heart to claim the crown, you may win it with glory, and wear it with justice. I can do neither; but what I can I will--live and die a free born man.” These generous sentiments, uttered in a clear, manly, and determined tone of voice, came home to the heart of Bruce, with all the sternness of deserved reproof; and he was about to reply, when the ringing of harness, followed by the appearance of a number of helmets, over-topping the ridge of a neighbouring hillock, made it prudent to break off the conference. Such are the particulars of this memorable battle, as related, with some trifling variations, by most of, if not by all, our old Scottish historians. As modern commentators, however, consider themselves justified in denying some of the material points; particularly the feud among the leaders--the presence of Bruce in the engagement--and, consequently, his conference with Wallace, we shall in this place devote a few pages to their consideration. These objections are chiefly founded on the authority of Hemingford and Trevit, two English monks, who are said to have had their information from eye-witnesses. This may be all true; but when we find one of them (Hemingford) asserting, that “_fifty thousand Scots were slain in the battle, many drowned, three hundred thousand foot taken prisoners, besides a thousand horse_,” we may reasonably suppose the possibility of the _eye-witnesses_ being so much occupied in counting their killed and captured enemies, that matters of such comparatively trifling importance may not have had the requisite share of their attention. Lord Hailes, however, lends the weight of his highly respectable name in support of those who deny the truth of this portion of our national annals, and thus expresses himself on the points in question: “It would be tedious and unprofitable to recite all that has been said on this subject by our own writers, from Fordun to Abercrombie, how Wallace, Stewart, and Comyn quarrelled on the punctilio of leading the van of an army, which stood on the defensive; how Stewart compared Wallace to an owl, with borrowed feathers; how the Scottish leaders, busied in this frivolous altercation, had no leisure to form their army; how Comyn traitorously withdrew with ten thousand men; how Wallace, from resentment, followed his example; how, by such disastrous incidents, the Scottish army was enfeebled, and Stewart and his party abandoned to destruction. Our histories abound in trash of this kind. There is scarcely one of our writers who has not produced an invective against Comyn, or an apology for Wallace, or a lamentation for the deserted Stewart. What dissensions may have prevailed among the Scottish commanders, it is impossible to know. It appears not to me, that their dissensions had any influence on their conduct in the day of battle. The truth seems to be this:--The English cavalry greatly exceeded the Scotch in numbers--were infinitely better equipped, and more adroit.