That all our ancient authors should agree in the circumstance of Bruce being present at the battle, is very singular, provided he was not there. How they should all be in this state of ignorance is rather unaccountable, considering the facility they had of informing themselves; as some of them must have written from authority, if not of eye-witnesses, at least of those who derived their accounts from such. It is not at all probable that Bruce, who is universally acknowledged to have been a monarch of great political sagacity, would have allowed a tale, so likely to injure him in the opinion of his subjects, to get into general circulation, while the contrary statement, _if true_, would have tended to exalt him in their estimation. There appear so many irreconcilable circumstances involved in the belief of this opinion, that we feel much inclined to suspect some little discrepancy in the evidence to which his Lordship so confidently alludes,[25] more particularly as Wyntowne, whose authority is highly appreciated by all writers, is so very pointed in asserting the presence of Bruce in the English army. The words are, “Bot yhit the lele Scottis men, That in that feld ware feychtand then, To-gyddyr stwd sá fermly Strykand before thame manlykly, Swá that náne thare thyrl thame mycht, Bot Robert the Brows than wyth a slycht, (_He thare wes wyth this King Edwart, Set he oure Kyng wes eftyrwart_) Wyth Schyre Anton the Bek a wyly man, Of Durame Byschape he wes than, A-bowt ane hill a well fere way Owt of that stowre than prikyd thay; Behynd bakkis alsá fast Thare thai come on, and layid on fast; Swá made thai the dyscumfytowre.” Here our author, not satisfied with stating, that “Robert de Brows” was with “_King Edwart_;” but, in order to establish the identity of the person, and guard against his being confounded with the elder Robert Bruce, or any other of the same name, he says expressly, “_Set he oure Kyng wes eftyrwart._”