“Therefore, I shortly declare, that if all others, the natives of Scotland, should obey the King of England, or were to part with the liberty which belongs to them, I and those who may be willing to adhere to me in this point, will stand for the liberty of the kingdom; and by God’s assistance, will only obey the King, viz. John Baliol, or his Lieutenant.” [62] This is evidently a corruption of _Loup de guerre_. [63] The existence of the bond or covenant between Bruce and Cumyn, though subjected to the doubts of Lord Hailes, is recorded by all our respectable authorities. The objections of his Lordship arose from the difficulty the parties would have experienced in effecting the contract. “It must be held extraordinary,” says our learned annalist, “that the two conspirators met together, should have committed such a secret to writing, as if it had been a legal covenant to have force in a court of justice; but more extraordinary still, that they should have done this at the imminent hazard of intrusting their lives and fortunes to the fidelity of a third party; for I presume, it will be admitted, that two Scottish barons, in that age, could not have framed such an indenture without assistance.” His Lordship, in his zeal to diminish the authority of preceding historians, often forgets the manners and customs of the age respecting which he writes, and assimilates them too closely to those of his own times. Were it not for this, he would have seen neither difficulty nor danger in two barons of such extensive territorial possessions and feudal influence, procuring a person properly qualified, and whose secrecy, had it been doubted, they would have had no hesitation in _effectually securing_, either by imprisonment or otherwise. Even if their power did not extend to this, as the bond was not left in the possession of the drawer, where was the danger? Would any person whose education enabled him to frame such an instrument, have been so extremely foolish as attempt to charge two of the most powerful noblemen of the kingdom with treason, without the least shadow of proof to support the accusation? Bonds of manrent were never intended to be brought into a court of law, and all his Lordship’s experience would not have furnished him with a single instance of an attempt to enforce the fulfilment of such a contract by legal means. Bonds of this kind were entered into for the purpose of strengthening the feudal connections of the parties; and infidelity under such compacts carried its punishment along with it, by the want of confidence it created among the other feudal proprietors. That such bondsmen were looked upon with extreme jealousy by the Legislature, is sufficiently evident from the conduct of James II. towards Lord Douglas; “a court of justice,” therefore, was not the place to get their penalties recognised.