like the jury in Ayton's story, they might think that Flodden (then no distant mem ory) was not yet avenged. There were divers expedients to this end. Commis sioners were sometimes appointed by the two crowns to solve a difficulty a warden court had failed to adjust. Again, it was strangely provided that " If the accused be not quitt by the oathe of the assize, it is a conviction. One very stubborn jury (temp. 1596) sat for a day, a night, and a day on end, " almost to its undoeinge." The warden, enraged at such conduct, yet fearing for the men's lives, needs must discharge them. I ought to mention an alleged third mode of trial by Vower, who, says Sir Walter Scott, was an umpire to whom the dispute was referred. Rather was he a witness of the accused's own nation. Some held such evi dence essential to conviction; for, if honest, it was practically conclusive. Well! Suppose the case too clear and the man too friendless, and the jury " fyled" the bill. If the offence were capital, the prisoner was held in safe custody, and was hanged or beheaded as soon as possible. But most affairs were not capital. Thus the Border law forbade hunting in the other kingdom, without the express leave of the owner of the soil. Just such an unlicensed hunting is the theme of " Chevy Chase." Thus : — "The Percy, owt of Numberland, And a vow to God mayd he, That he wolde hunte in the mountayns Off Cheviot within dayes thre. In the mauger of doughty Douglas. And all that ever with him be. The Douglas took a summary mode of redress, where a later and tamer owner had lodged his bill. In a common case of theft, if the offender were not present (the jury would seem to have tried cases in absence), the warden must produce him the next Day of Truce. Indeed, whilst the jury were de liberating, the officials were going over the bills " filed " on the last day, and handing
over each culprit to the opposite warden; or sureties were given for him; or the war den delivered his servant as pledge. If the pledge died, the body was carried to the next warden court. The guilty party, being delivered up, must make restitution within forty days, or suffer death, whilst aggravated cases of " lift ing" were declared capital. In practice a man taken in fight or otherwise was rarely put to death. Captive and captor amicably discussed the question of ransom. That fixed, the captive was allowed to raise it; if he failed, he honorably surrendered. The amount of restitution was the " Double and Salffye," to wit, three times the value of the original goods, two parts being recompense, and the third costs or expenses. Need I say that this triple return was too much for Border honesty? Sham claims were made, and these, for that they obliged the wardens "to speire and search for the thing that never was done," were rightly deemed a great nuisance. As the bills were sworn to, each false charge involved perjury; and in 1553 it was provided that such rascal claim ants should be delivered over to the tender mercies of the opposite warden. Moreover, a genuine bill might be grossly exaggerated (Are claims against insurance and railway companies always urged with accuracy of detail?); where, if it were disputed, the value was determined by a mixed jury of Borderers. I have had occasion to refer to Border faith. In 1569, the Earl of Northumber land was implicated in a rising against Eliz abeth. Fleeing north he took refuge with an Armstrong, Hector of Harelaw, who sold him to the Regent Murray. Harelaw's name became a byword and a reproach. He died despised and neglected; and " to take Hector's cloak" was an imputation of treachery years after the original story had faded. Thus, in Marchland the deadliest insult against a man was to say that he had broken faith. The insult was given in a
