Henry of Huntingdon, an English historian of the twelfth century, was canon of Lincoln, and afterwards archdeacon of Huntingdon. He wrote, 1. A History of England, which ends with the year 1154; 2. A Continuation of the History of Bede; 3. Chronological Tables of the Kings of England; 4. A short treatise on the Contempt of the World; 5. Several books of epigrams and love-verses; 6. A poem on herbs. All these productions were written in Latin.

Henry the Minstrel, commonly called Blind Harry, an ancient Scottish author, distinguished by no particular surname, but well known as the author of an historical poem reciting the achievements of Sir William Wallace.

It is difficult to ascertain the precise time in which this poet lived, or when he wrote his history, as the two authors who mention him speak somewhat differently on these points. Dempster, who wrote in the beginning of the seventeenth century, says that he lived in the year 1361; but Major, who was born in the year 1446, says that he composed this book during the time of his infancy, which we must therefore suppose to have been a few years posterior to 1446; for if it had been composed that very year, the circumstance would probably have been mentioned. As little can we suppose, from Dempster's words, that Henry was born in 1361; for though he says that he lived in that year, we must naturally imagine that he had then attained the years of maturity, or had begun to distinguish himself in the world, rather than that he was only born at that time.

We are in entire ignorance of the family from which Henry was descended; though, from his writings, we should be led to suppose that he had received a liberal education. In these he discovers some knowledge of divinity, classical history, and astronomy, as well as of the languages. In one place he boasts of his celibacy, which seems to indicate his having engaged himself in some of the religious orders of that age. From what Major says of him, we may further suppose his profession to have been that of a travelling bard; though it does not appear that he was skilled in music, or that he had no other profession than that just mentioned. His being blind from his birth, indeed, makes this not improbable; but even this circumstance is not inconsistent with the supposition of his being a religious mendicant. "The particulars," says Major, "which he heard related by the vulgar, he wrote in the vulgar verse, in which he excelled. By reciting his histories before princes or great men, he gained his food and raiment, of which he was worthy." It is thus probable that he was a frequent visitor at the Scottish court; and welcomed by those great families who could boast of any alliance with the hero himself, or who took pleasure in hearing narrated either his exploits or those of his companions.

According to the most early account of Henry, it appears to have been at least fifty-six years after the death of Wallace that Henry was born; yet he is said to have consulted with several of the descendants of those who had been the companions of that hero whilst he achieved his most celebrated exploits, and who were still capable of ascertaining the veracity of what he published. His chief authority, according to his own account, was a Latin history of the exploits of Sir William, written partly by Mr John Blair and partly by Mr Thomas Gray, who had been the companions of the hero himself. Henry's account of these two authors is to the following purpose: "They became acquainted with Wallace when the latter was only about sixteen years of age, and at that time a student at the school of Dundee; and their acquaintance with him continued till his death, which happened in his twenty-ninth year. Mr John Blair went from the schools in Scotland to Paris, where he studied some time, and received priest's orders. He returned to Scotland in 1296, where he joined Wallace, who was bravely asserting the liberties of his country. Mr Thomas Gray, who was parson of Libberton, joined Wallace at the same time. They were men of great wisdom and integrity, zealous for the freedom of Scotland; and were present with Wallace, and assisted him, in most of his military enterprises. They were also his spiritual counsellors, and administered to him ghostly comfort. The history written by these two clergymen was attested by William Sinclair, bishop of Dunkeld, who had himself been witness to many of Wallace's actions. The bishop, if he had lived longer, was to have sent their book to Rome, for the purpose of obtaining the sanction of the pope's authority."

The book which Henry thus appeals to as his principal authority is now lost, so that we have no opportunity of comparing it with what he has written. The character given of Henry by Dempster, however, is more favourable than that given by Major. The former tells us that "he was blind from his birth; a man of singular happy genius; he was indeed another Homer. He did great honour to his native country, and raised it above what was common to it in his age. He wrote, in the vernacular verse, an elaborate and grand work, in ten books, of the deeds of William Wallace." But in this account there is a mistake, for the poem contains twelve books; but Dempster, who wrote in a foreign country, and had not a printed copy of Henry's work by him when he composed his eulogium, is excusable in a mistake of this kind. It is conjectured that he wrote his Actis and Deidis of Shyr William Wallace about 1446, when he must have been an old man.

If we compare Henry's Wallace with Barbour's Bruce, the result must be a decision in favour of the latter work. The Bruce of Barbour is evidently the work of a politician as well as a poet. The characters of the king, his brother, Douglas, and the Earl of Moray, are carefully discriminated, and their separate talents always employed with judgment, by which means every event is prepared and rendered probable; but the Actis and Deidis of Shyr William Wallace is a mere romance, in which the hero hews down entire squadrons with his single arm, and is indebted for every victory to his own physical strength. Both poems abound with descriptions of battles; but in those of Barbour our attention is successively directed to the cool intrepidity of the king, the brilliant temerity of his brother Edward, and the enterprising stratagems of Douglas; whilst in the work of the Blind Minstrel we find little else than a disguising picture of hatred, revenge, murder, and bloodshed. As a poetical story-teller, however, he has considerable merit; and the numerous editions through which his Wallace has passed sufficiently attests, if not the genius of the poet, at all events the popularity of his subject. The only known manuscript of this poem, from which all the printed copies have been taken, is that in the Advocates' Library, which bears date 1488. The first printed edition was that of Edinburgh, 1570; but perhaps the best and most correct is that published by the Rev. Dr Jamieson, Edinburgh, 1820. Morrison's edition, Perth, 1790, is also deserving of commendation, as being the first in which the text was given with any regard to accuracy. HENRY Prince of Wales, eldest son of King James VI. of Scotland, by Anne, sister of the king of Denmark, and one of the most accomplished princes of the age in which he lived, was born on the 19th of February 1594. Besides his knowledge of the learned languages, he spoke the French and Italian; and he had made a considerable progress in philosophy, history, fortification, mathematics, and cosmography, in which last branches he was instructed by that excellent mathematician Mr Edward Wright. He aspired to know something of everything, and to excel in what was most excellent. He had a just opinion of the great abilities of Sir Walter Raleigh; and is reported to have said, in allusion to the long imprisonment of Raleigh, that no king but his father would keep such a bird in a cage. That eminent writer, soldier, and statesman, had a reciprocal regard for the prince, to whom he had designed to address a discourse on the Art of War by Sea, which his highness's death discouraged the author from finishing. He had also intended, and, as he expresses it, hewn out a second and third volume of his History of the World, which were to have been dedicated to his highness; "but it has pleased God," says he, "to take that glorious prince out of this world," a prince, "whose unspeakable and never-ending-lamented loss hath taught me to say with Job, Versa est in lacu cithara mea, et organum meum in vocem flentium." The prince died in November 1612. Dr Welwood, in his Notes on Wilson's Life of King James I. informs us, though without giving any authority, that when the prince fell sick, the queen sent to Sir Walter Raleigh for some of his celebrated cordial, which she herself had taken some time before in a fever with remarkable success. Raleigh sent it, together with a letter to the queen, in which he expressed a tender concern for the prince; and, boasting of his medicine, said, "that it would certainly cure him or any other of a fever, except in case of poison." Sir Anthony Weldon suggests that the prince was poisoned; and the same notion is countenanced by Wilson and by Dr Welwood. Bishop Burnet likewise informs us, that Colonel Titus had heard King Charles I. declare, that the prince his brother was poisoned by means of Viscount Rochester, afterwards Earl of Somerset. But it will perhaps be sufficient to oppose to all such suggestions the unanimous opinion of the physicians who attended the prince during his sickness, and opened his body after his death; from which, as Dr Welwood himself observes, there can be no inference drawn that he was poisoned. To this may be added the authority of Sir Charles Cornwallis, who was well informed and above all suspicion in this point, and who pronounces the rumours spread of his highness having been poisoned as groundless; affirming that his death was natural, and occasioned by a violent fever.