Some new hypothesis may, perhaps, be devised in order to prop the old one: The most specious would be, that Christian Bruce might have been divorced from Graitney Earl of Marr, and might, during his lifetime, have married Christopher Seton. This would have the consequence of advancing the birth of her son and grandson some few years; and, by that means, would, in some measure, soften the deformity which appears on the face of the popular tale. The hypothesis, however, of a divorce, can gain no credit. For, 1st, The very tender age of the child who was heir of Marr in 1306, precludes the notion of such a divorce before 1296, in which year, I am willing to hold, that Graitney Earl of Marr died. 2d, Christian

4

1296, and, as she brought him two children, she must have remained in wedlock for two years, and she must have been married in 1294, at the age of 13. If she married Christopher Seton in 1297, she must have been a widow with two children, and have married a second husband at the age of 16. According to this hypothesis, it appears that the events of her life were strangely crowded; but, if we suppose, with Douglas, that the Earl of Marr lived to about 1300, and that Christian Bruce married Christopher Seton in 1301, every thing will have a probable appearance.

Christian Bruce born

1281,

Married Sir Andrew Moray

Bruce possessed the castle of Kildrummy, the chief seat of the family of Marr, in 1333, which she would not have done, had she been divorced from Earl Graitney.

The reader will now be led to inquire, Whether the received genealogy of the family of Seton is to be overturned, without any thing more probable being substituted in its place? To reduce things into a state of scepticism is very different from what I hold to be the office of an historian; and they who ascribe this to me do me great wrong.

It has been shewn, that Alexander Seton, slain at Kinghorn 1332, Alexander Seton, governor of Berwick-in 1333, and Alexander Seton, a commissioner to treat with England in 1340, cannot all subsist together, as son, grandson, and great-grandson, of Christian Bruce. The question is, which shall we reject?

If Fordun intended to say, that Alexander Seton, slain at Kinghorn 1332, was the father of Alexander Seton, governor of Berwick in 1333, and the grandfather of William and Thomas, slain at Berwick in 1333, it has been demonstrated that that story is absurd and impossible. For Alexander, the son of Christian Bruce, could not have been above 32 years of age, and, consequently, his grandson could not have been a soldier in the same year. We must either hold, that the son of Christian Bruce was not slain at Kinghorn in 1332, or that the Alexander Seton, who had two sons slain at Berwick in 1333, was not the grandson of Christian Bruce; and, of course, we must hold, that all the genealogical writers who have supposed this pedigree have been in an error.

.. If we adhere to the first part of the story, and hold that Alexander Seton, the son of Christian Bruce, was slain at Kinghorn in 1332, the tragical event of his grandsons, the young Setons, put to death at Berwick in 1933, is annihilated; and it must be admitted to have been wholly a fable.

But although, by adhering to the first part of Fordun's story, as understood by later writers, we should be relieved for ever of the story of the cruelty of Edward III. at Berwick, yet I cannot lay hold on such evidence...

To me it seems probable, that Fordun has either committed a mistake as to the name of the person slain at Kinghorn in 1332, or that the Alexander Seton mentioned by him was some other person, of whose parentage we have no knowledge.

And, inclining to be of this opinion, I also think, that the Alexander Seton, who was one of the persons that addressed the letter to the Pope in 1320, who is said by Fordun to have been governor of Berwick in 1333, who was present at Balliol's parliament in Edinburgh 1333-4, and who was a commissioner to England in 1340, was one and the same person, the son of Sir Christopher Seton and Christian Bruce; and thus the pedigree of the son, grandson, and great-grandson of Christian Bruce, will be curtailed, and the events which have been supposed applicable to three Alexander Setons, will be found to have relation to one and the same person,

No. IV.

VOL. II. Page 202.

List of the Scottish Army at the Battle of Halidon,

ALTHOUGH the numbers of the Scottish army, at the battle of Halidon, are variously reported by historians, the evidence of W. Hemingford, or his continuator, a contemporary writer, and of H. de Knyghton, a writer in the succeeding age, ascertains their numbers with a greater degree of certainty than is generally required in historical facts.

W. Hemingford minutely records the numbers and arrangement of the Scottish army. He says, that, besides Earls and other Lords, or great barons, there were 55 knights, 1100 men at arms, and 13,500 of the commons lightly armed, amounting in all to 14,655: But he is guilty of an unpardonable exaggeration when he adds, "that the Scots covered the face of the earth like locusts."

He thus describes the disposition of the Scottish army:

Knights.

Men at arms.

Commons lightly armed.

H. Knyghton concurs with Hemingford as to the division of the Scots into four bodies, as to the number and arrangement of the Knights, and as to the number of men at arms, and of commons lightly armed, in the 1st and 4th bodies.*

With respect to the 2d and 3d bodies, there is a diversity, arising merely from the inattention of the transcribers, or the publisher of Knyghton.

Thus the printed copy of Knyghton bears, " in secunda acie Senescallus Scotiae, &c. &c. cum trecentis viris bene armatis, et trecentis de commu nibus armatis." Knyghton could not mean, that, in the main body, or centre, there were no more than six hundred men. "Trecentis," i. e. iii. c. or 300, appears to be an error of the transcriber for iii. M. or 3000.

Again, the printed copy of Knyghton bears, " in tertia acie, scilicet le Rerewarde, Comes de Carrick, Dominus Archibaldus Douglas, cum vexillo, &c. cum ccc armatis de communibus armatis." Here the number of the commons is omitted; but, as in all the other particulars, Knyghton exactly agrees with Hemingford, we may well conjecture that the passage ought to be read thus: [" Cum ccc armatis, et iiii. m. ccc.] de communibus armatis;" and thus there will be a perfect coincidence between the two historians, as to the number and arrange