BRUCE, or as it was anciently written, BRUS, the name of a family of Norman descent, which became one of the most illustrious in the annals of Scotland. The name, originally Brusi, had its origin among the Scandinavians or Northmen, and appears – through their matrimonial alliances with the vikingrs of Norway, who subdued the Orkney islands – in connection with the royal family of Scotland at a very early period of its authentic history. Sigurd the Stout, jarl or earl of Orkney, who married the daughter of Melkolm, probably Malcolm the Second, king of Scots, had four sons, Thorfinn, Sumarled, Brusi, and Elinar. Brusi, the third son, the Orkneyinga Saga, as quoted in the ‘Collectanea de Rebus Albanicis,’ printed for the Iona Club, informs us, was a very peaceful man, and clever, eloquent, and had many friends. After the death of Sumarled, disputes arose amongst the brothers about the division of his lands in Orkney and Caithness, and wars and scarcity ensued, but Brusi was contented with his third of Orkney, and “in that part of the land which Brusi had there was peace and prosperity.”

      From a branch of this family came, accordeing to Burke, Robert de Brusi, a descendant of Einar, fourth jarl of Orkney, brother of the famous Rollo, (great-great-grandfather of William the Conqueror,) who in 912 acquired Normandy, and became its first duke. This Robert de Brusi built the castle of La Brusee, now called Brix, in the diocese of Coutanse, near Volagnes. By his wife, Emma, daughter of Alain, count of Brittany, he had two sons, Alain de la Brusee, lord of Brusee castle, (married Agnes, daughter of Simon Montfort, earl of Evreux,) whose posterity remained in Normandy, and Robert de Brusee, the ancestor of the Bruses, and the first of that name who appeared in England. He accompanied William the Conqueror there in 1066, but died soon after. By his wife, Agnes, daughter of Waldonius, count of St. Clair, he had two sons, William and Adam, who both attended their father into England, and acquired great possessions, the former in Sussex, Surrey, Dorsetshire, and other counties, and the latter in Cleveland, of which the barony of Skelton was the principal. Adam died in 1098, leaving, by Emma his wife, daughter of a knight named Sir William Ramsay, three sons, namely, Sir Robert his heir; William, prior of Guisburn, and Duncan. After the death of his father, Sir Robert had forty-three lordships in the East and West Ridings of that county, and fifty-one in the North Riding, whereof Guisburn in Cleveland was one [Dugdale’s Baronage, v. i. p. 447.]

      His son, Robert de Brus of Cleveland, served as a companion in arms under Prince David, afterwards David the First of Scotland, during his “residence,” says our authority, “at the court of Henry the First of England;” but in reality, and as in all probability and consistency, during the conquest and a part of the period of his government of Cumbria – the district comprising the Lothians and Galloway as bestowed on that prince upon the death of his brother Edgar, – and received from him, along with the hand of a lady, a native of the land and heiress thereof, as his second wife, a grant of the lordship of Annandale, comprising all that territory called in Norman French Estra-hanent, ‘beyond or across Annent or Amnant,’ (afterwards altered into Strathannan or Annandale,) and all the lands from Estra-nit (Strathnith) the bounds of the property of Dunegall, (ancestor of the Randolphs, earls of Moray) into the limits of Ranulph de Meschines, then lord of cumberland, with a right to enjoy his casdtle there, with all the customs appertaining to it. The charter by which this large domain was conferred upon him established the tenure by the sword; that is, gave a right to take possession and retain by force of arms. For this princely gift, which he held by the tenure of military service, he did homage to the Scottish king. In 1138, during the civil war between King Stephen who had usurped the throne of England, and Matilda, the rightful heiress, niece of the king of Scots, when the latter, in support of the claims of his relative, had led an expedition into England and advanced as far as Northallerton, de Brus was sent, by the barons of the north of England, (who, if not attached to the cause of Stephen, were satisfied it was their safety to maintain it and had assembled a force for that purpose,) in order to gain time to increase their strength, to negotiate, or rather to remonstrate with him. At the commencement of the war, he had renounced his allegiance to David, and resigned his lands in Annandale to his son by his second marriage. He represented that the English and Normans, against whom he was then arrayed, had repeatedly restored the power and authority of the Scottish monarchs when driven out by their subjects of the ancient races of the country, and that they were more faithful to the royal family than were the Scots themselves, who rejoiced at this unnatural war, because it afforded them an opportunity of displaying their resentment against those who had often frustrated their treasonable devices. He dwelt on the savage outrages which that portion of the army, consisting of native forces, had committed, urged him to prove the truth of his disavowal of them by withdrawal, assured him of the determined resistance of the Yorkshire barons, and concluded (as reported by their common friend Aldred) in the following affectionate strain: – “It wrings my heart,” said he, “to see my dearest master, my patron, my benefactor, my friend, my companion in arms, in whose service I am grown old, thus exposed to the danger of battle, or to the dishonour of flight,” and then he burst into tears. David also wept, but his resolution to maintain the rights of his sister’s daughter, to whom as her first subject he had sworn fealty, continued unchanged. The battle of the Standard followed, 11^th August, 1138, in which the army of King David, after a partial succession the first onset, was completely defeated. At this famous battle de Brus took prisoner his second son, Robert, a youth of fourteen years of age, who, being liegeman to the Scottish king for the lands of Annandale, which had been renounced in his favour by his father, had fought on the Scots side. Robert de Brus, first lord of Annandale, founded a monastery at Guisburn, now Guisborough, in Yorkshire, in 1119, and amply endowed it with lands and possessions, in which he was joined by Agnes, his first wife, daughter of Fulk Paynell, with whom he got the manor of Carleton in Yorkshire, and Adam his son and heir. His death took place 11^th May 1141, when his English estates were inherited by his eldest son Adam, whose male line terminated in Peter de Brus of Skelton, constable of Scarborough castle, who died 18^th September 1271, leaving his extensive estates to four sisters, his co-heiresses, all married to powerful English barons.

      Robert de Brus, his son by the second marriage, inherited Annandale in right of his mother and by cession of his father, was by him, after the battle of the Standard, sent prisoner to King Stephen, who ordered him to be delivered up to his mother. On telling his father that the people of Annandale had no wheaten bread, he conferred on him the lordship of Hert and the territory of Hertness in the bishopric of Durham, to hold of him and his heirs, lords of Skelton. He soon, however, returned to Scotland, and gave to the monastery of Guisburn, founded by his father, the churches of Annand, Lochmabel, Kirkpatrick, Cummertrees, Rampatrick, and Gretenhou (or Graitney, now Gretna), and entered into a composition with the bishop of Glasgow, concerning these churches, to which that prelate laid claim. “To show that he looked upon his chief settlement to be in Scotland he quitted his father’s armorial bearings (argent, a lion rampant, gules) and assumed the coat of Annandale (or a saltire and chief gules.)” King William the Lion conferred on him by a charter yet extant, dated at Lochmabel, the grant of Annandale made to his father by David the First. He and his wife Euphemia gave to the monks of Holmeultram the fishing of Torduff in the Solway Firth. He had two sons, Robert and William.

      Robert, the elder son and third lord of Annandale, described as “a nobleman of great valour and magnanimity, and at the same time pious and religious,” married, in 1183, Isabella, a natural daughter of William the Lion, by whom he had no issue. He died before 1191. His widow married, a second time, a baron named Robert de Ros.

      The second son William had a son named Robert, fourth lord of Annandale, surnamed the noble, who took to wife Isobel, second daughter of David, earl of Huntingdon and Chester, younger brother of William the Lion, and thus laid the foundation of the royal house of Bruce. “By this royal match the lords of Annandale came to be amongst the greatest subjects in Europe; for, by the said Isobel (as coheiress, with her two sisters, of her father’s property,) Robert, exclusive of his paternal estate in both kingdoms, came to be possessed of the manor of Writtle and Hatfield in Essex, together with half the hundred of Hatfield. She likewise brought him the castle of Kildrummie and the lordship of Garioch in Aberdeenshire, and the manor of Connington in Huntingdonshire, and Exton in Rutlandshire.” He died in 1245, and was buried with his ancestors in the abbey of Guisburn, in Cleveland.

      His eldest son, also named Robert, was the competitor with John Baliol for the crown of Scotland. He died in 1295.

      Robert de Brus, his eldest son, sixth lord of Annandale, and first earl of Carrick of the name, [see ANNANDALE, lord of, and CARRICK, earl of], maintained his pretensions to the Scottish throne. Nevertheless, he accompanied Edward the First into Scotland, and fought on the English side at the battle of Dunbar. He died in 1304.

      His eldest son, Robert de Brus, (as it was written and used by all parties in that Norman French which was the spoken language of Scotland during his lifetime, but in after ages not very accurately translated into English as The Bruce,) the conqueror at Bannockburn, and the restorer of the Scottish monarchy, was the seventh lord of Annandale, and second earl of Carrick in right of his mother.

      In the genealogy of the royal line of Brus, it appears that there had been nine persons in direct descent from de Brus of Doomesday Book to de Brus of Bannockburn, the first king of the name, inclusive, eight of whom were named Robert, and one William, the latter being the grandson of the Norman knight Robert de Burs, and younger brother of the third Robert.

      Of the lives of the three last of these Bruces as more particularly connected with the history of Scotland, the details are more fully given in their order, as also that of Edward, one of the brothers of King Robert; viz.: –

BRUCE, or DE BRUS, ROBERT, fifth lord of Annandale, is known in history as Bruce the Competitor, to distinguish him from his son, and his grandson the conqueror at Bannockburn. He was born in 1210, and on the death of Margaret of Norway in 1290, being then in his eighty-first year, he became a claimant with John Baliol for the crown of Scotland. [See BALIOL, JOHN.] On this occasion, he alleged that more than fifty years before, or in 1238, while in the 28^th year of his age, when Alexander the Second was about to proceed on an expedition against the western isles, and then despairing of heirs of his own body, he was acknowledged by that monarch, in presence and with consent of his barons, as the nearest heir in blood to the throne, but the birth of a son to Alexander by his second wife, in 1241, put an end at that period to his hopes of the succession. Lord Hailes thinks Brus’s allegation a fiction; Sir Francis Palgrave, with fuller materials, certainly shows reasons for believing it correct. [Documents Illustrative of Scottish History, 1837, Introduction, pp. xxiii - xxix.]

      In 1252, on the death of his mother the princess Isobel, he did homage to Henry the Third as heir to her lands in England, and in 1255 he was constituted sheriff of Cumberland and constable of the castle of Carlisle. The same year, on the breaking up of the regency of the Comyn party, which was that of the independent interest as being opposed to the English supremacy in Scotland, he was appointed one of the fifteen regents of the kingdom, during the minority of the young king, Alexander the Third. Nine years later, that is in 1264, during the famous struggle of King Henry the Third with his barons headed by Simon de Montfort, in conjunction with John Comyn and John de Baliol, de Brus led a large Scottish force to the assistance of the English monarch, who, however, was defeated at the battle of Lewes, 14^th May of that year, when de Brus was taken prisoner, along with Henry and his son, Prince Edward. After the battle of Evesham, 5^th August, 1265, which retrieved the fortunes of King Henry, Bruce was set at liberty, and was reinstated in the governorship of Carlisle castle.

      On the death of Alexander the Third in 1286, a parliament assembled at Scone, 11^th April, in which a regency, consisting of six guardians of the realm, was appointed, three for the country north of the Forth, namely, William Fraser bishop of St. Andrews, Duncan earl of Fife, and Alexander Comyn earl of Buchan; and three for the country south of the Forth, namely, Robert Wishart bishop of Glasgow, John Comyn lord of Badenoch, and James the Steward of Scotland. Then properly may be said to have commen ced the contest for the succession to the crown, between the partisans of Brus and Baliol, although these were not the only claimants. The heiress to the throne, Margaret, granddaughter of Alexander and grand-niece of Edward the First, was still alive and in Norway, but she was an infant, and the different competitors began to collect their strength and indulge in ambitious hopes, in the anticipation of a struggle for the sovereignty. The most powerful of the Scottish barons met, September 20, 1286, at Turnberry, the castle of Robert de Brus, earl of Carrick in right of his wife (see the following article), son of Robert de Brus, the subject of this notice, lord of Annandale and Cleveland. They were joined by two powerful English barons, Thomas de Clare, brother of Gilbert, earl of Gloucester, brother-in-law of the lord of Annandale, and Richard de Burgh, earl of Ulster. Among those assembled at Turnberry were Patrick, earl of Dunbar, with his three sons; Walter Stewart, earl of Menteith; de Brus’s own son, the earl of Carrick, and Bernard de Brus; James, the high Steward of Scotland, who had married Cecilia, daughter of Patrick, earl of Dunbar, with John, his brother; Angus, son of Donald the lord of the Isles, and Alexander his son. “These barons,” says Tytler, “whose influence could bring into the field the strength of almost the whole of the west and south of Scotland, now entered into a bond or covenant, by which it was declared that they would thenceforth adhere to and take part with one another, on all occasions, and against all persons, saving their allegiance to the king of England, and also their allegiance to him who should gain the kingdom of Scotland by right of descent from King Alexander, then lately deceased. Not long after this the number of the Scottish regents was reduced to four, by the assassination of Duncan, earl of Fife, and the death of the earl of Buchan; the Steward, another of the regents, pursuing an interest at variance with the title of the young queen, joined the party of de Brus, and heart-burnings and jealousies arose between the nobility and the governors of the kingdom. These soon increased, and at length broke out in open war between the parties of de Brus and Baliol, which for two years after the death of the king continued its ravages in the country.” Tytler adds that this war, hitherto unknown to our historians, is proved by documents of unquestionable authority. [Hist. of Scotland, vol. i. p. 56 and notes.] It will be remembered, although the popular impression is to the contrary, that at this period the Comyn party, to which belonged John de Baliol, lord of Galloway, whose sister Marjory was the wife of the Black Comyn and mother of the Red Comyn (afterwards slain by Robert de Brus), were and had been the constant supporters of the Scottish or independent interests, and the de Brus party, which appeared to be the strongest, had all along been in alliance with England. A pleading of de Baliol, in old Norman French, then the language of statee affairs both in England and Scotland, addressed to Edward the First, during the suit for the crown, and stating reasons why his claim was preferable to that of de Brus, is still extant. The seventh and last of these reasons is that Brus had committed acts of rebellion against the peace of the realm during the regency, by assaulting the castles of Dumfries, Wigton, and a place called Bot... , [the latter part of the name is obliterated], and expelling the troops of the queen therefrom. [ Palgrave’s Documents, &c. Introduction. pp. lxxx, lxxxi.]

      In the negotiations during the years 1289 and 1290, relative to the proposal of a marriage between the infant queen and Edward, the young son of Edward the First of England, the lord of Annandale was actively engaged, and with the bishops of St. Andrews and Glasgow, and John Comyn, he was one of the Scottish commissioners at the conference at Salisbury, who signed the treaty there. Although it is reasonable to suppose that the anxiety manifested throughout these negotiations, to avoid any concession prejudicial to the independence of the Scottish crown was strongly felt by the parties then in power, yet it would be unfair without further grounds to infer that the nobles who were leagued against the Comyns were not as earnest for the same result. On the death of Margaret, it is well known that King Edward interfered in the settlement of the succession to the throne. Two of the regents, William Fraser bishop of St. Andrews, and John Comyn lord of Badenoch, had set aside their colleagues, the Steward and the bishop of Glasgow, and had taken into their own hands the entire administration of the realm. It was their policy to appoint John de Baliol to the vacant throne, and on the 7^th October 1290, before the report of the death of the young queen had been certaily confirmed, Fraser write a letter to King Edward recommending Baliol in a particular manner to his favour. By their own authority the joint regents had nominated sub-guardians of the realm, and delegated to them the right of maintaining order. These sub-guardians had, in name of the two regents, adopted violent measures for endorcing their authority in various parts of the kingdom, and especially in Moray. A large portion of the nobles and community of Scotland were opposed to the proceedings of the regents, and maintained the right of Robert fe Brus to succeed to the crown. It now appears that the intervention of Edward the First in the affairs of Scotland, which has been so much misunderstood by historians, was caused not by the famous letter of Fishop Fraser, as has commonly been supposed, but by three formal and regular appeals made to him by three competent parties, namely ‘the seven earls of Scotland,’ Donald earl of Mra, and Robert de Brus lord of Annandale. Claiming it as their privilege, by immemorial custom, as a peculiar estate in the realm, to appoint a king, whenever there was a vacancy, and to invest him with the royal authority, the seven earls came forward and appealed, on the ground that the regents were infringing, or intended to infringe, this their constitutional franchise. Donald earl of Mar, one of the seven earls, appealed against the unconstitutional appointment of sub-guardians, and against the damages done by certain of these guardians in the lands of Moray, and Robert de Brus lord of Annandale appealed against the understood intention of the regents to appoint Baliol to the throne, and thus violate his rights, and the rights of the seven earls. [See Palgrav’e Documents Illustrative of Scottish History.] The consequence of these appeals was the famous summons of the English monarch that the nobility and clergy of the Scottish kingdom should meet him at Norham, in the English territories, on the 10^th of May 1291. Having accordingly met him at the time and place appointed, after declaring that he was ready to do justice to all the competitors, he required them, in the first place, to acknowledge him as lord paramount of the kingdom. To this unexpected demand no reply for a time was given. At length some one observed that it was impossible to give an answer whilst the throne continued vacant. “By holy Edward, whose crown I wear,” said the imperious king, “I will vindicate my just rights or perish in the attempt.” He then granted them three weeks for deliberation.

      On the 2d of June the Scottish barons and clergy again met King Edward at Upsettlington, when eight competitors for the cdrown were present. These were, Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale; Florence, count of Holland; John de Hastings; Patrick de Dunbar, earl of March; William de Ros; William de Vesey; Robert de Pinckeny; and Nicholas de Soulis. John de Baliol, lord of Galloway, attended next day. The chancellor of England, addressing himself to de Brus, demanded whether he acknowledged Edward as lord paramount of Scotland; and he expressly and publicly declared that he did. On the same question being put to the other competitors, the same answer was given. Baliol, on his appearance on the following day, after some hesitation, also acknowledged the same. These preliminary steps being taken, after a full investigation of the claims of all the candidates, Edward, upwards of seventeen months after the commencement of the inquest, pronounced in favour of Baliol, on the 17^th November 1292. There is no reason to believe that in this decision Edward was otherwise than influenced by a just regard to the true law of succession; and there are many considerations that would have induced him, and he was understood privately to incline, to favour the cause of de Brus.

      The appeals of the Seven Earls having, as we have seen, constituted the foundation of all the proceedings of Edward above recorded, it may be proper here to inquire, in what sense did the Seven Earls and the others appeal to Edward? Was it in the sense in which he accepted the appeal, – namely, as an appeal of a portion of the community of Scotland to him as their lawful superior; and was the reluctance which, we are informed, the Scottish nobility and clergy exhibited to comply with his demand, that they should acknowledge him as Lord Paramount, the mere reluctance of the rest of the cummunity to give their assent to a proposition already virtually admitted by the appellants; or, as possibly may have been the case, was it the reluctance also of the appellants themselves, to make a formal and open averment of a proposition necessarily implied in their appeal, but which, as they knew it to be unpopular, they would have been glad to escape avowing in so express and glaring a manner, as that in which the wily Edward made them do it?

      Sir Francis Palgrave, who, with so much ability, and with the advantage of the additional light afforded by the documents which he has given to the world, has revived the long obsolete question of the English supremacy over Scotland, holds that, in appealing as they did to Edward, de Brus and the Seven Earls meant to admit his title to give judgment as the lawful Over-Lord of the Scottish kingdom. They submitted to Edward’s judgment, he says, “not as to an arbitrator selected to determine a contested question, but as to a lawful superior whose protection and defence they implored.” [Palgrave, Documents, &c. Introduction, p. xxi.] And farther on, expanding the same remark, he says, “The Scottish writers upon Scottish history, warmed by the courage and heroism of de Brus and Wallace, as represented in the poetry and popular legends and traditions of their country, have characterized the repeated submissions to the English king as acts of disgrace, and stains upon the national honour. But the justice of the cause must be judged according to the conscience of the parties; and if the prelates, the peers, the knights, the freeholders, and the burgesses of Scotland, believed that Edward was their Over-Lord, it is not their obedience, but the withdrawing it, that should be censured by posterity. ... There is not any reason for believing that, until the era of Wallace, there was any insincerity on the part of the noble Normans, the stalwart Flemings, the sturdy Northumbrian Angles, and the aboriginal Britons of Strathclyde and Reged, whom we erroneously designate as Scots – in admitting the legal supremacy of the English crown, until the attempts made by Edward I. to extend the incidents of that supremacy beyond their legal bounds provoked a resistance deserved by such abuse.”

      Now, so far as the appeals of de Brus and the Seven Earls are concerned, it cannot be denied but that Sir Francis Palgrave is in the right. The language of the appeals themselves it would be difficult to interpret otherwise than as a recognition of the superior authority of the crown of England over the Scottish nation, although it may certainly be remarked that the writers seem to have been studious to avoid any explicit statement of that fact in so many words. The question, however, as regards de Brus, would be set at rest, if it could be shown that Sir Francis Palgrave is right in supposing that the following letter, published by him for the first time, along with the appeals, in the volume above referred to, was written by de Brus. The letter, which is written in Norman Franch, is evidently that of a competitor for the Scottish crown, who wishes to ingratiate himself with Edward by inordinate eagerness to admit his claim to the feudal superiority over Scotland. We translate as literally as the gaps will permit: – “I have heard from my father, and from ancient men of the time of King David, that there was war between the king of England and king David. And in that time that Northumberland was lost, there was a peace made between the king of England and the king of Scotland; to wit that, if the king of Scotland should ever in anywise refuse obedience to the king of England, or to his crown, then the Seven Earls of Scotland should be bound by oath . . . to the king of England, and to his crown. . . in . . . Afterwards . . . obediences were made. But afterwards came King Richard, and sold the homage of the king of Scotland. . . We do not think that this sale can be valid; for well is the king of England who is so wise, and his council also, able to advise, whether the crown can be dismembered of such a member. And seeing that the crown ought to be kept entire, let it be known to him by Elias de Hanville, that At what hour he will make his demand regularly, I will obey him, and will aid him with myself, and all my friends, and all my lineage. . . my friends will do. And I pray your grace for my right, and for the truth which I wish to manifest before you; and meanwhile I . . . by speaking with the ancient men of the land, to find out the evidence of your interests, as . . .”

      Sir Francis Palgrave’s statement, however, that “the prelates, the peers, the knights, the freeholders, and the burgesses of Scotland, believed that Edward was their Over-lord,” is too sweeeping. It ignores the fact, that a feeling had existed with a part at least of the Scottish community, for nearly a hundred and fifty years previous to this memorable epoch, of antipathy to this very claim of English supremacy. There was a germ and a root of repugnance to England in the Celtic portion of the nation. But a network of Norman colonization had overspread nearly the whole British island, which remained entire and connected throughout its whole length, so that the northern part of it, i.e. the Scoto-Normans, did not feel themselves yet separated from the southern part of it, i.e. the Anglo-Normans. Besides this, another strong tie co-operated in enabling England to grapple Scotland towards herself. This was the traditional claim of legal supremacy asserted by England over Scotland, a claim which as Sir Francis Palgrave’s investigations have made clear, had, whether well or ill founded, a real place in the beliefs of the period. Edward the First seems clearly to have believed that, in virtue of certain old transactions, he, as king of England, had a claim upon the allegiance of the people of Scotland. Looked at from this point of view, therefore, his crime in the matter of Scotland may have been, as Sir Francis Palgrave calls it, a mere attempt to “extend the incidents of his legal supremacy beyond their legal bounds.” On the other hand, too, it seems pretty clear that, among the Scottish nobles, there was, during the whole of the period referred to, no decided conviction that the claim of English supremacy was illegal in any absurd degree. The feeling of at least a portion of them, relative to this claim, seems to have been rather a desire to disencumber themselves of it, than such a contempt for it as would have been inspired by a sincere belief that it was the mere pretext of an invader. Hence it is found that, during the whole of that period, though inclined to escape the claim of homage to England whenever they could, on the least pressure they were found ready to yield to it.

      The lordship of Annandale being held, as already stated, by the tenure of military service, to avoid doing homage to his successful rival, Robert de Brus resigned it to his eldest son, retaining only for himself his English estates. “I am Baliol’s sovereign, not Baliol mine,” said the proud baron, “and rather than consent to such a homage, I resign my lands in Annandale to my son, the earl of Carrick.” He seems thenceforth to have lived in retirement. He died in 1295, at his castle of Lochmaben, at the age of eighty-five. He had married an Englishwoman, Isabel, daughter of Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester, one of the most powerful barons of England, and by her he had Robert de Brus, earl of Carrick, two other sons, and a daughter.

BRUCE, or DE BRUS, ROBERT, eldest son of the competitor, and father of King Robert the Bruce, accompanied King Edward the First of England to Palestine in 1269, and appears to have enjoyed the confidence and friendship of that monarch. On his return, he married, in 1271, Margaret, the young and beautiful countess of Carrick, whose husband, Adam de Kilconath, (Kilconquhar?) earl of Carrick in her right, was slain in the Holy Land. By this lady, who was the only child of Nigel, earl of Carrick and lord of Turnberry, and Margaret, a daughter of Walter, the high steward of Scotland, de Brus had his celebrated son Robert, afyterwards king of Scotland; Edward de Brus, lord of Galloway, crowned king of Ireland in 1316; three other sons and seven daughters.

      The circumstances attending this marriage as related by our historians, are of as singular and romantic a character as any in Scottish annals. One day in the autumn of 1271, while Martha, as she is generally called, though Marjory, or Margaret, appears to have been her proper name, countess of Carrick in her own right, was engaged in the exercise of hunting, surrounded by a retinue of her squires and damsels, in the grounds adjoining her castle of Turnberry in Ayrshire, the ruins of which still remain, she accidently met with de Brus, then about thirty years of age, who had just returned from the Holy Land, and was passing on horseback through her domains. Struck by his noble figure, the young countess invited the knight to join her in the chase and to be her guest for a time. Aware of the peril he encountered in paying too much attention to a ward of the king, as the countess was, de Brus, it is said, declined the invitation so courteously given, when, at a signal from the countess, her retinue closed in around him, and the lady, seizing his bridle reins, led him off, with gentle violence, to her castle at Turnberry. He was thus constrained to partake of the hospitality of the countess, and, after fifteen days’ residence with her, he married her, without the knowledge of the relatives of either party or the consent of the king, which, as she was a ward of the crown, ought to have been previously obtained. So flagrant a violation of his feudal rights provoked even the good tempered Alexander the Third, and the castle and estates of the countess were instantly seized. By the intercession of friends, however, the king was induced to pardon the youthful offenders, first inflicting on the lady the payment of a heavy fine. Her husband became in her right earl of Carrick, and their eldest son was Robert de Brus, the greatest of our monarchs, this union being thus an auspicious event for Scotland. Such is the tale told by our historians, and in most points it is true, but to take away somewhat from its romance, one account, which seems the most probable, states that de Brus had been the companion in the Holy Land, as well as the fellow-crusader of the lady’s first husband, Adam de Kilconath, and it is not unlikely that, on the death of the latter without issue, he returned to Scotland with the design of marrying his widow, who, besides being young and beautiful, had a proud title and extensive estates to confer on whomsoever she bestowed her hand. His solitary ride through the woods of Turnberry was thus not without an object.

      When the future monarch of Scotland was yet a minor, his father, following his grandfather’s example, to avoid doing homage to Baliol, resigned to his son the earldom of Carrick, which he held in right of his wife, just then deceased. The youthful de Brus, on obtaining the title and lands, immediately swore fealty to Baliol as his lawful sovereign. His father shortly after retired to England, leaving the administration of the family estates of Annandale also in his hands. In 1295, the same year in which the aged de Brus, the competitor, died, Edward the First appointed de Brus the elder, the father of king Robert, constable of the castle of Carlisle. In 1296, when Baliol, driven to resistance by the galling yoke which Edward endeavoured to force upon him, (by attempting to exercise a jurisdiction in Scottish affairs which none of his predecessors had ever pretended to possess,) revolted from his authority, and, assisted by the Comyns, took up arms to assert his independence, de Brus the elder, cherishing no doubt, the natural hope that as the next heir to the throne he might, on the event of the overthrow and deposition of his rival, receive the vacant crown from thre English monarch, accompanied Edward’s expedition into Scotland, and with his party, which was numerous and powerful, gave their assistance to the English king. Our Scottish historians indeed assert that a promise to this effect was made to him by Edward, but it receives no countenance in English history, and is quite inconsistent with what we know of Edward’s character or purposes. Baliol, in consequence, seized upon the lordship of Annandale, and bestowed it on John Comyn, earl of Buchan, who immediately took possession of the castle of Lochmaben.

      After the decisive battle of Dunbar, 28^th April 1296, in which the Scottish army was defeated, and Baliol compelled to surrender the sovereignty, it is said by the writers referred to that the elder Bruce reminded Edward of his promise to bestow on him the vacant crown, and receiverd the following reply: “What! Have I nothing else to do than to conquer kingdoms for you?” But although Tytler does not venture to omit this incident, later writers have so far treated it as doubtful as to soften the request into a simple application, without reference to any previous promise, a mode of regarding it more consistent with probability and with the well known character for probity borne by Edward. [Papers on Robert Bruce in Lowe’s Edinburgh Magazine, March 1848, p. 345.] After this he seems to have retired to his English estates. In 1297, Sir William Wallace, one of the greatest heroes of which the annals of any nation can boast, nobly stood forward as the defender of his country’s freedom; but his patriotic achievements failed to rouse de Brus from his inactivity, or to induce him to consider Wallace as seeking more than either to restore Baliol or as aspiring to the throne himself. In the fatal campaign of 1298, which concluded with the disastrous battle of Falkirk, our Scottish historians represent Brus the son to have accompanied the English monarch, and to have fought in his service against his countrymen. After a gallant resistance, they assert that Wallace was compelled to retreat along the banks of the Carron, pursued by de Brus at the head of the Galloway men, his vassals. Here a conference is represented to have taken place between the two leaders, which ended in de Brus’s resolving to forsake the cause of Edward.

      Wallace is described as having upbraided de Brus as the mean hireling of a foreign master, who, to gratify his ambition, had sacrificed the welfare and independence of his native land. He is represented to have urged him to assume the post to which he was entitled by his birth and fortune, and either deliver his country from the bondage and oppression of Edward, or gloriously fall in asserting its liberties. By Wallace’s reproaches and remonstrances, de Brus, it is said, was melted into tears, and swore to embrace the cause of his oppressed country. Such is the story of Wynton and Fordun, and of course of Boece, Blind Harry, and Buchanan, and it may be accepted as one of the most curious instances that could be adduced of the operation of the mythical or dramaturgic faculty to the falsification of history. Not only do the old Scottish writers make Bruce fight on Edward’s side at the battle of Falkirk, but in contradicition to all possibility they make him and Anthony Beck, bishop of Durham, jointly decide the fate of the battle against the Scots. It is certain, however, that the younger de Brus was not at the battle of Falkirk at all, but, as stated by an author who was in Scotland and with Edward’s force at the time (Heningford), he was then in guard of the castle of Ayr, in the interest of the Scottish cause maintained at Falkirk by Wallace. Since this fazct was brought to light by Lord Hailes, writers – including a recent translator of Buchanan – have represented that it was de Brus the father who was present at Falkirk and had the interview with Wallace, but there is no warrant in the older historians for this transposition of the person referred to. All early accounts state that de Brus the father ceased to take any interest in Scottish affairs after the refusal of Edward to accede to his request for the vacant crown. It could not be de Brus the elder who fought on the side of Edward at Falkirk at the head of his Galloway vassals, as th original story has it, when he had no vassals in Galloway, and when all Galloway was then in the power of the patriots, with young de Brus his son, at the head of his Carrick tenatry, as their leader. The part moreover assigned to young de Brus in that fight, viz., the moving behind the Scottish ‘schiltrons’ and attacking them in the rear, is precisely that described by the historian eye-witness to have been taken by Sir Ralph de Basset, who was second in command to Anthony a Beck, the warlike bishop of Durham. It was this Sir Ralph, and not young de Brus that, as described by Synton (who wrote 110 years after the event) –

            “With Sir Anton the Beck, a wily man,
            (Of Durham bishop he was than),
            About ane hill a well far way,
            Out of that stour then pricked they.
            There they come on, and laid on fast;
            Sae made they the discomfiture.”

It is not impossible, therefore, that the whole story may have originated in a blunder in some old document, – a circumstance not uncommon in copying the writings of that age, – and that Sir R. Basset may have been misread or miscopied, as Sir R. Brus. [A singular instance of this nature occurs in a document referred to in the next life, where Irvine is rendered Sir William Wallace, thus ‘Escrit a Irewin,’ (written at Irvine) for ‘

escrit a Sirewm,’ afterwards divided into Sire Wm., and again elongated into Sire Willaume, as printed in Rymer. Hailes naturally supposed it to mean Sir William Wallace.] The famous meeting, therefore, of de Brus with Wallace after the battle of Falkirk – the most exquisite, it is admitted, of Scottish legends – is a mythus, an imaginary fact or circumstance, in which the popular national feeling regarding the two heroes has bodied itself forth. At the death of de Brus in 1304, he transmitted his English estates to his son, the future king of Scotland, who was then thirty years of age; whether, at the same time, he bequeathed to him a nobler legacy, namely, that of atonement and true patriotism, exhorting him, with his latest breath, to avenge the injuries of his suffering country, and to re-establish the independence of Scotland, as is asserted by authors in connection with the legend above referred to, is more than doubtful. This at least is clear, that the crown of Scotland, to which both conceived they had an undoubted right, was never out of the view of the latter, who, in gaining it, secured at the same time, the independence of his kingdom.

      The following seal of Robert de Brus the father represents only the arms of the ancient earldom of Carrick:

BRUCE, or DE BRUS, ROBERT, the restorer of the national monarchy, eldest son and second child of the preceding, and of the Lady Martha, sole daughter of Nigel, earl of Carrick, was born on the 121th of July 1274. It has been generally believed that Turnberry castle was the place of his birth, and in his Lord of the Isles, canto v., stanza 33, Sir Walter Scott assumes this to have been the case; but there is no evidence on the subject. Tradition on the contrary, if we may assume it to be represented by the mendacious Boece (Bellenden’s Translation, xiv. 5.), describes him as “an Englishman born;” and that excellent authority, Collins’ Peerage (article earl of Aylesbury), expressly states that on his return from the Holy Land, de Brus went to reside in England. Although, however, the lines of welcome to its halls on the occasion of his return from Rachrine, described in that poem,

      “Once more behold the floor I trod
      In tottering infancy!
      And there the vaulted arch whose sound
      Echoed my joyous shout and bound
      In boyhood, and that rung around
      To youth’s unthinking glee!”

cannot be literally true, there can be no doubt that Turnberry castle became the abode of his father during a part of his boyhood, and whilst the events, described in the life of his grandfather as occurring there from 1286 to 1290, were taking place.

      In conformity with the practice of the barons of that age to send their children to the household of some noble, superior in rank, there to acquire the graces of society and the art of arms, young de Brus appears to have been placed in the household of Edward, king of England, where he was trained in those exercises of war and chivalry for which he became afterwards so distinguished. That this was the consequence of the early friendship that existed between his father and that monarch, of which the language of a deed still extant bears witness, and not because the family of the elder de Burs was considered as aliens to Scotland, appears from the circumstance, that his grandfather continued to reside until his death in the ancestral castle of Lochmaben, and that all his sisters, six in number, were in early life married to Scottish barons. In 1293, when just entering his seventeenth year, young de Brus was infefted in his mother’s lands, and in the title of earl of Carrick, which devolved on him through her, lately deceased, and he rendered homage to Baliol for the same at his second parliament, held at Stirling in August and September of that year. One chief cause of this infeftment was the unwillingness of his father to acknowledge the title of Baliol. At the time this took place, as we are informed in the Scoto Chronicle, young Robert was “a young man in King Edward’s chamber,” when he was sent for by his father. He also conferred on him the administration of his lands in Annandale at the same time. In 1294, on the occasion of a war breaking out between England and France, a writ appears to have been sent to him as earl of Carrick by Edward, to serve in person during the expected campaign, but whether he complied with it does not appear. He seems to have taken the same part as his father in aid of the English monarch, during his invasion of Scotland in 1296, on the occasion of the revolt of Baliol, which led to their castle of Lochmaben in Annandale being temporarily seized by Comyn, earl of Buchan, leader of the Scottish army; and after the decisive fight of Dunbar, 28^th April, he was employed to receive for Edward the submissions of his own men of Carrick. In August of the same year, when Edward held a parliament at Berwick for the settlement of Scotland, Bruce, then earl of Carrick, with the rest of the Scots nobility, renewed his oath of homage to the English monarch. Up to and ever after this period, it is probable that not only both father and son but all the Scottish magnates of their party, who joined with them in that act of homage, entertained the expectation that when all was tranquilly settled in Scotland, the English king would confer the government of that kingdom as a king-fief of his crown upon the former. The idea of his ruling it, even as lord paramount, except through the instrumentality of a native prince, was in antagonism not only to all historical precedent, but must have been repugnant to every feeling of nationality in their bosom. If so, however, the establishment by Edward, on his leaving for England later in the autumn of that year, of the earl de Warenne as governor of Scotland, with Cressingham and Ormesby as treasurer and justiciary, proved the futility of their hopes.

      That young de Brus was dissatisfied with this settlement of the kingdom it was but natural to suppose, and on the appearance of Wallace, in the following summer (1297), carrying on a private warfare against the English in the south-west of Scotland, in which he was joined by various chiefs in the neighbourhood, his conduct became so equivocal, that, as Hemingford relates, the English wardens of the western marches summoned him to Carlisle to renew his oath of fidelity to Edward. Probably being then unprepared to act on the offensive, he proceeded there with his vassals, and took a solemn oath on the consecrated host and the sword of Thomas à Becket, to assist Edward against the Scots and all his enemies. To prove his sincerity, on his return to Annandale he made an inroad with his armed vassals upon the lands of William lord Douglas, knight of Liddesdale, one of the insurgent lords; and, after wasting them, carried off his wife and children to his castle at Turnberry.

      No sooner, however, was the danger over than the correctness of their suspicions was manifested by his joining the conspiracy of the Scottish leaders, and attempting on his return to Carrick to induce his father’s vassals to rise with him. In this perhaps he was not so much an active as a passive agent. The revolt against the English rule had become so general, says Hemingford, as entirely to assume a national character, and the vassals of the barons could not be restrained by their chiefs from adhering to it.  By opposing it his own safety was likely to be compromised, and it seemed probable that all chance of his claim to the throne ever being recognised by the nation would be cut off. There seems to have been strong hopes held out to him that the insurgents would adopt his cause. It was publicly at this time reported, according to Hemingford, that he aspired to the throne. All the leaders of the insurrection, except Wallace and Sir Andrew Moray, were those who had invariably supported the claims of his family. Wishart, bishop of Glasgow, who had counselled their rising, was hie firm friend, and the Comyns, who were his rivals in their own right and in that of Baliol, were with their partisans in confinement in England. The men of Annandale, however, at first hesitated, asked a day to consider the matter, and quietly dispersed to their homes during the night. With his own vassals of Carrick, however, he took up arms, and might, notwithstanding of his youth, have rendered important service to the national cause, had unity prevailed in their counsels, and had not the English forces been too active to permit it. Wallace had determined to support the cause of Baliol. He was the soul of the party, and not a few of the insurgents joined in his views. The Comyns also had adherents in the camp. The Scottish forces were numerous and strongly posted, but their leaders were actuated by opposing views. First one, then others of them,, left the camp and went over to the English. Being thus taken at disadvantage by an army under Sir Henry Percy and Sir Robert Clifford, commanding in Scotland, the confederates were constrained to yield upon conditions at Irvine, on the 9^th of July 1297. The document embodying their submission has been published in its original Norman French by Sir F. Palgrave, and is that referred to in the note in the preceding life as having contained an error in transcription. On this occasion so much difficulty was felt by the English commanders with respect to de Brus, that, as appears by another document of the same date, his daughter Marjory, then about four or five years of age, was required to be delivered to them as an hostage, and three magnates, of whom two were parties to the convention, became joint securities for his loyalty “with their lives, limbs, and estates,” until that hostage should be delivered into their hands. The Marjory was his only child by his first marriage with the daughter of the earl of Mar, who survived this bereavement only for a few months. The conduct of Wallace on this occasion shows a fierce and intractable disposition. although included in the capitulation he refused to accede to its terms. Ascribing the arrangement to the counsell of Wishart, bishop of Glasgow, he set fire to his house, plundered all his goods, and led his family captive. The other barons honourably fulfilled their engagement.

      In the subsequent struggles of Wallace and his party, de Brus took no active part; but in 1298, when Edward entered Scotland with a formidable army, he shut himself up in the castle of Ayr, and maintained a doubtful neutrality. After the defeat of Wallace at Falkirk, Edward was about to attack the castle of Ayr, when de Brus, dreading the consequences, razed it to the ground, and retired into the recesses of Carrick. In 1298, when Wallace had resigned the regency, John Comyn of Badenoch and Sir John Soulis were chosen guardians of the kingdom. About a year afterwards, Lamberton, bishop of St. Andrews, and the earl of Carrick then only in his twenty-fifty year, were, by general consent, added to the number.

      The conduct of de Brus, at this juncture, as throughout the entire period prior to his assumption of the crown, not being understood, has excited the wonder and regret of posterity. supple, dexterous, and accommodating, – now in arms for his country, and then leagued with her oppressors, – now swearing fealty to the English king, and again accepting the guardianship of Scotland in the name of Baliol, it seems to require all the energy, perseverance, and consummate prudence and valour of after years to redeem his character from the charge of apparent and culpable weakness. De Brus the guardian of Scotland in the name of Baliol! Says Lord Hailes, is one of those historical phenomena which are inexplicable. Yet this conduct we have attempted to explain, and in part to vindicate, by the peculiarity of his circumstances, which necessitated a course different from what he would have chosen. His grandfather, after vainly endeavouring to establish his pretensions to the throne of Scotland, had quietly acquiesced in the elevation of Baliol. His father, sometime earl of Carrick, had submitted uniformly and implicitly to the superior ascendency of the English monarch. Bruce, therefore, though convinced of his right to the Scottish throne, and determined to assert it, could not in the meantime, with decency or hope of success, urge a claim in his own person. In doing so he would have had to contend with a rival who was at that time one of the most powerful men in the kingdom. Baliol had renounced for ever all claim for himself, and his son was in captivity; but the claims and hopes of his family centered in John Comyn, commonly called the Red Comyn, the son of his sister Marjory, who was allied to many of the noblest families in Scotland and England, and who, by the decision of Edward, possessed, in succession, a clear right to the Scottish crown. Between the families of Bruce and Comyn there had existed for many years all the jealousy and hatred which rival and irreconcilable interests could create. The movements of both families, not only during the contests which occurred between the abdication of Baliol and the death of Wallace but long afterwards, seem to have been decided rather by a regard to family interests than the good of their country. They were uniformly ranged on opposite sides, with the exception of the brief period now referred to, when Bruce and Comyn were associated in the regency of the kingdom.

      All writers seem to think that this coalition had been mainly produced by a desire to crush Wallace, whose patriotism and influence endangered their common pretensions, and that that end once gained they returned to their former course of factions opposition and strife. That the existence on the part of both of this feeling is true, and that, as respects Comyn at least, this was the ruling motive, we are not prepared to deny. It was only the leaders of the army, however, who refused to serve under Wallace. But de Brus was not with the army, nor in communication with it, until some time after the appointment of Comyn as guardian. the battle of Falkirk was fought on 22d July 1298; Wallace’s resignation followed immediately thereafter, as well as the appointment of Comyn as guardian, whilst the first appearance of the name of de Brus in connection with the office is on 13^th Nov. 1299. It has been supposed that de Brus was pressed upon the other guardians by Lamberton, the primate, as a condition of his (Lamberton’s) accepting the same office, and for the sake of union and conciliation, and Lamberton was a friend of Wallace raised to the primacy by the determined will of that patriot alone [Palgrave documents.] A more satisfactory explanation of his conduct may therefore be found in the not improbable conjecture, that the regency of 1299 was the result of a compromise in which the claims of Baliol, then in hopeless captivity in England, were understood to be abandoned. The joint guardianship, whether established or not on this understanding, lasted only for a short time. Lamberton and de Soulis went over to France as commissioners, with five others, there to watch over the national interests. A cautious and far-seeing, but selfish policy, must have taken alarm on the prosperous appearance which Baliol’s affairs soon afterwards began to assume, and probably offence at the proceedings of his representatives thereupon. When the cause of the late imprisoned and abdicated king was taken up by the courts of France and Rome; when the genuineness of the deed of his resignation of the throne was denied by the Scottish emissaries at the latter court; when his person was released from prison, and delivered over to the Pope’s nuncio at Witsand, 18^th July 1299; and when a bull admonitory, in his interest, was served on Edward himself, by no less a personage than the archbishop of Canterbury (June 1300), we find that soon thereafter, – his lands of Annandale and Carrick having in the meantime been laid waste by the army of Edward, – de Brus once more abandoned a cause which had become again not that of his country but of his rival, and made his peace with Edward, by surrendering himself to John de St. John, the English warden of the western marches.

      This view of the character of the guardianship of de Brus, amongst other proofs too minute for detail, receives confirmation from the circumstance that in the only public transaction occurring during its brief existence of which authentic documents have descended to us, namely, the adjustment of a truce with Edward, no mention is made by either party of Baliol as king of Scotland. During the three successive campaigns which took place previous to the final subjugation of Scotland and the submission of the Comyns in 1304, de Brus continued faithful to Edward. In all the proceedings which ensued upon that occasion, de Brus was treated by Edward with favour and confidence, and the settlement of Scotland, was arranged by the English king on the plan recommended by de Brus.

      On the death of his father in 1304 he received possession of his lands in Annandale and in England, and became one of the most powerful of the northern barons. There is no evidence that up to the death of Comyn in 1305-6 de Brus had entertained serious thoughts of attempting to assert his right to the Scottish crown. He certainly was occupied in strengthening his friendships by bonds of the character of those that were common in that age, and that with the ulterior object of improving any occasion that might arise for this end. But his knowledge of the character of Edward, and the closeness with which his proceedings were watched, were likely to induce him to postpone all hostile projects until more favourable circumstances should arise.

      The murder of John Comyn, younger of Badenoch, 10^th February 1305-6, is one of those passages in the obscure history of that period which has exercised the patience and tried the candour of historians. The contradictory and most improbable details of this event given by our Scottish historians, written as they were long after the event took place, can only be regarded as the embodiment and embellishment of national traditions, and unfortunately the contemporary writers of England are silent as to nearly all but the fact itself, and the accounts of later ones are as difficult to reconcile with probability as those of the Scottish. Dismissing not a few particulars now proved to be either impossible or false, the circumstances which these historians relate as having led to and accompanied this murder are as follows: That at a conference which took place between the rivals at Stirling, de Brus, after lamenting the misery to which the kingdom was reduced, made to him this proposal: – “Support,” says he, “my title to the throne, and I will give you all my lands; or bestow on me your lands, and I shall support your claim;” that Comyn cheerfully acceded to the former alternative, waiving his own claims in favour of his rival; that a formal bond was, in consequence, drawn up and signed by the parties; that de Brus returned to London, matters not being yet matured sufficiently for open resistance to the English; and that Comyn, anxious to regain the favour of Edward, betrayed the plot to that monarch, and transmitted to him the agreement signed by de Brus.

      It is added that King Edward, on receiving this information, cherishing the design not only of seizing his person, but of involving him and his brothers in one common destruction, was so imprudent as to discover his purpose to some of the nobles of his court; that that very night the earl of Gloucester, under pretence of repaying a loan, sent de Brus a purse of money and a pair of gilded spurs – a hint which the latter understood; and, accompanied by a single attendant, he took horse and escaped with all speed into Scotland; that when near the Solway sands, he met a messenger travelling alone, whom he recognised as a follower of Comyn; that his suspicions were now awakened, and slaying the courier, he possessed himself of his despatches, in which he found further proofs of Comyn’s treachery, accompanied by a recommendation to Edward to put his rival to instant death; that Bruce proceeded hastily on his journey, and repairing to Dumfries, requested a private interview with Comyn, which was held February 4, 1305, in the church of the Minorite Friars; that at first the meeting was friendly, and the two barons walked up towards the high altar together; that Bruce accused his rival of having betrayed their agreement to Edward, – “It is a falsehood you utter,” said Comyn; and Bruce, without uttering a word, drew his dagger and stabbed him to the heart; that hastening instantly from the church, he rejoined his attendants, who were waiting for him without; and that seeing him pale and agitated, they eagerly inquired the cause, – “I doubt I have slain the red Comyn,” was his answer, “You doubt!” cried Sir Thomas Kirkpatrick fiercely, “Is that a matter to be left to doubt? I’se mak siccar,” (I will make sure;) and rushing into the church with Sir James Lindesay and Sir Christopher Seton, they found the wounded man, and immediately despatched him, slaying, at the same time, Sir Robert Comyn, his uncle, who tried to defend him. Lord Hailes, however, investigated this obscure transaction in 1767, with his usual impartiality and discrimination, and the conclusions at which he arrived have not been invalidated but rather confirmed by subsequent researches.

      We concur with him in thinking it was most improbable that de Brus should have made such a proposal to Comyn as is there stated, or that Comyn could suppose him to be sincere in doing so. Fordun does not say which alternative Comyn accepted. Barbour makes the proposal to have come from Comyn. The answer given by de Brus was, “I will take the crown; it is mine of right;” an answer likely to revive the old contention. Barbour and Fordun represent the agreement to have been by indenture, of which each held a copy signed by the other – a most extraordinary circumstance, as they must have called a third party. Winton, on the other hand, describes it as a mere conversation as they were “riding fra Stirling.” It is most improbable that Edward, in possession of such a document, should have concealed or delayed his purpose of apprehending de Brus for a single day. Barbour reports that on receiving Comyn’s part of the indenture Edward summoned a parliament, at which de Brus appeared; – that he there exhibited the indenture, and accused de Brus of treason; – and that de Brus asked to look at the paper till next day, and then disappeared. Of course we know there was no such parliament, nor would that be the mode of procedure at one. Not less unlikely is it that Edward would in a moment of unguarded festivity reveal his purpose against de Brus, if he was, as is stated, anxious to secure his absent brother. It is altogether incomprehensible that the king’s son-in-;law Ralph de Monthermer, called by courtesy the earl of Gloucester, should have betrayed the secrets of his sovereign and benefactor. Our historians have, evidently under mistake, meant this for the previous earl’s father, who was a relation of de Brus’s mother. The purse of money and pair of gilded spurs should be “twelve pence and a pair of spurs,” as in Fordun, a most mysterious and improbable restitution and mode of communication of danger.

      The whole antecedents would appear to be prepared, under the inventive powers of tradition, to account for the murder of Comyn as an act contemplated beforehand, whereas it is most evident that it was as unexpected on the part of de Brus as on that of his victim. It was a hasty quarrel between two proud-spirited rivals. De Brus had made no preparations to assert his pretensions to the crown, nor had he a single castle except Kildrummie in Aberdeenshire at his disposal. Amidst a mass of contradictory improbabilities one genuine public contemporary document is worth a hundred conjectures. In his first public instrument after the slaughter of Comyn, King Edward expressly says, that he reposed entire confidence in de Brus [Faed. ii. 938]. It is not easy to see how he could have done so, if he were possessed of written evidence to prove that the intentions of de Brus were hostile. It was as little likely that de Brus could have known Comyn was to be present at Dumfries as that he would have proposed a sanctuary – a place so tremendous in the notions of those days – for the scene of action. It is probable, however, that Comyn might have been endeavouring to instil some suspicions into the mind of Edward from Jealousy of de Brus; and indeed there is a hint to this effect given by Hemingford, the most authentic because the best informed contemporary, and that reports of these might have reached the ears of de Brus or been referred to by Edward himself. On meeting Comyn, therefore, de Brus demanded a private interview and an explanation. In their conversation some hot words took place, and de Brus struck Comyn with his dagger. The impetuous zeal of his followers aggravated the crime, and gave to the whole transaction the appearance of premeditated assassination. Such is the conclusion at which we have been compelled to arrive, after a careful consideration of all the circumstances of an event which decided de Brus’s destiny.

      Two months thereafter, March 27, Bruce, as we shall now call him, was crowned king at Scone. The whole proceedings indicate haste and lack of preparation. The regalia of Scotland, with the sacred stone and the regal mantle, had been carried off by Edward in 1296; but on this occasion the bishop of Glasgow furnished from his own wardrobe the robes in which Bruce was arrayed; he also presented to the new king a banner embroidered with the arms of Baliol, which he had concealed in his treasury. A small circlet of gold was placed by the bishop of St. Andrews on his head; and Robert the Bruce, sitting in the state chair of the abbot of Scone, received the homage of the few prelates and barons then assembled. The earl of Fife, as the descendant of Macduff, possessed the hereditary right of crowning the kings of Scotland. Duncan, the then earl, favoured the English interest, but his sister Isabella, countess of Buchan, with singular boldness and enthusiasm, repaired to Scone, and, asserting the privilege of her ancestors, a second time crowned Bruce king of Scotland, two days after the former coronation had taken place.

      The news of the murder of Comyn reached Edward while residing with his court at Winchester, whither he had gone for the benefit of his health. He immediately nominated the earl of Pembroke governor of Scotland, ordered a new levy of troops, and, proceeding to London, held a solemn entertainment, in which his eldest son, the prince of Wales, with three hundred youths of the best families in England, received the honour of knighthood; and, with the king, made a vow instantly to depart for Scotland, and take no rest till the death of Comyn was avenged on Bruce, and a terrible punishment inflicted on his adherents. The earl of Pembroke and Henry Percy having reached and fortified Perth, Bruce, with his small band of followers, arrived in the neighbourhood, and sent a challenge to Pembroke, whose sister was the widow of the red Comyn, to come out and fight with him on the 18^th of June. Pembroke returned for answer that the day was too far spent, but that he would meet him on the morrow. Satisfied with this assurance, Bruce retreated to the wood of Methven, where his little army, towards the close of the day, was unexpectedly attacked by Pembroke. Bruce made a brave resistance, and after being four times unhorsed, was at last compelled, with about four hundred followers, to retreat into the wilds of Athol. Here he and his small band for some time led the life of outlaws. Having received intelligence that his youngest brother Nigel had arrived with his queen at Aberdeen, he proceeded there; and, on the advance of a superior body of the English, conducted them in safety into the mountainous district of Breadalbane. The adventures through which, at this period, the king and his followers passed, and the perils and privations which they endured, are more like the incidents of romance than the details of history. The lord of Lorn, Alexander, chief of the Macdougalls, who had married the aunt of the red Comyn, at the head of a thousand Highlanders, attacked the king at Dalry, near the head of Loch Tay, in a narrow defile, where Bruce’s cavalry had not room to act, and he was compelled to retreat, fighting to the last. At Craigrostan, on the western side of Benlomond, is a cave, to which tradition has assigned the honour of affording shelter to King Robert Bruce, and his followers, after his defeat by Macdougall. Here, it is said, the Bruce passed the night, surrounded by a flock of goats; and he was so much pleased with his nocturnal associates that he afterwards made a law that all goats should be exempted from grassmail or rent. Finding his cause becoming every day more desperate, he sent the queen and her ladies to Kildrummie castle, under the charge of Nigel Bruce and the earl of Athol; while he himself, with his remaining followers, amounting now only to about two hundred, resolved to force a passage to Kintyre, and escape from thence into the northern parts of Ireland. On arriving at the banks of Loch Lomond, there appeared no mode of conveyance across the loch. After much search, Sir James Douglas discovered in a creek a crazy little boat, by which they safely got across.

      While engaged in the chase, a resource to which they were driven for food, Bruce and his party accidentally met with Malcolm earl of Lennox, a staunch adherent of the king, who, pursued by the English, had also taken refuge there. By his exertions the royal party were amply supplied with provisions, and enabled to reach in safety the castle of Dunaverty in Kintyre, where they were hospitably received by Angus of Isla, the lord of Kintyre. After a stay of three days the king embarked with a few of his most faithful adherents, and, after weathering a dreadful storm, landed at the little island of Rachrine, about four miles distant from the north coast of Ireland. On this small island he remained during the winter.

      In his absence the English monarch proceeded with unrelenting cruelty against his adherents in Scotland. Nigel Bruce, with those chiefs who had aided him in the defence of Kildrummie castle, which they were compelled to surrender, were hurried in chains to Berwick, and immediately hanged. Many others of noble rank shared a similar fate. Even the female friends of Bruce did not escape King Edward’s fury. The queen, her daughter Marjory, and their attendants, having taken refuge in the sanctuary of St. Duthac, in Ross-shire, were sacrilegiously seized by the earl of Ross, and committed to an English prison. The two sisters of Bruce were also imprisoned. The countess of Buchan was suspended in a cage of wood and iron from one of the outer turrets of the castle of Berwick, in which she remained for four years.

      Bruce’s estates, both in England and Scotland, were confiscated, and he himself and all his adherents were solemnly excommunicated by the Pope’s legate at Carlisle. Of these dire national and personal misfortunes, the king, in his island retreat, was happily ignorant; and he had so effectually concealed himself, that it was generally believed that he was dead. On the approach of spring, 1307, Bruce resolved to make one more effort for the recovery of his rights. He set sail for the island of Arran, with thirty-three galleys and three hundred men. He next made a descent upon Carrick; and, surprising at midnight the English troops in his own castle of Turnberry, then held by the Lord Henry Percy, he put nearly the whole garrison to the sword. He now ravaged the neighbouring country, and levied the rents of his hereditary lands, while many of his vassals flocked to his standard.

      Meantime, an English force of a thousand strong being raised in Northumberland, advanced into Ayrshire, and, unable to oppose it, Bruce retired into the mountainous districts of Carrick. Percy soon after evacuated Turnberry castle, and returned to England. This success was counter-balanced by the miscarriage of the king’s brothers, Thomas and Alexander Bruce, who, with seven hundred men, attempting a descent at Loch Ryan, in Galloway, were attacked by Duncan Macdowall, a Celtic chief, and almost all cut to pieces. The two brothers being taken prisoners, were conveyed to Carlisle and executed.

      While English reinforcements continued to pour into Scotland from all quarters, Bruce, shut up in the fastnesses of Carrick, found himself with only sixty men, the remainder having deserted him in the belief that his cause was hopeless. Beset on every side by the English, he was also exposed to danger from private treachery; and his escapes were often almost miraculous. Among the most inveterate of his foes were the men of Galloway, who, hoping to effect his destruction and that of all his followers, collected about two hundred men, and accompanied by bloodhounds, came to attack his encampment, which was defended in the rear by a rapid mountain stream, the banks of which were steep and covered with wood. Bruce received timely notice of his danger, and crossing the stream at night, withdrew his men to a swampy level at a short distance frm the rivulet, which had only one narrow ford, over which the enemy must necessarily pass. Commanding his soldiers to remain quiet and keep a strict watch, he and two followers went forward to reconnoitre. The pathway which led to the ford could allow only one man at a time to advance through it. The yell of a bloodhound in the distance told him of the approach of his enemies; and in a short space he perceived, by the light of the moon, the Galloway men on horseback on the opposite bank. They soon passed the ford, and one by one began to make their appearance up the path to the spot where the king stood, calmly awaiting their coming. On first seeing them, he had sent off his attendants to order his soldiers to advance instantly to his relief. The foremost of his foes rode boldly forward to attack the solitary individual who was thus hardy enough to dispute the passage; when a thrust of Bruce’s spear laid him dead on the spot. The next and the next shared the same fate, and as each fell, Bruce, with his short dagger, stabbed their horses; and the dead bodies formed a sort of rampart against the others. At length, the loud shout of the king’s followers, advancing to the rescue, with Sir Gilbert de la Haye at their head, warned the enemy to retire, after sustaining a loss of fourteen men. Bruce was shortly afterwards rejoined by Sir James Douglas, but his whole force at this time did not exceed in all four hundred men, with which he resolved to meet the earl of Pembroke, and his old enemy John of Lorn, who, with a superior army of English cavalry and savage Highlanders, were advancing against him. Being attacked by the English in front, and at the same time by the men of Lorn in the rear Bruce’s little band suddenly divided into small parties, and fled in separate directions. Lorn had with him a bloodhound which had once belonged to Bruce himself, and which being now let loose, singled out his master’s footsteps, and followed on his track; until, coming to a running stream, the king, who was accompanied only by a single follower, plunged into the water, and turning with his companion into the adjoining thicket, continued his retreat in safety. Having regained the place agreed upon as the rendezvous of his followers, that night the advanced post of the English was surprised by Bruce, and upwards of a hundred put to the sword. The earl of Pembroke in consequence retired to Carlisle.

      Bruce now ventured down upon the low country, and reduced the districts of Kyle, Carrick, and Cunningham. Having received a reinforcement from england, the earl of Pembroke again advanced into Ayrshire at the head of three thousand men, principally cavalry, and was met, May 10, 1307, by Bruce at Loudon Hill, with only six hundred men, when the English sustained a total defeat. It was here that Bruce first learned that great lesson in warfare, which now forms one of the most efficient features of modern strategy, namely, that of a firm unflinching infantry, drawn up in square, can successfully resist the encounter of mounted troopers; and this secret it was the more important for him to know, as the English excelled in cavalry. Three days after, Bruce encountered Ralph Monthermer, earl of Gloucester, and defeated him with great slaughter. These successes so animated the Scots, that they flocked from all quarters to the national standard.

      Edward the First at this time lay upon his deathbed at Carlisle; but, roused by intelligence of the repeated victories gained by Bruce, whom he thought dead and Scotland totally subdued, he summoned the whole force of his kingdom to assemble; and hanging up his little, in which he had hitherto accompanied his troops, above the high altar of the cathedral of Carlisle, he mounted his war-horse, and attempted to lead his army northward. But the hand of death was upon him. In four days he had only advanced sic miles, and he expired at Burgh-upon Sands, an obscure village on the Borders, July 7, 1307, in the 69^th year of his age, and the 35^th year of his reign. With his last breath he directed that his heart should be sent to Jerusalem, and that his skeleton, after the flesh had been boiled from the bones, should be carried at the head of the army, to frighten the Scots into subjection. Edward the Second solemnly swore to observe the dying requests of his father, but he performed neither – the deceased monarch being buried, with his heart entire, and his bones unboiled, at Westminster. The new king marched as far as Cumnock in Ayrshire, appointed the earl of Pembroke guardian of the kingdom, and then hurried back to London.

      Bruce now made an expedition into the north of Scotland, and brought under his dominion the territories of Argyle, and afterwards took the fortresses of Inverness, Forfar, and Brechin. Conducting his army into Buchan, the country of the Comyns, he wasted the land with fire and sword, and nearly depopulated the district. He soon after stormed and demolished the castle of Aberdeen, which was held by an English garrison. In the meantime, Sir James Douglas was not idle. For the third time he took his own castle of Douglas, and reduced the whole forest of Selkirk, besides Douglasdale and Jedburgh, to the subjection of Bruce. Bruce and his army next attacked and defeated the Lord of Lorn at the pass of Brandir, in the Western Highlands, and gave up his country to plunder. The Lord of Lorn having taken refuge in the castle of Dunstaffnage, was besieged in that fortress and compelled to surrender, when he swore fealty to the conqueror.

      In February 1309, the clergy of Scotland met in a provincial council at Dundee, and issued a declaration that the Scottish nation had chosen for their king Robert the Bruce, who, through his father and grandfather, possessed an undoubted right to the throne; and that they willingly did homage to him as their sovereign. Edward the Second, harassed by the dissensions of his nobility, found it necessary to agree to a truce, which, though only of short duration, enabled Bruce to consolidate his power, and complete his preparations for the invasion of England. At the expiry of the truce he accordingly advanced into Durham, laying waste the country with fire and sword, and giving up the whole district to the unbridled license of the soldiery. In the same year, Edward, in his turn, with an immense army, invaded Scotland, and proceeded as far as Edinburgh, but the winter approaching, and finding that the Scots had removed all their provisions into the mountain fastnesses, he was compelled ingloriously to retreat to Berwick-upon-Tweed. After this the Scots, now inured to conquest, again and again broke into England, ravaging the country, and driving home the flocks and herds of their enemies. At one period Edward sent his favourite Gaveston, earl of Cornwall, with an army into Scotland, but that doughty commander was not the most likely person to vanquish Robert the Bruce and his hardy Scots. The town of Perth, one of the chief garrisons of the English in Scotland, was soon afterwards gallantly stormed, the king himself being the first person who scaled the walls.

      In harvest 1312, Bruce again invaded England; and several towns, among which were Hexham and Corbrigg, were given to the flames. although repulsed in their assaults on Carlisle and Berwick, the Scots only consented to a truce on the immediate payment of a large sum of money by the clergy and inhabitants of Durham, Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland. The castle of Linlithgow was taken by a countryman, named William Binnock or Binnie, who, concealing eight men in a load of hay, with several more lying in ambush in the copsewood near the castle gate, surprised that strong fortress, and put the whole of the English to the sword. The strong border fortress of Roxburgh was also captured by Sir James Douglas, and, about the same time, the castle of Edinburgh, which, from its situation, was considered nearly impregnable, fell into the hands of Randolph, the son of Isabel Bruce, the king’s sister. In the same year, nearly all the fortresses in the kingdom remaining in the possession of the English, were taken, one after another, by the Scots.

      Bruce himself had led an expedition against the Isle of Man, which, after having expelled the powerful sept of the Macdowalls, his inveterate enemies, he reduced to his sway. On his return home in the autumn of 1313, he found that his brother, Edward Bruce, was engaged in the siege of the castle of Stirling, which was held by Sir Philip Mowbray for the English. Mowbray gallantly defended it for some time, but as the garrison began to suffer from famine, he prevailed on Edward Bruce to agree to a treaty, by which he bound himself to surrender the castle, if it was not relieved by an English army before the 24^th of June in the ensuing year. This agreement the king of Scotland heard of with displeasure; nevertheless, as the honour of his brother was pledged, he resolved to abide by it. King Edward, on his part, roused himself from the lethargy into which he had fallen. He reconciled himself for the time to his nobles, and summoned all his barons and fiefs, not only in England, but in Ireland and Wales, to aid him with all their followers; and he appointed the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed to be the rendezvous of the forces, on the 121th June. The troops collected there that day amounted, at the lowest calculation, to a hundred thousand men, the most numerous and best appointed army that had ever advanced against Scotland. Of these forty thousand were cavalry, three thousand of whom were armed, from head to foot, in plate and mail. To this force Bruce could only oppose an army of thirty thousand men; but these were hardy, brave, and experienced troops, led by the first warrior of his age, and all burning to avenge the wrongs of their country. The camp-followers, baggage-drivers, sutlers, &c., amounted to about fifteen thousand more; and these, though useless in the field of battle, were destined to perform a signal service in the approaching struggle. Bruce judiciously chose his ground at Bannockburn, within four miles of Stirling. On his left, where the ground was bare and open, and favourable for the movements of cavalry, he caused parallel rows of pits to be dug, each about a foot in breadth, and about three feet deep, which, after having sharp-pointed stakes placed in them, were carefully covered over with sod. His brother Edward Bruce, his nephew Randolph, earl of Moray, Walter, the high steward of Scotland, and Sir James Douglas, were the leaders of the principal divisions. The king himself took the command of the reserve, consisting chiefly of his own vassals of Carrick and the men of Argyle, Kintyre, and the Isles. The battle of Bannockburn was fought on the 24^th of June 1314.

      At the moment when the English, vigourously attacked by Bruce himself at the head of the reserve, seconded by the divisions under Edward Bruce, Randolph, and Sir James Douglas, were, throughout their whole line, thrown into confusion, the waggoners, sumpter-boys, and followers of the camp, having formed themselves into squadrons, with sheets, blankets, &c., fixed upon poles, to look like military banners, suddenly appeared on the summit of the Gillieshill, and at once decided the fortune of the day. The already dispirited English, supposing them to be a fresh army come to the assistance of the Scots, threw down their arms, and fled in all directions. thirty thousand English were left dead upon the field; and among them were two hundred knights and seven hundred esquires. Twenty-seven of the noblest barons of England were laid with their banners in the dust. The young earl of Gloucester, the brave Sir Giles d’Argentine, Sir Robert Clifford, and Sir Edward Mauley, seneschal of England, were among the slain. King Edward himself only escaped by the fleetness of his horse. So great was the moral effect of this memorable victory, that, according to Walsingham, a contemporary English historian, at this time a hundred of his countrymen would have fled from before the face of two or three Scotsmen. The day after the battle, the castle of Stirling surrendered, and Sir Philip Mowbray entered into the service of Scotland. The earl of Hereford, escaping to the castle of Bothwell, was retained a prisoner by Sir Walter Fitz-Gilbert, who held it for the English king, but who, changing sides at this critical juncture, received a grant of lands and became the founder of the noble house of Hamilton. For the earl of Hereford, the wife, sister, and daughter of Bruce, with Wishart, bishop of Glasgow, and the young earl of Mar, were exchanged by the English, and restored to their country. Three times within the same year did the victorious Scots invade England, ravaging the districts through which they passed, and returning home laden with spoil.

      The Irish of Ulster having solicited aid from the king of Scots, Edward Bruce passed over to that country, whither he was soon followed by the king himself, who, after defeating the Anglo-Irish, under the baron of Clare, returned home in safety, leaving his brother to pursue his projects of conquest, till his defeat and death in the battle at Dundalk in 1318. In the meantime, the war with England was renewed, but the events connected with it belong rather to history than to the personal details of Bruce’s life. Baffled in all his attempts against the Scots, Edward the Second procured from the Pope, John the Twenty-second, a bull, commanding a truce for two years between Scotland and England. Two cardinals were intrusted with this mission, and they also received private authority from the Pope to excommunicate the king of Scotland, and whomsoever else they thought fit, if necessary. The cardinals, on their arrival in England, sent two messengers into Scotland, to convey the apostolic mandate. Bruce listened with attention to the Pope’s message; but when the letters sealed and addressed “Robert Bruce, Governor of Scotland,” were presented to him, he firmly but respectfully declined to receive them. “These epistles,” he said, “I may not open or read. Among my barons there are many of the name of Robert Bruce, and some of them may have a share in the government of Scotland. These letters may possibly be intended for one of them – they cannot be for me, for I am King of Scotland!” The nuncios attempted to excuse the omission, by saying, that “the Holy Church was not wont, during the dependence of a controversy, to say or do aught which might prejudice the claims of either contending party.” The reply of the king, the nuncios, with all their sophistry, found it impossible to answer. “Since then,” said he, “my spiritual father and my holy mother would not prejudice the cause of my adversary by bestowing on me the title of king during the dependence of the controversy, they ought not to have prejudiced my cause by withdrawing that title from me. It seems that my parents are partial to their English son! Had you,” he added with dignity, “presumed to present letters with such an address to any other sovereign prince, you might perhaps have been answered more harshly; But I reverence you as the messengers of the Holy See.” The disappointed nuncios returned to England, upon which the cardinals sent a priest, named Adam Newton, to Scotland, to proclaim the papal truce. He found Bruce encamped with his army in a wood near Old Cambus, preparing for the assault of Berwick, which still remained in possession of the English. On demanding to see the king, he was ordered to give what letters he had to the king’s seneschal, who would deliver them to his master. These, addressed as before, were instantly returned to him unopened, with a message from Bruce that “he would listen to no bulls until he was treated as king of Scotland, and had made himself master of Berwick.” The monk was refused a safe conduct home, and, on the road to Berwick, he was attacked by four outlaws, who tore and scattered to the winds his papers and credentials, plundered him of his bull and the greater part of his clothes, and left him to find his way as best he could.

      Berwick shortly afterwards fell into Bruce’s hands, and, in the spring of 1318, the Scottish army invaded England by Northumberland, and took several castles, returning home, “driving their prisoners like flocks of sheep before them.” Resolved to recover Berwick, Edward the Second, on the 24^th of July 1319, invested that town by land and sea, but was unsuccessful in all his attacks. Douglas, to create a diversion, invaded England, and September 20, defeated a large army of priests and rustics under the archbishop of York, at Mitton on the river Swale. On account of the great number of ecclesiastics who fell in this battle, it is known in history as “the Chapter of Mitton.” The siege of Berwick was in consequence raised; and the English king attempted in vain to intercept the Scottish army on their homeward march. Bruce having been, at the instigation of Edward, excommunicated by the Pope, the estates of the kingdom, April 6, 1320, transmitted a spirited manifesto to his holiness, which caused him to recommend to Edward pacific measures, to which that ill-fated monarch would not hearken. He led a great army into Scotland as far as Edinburgh, but Bruce having laid waste the whole country to the Firth of Forth, his soldiers were in danger of perishing for want of provisions. A solitary lame bill, which they picked up at Tranent, was all the prey that they could secure in their march. “Is that all ye have got?” said the earl de Warenne to the foragers as he eyed the sorry animal: “By my faith, I never saw beef so dear!” Edward was compelled to retreat, and on their way back to England, his half-famished soldiers in revenge burned the monasteries of Dryburgh and Melrose; after plundering the shrines, and murdering the monks.

      Bruce himself, subsequently, at the head of an army, invaded England, and after besieging Norham castle, defeated Edward once more at Biland Abbey, in Yorkshire.l A truce was in consequence ratified between the two kingdoms at Berwick, June 7, 1323, to last for thirteen years. Bruce was now anxious to be reconciled to the Pope, and accordingly despatched Randolph to Rome for the purpose, when his holiness agreed not to renew his former censures. In 1327, on the accession of Edward the Third to the English throne, hostilities between the two kingdoms almost immediately recommenced; but the Scots being again victorious, the English government were at last convinced of the necessity of agreeing to a permanent peace. After several meetings of the commissioners of both countries, the treaty was finally ratified in a parliament held at Northampton, March 4, 1328; the principal articles of which were the recognition of the independence of Scotland, and of Bruce’s title to the throne, and the marriage of Joanna, sister of the king of England, to David, the son and heir of the king of Scots. Bruce’s glorious career was now drawing to a close. This last act was a fitting consummation of his labours. He had achieved liberty, independence, and peace for his country, the three greatest blessings he could bequeath to it, and he now prepared to depart in peace. The hardships and sufferings which he had endured had reduced his once strong constitution, and he became sorely afflicted with a disease in his blood, called a leprosy, which brought on premature old age. The last two years of his life were spent in comparative seclusion, in a castle at Cardross, on the northern shire of the Firth of Clyde, where he devoted his time principally to the building of ships, and to aquatic and fishing excursions, hawking, and other sports. He was very charitable to the poor, and kind and courteous to all who approached him. It is also known that, among other animals, he kept a tame lion beside him, of which he was very fond. He contemplated the approach of death with calmness and resignation. The only thought that troubled him in his dying hours was, that he was still under the excommunication of the church; and to make all the reparation in his power, he commissioned Sir James Douglas to carry his heart ot Palestine, and bury it in the holy city. This great monarch, unquestionably the greatest of the Scottish kings, expired June 7, 1329, in the 55^th year of his age, and 23d of his reign. His heart was extracted and embalmed, and delivered over to Douglas, who was killed fighting against the Moors in Spain, and the sacred relic of Bruce, with the body of its devoted champion, was brought home, and buried in the monastery of Melrose. Bruce’s body was interred in the Abbey Church of Dunfermline, where, in the year 1818, in clearing the foundations for a third church on the same spot, his bones were discovered. King Robert the Bruce was twice married; first to Isabella, daughter of Donald, tenth earl of Mar, by whom he had one daughter, Marjory, the wife of Walter the high steward, whose son was afterwards Robert the Second; and, secondly, to Elizabeth, daughter of Aymer de Burgh, earl of Ulster, by whom he had David, who succeeded him, and two daughters.

BRUCE, EDWARD, crowned king of Ireland, was the brother of Robert the Bruce, and companion in many of his exploits. In 1308 he was sent by his brother, with a considerable force, into Galloway, to reduce that country to subjection. He took and dismantled several castles and strongholds held by the enemy; defeated the English twice, once under Sir Ingram de Umfraville, and again under the earl of Pembroke; and, after encountering and dispersing a numerous army of the inhabitants under Donald of the Isles, and Sir Roland, a Galwegian chief, he made himself lord of Galloway. He was actively engaged in all the scenes of strife and contention of that eventful period. In 1313, after having besieged for a long time the strong castle of Stirling in vain, he concluded an agreement with Sir Philip de Mowbray, the English governor, that the castle should be surrendered, if not relieved by Edward the Second before the feast of St. John the Baptist, at the ensuing midsummer. This agreement led to the decisive victory of Bannockburn, which secured the independence of Scotland, and, with the subsequent successes of the Scots, induced the Irish to solicit their aid against their English oppressors. In 131