graunt noumbre mortz. La vile se rendy sur condiciouns taille. Le Count de la Marche qavoit le chastel de Berewik à garder, deveint Engles, qi n'avoit my graunt gree de nul coste, qi en le mene temps fist affermer par suffraunce le Roy soun chastell de Dunbar, qi puis fist grant mal."

That is, "The King was eager to be at the head of armies, and to gain renown. His counsellors approved of war, and wished for it: And therefore, they speedily agreed to the conditions proposed (by Balliol and his adherents). And this the rather, because they sought, by the means of the Scots themselves, to recover what the Scots had taken from England. Some of the chief counsellors of the King went with the army of Edward Balliol; and, in the second week of Lent, they laid siege to the town of Berwick, by sea as well as on the land side. And shortly before Whitsuntide, the King of England came thither in person. They assaulted the town; but they did not master it. Then they busied themselves in repairing their hurdles for a new assault. At this time, the besieged entered into a treaty with the besiegers, and agreed to surrender the town, unless succoured before a certain day: And to that effect they gave hostages. Before the day thus limited, the whole power of Scotland, in astonishing numbers, crossed the river of Tweed one morning at day-break, at the Yareford, and shewed themselves before Berwick, on the south side of the river, towards England, in full view of the King and his army. They conveyed some men and provisions into the town, and they remained on their ground all the day and the night following; and next day, before noon, they removed into the territories of the King in Northumberland, burning and ravaging the country in full view of the English army. These men having thus departed, the King's counsellors required the town to be given up, as the term stipulated for their being succoured had now elapsed. The besieged made answer, that they had received succours both of men and of provisions; and they shewed that there were new governors in the town, and also knights, who had been sent from their army. Sir William Keith was one, and there were others besides. It was the opinion of the English council that the Scots had forfeited their hostages, and, therefore, they caused the son of Alexander Seton, governor of the town, to be hanged. On his death, after this sort, the other people of the town, from affection for their children, who were also hostages, renewed the treaty of capitulation. The Scottish knights who had found entrance into the town, advised them to this, being of opinion that their forces were superior to the army of the King of England. By the new conditions, it was agreed to surrender the place, unless, within fifteen days, the Scots should either throw 200 men at arms in a body into the town by dry land, between the sea and the English army, or combat (and overcome) the English army in open field. William de Keith, William de Prendegest, and Alexander Gray, all knights who had thrown themselves into the place, had a passport to go through the English camp to their countrymen in Northumberland. They found the Scottish forces at Witton Underwood, and brought them back to the relief of Berwick. The Scots fought, and were discomfited. Archibald Douglas, then Regent of Scotland for King David Bruce, was there slain, together with the Earls of Ross, Murray, Menteth, Lenox, and Sutherland. The Lord Douglas also fell. He was the son of James Douglas who perished on the frontiers of Granada, in battle against the Saracens. This James Douglas had undertaken that holy expedition with the heart of Robert Bruce King of Scots, in consequence of his dying request. There were slain, besides them, many barons and knights, and a great multitude of the common sort. The town surrendered according to treaty. The Earl of March, who held the castle, became English; a man lightly esteemed by all parties. At the same time, by permission of the English King, he fortified his own castle of • Dunbar, which afterwards had fatal consequences."

Such is the narrative in Scala Chronica, of which Leland has made this very brief extract: "After that the hole Englisch hoste had faught with the Scottes, and had so great a victory, the toune of Berwick was given up to King Edward."4

The narrative of Scala Chronica appears, in general, to be authentic, although not altogether free from errors.

From it we discover the solution of that difficulty in the accounts given by the Scottish historians, which hitherto has been inexplicable; namely, "how Sir Alexander Seton could have been gover nor of the town of Berwick in July 1333, while it appeared from record, that, at that very time, Sir William Keith was governor."

We now learn, that Sir Alexander Seton had been originally governor, but that Sir William Keith, having found means to enter Berwick towards the end of the siege, assumed the command, with a view, no doubt, to favour the pretext of Berwick having received succours, according to the letter of the treaty.

Hence, also, we may discern why the English were so exceedingly minute in the second treaty, as to what should be held as succours to Berwick. It was to prevent any ambiguity like that which had arisen from the too general terms in which, as it seems, the first treaty had been conceived.

The right of putting an hostage to death, when the conditions of the treaty, for which he was given in pledge, are not performed, has been examined by the writers on the law of nations, more diligent in collecting precedents, than in establishing principles. That parties contracting may agree to give some of their own number as hostages, to be put to death if the treaty is violated on their part, appears to be a proposition of more difficulty than is generally apprehended; but that they may agree to give their children as hostages,

under such conditions, is repugnant to every notion of morality; and, therefore, I neither pretend to justify Sir Alexander Seton for exposing his child to death, nor Edward III. for killing him.

No. VI.

VOL. II. Page 265.

LIST of the Persons of Distinction in the Scottish Army Killed or made Prisoners at the Battle of Durham, 17th October 1346.

KNYGHTON is the historian who has given the most ample list of the killed at the battle of Durham; yet it is in various particulars erroneous, and it has been strangely disfigured by the mistakes of transcribers. Knyghton has afforded the ground-work of the following list; and care has been taken to correct his errors, whenever they could be detected. This was the more necessary, because our writers seem to have despaired of being able to correct the list, and have left many names as erroneous as they found them. Thus, Abercrombie has Humphrey de Blois, and Robert Maltalent, and, to conceal his ignorance, he affirms them to have been Frenchmen. He has also David Banant and Nicholas Clopodolian, names which he has not ventured to account for. Some additions have been procured from Fordun, although his list

Martial Achievements, ii. 98.