That Kinmont had broken the assurance taken at the warden court is an assertion in support of which neither has "takers," nor Scrope give a scintilla of proof. Had such a thing really happened, there surely would have been no difficulty in establishing the fact; but this is not done, or even attempted to be done, by those whose interest it was to prove the accusation up to the hilt. The other reasons adduced for this unwarrantable proceeding will not bear serious consideration. That Kinmont bore no goodwill to Scrope or those associated with him in his office, may be taken for granted; and that he and his friends and associates had been guilty of many outrages on the English Border, goes without saying. But a slight examination of the excuses will be sufficient to show that they are mere subterfuges. The point in dispute is carefully left out of view by the English warden. No doubt Kinmont richly deserved to suffer the utmost penalty of the law on the ground of his misdemeanours; but he had been present at the warden court, where he would never have gone had he not felt sure that he was amply protected from arrest by the law to which we have referred. It may be said that nearly every man present on that occasion, irrespective of nationality, might have been apprehended on the same general grounds. To use an expressive Scottish phrase--"they were all tarred with the same stick." It was therefore a direct violation, not only of the spirit, but of the letter of Border law, for Salkeld to take Kinmont prisoner. Scrope was clearly in the wrong--a fact of which he himself seems dimly conscious--as he displayed an amount of temper and irritability in dealing with the case which seemed to indicate that he felt the weakness of his position. On the other hand, the "rank reiver," who had been thus suddenly and unceremoniously "clapped in jail," accepted the situation with a singular amount of philosophical indifference. He felt sure that the deed would not go unavenged, that his friends, and he had many of them, would leave no stone unturned in order to effect his release. The balladist finely represents him as saying--
My hands are tied, but my tongue is free, And whae will dare this deed avow? Or answer by the Border law? Or answer to the bold Buccleuch?