the rate of the
Single."[42]

These prices, judged by the standard of the present day, seem absurdly
low, but they may be accepted as representing the average rate of prices
obtainable, three hundred years ago, for the various classes of stock
mentioned.

It was the duty of the wardens to have the offenders in custody, against
whom bills had been presented, in readiness to answer, and in case the
bills were "fouled" he was bound to deliver them up to the opposite
warden, by whom they were imprisoned until they had paid a _single and two
doubles_, that is to say, treble the value of the estimated goods in the
bill. To produce these men was generally the most difficult part of the
warden's duty. He could not keep them in confinement until the day of
truce, for, independently they were sometimes persons of power and rank,
their numbers were too great to be retained in custody. The wardens,
therefore, usually took bonds from the Chief, kinsmen, or allies of the
accused party, binding him or them to enter him prisoner within the iron
gate of the warden's castle, or else to make him forthcoming when called
for. He against whom a bill was twice fouled, was liable to the penalty of
death. If the offender endeavoured to rescue himself after being lawfully
delivered over to the opposite warden, he was liable to the punishment of
death, or otherwise at the warden's pleasure, as being guilty of a breach
of the assurance.[43]

It would seem to have been customary on a day of truce to enumerate the
various bills "fouled" on either side, and then to strike a balance,
showing on which side most depredations had been committed. It
occasionally happened that the claims of both parties were so numerous
and complicated, the same person frequently appearing both as plaintiff
and defendant, that it was deemed prudent to draw a veil over the whole
proceedings, and give satisfaction to neither party, thus wiping out, as
it were, with a stroke of the pen, and without further parleying, all the
claims which had been lodged. This mode of procedure, arbitrary though it
may appear, did not, as a rule, result in serious injustice being done to
either party.

The offences dealt with were of a varied character. Reiving was only one
of the many ways in which the Borderers sought to enrich themselves at the
expense of their neighbours in the opposite March. They had an eye to the
land as well as to the cattle. It was customary for them not only to