II. The Battle of Otterbourne. ......................................................................................
The only battle, wherein an Earl of Douglas was slain fighting with a Percy,
was that of Otterbourn, which is the subject of this ballad. It is here related with the
allowable partiality of an English poet, and much in the same manner as it is recorded
in the English Chronicles. The Scottish writers, have, with a partiality at least as
excusable, related it no less in their own favour. Luckily we have a very
circumstantial narrative of the whole affair from Froissart, a French historian, who
appears to be unbiassed. Froissart's relation is prolix; I shall therefore give it, with a
few corrections, as abridged by Carte, who has however had recourse to other
authorities, and differs from Froissart in some things, which I shall note in the margin.
In the twelfth year of Richard II., 1388, "The Scots taking advantage of the
confusions of this nation, and falling with a party into the West-Marches, ravaged the
country about Carlisle, and carried off 300 prisoners. It was with a much greater
force, headed by some of the principal nobility, that, in the beginning of August,[1]
they invaded Northumberland; and, having wasted part of the county of Durham,[2]
advanced to the gates of Newcastle: where, in a skirmish, they took a 'penon' or
colours[3] belonging to Henry Lord Percy, surnamed Hotspur, son of the Earl of
Northumberland. In their retreat home, they attacked a castle near Otterbourn: and, in
the evening of Aug. 9 (as the English writers say, or rather, according to Froissart,
Aug. 15), after an unsuccessful assault, were surprised in their camp, which was very
strong, by Henry, who at the first onset put them into a good deal of confusion. But
James Earl of Douglas rallying his men, there ensued one of the best-fought actions
that happened in that age; both armies showing the utmost bravery;[4] the Earl
Douglas himself being slain on the spot;[5] the Earl of Murrey mortally wounded; and
Hotspur,[6] with his brother Ralph Percy, taken prisoners. These disasters on both
sides have given occasion to the event of the engagement's being disputed; Froissart
(who derives his relation from a Scotch knight, two gentlemen of the same country,
and as many of Foix[7]) affirming that the Scots remained masters of the field; and
the English writers insinuating the contrary. These last maintain that the English had
the better of the day: but night coming on, some of the northern lords, coming with
the Bishop of Durham to their assistance, killed many of them by mistake, supposing
them to be Scots; and the Earl of Dunbar, at the same time falling on another side
upon Hotspur, took him and his brother prisoners, and carried them off while both
parties were fighting. It is at least certain, that immediately after this battle the Scots
engaged in it made the best of their way home: and the same party was taken by the
other corps about Carlisle."
Such is the account collected by Carte, in which he seems not to be free from
partiality: for prejudice must own that Froissart's circumstantial account carries a
great appearance of truth, and he gives the victory to the Scots. He however does
justice to the courage of both parties; and represents their mutual generosity in such a
light, that the present age might edify by the example. "The Englysshmen on the one
partye, and Scottes on the other party, are good men of warre, for whan they mete,
there is a hard fighte without sparynge. There is no hoo[8] betwene them as long as
speares, swordes, axes, or dagers wyll endure; but lay on eche upon other: and whan
they be well beaten, and that the one party hath obtayned the victory, they than
glorifye so in their dedes of armes, and are so joyfull, that suche as be taken, they
shall be ransomed or they go out of the felde;[9] so that shortely ECHE OF THEM IS