Battle of Sark. 123 



slaae and tane, but na mau of reputacioun war tane nor slane, 

 but schir Jhon Wallace deit efter that he come hame throu mis- 

 governance." 



The late Dr Georg-e Burnett, Lyon King of Arms, in his pre- 

 face to volume vi. of the Exchequer Rolls (p. Ix.), quotes from 

 Law's MS. a passage regarding a battle of Lochmaben in October, 

 1458, which he suggests " seems to imply that on the 23rd of that 

 month there was an unsuccessful invasion in the Douglas interest, 

 and 600 English slain and 1500 captured." He, however, hints 

 that it is probably an incorrect transcription from some earlier 

 chronicle. The passage in question as printed runs thus : — 



1458, xxiij. Octobris. Bellnm de Lowchmaban commissum est, ubi 

 Scoti superiorem partem habuerunt et capitaneus castri Anglus junior 

 . . . captus est. Lesi sunt Angli in illo bello vi*^- Anglorum. Acta 

 sunt hec per Douglases. 



A year or two before his death I called on Dr Burnett to 

 consult him about this extract, and to ascertain where Laws MS. 

 was. He then told me that in printing a line of type had dropped 

 out, thus explaining- the fact of his preface giving fuller informa- 

 tion than the citation. The MS., it proved, was one belonging to 

 Edinburg-h University ; but as it has been amissing now for several 

 years, I have not been able to look at it. It seems, however, to 

 be practically certain that the allusion was not to an invasion by 

 the Douglases, but to the battle of Sark, and that wherever the 

 error crept in, whether by dropping out an x or otherwise, the 

 date of the episode has been misrepresented by nine or ten years. 

 For " Lowchmaban " it is easy to read Lochmabenstane, the name 

 given with so much appositeness by the Asloan MS. 



Variety is pleasing perhaps in most things, but not in dates. 

 One prefers uniformity for chronological purposes. Here is yet 

 another account :— 



" A.D. MCCCCXLV. bellum de Sark ubi Scoti victores exstiterunt multis 

 Anglieis captivatis." 



This we owe to a continuator of Bower (ii. 515), and it is 

 repeated with only verbal changes in the Extracta e variis Cronicis 

 (p. 238). 



Tjater historians throw no excess of illumination on the chrono- 

 logical crux thus presented. John Major, worthy man, had never 

 heard of the battle. Hector Boece, however, had, and his flamboy- 

 ant but well corroborated and — as 1 see no reason to doubt — 



