But all these Positions, in favours of JOHN, ap­pear from what follows.

1. Fordon says,Assumption that Queen Eupheme and Bishop Wardlaw died about the same time, in the year 1387; King David Bruce died on the 7th of May 1370, and Robert did hold his first Parliament on the 27th day of [Page 6] March 1371 at Scoon, and was then Crown'd, as an authentick Record verifies; to which also Buchanan and all the other Historians agree, so that Queen Eu­pheme died not, till the 17th. year of King Roberts Regin.

There is a Charter granted by King Robert the 2d. of the Earldom of Murray, excepting Lochquhaber, Ba­dinoch, Castle and Barony of Vrquhart, on the 9th. of March Anno Regni 2do. dilecto filio nostro Joanni de Dumbar, & Mariotae Sponsae ejus, filiae nostre charissimae.

There is a Charter by Robert the 2d. Apud Scoon tem­pore Parliamenti, Anno Regni 2d. Dilecto filio nostro Joanni de Yla, of the Lands of Moydart, Morvarn and many others: And there are two other Charters in the Rolls of the Great-Seal to the said John of Yla, & Mar­garetae ejus Sponsae filiae nostrae charissimae, Anno Regni 6to of the Lands of Lochaber and Knoydart.

There is a Charter granted by Kobert the 2d. Anno Regni nono to Thomas Hay Constable of Scotland, filio nostro charissimo.

There is another Charter in the Rolls, to him under the same Designation, Anno Regni secundo: And ano­ther to him & Elizabethae ejus sponsae nostrae filiae, on the eighteen Merks Sterling of Inchtuthill.

A Charter in the Rolls by Robert the 3d. Anno Regni primo, of 200 lib. Sterling of the Customs of Aberdeen, to David Lindsay of Glenesk, Dilecto nostro Fratri; and John Dumbar Earl of Murray, and David Lindsay of Glenesk, are designed in several of King Robert the third's Charters, Fratres nostri.

There is a Charter in the Rolls granted by King Ro­bert the second, to William Douglas, Son to the Earl of Galloway, & Aegidae filiae nostrae charissimae, of the Earldom of Nithsdale, Anno Kegni

[Page 7] Nota, they had only one Daughter, who was called the Fair Maid of Nithsdale, who married Henry de san­cto claro, with whom he had the Earledom of Nithsdale, but his Successors exchanged it with King James the se­cond for the Earldom of Caithness.

John Lyon of Glames did marry another Daughter of King Robert's the second, with whom he got the Lord­ship of Glames, and the Original Charter granted to the said John, and to his Daughter is yet in the Custody of the Earl of Strathmore his Successor.

Both the Historians and several Charters in the Rolls do instruct, that the Douglas married King Roberts Daughter by Eupheme Ross.

These authentick Records of King Robert's having seven Daughters, do sufficiently shew, how ill acquaint­ed our Historians were with the State and Condition of the King's Children, who say that he had but one Daugh­ter by Eupheme Ross, and two by Elizabeth Mure.

There is in the Rolls a Charter by Robert the second, in June Anno Regni primo, to his Son Alexander of the sixty Davachs of Badinoch. One the 13 of June, and the first year of King Roberts Reign, in a Charter grant­ed to Allan Lawder of the Lands of Whitsled and others, Testibus Willielm and Patric. Episcopis sancti, Andrae & Brechen, Joanne filio nostro natu maximo Comite de Carrick, Roberto Comite de Menteith (which Buchan­nan calls Taichiae) & Alexandero Senescallo filiis nostris, Gulielmo Comite de Douglas, &c. On the 28 of May Anno Regni primo, there is a Charter of Confirmation granted by King Robert to John Kennedy, of the half of the Barony of Dalrymple, on a Disposition from Malcolm Son to Gilchrist, Son to Adam Dalrymple of that Ilk, Testibus Episcopis sancti Andreae & Dunkelden, Johanne [Page 8] primogenito nostro & haerede, Comite de Carrick. Ano­ther Charter in June, primo Anno Regni, of the Lands of Badinoch, to Alexander his Son (Nota, he was the young­est Son of Elizabeth Mure) and his Heirs, and failzing of him, to David his Son and his Heirs. Nota, David was the eldest Son of Eupheme Ross) and at the same time, there was a Charter granted to David Earl of Strathern, of the Lands of Vrquhart, &c. And the Reddendo of both these Charters, are, for Services to him and his Heirs Successors to the CROWN of SCOTLAND. In these Charters, amongst other Witnesses, Joannes filius noster Comes de Carrick, is always one. Another Charter on the 8. of May, Anno Regni secundo, confirming to Paul Macktyre some Lands disponed to him by William Earl of Ross, Testibus Wilielm & Patric. Episcopis sancti An­dreae & Brechen. Joanne primo-genito nostro & haerede Comite de Carrick, &c.

In the Charters granted the first year of his Reign, to David Earl of Strathern, of the Lands of Vrquhart; and the 2d. year of his Reign to Queen Eupheme, of the Lands and Castle of Kinross, amongst the Witnesses, Joannes filius noster natu maximus & Haeres Comes de Carrick, is always one. There are twenty other Charters of the like Tenor, which were needless to adduce for Confirma­tion of this Truth; That in the very first year of his Reign, John was Earl of Carrick, Robert was Earl of Men­teith, and Alexander was Earl of Badinoch: And there­fore Buchannan and the other Historians are wrong in as­serting, that they were preferr'd to these Estates and Dig­nities after Eupheme Rosses Death, and after the 3d. year of his Reign.

But now we come to the more solid confutation of our Historians assertions, and to show, that not after the 3d. year of King Robert the 2ds Reign, and after Queen [Page 9] Euphem's Death, but in the first year of his Reign, and on the 27th of March that year, being 1371, the King and Parliament do Recognosce John who was afterwards called Robert the 3d. and was eldest Son of Elizabeth Mure, to be the undoubted Lineal and Legal Successor to Robert his Father, as his eldest Son and Heir.

The Evidence whereof is an authentick Act and Re­cord of Parliament, yet extant amongst the Kings Re­cords, to which the great Seal of the Kingdom is appen­ded, together with other 52 Seals of the Prelates, No­blemen and Barons in Parliament assembled, a full and true Abstract whereof follows.

Here is only the Most authentick Evident, which perhaps Europe can shew, giving an irrefragable Proof, that John afterwards called Robert, eldest Son to Elizabeth Mure, was in the first year of his Fathers Reign, owned and acknowledged, as his eldest lawful Son and Heir, and undoubted Successor to the Crown; and that in the lifetime of Queen Eupheme, to which her Son in law the Earl of Douglass his Seal amongst others, is appended: And therefore Elizabeth Mure, his Mother, was lawful Wife to Robert Earl of Strathern, afterwards KING; and consequently it is false that these Children were on­ly legitimat by King Roberts marrying their Mother after Queen Euphems death, and after the third year of his Reign, And that the Act of Parliament recognizing Iohn as such, was past in the fourth year of the said King's Reign. This solemn Act and authentick Record yet extant, doth evidence to a Demonstration, to the dis­honour of those negligent Historiographers, who did write so confidently, what this Act and Instrument doth so clearly canvel: Nor is it so by this great Act only, but by very many other authentick Documents standing in Record, as a Charter granted on the 13th of Iune Anno Regni primo to Allan Lawder of Whitsled, and the other Charters before mentioned, and twenty others not men­tioned, which all bear Record, that in the first year of King Robert the seconds Reign, and in Queen Euphems Lifetime, the KING, the Prelats, the Lords, and all who received Charters from the King, did look on the [Page 17] said John as his undoubted eldest Son and Heir, Earl of Carrick and STEWART of SCOTLAND, and the Char­ters granted to, and received by Queen Eupheme; by her Son David and her Son Walter for services to the King and his Heirs, do carry in them, John is the undoubted eldest Son and Heir.

Albeit what is said seems demonstrative enough, yet to leave no part of this injurious Lybel unransaked; We shall next shew, that before Robert the second, yea ve­ry many years before, whilst he was Earl of Strathern and STEWART of SCOTLAND, JOHN his Son was owned by him, and by the whole Nation, as his eldest Son and Heir.

There is a Charter, wherein Robertus Senescallus Scotiae, Comes de Strathern, & Joannes Senescallus fili­us noster primo-genius & Haeres, confirm a Mortificati­on made by Reginaldus More, Pater Wilielmi More, Equitis to the Abbacy of Pasly, recorded in their Regi­ster, which, tho' it want a Date, yet there follows in the same Register, a Charter given by the said Ro­bert Senescallus Scotiae, confirming all Gifts given by his Predecessors and himself to the Abbacy of Pasly, dated anno 1361, which was nine years before he was KING; In which, amongst other Witnesses, Joannes Senescallus Dominus de Kyle primogenitus noster, is one: Which verifies also, that his Father did communicat his Ho­nours and Estate with him at that time. This Charter is recorded in Fol. 39. of the Register of Pasly.

In the year 1328. on the thirteenth of February, there is a Submission recorded in the said Register of Pasly, be­twixt the Procurator of the said Abbacy, called Andrew Kelcho, who was Prior of the Abbacy on the one part, and Reginald More or Mure Procurator for the Master Chan­nons [Page 18] and Monks of Simpringhame, concerning 40 Merks of Annuity, payable by the Abbacy of Pasly to Simpringhame; and assigned by them to the said Reginald: On which sub­mission, the Abbot is decerned to pay the 40 Merks to Re­ginald and his Successors, he getting a sufficient Write from those of Simpringhame, to secure Pasly for what they pay: And for further Security to the Abbacy Reginald and his Son Sir William consign a Write disponing his Lands of Sanackar, Camsestrang, Doulargis, Cowdams, Stafflour and Hormisdale, lying in the Baronies of Renfrew and Cowall, in Warrandice to the Abbacy, for securing them until he produced the said Writing from Simpringhame, as said is; he having failed for two years to procure the said security from Simpringhame, those of Pasly addressed to Robert Earl of Strathern STEWART of SCOTLAND, and to JOHN his eldest Son and Heir, Who were Superiors of the Lands disponed by Reginald to them, for their Security, desiring a Charter, whereby they might be seased in the saids Lands; Which Robert and his said Son did grant, and it is recorded in Folio 16. of the old Register of Pasly: The Charter is long, and therefore I have only abstracted out of it, what is useful for our purpose, as follows.

This Charter alone were proof enough, for here are many Witnesses of good Quality, and the nearest Neigh­bours, who being Witnesses, that JOHN the Son of [Page 21] Elizabeth Mure was repute and known to be the eldest Son and Heir of Robert STEWART of SCOTLAND, long before he was King, long before the decease of Eupheme Ross, and that as such, he shared with his Fa­ther in his Estate and Honours; and albeit it want a date, yet since it confirms a Writing made by Reginald More in the year 1320, and that it is registrat shortly after the Registration of the same Writing, there is no reason to doubt that it was made long before he was KING.

But not to rely on one Testimony or Proof, there are many Mediums which prove our Assumption. There is another Charter dated in the year 1361, on the 20 of July, as follows,

Take yet another Charter.

[Page 23]Whilst Robert the 2d. was Earl of Strathern, Iohn as Lord of Kyle did grant a Charter to John Fullertoun, Son to Adam Fullertoun of Harperland and Easter and Wester Calnes in Kyle Stewart; which Charter of his, is confirm'd to the said John Fullertoun, by his Father King Robert anno regni primo.

There is a Charter granted by King Robert the 2d. whilst he was Earl of Strathern, with Consent of John his eldest Son and Heir to Allan Lawder of the Lands of Whitslet and Moristoun in Berwick Shire, sealed by his own Seal, and by the Seal of John his eldest Son and Heir; Which Charter is confirmed by him when KING, annoregni primo: This Allan is afterwards de­signed Allan Lawder of Hattoun, in a Charter granted to him by the said KING of the Lands of Ratha in Edin­burgh Shire, Anno Regni septimo.

These Charters and many others extant on Record, do sufficiently evince, that John Son to Robert Earl of Strathern, was own'd by his Father, as his eldest Son and Heir, and did share with him, in his Honours and Estate long before he was KING, longer before Eupheme Rosses death; yea, in the whole tract of her Lifetime, and likeways by Eupheme Ross her self, and by her Chil­dren, who did take all their Charters, either with the said John's Consent, or admitting him as Witness in their Writings, under the Designation of the King's eldest Son and Heir. It is also clear, that he was owned un­der that Designation by his Fathers Vassals, who did take their Charters from the Father always with His Consent, with the solemnity of his Seal, as well as his Fa­thers, and always under the Designation of his eldest [Page 24] Son and Heir. The Bishops, Lords and Gentlemen of the best Quality in the adjacent Countrey owned him as such, in being Witnesses with him, under that Designa­tion: But if such a Cloud of Witnesses and Writings do leave any doubt, then that of a whole Kingdom can leave none: And this we have also; For the Bishops of Scotland had no Right to dispose of their Moveables by Testament: King Robert the Bruce had promised ta give them this Priviledge, yet had not performed it before his death; King David Bruce his son, in one of his last Parliaments, passes a Deed, by way of Act, nar­rating his Fathers Promise and Resolution; And there­fore he ratifies the said Promise, and of new grants and confirms to all the Bishops in Scotland Power and Privi­ledge to dispone their Moveables by Testament: Which authentick Act and Deed stands recorded in the Records of the Great-Seal, and is as follows.

By this notable Charter, verbatim Extracted from the authentick Records, it is evident that JOHN afterwards called Robert the 3d. was eldest Son and Heir to Robert the 2d. not after the third year of Robert the 2ds. Reign, nor after Eupheme Ross's Death, but in King David Bruces Reign, 37. years before Eupheme Ross's Death.

Now if King David Bruce, and the whole States of the Kingdom do solemnly Recognize and owne JOHN eldest Son and Heir to Robert Earl of Strathern, be­fore Robert was KING, and whilst he was married on Eupheme Ross, and if all his Vassals and Neighbours did own him also as such, and his Father likewise do­ing always so.

And if his Father, Queen Eupheme, & Queen Euphem's Children did own him as such, after he was KING; And if the whole Estates of the Kingdom have, by the most solemn and authentick Document that is extant [Page 27] in all our Records, or perhaps in Christendom, and sealed it with their Seals, which is as yet extant in pub­lick Custody; then our Historians Assertion of Eliza­beth Mure's being a Concubine, and of her Children's being Bastards, until they were forsooth legitimat by a Marriage, after Eupheme Rosses death (And which Marriage was many years after Elizabeth Mur's death, since in an autentick Document after adduced, she is spoke of, as dead, anno 1364, and her eldest Son is Witness in that Document) which had been both frau­dulent and without Fond in Law, is false, and the whole Superstructure against the Honour of that Lady and her Children, and against the lawful Succession and just Rights of the Crown do fall, as founded on groundless Assertions and Untruths; Since the afore­mentioned Papers do prove, that Elizabeth Mure was lawful Wife, and her Children, lawful and eldest Children to Robert the second, and that the Right of Succession was due to them thereby, and not by any subsequent Marriage, nor by any Act of Parliament: And therefore Elizabeth Mure or More was first and lawful Wife to Robert Earl of Strathern, STEWART, and thereafter KING of SCOTLAND, and John was his eldest Son and apparent Heir, antecedently to the Act of Parliament, and to Eupheme Rosses death.

As the foregoing Collection and Abstracts do fully verifie, that Elizabeth Mure's Children were recogniz­ed and owned as King Robert the seconds eldest lawful Children, and his Son as his eldest Son and undoubted Heir, before Robert was King, so soon as he was Crown­ed King, and in the whole Tract of his Reign, before he married Eupheme Ross, during her Marriage, and [Page 28] after her Death, and that by no less evidence, than au­thentick Deeds and Instruments extant, both on Re­cord, and in their Originals, and with no lower Avouch­ers than Kings and Parliaments in Parliament conve­ened, and many other authentick Documents of un­doubted Faith besides; a few of which, much more all do make so strong a Probation of Elisabeth Mure's Marriage, and the Legitimation of her Children, that they could not be redargued by Robert the 2d. himself, if he would, and are stronger proofs thereof, than any perhaps in the World, can produce after so long a time; yet to confirm this truth, I shall add one, whch is not in our Records, but in a very publick one, the notice whereof, came to my knoledge lately by Mr. Forbes who came from Doway, and had an authentick Extract, which he gave me, whilst he was Prisoner here; And very long after I had made the former Collection. It is an Abstract of a Charter gtanted by Robert STEWART of SCOTLAND, Earl of Strathern in the year 1364. Whereby he gives, grants and founds a Chaplanary in the Church of Glasgow, and that for performing an Obligation, under which he did ly to the Bishop of Glasgow, as delegate from the Pope, to grant to the said Robert Earl of Strathern a Dispensa­tion for a Marriage to be contracted betwixt him and Elisabeth Mure, by reason of his Affinity, and Consan­guinity with her. The Original of which Charter, with its Seals and Subscriptions, is as yet extant and entire in the Scots Colledge of Paris, whether it was carried by James Beton Arch-bishop of Glasgow, and depositat there with many other authentick Records of that Bishoprick. The Abstract of which Deed and In­strument follows.

This Charter granted on the 12. day of January, 1364. in performance of a former Obligation, and on so long before, that the eldest Son of the Marriage with Elisabeth, viz. JOHN, is a Witness in this Deed, un­der the Designation of the Lord of Kyle, and eldest Son and Heir to the said Robert; so that the Dispensa­tion, for a Marriage to be contracted, could be no less than ten or twelve years before that Date. And con­sequently the Marriage with Elizabeth Mure, was not in the year 1373. altho' Eupheme Ross had then died, as she did not for six years thereafter: but the Marri­age behoved to be, at least 20 years before he was King, and 29 years before Eupheme Ross died, according to Fordan's account of her Death, and 23 years before her Death, according to Buchannan and Boetius; and if there were no more to canvell the Authority of the groundles Histories, but this single Document it were more than sufficient: For it first proves that Elisabeth Mure was a person of Quality, of Consanguinty and near Relation to the King; and it is very probable she might have been so, since the Baron of Rowallan was of near neighbour head to the Lords of Kyle, and a proper Match for any of the Daughters of that Fa­mily: and who by authenitck Documents yet upon Re­cord, and extent in Rowallans Charter-Chest, appears to have been Heretor of 100 Merk-lands, of Property and [Page 34] Superiority, of old extant above these 300 years, which is more than the Estate of ordinary Barons: and our Historians telling she was the Daughter of a Knight called Sir Adam Mure, and there being then no Families of that Name in Scotland, and of that Quality but Rowallan & Abercorn, those of Abercorn, who were co-temporary with Robert Earl of Strathern, were Reginald the Father, and Sir William the Son, and Reginald Son to Sir William, but no Sir Adam, as ap­pears by several Writs extant in the Records of Pasly, in the Reigns of K. David Bruce, Robert the 2d. and Robert the 3d. there are several Charters and Writings on Record, granted to those of Abercorn, by the said Ro­bert of Strathern, but never with the Designation of Con­sanguineus, or importing any Relation, whereas this Dispensation evinces, that the Family of Elisabeth Mure, was in Consanguinity to the said Robert: Nor was it a Disparagement for any Earl to marry a Knights Daughter: and about that very time, King David Bruce did marry the Daughter of Sir John Logie; and Robert the third then called JOHN shortly thereafter, whilst PRINCE of SCOTLAND, did marry the Daughter of Sir Drummond, Predecessor to the now Earl of Perth, as appears by a Charter following on a Contract of Marriage, con­firming the PRINCE, and the said Lady in several Lands, anno Regni 3. which is extant in the Rolls of the Great Seal.

This Charter of Mortification to the Church of Glasgow likewise evinces, that this Lady was so far from being a Concubine, that the Earl of Strathern was at the pains to procure a Dispensation from the Pope, before he could have her in Marriage: And by the tenor of the Paper, it is clear that the Dispensation was obtained before the [Page 35] Marriage was consumate. And yet the eldest Son of the Marriage is a conjunct Disponer in this Charter with his Father, of ten Merks Sterling to the Chaplain of Glasgow in the year 1364. In which year, and in this most authentick Document, under the Sign and Seal of her Husband, before famous Witnesses, she is spoke of as dead at that time.

Nor was there so great a Disparity betwixt the first and second Marriage, for Eupheme Ross was but a Wi­dow, when he married her, and Widow to the Earl of Murray; as a Charter granted by David Bruce, anno, 1341. to Robert SENESCALLVS his Nephew, and Eupheme Countess of Murray his Wife, of the Lands of Methven does prove, and is extant in the Records.

And to evince further, that there is certainty enough of Elisabeth Mures being Rowallans Daughter, there are in Rowallans Charter-chest, these following Writings.

Reservand to us the Ward and Releif of ye saids Landis, reser­vand also the frank tenendry to Dame Iannet Mure, whyleom wife to Adam Mure Knight; halding yir our Lers. for your Warrand. Gifen under Our Sig­net at Dumfermling, last day of Feb. and of Our Reign, the 23. yheir. Which Precept of Seasin, is di­rected thus at the end thereof; Dilectis & fidel. nostris vicec. de Aire & Beliv. de Cunninghame.

ROBERT Duke of Albany, Earl of Fife and of Menteith, and Governour of Scotland, til al and sun­dry to quhais Knawladge yir presents Letters shall to come, Greeting; for quhy that is meritable thing to bere Witness to the suthfastness; and yarefore it is yat we do Witness by thir our Letters, yat in our last ge­neral Counsale halden at Perth, with Dliverance of the three Estates yair beand assemblit, we lete to Borch til Dame JOHANNE of Danyelstoun wife to Quhileme our Cousin Adam Muir of Rowallan Knight, alle and sundry his Lands of the Barony of Polkelly, and alle u­thurs hir Lands pertenand til hir by way of hir Terce, or otherways of Right and of Law, the whilks were [Page 38] recognist of lang time in our hands, of before: and this til alle and sundry that it efferis, or may effere, we make it kend by thir our presents Letters; to the quhilks we have gart set our Sele at Down in Menteth, the pe­nultim day of August, the yheir of our Lord, mill. cccc and fifteen, and of our Governal the tend year.

BY which Evidents, t'is clear, that in the time of Da­vid the 2d. there was a Sir Adam Muir of Rowallan; that he was also in the time of Robert the 2d. that he had a Son called also Sir Adam, who in K. ROBERT the 3ds time, is designed in the Charter, CONSAN­GVINEVS Noster, and was indeed his Cousin Ger­man by Elizabeth Mure.

AND for further proof, Mr. David Chalmers, one of the Senators of the Colledge of Justice, a man of Learning and Probity; in an Abridgement writ by him, of all the Popes, Emperors, Kings of FRANCE, SCOTLAND and ENGLAND, which was Printed at Paris, and dedicated to King HENRY the 3d of France; and grounding his Proofs, as to Scots matters on Tur­got and Bishop Elphinston, (who indeed only transcri­bed, and gave some Addition to Veremudus) and on the Collections of John Swinton, and John Campbel two Church-men; in Relation to this Subject, hath these words: Ce Roy de Escosse (viz. ROBERT the 2d,) meurant laissa de Elizabeth fille, d' Adam Mure Baron de Rowallan, trois fils & deux filles, &c.

And Mr. John Lermond, Chaplain to Alexander Bishop. of St. Andrews, in his Collection of the Scots [Page 39] Antiquities, asserts that he saw a Testificat under the hand of Roger Mcadam a Priest, bearing, that he the said Roger did marry Robert the great STEWART of SCOT­LAND, to Elisabeth Mure Daughter to Rowallan.

These Testimonies are Proofs, as much as is ordinar­ly required for Historical Narrations: But the fore­mentioned Writs bearing the first Sir Adam of Rowal­lan and Polkelly, to have been co-temporary with King David Bruce, and consequently when Robert the Great STEWART was a Youth; and that the 2d. Sir Adam is alwise designed CONSANGVINEVS by King Ro­bert the 3d. and by his Brother Robert Duke of Albany, Earl of Fife, Governour of Scotland, and both Sons to to the said Elisabeth Mure, puts it out of all Reasona­ble Doubt, that this Lady was a Daughter of that Fa­mily.

There is such a heap of Absurdities and Inconsisten­cies, as well as Falshoods in the Forgery of this Fable, that in pity to our Historiographers, I will prosecute it no further, hoping it may teach all future Writers, to have better Avouchers for their Assertions, than common bruit and open Fame, or to take on Trust; what's writ by former Authors, without authentick Evi­dence.

The Proofs of this Marriage are so strong and clear,Objest. 1. as to leave no Doubt, except that of their being too clear; for why should one design his Son always his eldest Son and Heir, unless it had been doubtful that he was so?

[Page 40]As this is but a silly Conjecture, in ballance with the least of the former Evidences, so it will only occur to those, who are little acquainted with the Stile of Wri­tings at that time; for there are hundreds of Charters by privat Subjects standing on Record, then and there­after with the very like Designations.

A second scruple is, why should a Parliament recog­nize JOHN to be King Robert the 2ds. Son and Heir,Object. 2. unless there were ground to doubt it? And that an Act of Parliament was necessary to make that be believed.

But if they read this, that they call an Act of Parliament Recognizing John's Title, they will find a Narration sufficient to answer their Objection; and those who are acquaint with our History, know that it was ordinary for our Kings to make publick Declarations of their el­dest Sons Succession: David the first did send Malcolm his eldest Grand-child, by Henry the Prince, with Mc­duff Earl of Fife, through the whole Kingdom, to be shewen and declared as his successor and Heir: but this Custom was judged more necessary by King Robert Bruce and his Successors; For the debate in the Suc­cession, betwixt the Baliol and the Bruce, having brought the Kingdom to the very Brink of Ruine; King Robert the Bruce before his Death, did in Par­liament declare, that David his Son was his undoub­ted Heir and Successor; albeit, at that time, he had, neither Son nor Brother but David only. Which is one of Mr. Cookes mistakes, who writes as if Edward Bruce his Brother were then alive, whereas he was dead long before.

King David Bruce, after his Fathers Example, did in a Parliament at Scoon, Publish and Declare that Ro­bert Earl of Strathern, his Sisters Son, was his un­doubted [Page 41] Heir and Successor, albeit, at that time, there was none of that Family to compete with him.

And as this Instrument, before insert, does narrate that this wise King, in Example of his Predecessors did publish this Document; so neither wanted their good Reasons, why these three last Kings should have done so; the Crown having been, but lately before transpor­ted from the Baliols to their Family: so that albeit there was no shadow of Competition in their own Family; yet there was no imprudence in engaging the Parliament to own their Succession, and to put frequent Bars u­pon the Door against the Race of the Baliol, which then did exist both in the Baliol and the Cumming.

The last frivolous Objection is:Objest. 3. why did our Histo­rians unanimously assert Elisabeth Mure's being marri­ed to Robert the 2d. after Eupheme Ross's Death, that is to say, there are very great proofs that Elisabeth Mure was King Roberts Wife, but some will not be­lieve the truth, unless you tell why our Historiogra­phers did ly: to which this is a sufficient Answer; you should believe truth, because it is proven, and reject the Assertion, which is redargued by so many Demon­strations: but if you will allow me, after clear De­monstrations of their Error, to make some Excuse for their rash Injuries; I offer these Conjectures, viz.

Major, the eldest of these Historians, wrote his Histo­ry in the beginning of Queen Maries Reign, some 200. years after Elisabeth Mure's Marriage, he cites no Au­thor, nor can we learn of any that he had, except the Manuscript of the Continuator of Fordan, an obscure [Page 42] man whose Writings shew, that he did take common Reports as Proofs and Warrants for his Assertions; but Fordan, who wrote before that time, hath not the least Assertion of this, so considerable a matter, had it been true; and Majors Philosophy, as well as his Hi­story, does sufficiently shew, that he did take for truth, what others reported at Random.

Boetius's Business was to give good Latine to the Collections of his Predecessors, and he was happy e­nough in Writing, had he not unhappily stuffed it, with too many Fables, which we must only impute to his easie Nature.

Lesly, had no Design in writing his History, but to assert his Queens Right, and resent the Injuries done her; and therefore minded little to put his Authors to the Test of Record.

Buchanan, who was to support a bad Design by writing excellently, his care was not to canvell Fa­shoods, especialy when they contributed to his pur­pose, as this Imputation, bound on Elisabeth Mure and her Succession, did; and albeit the first must needs have founded the Account on false Report, and never looked into the Records, which had they done, that which now appears clearly to us in redarguing that Falshood, would certainly have done so to them: so the succeeding Authors have this Excuse (tho' I confess a bad one) that they found their Falshood on what was writ before them: And perhaps even the first of them, by a supine inadvertence having heard, that Robert the 2d. after Queen Euphem's Death, had Chil­dren [Page 43] by a Concubine, to whom he had great Kindness and that this Concubin's Name was Moram, did igno­rantly confound this Concubine Moram, with his first Wife Mure.

My Conjecture is founded on this following Char­ter.

This Charter gives you Account of 4. [...]Sons of King Robert the 2d. and two Concubines, never mentio­ned in our Histories, Moram seems to have been the last of the two Concubines, because her Son John's Char­ter bears a Tailzie of his Lands to the youngest Son of Mariota, and failing of him to the second Son of Ma­riota, [Page 44] and failing of him to the eldest Son of Mari­ota: For another Charter, granted to Mariota of the Lands de nigra Aula, and others makes JOHN to be her eldest Son, Alexander the 2d. and James the 3d. what this Mariota or Moram were, I know not, that being nothing to our purpose: But if any pleases to palli­ate our Historians Error, by their placing Moram the last Concubine, for Elisabeth Mure the first undoubted Wife, they may for me, so they likewise tell that Eli­sabeth Mure was dead long before the year 1364.

And thus the Propsition of this whole syllogism being undenyable, the Assumption being proven by so many Mediums, I presume no rational man will deny his Assent to the Conclusion, and confess that Elisabeth Mure was the first and lawful Wife of Robert Earl of Strathern, STEWART of SCOTLAND, and that all her Children were lawful Children, and the eldest called first IOHN, and thereafter ROBERT the 3d. was the lawful undoubted Heir of the Crown.

And his Title behoved to be esteemed sacred by the whole Nation, when they so peaceably obeyed him and own'd his Soveraignity, altho he was one of the weakest men, both of Body and Mind, that ever was amongst our Kings: which also Guarded him and his Infant Children from the Rebellion of his Subjects, and the Usurpation of his Relations, albeit Occasions see­med to favour such Inclinations in his Uncle the Go­vernour, a man of great Wisdom and Action, and Vice­gerent very long in the Royal Power; and who as some write, wanted not Inclinations to aspire, had he not been keep't down, by his Brother and Nephew's just Title.

[Page 45]And had there been a Shadow of Right in the Chil­dren of Eupheme Ross, who were strengthened with so many and so great Relations in the Kingdom, it had been a meanness in them, never to claim their Right, from so silly a Brother, and infant Nephews,

But the Impediment did ly in the undoubted Title of ROBERT the 3d. and of his Son James the 1st. which made the whole Nation resent the Attempt made for the Crown by the Children of Eupheme Ross, in the Earl of Athol's murdering of James the first, by a Re­venge of that Deed famous over Europe; and moved most certainly from the then Notoriety of King JAMES'S Title.