7th, It having been resolved to lay aside all thoughts of pursuing the enemy, the English decamped, and lay that night at Stanhope.*

8th, Marched from Stanhope, and lay in the neighbourhood of an abbey two leagues from Durham. At this, and the former night's quarters, there was abundance of forage found for the horses, who, by long marches and scanty sustenance, were so reduced that they could hardly crawl... 9th, Halted.

10th, Marched into Durham. Here they found their baggage which they had left in the fields on the 19th of July. The citizens of Durham had

Si les delierent et les laisserent aller ;" Froissart, v. i. p. 22. Tyrrel, T. iii. p. 345. and Barnes, p. 16. erroneously suppose that the legs of all the prisoners were broken. It is difficult to account for this barbarity of the Scots. Had they meant to prevent the prisoners from making their escape, and from giving intelligence to the English, they would have led them along with the army, or they would have broken the legs of all of them. Perhaps they were wounded men. Froissart tells the story in an inaccurate manner; one might be led to suppose, that the English let the men go whose legs were broken.

* Edward III. issued writs at Stanhope, 7th August, for assembling a parliament; Foedera, T. iv. p. 301. He mentioned the escape of the Scots from Stanhope Park. This is an important date. We have seen that the King and council were at Durham 17th July, and here we see that the Scots had escaped before the 7th of August; between the two dates there is an interval of twenty days, during which all the operations of the compaign must, of necessity, have occurred. And here it is that Froissart seems to have misunderstood his informer: He says, v. i. p. 21. "Les Anglois se logerent là endroit contre eux, (at Stanhope Park), et demourerent xviii jours tous pleins sur cette montaigne." The only method that I can discover of accounting for this is, that Froissart's informer told him the army had been engaged among the mountains against the Scots for eighteen days, and this is precisely the space between the 19th July, when they left their baggage, to their encampment at Stanhope, after the escape of the Scots.

conveyed it into the town, and preserved it with great care. The army was quartered at Durham, and in the neighbourhood.

11th and 12th, Halted.

13th, Marched towards York. 14th, Continued to march.

15th, Arrived at York.* The King thanked his barons for their good and loyal service, and dismissed the army.

No. III.

VOL. II. Page 182.

Of the Genealogy of the Family of SETON, in the
Fourteenth Century.

Our genealogical writers have given a fair pedigree of the family of Seton in the fourteenth century.

Christopher Seton suffered = Christian Bruce, sister of Ro

death 1306.

bert I.

* The first instrument by the King that occurs in Foedera, after his return from the campaign, is dated at York, 15th August. See T. iv. p. 302.

This pedigree, however, will not stand the test of historical criticism.

:

That all possible indulgence may be shewn to it, let it be supposed that both Alexander the son, and Alexander the grandson of Christian Bruce, were married at fourteen, and that each of them had a son at fifteen.

This is to hold circumstances for true which are always exceedingly improbable, and which can scarcely ever happen in times of public disorder.

The first husband of Christian Bruce was Graitney Earl of Marr. Their children were, Donald Earl of Marr, slain at Duplin in 1332, and Helen, or Ellyne, through whom the earldom of Marr did, in after times, devolve on the family of Erskine. Graitney Earl of Marr was alive in 1296."

2

Sir Robert Douglas says, that Graitney Earl of Marr died about 1300; but, of this assertion, he produces no evidence, and therefore I lay no weight on it, although it would make considerably for the argument which I am to use. Indeed, I do not, at present, recollect any mention of Graitney Earl of Marr after autumn 1296; and, therefore, let it be supposed that he died in the end of that year.

We cannot suppose that Christian Bruce married her second husband Christopher Seton before 1297, or that she could have had a son by him till about 1298.

This son Alexander (slain at Kinghorn 1332), may have been married at fourteen, to Isobel the daughter of Duncan, 10th Earl of Fife, an. 1312, and may have had a son, (Alexander governor of Berwick 1333), an. 1313.

Alexander governor of Berwick may have been married at fourteen, an. 1327, and may have had a son William, an. 1328, and a son Thomas, an. 1329, (both said to have been slain before the walls of Berwick 1333), and also a son Alexander, an. 1330, (who carried on the line of the family).

All this is matter of figures, and the reader is entreated to attend to the calculation, and to observe its consequences.

1. If Alexander Seton, the son of Christian Bruce, married, in 1312, the daughter of Duncan, 10th Earl of Fife, when he himself was but fourteen, it follows that his wife was twenty-four at least; for Duncan, 10th Earl of Fife, her father, died in 1288.3

2. As Alexander Seton, the grandson of Christian Bruce, could not have been born before 1313, and yet was governor of Berwick in 1333, he must have been intrusted with that government at the age of twenty-one. A very eminent person, having a numerous vassalage, might have obtained such a command; but it is not probable that it would have been conferred on a private baron, at so early a time of life, when the preservation of Berwick was the great object of the national councils.

3. As William the eldest son of Alexander Seton, governor of Berwick, could not have been born

sooner than 1328, he must, if given as an hostage to Edward III. in 1333, have been put to death when he was a child of five or six years old.

4. As Thomas, the second son of Alexander Seton, governor of Berwick, could not have been born sooner than 1329, he must, if given as an hostage to Edward III. in 1333, have been put to death when he was a child of four or five years old.

5. As Alexander, the third son of Alexander Seton, governor of Berwick, could not have been born sooner than 1330, it follows, that he was a commissioner to treat of peace with England in 1340, at the age of ten.

:

Thus the consequences of this pedigree of the Setons, when viewed in the most favourable light, are inconsistent with all the probabilities of moral evidence.*

** If the age of Christian Bruce could be discovered, a collateral argument might thence arise. Let us inquire what may be done in that way. Robert Bruce, the father of Christian, could not have married the Countess of Carrick before 1271; for the Earl of Carrick, (either her father or her husband), died in the holy wars, an. 1270. As Isobel the mother of Randolph was her eldest daughter, and as her son Robert Bruce was born 11th July 1274, it follows that Christian Bruce could not have been born sooner than 1273. If she was born in 1273, she was aged 53 in the year 1326. But we know, from Fordun, that, in 1326, she was married for the third time to Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell, Lib. xiii. c. 12. It is admitted that she brought him two sons, who were successively Lords of Bothwell. Therefore, she must have born the elder at the age of 54, and the younger at the age of 55. Now, this is exceedingly improbable; and, therefore, we may conclude, that, when Christian Bruce was married for the third time in 1326, she was considerably younger than 53, and, consequently, that she was born several years after 1273. Let us see how calculations will answer on the hypothesis, that, in 1326, at the age of 45, she married Sir Andrew Moray; if so, she was born in 1281, and, consequently, was 15 at the supposed death of the Earl of Marr in