A. D. 1316.

while making his way into the castle; both of so little importance as to have been omit- 11 April ted by Barbour or his informant. The date of the last encounter in which Mandeville was defeated and slain, is very vaguely expressed in the Annals; either because the writer was not correctly informed of the precise date, or because he was unwilling to say expressly that Mandeville had violated the sanctity of Easter.

After the fatal issue of this attempt for their relief, the garrison of the castle consented to surrender to the Scots, unless succour should arrive within a fixed space of time; which, from circumstances to be afterwards mentioned, seem to have been limited to the last day of May*. According to Barbour, they entered into an agreement to surrender after a short period, " saving life and limb:" And Edward, having accordingly got possession, and remained there a short time to refresh his troops, stored it plentifully with provisions, and left it under the custody of a governor of approved fidelity, with a select garrison †.

Some time after the discomfiture and death of Mandeville, and it would appear between

A. D. 1316. 2.May.

the agreement of the garrison to surrender, and the execution of that agreement, Edward Bruce was solemnly crowned king of Ireland on the 2d of May 1316*.

In the series of events of the present period, as given in the Annals of Ireland appended to the Britannia of Cambden, it appears as if Edward Bruce had discontinued the blockade of Carrickfergus castle, trusting to the stipulations of a new truce, immediately after the violent infraction of one just before by Man31 May. deville. These annals farther relate that when Bruce summoned them to surrender according to their agreement, the garrison desired him to send a detachment to take possession. That thirty men were accordingly sent for this purpose, whom the garrison, treacherously made prisoners, and declared their resolution to defend themselves to the last extremity. That after having endured the extremity of famine, during which they had subsisted for some time on the hides of cattle, and had even been constrained to feed on the Scots detachment whom they had made prisoners, they were at length under the necessity of capitulating and surrendering at discretion †.

1

A. D. 1316.

It is observed by Lord Hailes, "That he should have hesitated to relate this strange 31 May. story, if its authenticity had depended upon the authority of the enemies of the English. No notice is taken of such circumstances in the Scots historians; but they are related in the Annals of Ireland, a work by no means unfavourable to the English *." From the silence of Barbour, who is extremely minute in relating the incidents of the war in Ireland, and who so strongly urges the bad faith of the English, in the sally of Mandeville during a subsisting truce, we may very justly suspect this barbarous incident to have been invented among the Irish adherents of the Scots, and adopted by the annalist without due consideration or enquiry. From the circumstance of the garrison being admitted to capitulate, and from the silence of Barbour, we may safely reject the story altogether. Although the long and faithful resistance of this garrison was finally unavailing, through the neglect of the great Anglo-Irish barons, yet their obstinacy long employed the chief attention of Edward Bruce, and, by delaying his operations in the field, may have very

A. of S. II. 76.

A. D.

1316.

31 May.

materially contributed to avert the expulsion of the English from Ireland.

A long interval of total inaction, or rather of want of historical record of the incidents in this Irish war, now occurs. As, from the 11th of April, the date of the death of Mandeville, except the coronation of Edward Bruce, and the surrender of Carrickfergus castle on the 31st May, we have no circumstances mentioned whatever, until the 25th of October following. In this interval, we may presume that Edward Bruce, now formally crowned as king of Ireland, must have been employed in endeavouring to confirm and extend his authority among his new subjects, and to reduce them under some form of regular submission to his government. At length, long subsequent to the loss of Carrickfergus, the English appeared with an army in 25. Oct. Ulster. A party of the Scots army was encountered and defeated by a detachment of this new Anglo-Irish army, and Allan Stewart, who appears to have been a chief commander among the Scots, was made prisoner. The circumstance of his being brought prisoner to Dublin on the 5th of December, is gravely narrated by the Irish annalist as a memorable

Oct.

event*. This person is conjectured to have been the eldest son of Robert Stewart of Darnley and Crookston †.

The English detachment, on this occasion, is said to have been commanded by Hugh lord Bisset and John Logan; and the loss of the Scots is said to have consisted of an hundred men with double arms, and two hundred with singlearms, besides infantry. The distinction employed on this occasion, is not very obvious; unless we understand by the former, heavily armed cuirassiers, or men-at-arms, and by the latter, a lighter armed species of cavalry. Lord Hailes was disposed to consider the name of Logan here mentioned as an error in transcription for Cogan, a common name in Ireland §. But Barbour repeatedly mentions leaders of the English party in Ireland of the name of Logan or Logane; and the coincidence between his work and the Irish annals, sufficiently justifies the accuracy of both. In this action, the principal loss of the Scots appears to have fallen upon their

• An. Hib. ap. Cambd.

+ A. of S II. 77. Crawford, Hist. of Ho. of Stew. 72. An. Hib ub. supr.

A. of S. II. 77.

A. D. 1316. 25 Oct