspicuous situation, that the view, not, surely, of her person, but of the cell in which she was immured, might call to frequent remembrance her offence and her punishment, The misapprehension of the technical term seems to have led to the idea that the cell resembled a bird-cage, and was suspended over a wall. We willingly quit the task of censure for that of praise, and must render the justice to Mr. Tytler, that occasionally he has been able to correct errors and supply gaps in his predecessor's Annals. Although he appears to us to have failed in his attempt to diminish the authority due to Lord Hailes in the instances we have alluded to, we think others occur, in which the venerable author, professionally accustomed to give judgment only in accordance to facts fully proved, has been rather sceptical on subjects where, if the historian is to decide at all, he must decide on such materials as tradition affords him. This, sometimes the worst of evidence, is in other cases the best, and it is, in them, as great an error to throw it aside without consideration as it can ever be to rely on it with credulity. We must add, that the plan and extent of Mr. Tytler's history, and the advantage which he possesses in good taste, and a simple, manly, and intelligible strain of writing, enable him to adorn his pages with a great many light yet interesting touches which Lord Hailes, being confined to the dry task of composing annals, was compelled to omit. It is by such judicious additions and improvements that modern authors should endeavour to establish a superiority over those who may, indeed, have given us cause of regret, but cannot have intended any offence, when nostra ante nos dixerunt. Amongst other objects of new and curious interest, we understand that Volume III. of Mr. Tytler's history will contain some singular evidence concerning the fate of Richard the Second, who (or some one personating him) appears to have resided in Scotland ten years after the period commonly assigned in the English annals as that of his death. It is with great pleasure we anticipate a speedy continuation of this work. Pinkerton, whose book is the only modern one treating of the history of Scotland till the reign of Mary, leaves far richer gleanings behind him than the accurate Lord Hailes. An excellent scholar he was, yet deficient in actual local knowledge. He did not recognize, for example, in the Castle of Cowthele,' the baronial fortress of the Somervilles, called Cowdailly, although, we believe, he was educated, if not born, within a few a few miles of that place. He sought the maps of Pont and Bleau in vain for the parish of Bowden, which any almanac would have pointed out; and, long resident in England and foreign countries, he was singularly inexpert in the Lowland Scottish tongue. Selected by Gibbon to be his assistant in republishing the old historians of England, he repaid the obligation by imitating the style of the historian of the empire, which, in his hands, became harsh, tumid, and obscure. Besides, although Mr. Pinkerton collected many valuable materials from the Paperoffice, yet that valuable depositary of original letters is far from exhausted; and the unwearied labours of Mr. Deputy-Register Thomson have thrown interesting light on the reigns of the second and third Jameses. The immense stores collected by the industrious Chalmers have also been added to the materials for Scottish history, within the last twenty years; we hope, therefore, Mr. Tytler, young, ardent, and competent to the task, will not delay to prosecute it with the same spirit which he has hitherto displayed, And so we bid him God's speed upon his journey For long, though pleasing, is the way, And life, alas! allows but an ill winter's day. ART. IV.-Lettres sur le Système de la Co-Opération Mutuelle, Par Joseph Rey de Grenoble. Paris. A Sautelet. 2. The Co-Operative Magazine. 3. The Brighton Co-Operator. 4. The Birmingham Co-Operative Herald. IN 6 1828. IN the year 1696, one John Bellers published Proposals for raising a Colledge of Industry of all useful Trades and Husbandry, with profit for the rich, a plentiful living for the and poor, a good education for youth.' In his rules for teaching children languages, he agrees with Mr. Hamilton, and the modern reformers on this subject, in recommending the vocables to be learnt before the grammar, though rules,' he says, as well as words, make the complete scholar, yet considering words lies (!) in the memory, and rules in the understanding, and that children have first memory before understanding, by that Nature shows, memory is to be first used, and that, in the learning of language, words should be first learnt, and afterwards rules to put them together,' In learning his mother tongue, John Bellers never reached more than the knowledge of words, for, in a pamphlet of only fortythree pages, he has contrived to give detestable examples of every possible sin against grammar. Nevertheless, he seems to have been a benevolent, pious, and sensible man, and in his scheme there |