without controul. The carnage and pursuit lasted for many hours,* and the remains of this mighty army were utterly dispersed, (12th August).† Never did the Scottish nation receive an overthrow so disgraceful; and, indeed, the English themselves stood astonished at their easy victory.‡

In the action of Duplin-moor, there were slain many Scotsmen of eminent rank.*" Donald Earl of Marre, the Regent, whose ignorance of military discipline was the chief cause of this national disaster,|| Thomas Earl of Moray, Murdoch Earl of

* " Ab ortu solis usque ad altam primam diei;" Knyghton, p. 2561. " Ad horam nonam;" W. Heming ford, T. ii. p. 373. † According to Fordun, L. xiii. c. 22, 23. Balliol came to the river Earn on the eve of St Lawrence, or 9th August, and fought on the next day, or the 10th; and yet Fordun afterwards mentions the 11th of August as the day of the battle. Knyghton says, that the battle was fought "Die Mercurii post festum Sancti Laurentii;" that is, if I mistake not, on the 12th of August.

‡ "Virtute divinâ reverà non humana;" W. Heming ford, T. ii. p. 273. To the same purpose, Fordun, L. xiii. c. 24. “Quos utique non vis humana, sed ultio prostravit divina, quod in hoc patet, quod multo plures ex collisione corporum, confriin catione armorum, et prostratione equorum, se invicem opprimentium, sine vulnere ceciderunt, quàm qui telo vel gladio jugulati sunt;" and c. 23. he applies to the Scots that saying of one of the ancients, "Nunquam in solido stetit superba felicitas."

|| Barnes, Edward III. p. 60. says, on the credit of a MS. Chronicle, "That the Earl of Marre had secretly combined with Balliol;" and he relates a conversation which passed on that subject, during the battle, between the Earl of Marre and the Earl of Carrick, erroneously called the bastard of Robert Bruce. It is grievous that a man should be charged as unfaithful to that cause in which he died. Nothing, indeed, can be more improbable than a charge which supposes that the nephew would have betrayed the son of Robert Bruce, at the expense of his own authority as well as of his honour; besides, the circumstances related by Barnes, at too great length to be transcribed, are utterly absurd.

27 Fordun, xiii. 24. Hemingford, ii. 275. Knyghton, 2560-1.

Menteth, Robert Earl of Carrick,* Alexander Fraser,t and Robert Bruce ; the slaughter made of the men at arms, and of the infantry, was very great.|| Of the men at arms, under the particular command of the Earl of Fife, three hundred and

* He was the natural son of Edward Bruce, and had received the title of Earl of Carrick from the late King.

+ Chamberlain of Scotland. He married Mary the sister of Robert Bruce. He was ancestor of the Lords Lovat and Salton. See Crawfurd, Officers of State, p. 274.

† A natural son of the late King. The English historians mention Nigel and Alexander Bruce among the slain; Knyghton, p. 2561. Walsingham, p. 131. I know nothing concerning them. They also speak of an Earl of Athole among the slain. The person meant is John Campbell Earl of Athole; but he was killed at Halidon in the following year.

" Ad hominum tria millia;" Fordun, L. xiii. c. 24. But this must be a mistake, unless he means men at arms. W. Heming ford, T. ii. p. 273. says, that twelve barons were slain, with 806 knights, probably a mistake of the transcriber for 86, 2000 men at arms, and 13,300 foot soldiers.

In describing the disaster at Duplin-moor, Boece has surpassed himself; L. xv. fol. 312, 313. The story, as related by former historians, is just within the bounds of credibility; Boесе, however, resolved to add a little of his own marvellous.

Of Balliol's harangue to his troops, I say nothing, although it would have enabled any single deserter to disclose the whole plan of operations, whose success depended on the utmost secrecy. Neither will I say any thing of the second harangue made at midnight to his officers, when not a moment was to be lost in the parade of words; because I know, that, for such things, there are precedents, ancient and modern.

What I have first to observe, is concerning a downright fiction of Boece. He literally hurries his readers into the midst of things; and he asserts, that the first attack of the English was on the rear of the centre of the Scottish camp, and that they surprised the Regent's tent, and killed him while he lay asleep, (" jamque ubi in media castra ad praetorium pervenerant, nec quisquam adventum perceperat, ibi praetorio dejecto ducem imprimis dorinientem confodiunt)."

He next remarks, that "all unwarlike men, and especially the English," are of a merciless disposition towards the vanquished, (quum omnes homines imbelles, tum praesertim Anglorum gens, nimis in victos ac superatos impotentes nulli pareunt)." This

sixty were slain; the Earl himself having been made prisoner, submitted to the conqueror.

On the side of the English there fell two knights, John de Gourdon, and Reginald de la Beche, with

is, indeed, an extraordinary remark to be made by a Scotsman, in the narrative of the battle of Duplin. Bellenden, the paraphrast of Boece, has judiciously omitted it.

In numbering the slain, Boece has given free reins to his imagination. "Three thousand gentlemen, and an innumerable multitude of the common sort," far exceeds any English account of the slain.

When he comes to particulars, he is singularly unfortunate. " William Hay, Constable of Scotland, was slain, and the race would have been extinguished, had he not left his wife pregnant." "Una dies Fabios," &c. This is an old fable often repeated in our histories. What Boece relates is altogether fabulous. 1. There is no reason for believing that Sir Gilbert Hay of Errol, whom Boece calls William, was slain at Duplin. 2. That the line of the family was carried on by a posthumous child, is impossible. David, the son of Sir Gilbert, Constable of Scotland, was witness to a charter in 1344, Chart. Aberbrothock, and was killed at the Battle of Durham in 1346, as Boece himself acknowledges, fol. 325. a. To say that the Constable of Scotland was killed at the head of an army in the 14th year of his age, is a contradiction.

Boece says, that, at Duplin, Robert Keith the marshal was slain, with most of his kindred. If this was so, it is strange that neither Fordun, nor any of the English historians, should have mentioned it, while they made mention of the death of persons less distinguished.

He adds, that David Lindesay of Glenesk was slain, with 80 gentlemen of his kindred. There is a great sameness in the narrative of Boece; and, I presume, that the 80 gentlemen were thrown in for the sake of variety. There was no such person as David Lindesay of Glenesk in 1332. The person then in possession of that barony was Alexander de Lindesay, and he was slain in 1333, at Halidon. If Boece meant to speak of David Lindesay, the head of the family, it is certain that he was not killed at Duplin in 1332, for he was alive in 1346, when his son was killed at Durham. Fordun, L. xiv. c. 3. reckons among the slain at that battle " David de Lindesay filius et haeres D. David de Lindesay."

Boece gives the names of many knights slain at Duplin; but I have neither leisure nor opportunity to examine this part of thirty-three esquires; and, of common men, an inconsiderable number.28

Next day Balliol took possession of Perth.29 Apprehending an attack from the Earl of March, he ordered the ditch to be cleared, and the town to be enclosed with palisadoes.*

A soldier coming from the carnage at Duplin, met the Earl of March, shewed his mortal wounds, and expired. This was the first intelligence that the Scottish army received of the overthrow of their countrymen. On their advancing to the field of battle, it was sadly confirmed. Eager for revenge, they hurried on to Perth. While they were descending from the neighbouring heights, " Courage," cried Henry de Beaumont, " those men will not hurt us." Whether he said this merely to animate the English, or whether he formed his conjecture from the disordered motions of the enemy, or whether he, indeed, discerned the banners of some noble persons, who secretly favoured Balliol, is uncertain. Certain, however, it is, that the hasty resolution of assaulting Perth was as hastily aban

doned, and that the slow operations of a blockade were preferred. The Scots hoped, by investing the town, and cutting off all communication with the sea, to reduce the English to the extremities of famine, and force them to capitulate.

John Crabbe, a Flemish mariner, had eminently distinguished himself at the defence of Berwick.30 Attached to the service of Scotland, he continued for many years to cruise on the eastern coasts, and exceedingly annoyed the English commerce.* While the Scots blockaded Perth, he came with ten vessels to the entrance of the river Tay: He took the ship which belonged to Henry de Beaumont; but soon after, in a general engagement, his whole fleet was burnt, (24th August).

The Earl of March, after this disaster, saw that his own numerous forces were in imminent hazard of perishing through want of provisions,† while the English, now become masters at sea, received abun

* " Qui multa mala saepius per mare pluribus annis Anglis intulerat;" W. Heming ford, T. ii. p. 273.

+ This circumstance is mentioned in Scala Chron. ap. Leland, T. i. p. 553. " Cam an infinite numbre out of al partes of Scotland afore S. John's toune, and sone after, for lak of vitayle, were constraynid to recoyle and disparkle themselves." Fordan, L. xiii. c. 24. either not knowing or not remarking this circumstance, has censured the conduct of the Earl of March in abandoning the blockade of Perth. Many circumstances in the conduct of that noble person admit not of apology; in particular, his negligence, and his ignorance of the motions of the enemy at Duplin, are inexcusable; and it must be admitted, that his behaviour was often ambiguous, and resembling that of an opulent man, who meant to save his own fortune out of the public wreck; yet, after the destruction of Crabbe's fleet, it does not appear that the blockade of Perth was any longer practicable.