Border Raids and Reivers
by Robert Borland · English · Gutenberg #32005 · 454,236 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Border Raids and Reivers
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Border Raids and Reivers
Author: Robert Borland
Release date: April 16, 2010 [eBook #32005]
Most recently updated: January 6, 2021
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32005
Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net. (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BORDER RAIDS AND REIVERS ***
Produced by Chris Curnow and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net. (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive.)
BORDER RAIDS AND REIVERS.
BORDER RAIDS
AND
REIVERS
BY
ROBERT BORLAND
_MINISTER OF YARROW_
DALBEATTIE: THOMAS FRASER.
MDCCCXCVIII.
PRINTED AT THE COURIER AND HERALD OFFICES,
DUMFRIES,
FOR
THOMAS FRASER, DALBEATTIE.
CONTENTS.
PREFACE xv.
I.
THE AULD ENEMY.
PAGE.
Extent of Border reiving--Plunder and reprisal--All classes
implicated--Double dose of original sin--Victims of an evil
fate--Invasions--Threatened annexation of Scotland--Edward's
twofold policy--Sacking of Berwick--Feeling of
hostility produced--Edward visits Scone and carries off
Scottish Sceptre and Crown--Douglas and Edward Bruce--
Borderers animated by a spirit of revenge 1-14
II.
PERCY'S PENNON.
Battle of Otterburn--Chief combatants--How the encounter was
brought about--Destruction of the Abbeys--Meeting of the
Scots at Aberdeen--Scottish army assembles at Yetholm--
Method of attack determined upon--Earl Douglas marches
through Northumberland--Ravages Durham--Returns to
Newcastle--Hotspur and Douglas--Otterburn--Preparations for
battle--The English assault--The Douglas slain--Hotspur
taken prisoner--Humanity of Borderers 15-32
III.
POOR AND LAWLESS.
Condition of Scotland--Ancient monasteries--Description of
country by Æneas Sylvius--Ignorance of the people--Laws
cannot be enforced--The Barons supreme--Law against
harbouring thieves--Every man's hand against his neighbour--
Pledges demanded--Banished north of the Forth--Scottish
Borderers forbidden to marry daughters of "broken men"
in England--No respect paid to the law--Execrable murders
committed--Without religion--Hand-fasting 33-54
IV.
RAIDS AND FORAYS.
Invasions constantly occurring--Many lives sacrificed--How
the reivers conducted their expeditions--Leslie's account--
Tracked by bloodhounds--Froissart's description of
Borderers--Invasion by Earl of Hertford--Raid by Sir Ralph
Eure--Battle of Ancrum Moor--Lord Dacre's devastations--
Borderers retaliate--Horrid cruelties practised--Raid of
the Reidswire--Indignation of English Queen--Morton's
concessions 55-80
V.
WARDENS OF THE MARCHES.
Generally officers of high rank--Scottish King limited in
his choice--Wardens invested with arbitrary powers--Bonds
of alliance--Of little or no value--Ignored when
convenient--Wardens well remunerated--Duties pertaining to
the office 81-96
VI.
THE DAY OF TRUCE.
Arrangements for dealing with offenders--Of a primitive
character--Prisoners could not be detained in custody--Often
took "leg-bail"--Day of Truce every month--Date and place
made known by proclamation--The meeting of the Wardens--
Regulations for conduct of business--Administering the
oath--Three ways of trying cases--Bogus bills--Value of
goods--Bills "fouled" or "cleared"--The hot-trod--
Baughling--Lord Russell shot--Foster's explanations 97-115
VII.
THE DEADLY FEUD.
Origin of the expression--Feuds of everyday occurrence--
Occasioned by trifling circumstances--Inherited--Made the
administration of the law difficult--Feud betwixt the Kers
and Scotts--How occasioned--The Maxwells and Johnstones--A
disastrous feud--Battle of Dryfe Sands--Murder of Johnstone--
Lord Maxwell imprisoned--Returns to the Borders--Betrayed by
Earl of Caithness--Beheaded in Edinburgh--Ker of Cessford
slain--Pursuit of his murderers--How feuds staunched--Bonds
of Assurance--Marriage--Pilgrimage--Assythment 116-135
VIII.
THE THIEVES DAUNTONED.
The "Family Tree"--Man's first right--The King connives at
Border reiving--The Wardens often indifferent--The King's
visit to Dumfries--Tytler's account of what transpired--The
Turnbulls of Rule Water punished--The Earl of Mar in
Hawick--Lack of trees and halters--Queen Mary at Jedburgh--
The Earl of Bothwell--John Elliot of Park--The Queen visits
Hermitage--Struck down with fever--The suppression of
Liddesdale--Buccleuch and Ferniherst--Mangerton destroyed--
The whole district given to the flames--Geordie Bourne--
Found guilty of March treason--Executed--Milder measures--
The Tower of Netherby--Cary's success 136-154
IX.
LIDDESDALE LIMMERS.
Border keeps and peels--Description of them--Hermitage--
Lord Soulis--Nine-stane-rig--Black Knight of Liddesdale--
Ramsay of Dalhousie starved to death--Armstrongs and
Elliots--Maitland's "Complaynt"--Took everything that
came to hand--The clan system--Names of Border clans--
To-names--Debateable land--The Scotch dyke--Cary's raid--
Driven to bay 155-180
X.
AFTER THE HUNTING.
James V.--Border barons put in ward--Sets out for the
Borders--Hunts in Meggat--Eighteen score of deer slain--
Cockburn of Henderland--Border Widow's Lament--Adam Scott,
"King of Thieves"--Johnie Armstrong--The loving letter--
Basely betrayed--Pitscottie's account--Maxwell's
complicity--Ballad--_Blackmeal_--Increase of Border
lawlessness 181-200
XI.
THE CORBIE'S NEST.
General characteristics of Border reivers--Kinmount
Willie--Descendant of laird of Gilnockie--Encouraged
to commit depredations on English border--Present at
March meeting at Dayholm--Captured by Salkeld on his way
home--Imprisoned in Carlisle--Violation of Border law--The
bold Buccleuch determines to effect his rescue--
Arrangements made at a horse race at Langholm--Meeting at
Tower of Morton--Marches on Carlisle--Breaks into the
Castle--Carries off the prisoner--Relieves him of his
irons--Names of principal assistants--Scrope indignant--
Addresses the Privy Council--Buccleuch on his defence--
Elizabeth demands his surrender--James complies 201-219
XII.
FLAGELLUM DEI.
International complications--The Queen difficult to
pacify--Her letter to James--Scrope invades Liddesdale--
His conduct defended--Buccleuch retaliates--Invades
Tynedale--Account of his depredations--_Flagellum Dei_--
Supported by King and Council--Elizabeth peremptorily
demands his surrender--Places himself as a prisoner in
the hands of Sir William Bowes--The Governor of Berwick
afraid to undertake his safe custody--Surrender of Sir
Robert Ker--Lives with Sir Robert Cary on terms of
intimacy and friendship--Buccleuch returns to Liddesdale--
Adopts a new policy--Incurs the displeasure of the
reivers--Inaugurates a new era in Border history--Appears
before the Queen 220-236
XIII.
MINIONS OF THE MOON.
The kindly feeling with which the more famous reivers
regarded--Auld Wat of Harden--At the "Raid of Falkland"--
The consequences of this episode--Carries off 300 oxen
and kye, a horse and a nag, from Gilsland--Large demands
on his hospitality--"Wat o' Harden's coo!"--The sow-backed
hay stack--Destroys the town of Bellinghame--Marries Mary
Scott of Dryhope--His son slain by one of the Scotts of
Gilmanscleuch--The feast of spurs--Goes in pursuit of the
Captain of Bewcastle--Revenge!--Willie Scott--His raid on
Elibank--Taken prisoner--"Muckle-mou'd Meg"--Priest or
hangman--A wise choice. "Jock o' the Syde"--Prisoner in
Newcastle--Rescued by his friends--Pursued by the English--
Make good their escape.--"Christie's Will"--Two delicate
colts--Lord Traquair--Lord Durie kidnapped--Scott's account
of the incident--Description of balladist--Christie's Will
carries important papers to Charles I.--Entrapped at
Carlisle on his return--Spurs his horse over parapet of
bridge.--Willie of Westburnflat--Tried at Selkirk--Breaks
in pieces the oaken chair--Threatens to clear the court--
Dissuaded by his friends--Executed in due form of law--
Armstrong's good-night 237-266
XIV.
UNDER THE BAN.
State of the Borders--Decadence of Romanism--A strong hand
needed--The Celtic Church--Its influence permanent--The
Scots indifferent to fulminations of their spiritual
superiors--Excommunicatio major--Excommunicatio minor--
Monition of Cursing by Archbishop of Glasgow 267-279
XV.
THE TRIUMPH OF LAW.
"Broken men" drafted off to Belgic wars--Græmes banished to
Ireland--Buccleuch invested with arbitrary powers--Thieves
executed without ceremony--The Union of the Crowns--The
effect highly beneficial--Firm hand laid on the ring-leaders
of Border strife--New spirit infused into the
administration--The name _Middleshires_ substituted for
_Borders_--The law impartially administered--A happy era--
Parochial system of education--Schools before the
Reformation--Educational condition of the Borders--John
Knox's scheme--Beneficial results--Teaching and influence of
the Church--Religious state of the Borders--Decision of the
Commission--Difficulties in the way--Thomas Boston--The
unploughed field--Victory achieved 280-298
XVI.
THE HARVEST OF PEACE.
Great changes effected in habits and character of the
people--Easily explained--"Broken men" expatriated--How
reiving was regarded--Border ethics--Right to rob the
English--Statistics of crime--The Tweed Act--A hard
school--Grim and dour--Services rendered by Borderers--
Great feature of Border life--Birthplace of poetry--The
old ballads--A priceless inheritance--James Thomson, the
author of "The Seasons"--Sir Walter Scott--Hogg--Leyden--
Burns probably sprung from a Border stock--The name
"Burness"--A Western Mecca--Rural population decreasing--
Conclusion 299-310
PREFACE.
The object we have had in view in the following pages has been (1) to
indicate briefly the causes which produced Border reiving; (2) to show the
extent to which the system was ultimately developed; (3) to describe the
means adopted by both Governments for its suppression; (4) to illustrate
the way in which the _rugging and riving_--to use a well-known phrase--was
carried on; (5) to explain how these abnormal conditions were in the end
effectually removed; and (6) to set forth in brief outline some of the
more prominent traits in the lives and characters of the men who were most
closely identified with this extraordinary phase of Border life.
We have to acknowledge our indebtedness for much of the information
conveyed in the following pages to Scott's "Border Antiquities" and
"Border Minstrelsy," Nicolson's "Leges Marchiarum," Pitcairn's "Criminal
Trials," "Calendar of Border Papers" (recently published), "Cary's
Memoirs"--Froissart, Godscroft, Pitscottie, Pinkerton--and host of other
writers on Border themes.
It is in no spirit of mock-modesty we acknowledge how inadequately the
object we have had in view has been realised. The subject is so large and
many-sided that we have found it difficult to compress within the compass
of a single volume anything like an adequate outline of a theme which is
at once so varied and interesting.
In coming to the consideration of this subject, there is one fact which it
is well the reader should carefully bear in mind, and that is, that from
the peculiar circumstances in which Borderers were placed in early times,
the only alternative they had was either to _starve or steal_. The
recognition of this fact will at least awaken our sympathy, if it does not
always command our approval, when we come to consider the lives and
characters of the Border Reivers.
I.
THE AULD ENEMY.
"Near a Border frontier, in the time of war,
There's ne'er a man, but he's a freebooter."--SATCHELLS.
There are few more remarkable phenomena in the political or social life of
Scotland than what is familiarly known as "Border Reiving." In olden times
it prevailed along the whole line of the Borders from Berwick to the
Solway, embracing the counties of Berwick, Roxburgh, Selkirk, Peebles, and
Dumfries. During a period of some three or four hundred years these
districts were chiefly inhabited by hordes of moss-troopers, who made it
the chief business of their lives to harry and despoil their English
neighbours. On every convenient opportunity the Scottish reivers crossed
the Border, and carried off whatever came readiest to hand--horses, cows,
sheep, "insight and outsight," nothing coming amiss to them unless it was
either too heavy or too hot. Those on the English side who were thus
despoiled were not slow to retaliate, and generally succeeded, to some
extent, in making good the losses they sustained. This system of plunder
and reprisal ultimately attained an extraordinary development. All
classes, from the Chief of the clan to the meanest serf over whom he
ruled, were engaged in it. Indeed it must be frankly admitted that the
most notorious thieves were often those who had least excuse for indulging
in such nefarious practices--gentlemen in high position like the Scotts,
Kers, Johnstones, and Maxwells, and who in many cases had been chosen by
the Government to repress the reiving propensities of their clans and
followers.
Some who have made a superficial acquaintance with this remarkable phase
of Border life have rushed to the conclusion that the great Border Chiefs,
and those over whom they exercised a kind of patriarchal authority, must
have been dowered with a "double dose of original sin." In proof of this
it is pointed out that a widely different state of affairs prevailed in
other parts of the country, for example in Fife, and the Lothians, and
generally speaking, throughout the whole of the west of Scotland, and
consequently the only way in which they can account for the singular
condition of the Borders is by predicating an essentially lower moral
type. We do not believe that this theory, plausible though it may appear,
will bear a moment's serious consideration. No doubt among the "broken
men" of the Debateable land, and in some parts of Liddesdale, you will
find a considerable number of disreputable characters whose only law was
the length of their own swords. But it is a mistake to suppose that such
individuals represent the general type of the inhabitants of the
Borderland. The very fact that these men had no Chief to represent them
shows that they had, so to speak, fallen out of the ranks.
The solution of this problem must be sought in another direction. It will
be found by a careful study of the history of the country that Border
reiving was, to a considerable extent, the result of a concatenation of
circumstances over which the inhabitants of these districts had little or
no control. They were the victims of an evil fate. It was not merely their
proximity to the English Border which occasioned their misdeeds. It is an
interesting and significant fact that, till near the close of the 13th
century, the Border Counties were as law-abiding as any other part of the
realm. Petty skirmishes were, no doubt, of frequent occurrence, as might
be expected; but the deep rooted aversion to the English which
characterises the subsequent period of Scottish history had hardly at that
time any real existence. How the change was brought about will become
apparent as we bring under review some salient facts in Scottish history
which have a direct and immediate bearing on the question before us.
It must be borne in mind that for a period of more than three hundred
years Scotland was kept in a condition of political distraction by the
insane desire on the part of the English Government to reduce it to a
state of vassalage. When this policy was first determined on everything
seemed favourable to its speedy realisation. When Alexander III., a wise
and gracious King, under whose reign the country had greatly prospered,
was accidentally killed when hunting in the neighbourhood of Kinghorn, the
Crown reverted to his grand-daughter, the Maid of Norway, who was then a
child of tender years. At this unfortunate juncture Edward I. of England
resolved that the two countries should be united under one Sovereign; at
least this was the object of his ambition. He was fully convinced that so
long as Scotland maintained her political independence, England would have
to reckon with a powerful adversary. If he could only succeed, by fair
means or foul, in gaining Scotland over as a fief of England, then the
country as a whole would enjoy the immunities and benefits naturally
accruing to its position as an island. England would thus be in an
immensely more advantageous position to resist foreign invasion, and its
influence and power as an aggressive force would be indefinitely
increased. The object aimed at was an exceedingly desirable one.
Unfortunately it was a sane policy insanely pursued. Had the English King
only been gifted with more self-restraint, had he but been prepared to
wait patiently the natural development of events, and not to have struck
the iron _before_ it was hot, he might have succeeded in gaining his end,
a result which would have changed the whole complexion and current of
Scottish history. Whether this would have been better or worse, more to
our own advantage and the advantage of Great Britain, as a whole, is one
of those points about which there may be considerable difference of
opinion. Many have regretted that the Union of the Crowns was not effected
in the 14th century rather than in the 17th, as such a consummation would
have saved the country much, both of bloodshed and treasure. It may be so.
It cannot be denied that from a purely material point of view it might
have been better had Scotland gracefully complied with the wishes of
Edward. But man cannot live by bread alone. There are higher and better
things in the life of a people than mere material well-being, and in view
of these it was well that Scotland maintained her independence. The record
of her achievements, when contending against the most overwhelming odds,
and the example of those heroic personalities, which mark the progress of
her history, have been a perennial fountain of inspiration to the Scottish
people, have made them what they are. While, therefore, there may be some
cause for regret, on the ground of political expediency, that the union of
the two countries was so late in being effected, yet on other and higher
grounds there is just reason for thankfulness that things took the course
they did. What would Scotland have been without its Wallace or Bruce? or
what would it have been apart from the long and arduous struggle through
which it was destined to pass ere it gained an assured and thoroughly
independent political position? The long years of struggle and desolating
warfare constitute an important factor in the social and intellectual
evolution of the nation. The best qualities of the Scottish character and
intellect were developed in the seething maelstrom of political strife and
internecine war. It may be that "the course of Providence is also the
orbit of wisdom."
Edward in trying to bring Scotland under his sway pursued a two-fold
policy. He endeavoured to prevent as far as possible all union among the
most powerful Scottish barons. He arrayed their private and selfish
ambition against the love of their country. He sowed dissension in their
councils, and richly rewarded their treachery. Those who dared to oppose
his well-laid schemes were treated with unmitigated severity. His success
in this respect was complete. He had the satisfaction of seeing the
country torn to pieces by contending factions. His way was now open for
applying more drastic measures. He raised a powerful army and invaded
Scotland. The town of Berwick was then an important centre of commerce,
and he was determined at all hazards to make himself master of the city.
"He despatched a large division, with orders to assault the town, choosing
a line of march which concealed them from the citizens; and he commanded
his fleet to enter the river at the same moment that the great body of the
army, led by himself, were ready to storm. The Scottish army fiercely
assaulted the ships, burnt three of them, and compelled the rest to
retire; but they in their turn were driven back by the fury of the land
attack. Edward himself, mounted on horseback, was the first who leaped the
dyke; and the soldiers, animated by the example and presence of their
King, carried everything before them. All the horrors of a rich and
populous city, sacked by an inflamed soldiery, and a commander thirsting
for vengeance, now succeeded. _Seventeen thousand persons_, without
distinction of age or sex, were put to the sword; and for two days the
city ran with blood like a river. The churches, to which the miserable
inhabitants fled for sanctuary, were violated and defiled with blood,
spoiled of their sacred ornaments, and turned into stables for the English
cavalry."[1]
This ruthless massacre produced a profound sensation all over the country,
but more especially on the Borders, and had much to do in creating that
bitter feeling of hostility with which the English were ever afterwards
regarded. To harass and despoil them was looked upon almost as a sacred
duty. This miserable butchery of the inoffensive lieges instantly led to
reprisals. Under the Earls of Ross, Menteith, and Athole, the Scottish
army crossed the English Border, and ravaged with merciless severity the
districts of Redesdale and Tynedale. The monasteries of Lanercost and
Hexham were given to the flames, towns and villages destroyed, and the
surrounding country laid waste. The Scots returned laden with booty. But
the success which had crowned their arms was of doubtful utility. It only
served to fan the flame of vengeful ire in the breast of the English King,
who now resolved on the complete subjugation of the country. He marched
against Dunbar with an army of ten thousand foot, and a thousand heavy
armed horse. The Scots opposed his progress with an army much superior in
point of numbers, and occupying a position of great strategic importance
on the heights above Spot. As the English army had necessarily to deploy
in passing along the valley it was supposed that the ranks had somehow
fallen into confusion. The Scots precipitately rushed upon the enemy, only
to find, to their dismay, that the English army was under the most perfect
discipline, and ready for the attack. After a short resistance the
Scottish columns were thrown into inextricable confusion, and were routed
with great slaughter, leaving ten thousand brave soldiers dead in the
field. History has a strange knack of repeating itself. Three hundred and
fifty years after, the Scottish covenanters committed a similar blunder at
the same place when opposing the progress of Oliver Cromwell, and with an
equally disastrous result. The progress of Edward now partook of the
nature of a triumphal march. He threw his army upon Edinburgh, and in the
course of eight days made himself master of the Castle. He then proceeded
to Perth, where he received the submission of Baliol, who seemed anxious
to rid himself of an office the duties of which he was constitutionally
unfit to discharge. The King continued his march to Aberdeen, and from
thence to Elgin, without resistance. The nobles hurried into his presence
to tender their submission. With indecent haste they renounced the
alliance with Bruce, and took the oath of fealty to the destroyer of their
country's liberties. It was a dark and tragic hour in Scottish history.
As Edward returned on his way to Berwick, where he proposed holding a
Parliament, he visited Scone, and took with him the "famous and fatal
stone" upon which for many ages the Scottish Kings had been crowned and
anointed. "This, considered by the Scots as the national Palladium, along
with the Scottish Sceptre and Crown, the English monarch placed in the
Cathedral of Westminster as an offering to Edward the Confessor, and as a
memorial of what he deemed his absolute conquest of Scotland, a conquest
which, before a single year elapsed, was entirely wrested from him."[2]
We must now pass rapidly over one of the most eventful and stirring
periods of Scottish history, during which Wallace and Bruce, by almost
superhuman efforts, succeeded in delivering the country from the
domination and control of England. The battle of Bannockburn gave the
final blow to the lofty pretensions of the English monarch. He began to
realise that the conquest of Scotland was not to be effected so easily as
he had at one time vainly thought. But unfortunately this splendid victory
did not result in inaugurating a reign of peace and goodwill between the
two countries. After all that the Scottish people had suffered at the
hands of their enemies, it was impossible for them to remain quiescent.
They were determined on revenge. Hence we find that in the early autumn of
1314 Douglas and Edward Bruce were despatched across the eastern march,
and ravaged with fire and sword the counties of Northumberland and Durham.
They even penetrated into Yorkshire, plundered the town of Richmond, and
drove away a large booty of cattle, and made many prisoners. The
inhabitants of the north of England were paralysed with fear. Walsingham
declares that a hundred Englishmen would not hesitate to fly from two or
three Scottish soldiers, so grievously had their wonted courage deserted
them.
Another army of Scottish soldiers marched through Redesdale and Tynedale,
"marking their progress by the black ashes of the towns and villages."
In the spring of the following year this predatory mode of warfare was
again resumed, and Northumberland and the principality of Durham ravaged.
A great quantity of plunder was collected, and the inhabitants compelled
to redeem their property by paying a high tribute. The army of Bruce
seemed invincible, and the northern counties of England were made to pay
dearly for the temerity of the king in venturing to challenge the
patriotism and prowess of the Scottish people.
These events produced a profound impression on the people as a whole,
especially on the dwellers on the Scottish Border. The sacking of Berwick,
and the indiscriminate slaughter of its inhabitants, whose only offence
was that they refused to open their gates to the usurper, were not soon
forgotten, and engendered in the Border mind an undying hatred of England.
It is not to be wondered at that the inhabitants of the Scottish Border
should seldom either think or speak of the English except as their "auld
enemies." To despoil them became, if not a religious, at least a patriotic
duty. These circumstances to which reference has been made, and others of
a kindred nature, may account, in some degree at least, for the
extraordinary fact that the Border mosstrooper never seems to have been
ashamed of his calling. On the contrary he gloried in it. In his eyes it
was honourable and worthy. The undaunted bearing of the Bold Buccleuch,
for example, and his cavalier manner in dealing with the English wardens,
showed how thoroughly he enjoyed the work in which he was engaged. Eure
tells how, on one occasion, he sent his cousin, Henry Bowes, to confer
with this famous freebooter on some question in dispute, but Buccleuch
"scorned to speak with him, and gathered his forces; and if my said cousin
had not wisely foreseen and taken time to have come away he had been
stayed himself. Two several messages were sent from Buccleuch from out his
company that were in the field, part to have stayed with him and those
that were with him. Not long since some of his men having stolen in my
March, my men following their trade were stayed of his officer of
Hermitage, their horses taken and themselves escaped on foot."[3]
The English warden had evidently considerable difficulty in accounting
for Buccleuch's attitude, for we find in a letter written to Burghley a
few days after this happened that he is disposed to attribute his enmity
to England to his zeal for Romanism. "His secret friends," he says, "say
he is a papist; his surest friends in court are papists about the Queen,
and labour his grace with the King. He strengthened himself much of late,
and secretly says he will not stir till some certainty of the Spaniards
arrive. To England he is a secret enemy, mighty proud, publishing his
descent to be from Angus, and laboureth to be created Earl, and claimeth
his blood to be partly royal. His poverty is great, all which concurring
with his pride and Spanish religion, I leave to your honourable wisdom to
censure."
This picture is certainly painted in strong colours. The one point in it
which is really significant, however, is that Buccleuch was "a secret
enemy to England." This may be said of nine-tenths of the Border reivers.
It was not the mere love of plunder or mischief which impelled them to
prosecute their calling. They were animated by a spirit of revenge. Times
almost without number the armies of England had crossed the Border,
burning villages and homesteads, destroying the crops, carrying off goods
and cattle, leaving those whom they had thus ruthlessly despoiled to the
tender mercies of an uncertain climate and an impoverished soil, from
which even at the best they had difficulty in extracting a bare
subsistence.
The English were, comparatively speaking, rich and powerful. They could
command great forces, against which it was in vain, in most cases, for the
Scottish Borderers to contend. Hence when they were assailed they drove
their cattle into the recesses of mountain or forest, burned or otherwise
destroyed what they could not remove--so that the enemy might be enriched
as little as possible--and betook themselves to some distant shelter,
where they awaited the course of events. As soon as the enemy had
withdrawn, they returned to their places of abode, which, though
destroyed, were easily reconstructed--the work of rebuilding being done in
a day or two--and then they set about recouping themselves for the losses
they had sustained by making incursions on the English Border, and
carrying off every thing they could lay their hands on. This system of
plunder and reprisal went on merrily along the whole line of the Borders
for many generations. All the great Border families were involved in it,
and devoted themselves to the work with a zeal and enthusiasm which left
nothing to be desired. They doubtless felt that in plundering the English
they were not only enriching themselves, but promoting the interests of
their country, and paying back a long standing and heavily accumulating
debt.
II.
PERCY'S PENNON.
"It fell about the Lammas time
When Yeomen wonne their hay,
The doughty DOUGLAS 'gan to ride
In England to take a prey."
BATTLE OF OTTERBURN.
The Battle of Otterburn, which took place in the autumn of 1388, is
without question one of the most interesting episodes in Border history,
and is especially significant as an illustration of the prowess and
chivalry of the Border Chiefs. The chief combatants on the Scottish side
were the Earls of Douglas, Moray, March, and Crawford, the Lord
Montgomery, and Patrick Hepburn of Hales, and his son. On the English side
were Sir Henry (Hotspur) and Sir Ralph Percy, sons of the Earl of
Northumberland; the Seneschal of York, Sir Ralph Langley, Sir Matthew
Redman, governor of Berwick, Sir Robert Ogle, Sir Thomas Grey, Sir Thomas
Hatton, Sir John Felton, Sir John Lillburne, Sir William Walsingham, and
many others, all good men and true. The circumstances which brought about
this famous encounter are worth recalling, as they shed an interesting
light on the history of the period, as well as on the manners and customs
of the age. The Scots, with the aid of their French allies, under the
command of Sir John de Vienne, had made frequent successful incursions
upon the English Borders, ravaging with fire and sword considerable
districts of the country, both to the east and west of the frontier. This
naturally led to retaliating expeditions. At last the state of affairs
became so desperate that the young King, Richard II., determined to invade
Scotland, and mete out summary punishment on the depredators. An army of
extraordinary power and splendour was assembled; and the King, attended by
his uncles and all the principal nobles of the kingdom, set out for the
Scottish Border. If he expected to reap a rich harvest of booty by this
invasion of the Scottish kingdom he was doomed to bitter disappointment.
As he passed through Liddesdale and Teviotdale at the head of his army he
found that the country had been cleared of everything that could be
conveniently carried off. The cattle had been driven into the forest and
mountain fastnesses; all the goods and chattels had been secured in places
of safety; nothing was left but the green crops, and these being trampled
upon were rendered practically worthless. But most wonderful of all--he
never could come within sight of the enemy! The whole region through which
he passed was lonely and desolate as a wilderness. The reason of this was
that the French and Scots forces had fallen back upon Berwick, the
commander of the Scots army being unwilling to hazard the fate of the
country by an encounter with such an overwhelmingly superior force. The
French commander, De Vienne, was impatient, and bitterly disappointed at
not being permitted to attack the invaders. The Earl of Douglas, in order
to demonstrate the hopelessness of an encounter, conveyed him to a lofty
eminence, commanding a mountain pass through which the English army was at
that moment defiling, and where unseen themselves, they could see its
imposing array. The Scottish leader pointed out the number and discipline
of the men-at-arms, and the superiority of the equipments of the archers,
and then asked the French Knight whether he could recommend the Scots to
encounter such a numerous and completely accoutred army with a few
ill-trained Highland bowmen, and their light-armed prickers mounted on
little hackneys. He could not but admit the risk was too great. "But yet,"
said he, "if you do not give the English battle they will destroy your
country." "Let them do their worst," replied Douglas, "they will find but
little to destroy. Our people have all retired into the mountains and
forests, and have carried off their flocks and herds and household stuff
along with them. We will surround them with a desert, and while they never
see an enemy they shall never stir a bow-shot from their standards
without being overpowered with an ambush. Let them come on at their
pleasure, and when it comes to burning and spoiling you shall see which
has the worst of it." "But what will you do with your army if you do not
fight," said De Vienne; "and how will your people endure the distress and
famine and plunder which must be the consequences of the invasion?" "You
shall see that our army shall not be idle," was the reply; "and as for our
Scottish people, they will endure pillage, and they will endure famine,
and every other extremity of war, but they will not endure English
masters."
The wisdom of this course was proved by subsequent results. The English
army by the time it reached Edinburgh had got into the most desperate
straits owing to the scarcity of provisions. Multitudes perished from
want, and to escape total destruction a retreat was ordered through those
very districts "which their own merciless and short-sighted policy had
rendered a blackened desert."
There is one important fact brought before us in this connection which
demands a passing notice. The Reformers have often been severely censured
for the wholesale destruction of the ancient Abbeys so intimately
associated with the "fair humanities" of the ritual and worship of the
Church of Rome. The saying attributed to Knox, about pulling down the
rookeries to prevent the crows building, has served as a convenient text
for many a philippic on the iconoclastic spirit and tendency of
Protestantism. But the truth is that Knox had as little sympathy with what
he calls the "rascal multitude," which sometimes engaged in this kind of
work, as any of those opposed to him. Our Abbeys for the most part owe
their destruction not to Reforming zeal, but to Catholic England's
cupidity and revenge. The beautiful Abbeys of Melrose, Dryburgh, and
Newbattle were given to the flames by the English soldiers at this time,
and the wanton destruction of these noble edifices created in the Scottish
mind a feeling of deep and bitter hostility. Jedburgh, too, owes its
destruction not to Scottish iconoclasm, but to English invasion. It was
pillaged and partly burned by the Earl of Surrey in the year 1523, and its
destruction was practically completed by the Earl of Hereford twenty-two
years afterwards; so that, so far at least as the Border Abbeys are
concerned, the charge so often preferred against the Reformers is a base
and stupid calumny.
It was this invasion of the English army which led the Scottish nobles to
organise the expedition which may be said to have terminated so gloriously
at Otterburn. "The Scots," says Godscroft, "irritated herewith boyled with
desire and revenge, being at that time very flourishing with strong youth,
and never better furnished with commanders." The barons did not think it
politic, for various reasons, to take the King into their confidence. He
was of an essentially pacific disposition, and moreover was well stricken
in years, and it is almost certain, had the matter been laid before him,
he would have opposed the movement to the utmost of his power. His sons,
however, were prepared to give every encouragement and assistance, and the
barons in order to allay suspicion, and especially to prevent the English
getting to know their purposes and plans, assembled at a great feast in
Aberdeen and took counsel together. But, as Froissart says, "Everything is
known to them who are diligent in their inquiries." The English nobles
sent spies to Aberdeen, who, appearing in the guise of heralds and
minstrels, became familiar with the plans of the Scottish barons, and
speedily carried the information back to their own country. When the
Scottish army ultimately assembled at Yetholm, close to the English
Border, the English lords were well informed on nearly every point on
which information could be desired. Such a muster had not been seen, so it
was said, for sixty years. "There were twelve hundred spears, and forty
thousand other men and archers. These lords were well pleased on meeting
with each other, and declared they would never return to their homes
without making an inroad on England, and to such an effect as would be
remembered for twenty years."[4]
The English had arranged that, if the Scots entered the country through
Cumberland and Carlisle, they would ride into Scotland by Berwick and
Dunbar, for they said, theirs is an open country that can be entered
anywhere, but ours is a country with strong and well fortified towns and
castles. It was therefore important they should know what route the Scots
had determined upon. To ascertain this they sent a spy to the Scots' camp
that he might report to them not only their intentions, but their speeches
and actions. The English squire who came on this errand had a singular and
exciting experience. He tied his horse to a tree in the neighbourhood of
the church, where the barons were assembled, and entered into the church,
as a servant following his master. When he came out he went to get his
horse, but to his consternation the animal had disappeared, "for a
Scotsman (for they are all thieves) had stolen him."[5] He went away,
saying nothing about his loss, a circumstance which at once excited
suspicion. One who saw him remarked, "I have witnessed many wonderful
things, but what I now see is equal to any; that man yonder has, I
believe, lost his horse, and yet he makes no inquiries after it. On my
troth, I doubt much if he belongs to us; let us go after him, and see
whether I am right or not." He was immediately apprehended, brought back,
and examined. He was told that if he tried to deceive them he would lose
his head, but if he told the truth he would be kindly treated. Being in
dread of his life, he divulged all he knew, and especially explained with
minuteness of detail the plans which had been concocted by his compatriots
for the invasion of Scotland. "When the Scottish lords heard what was said
they were silent; but looked at each other."
It was now resolved to divide the army into two sections; one section, and
that much the larger of the two, to go into England through Cumberland,
the other to proceed along the valley of the Tyne to Durham. The latter
company, under the command of the Earl of Douglas, made a rapid march
through Northumberland, keeping a "calm sough" all the way, but as soon as
they got into the neighbourhood of Durham the fiends of war were let
loose. The first intimation the garrison in Newcastle had that the enemy
was within their gates, was the dense volumes of smoke which ascended from
burning towns and homesteads. Having gathered together an immense quantity
of booty, the Scots set out on their return journey, and crossing the Tyne
assaulted Newcastle, filling the ditches with hay and faggots, hoping
thereby to have drawn out the enemy to the open fields. But the English,
being in doubt as to the real strength of the Scots' army, were afraid to
challenge an encounter. But Sir Henry Percy, better known as _Hotspur_,
being desirous to try his valour, offered to fight the Douglas in single
combat. "They mounted on two faire steeds, and ran together with sharp
ground spears at outrance; in which encounter the Earl Douglas bore Percie
out of his saddle. But the English that were by did rescue him so that he
could not come at himself, but he snatched away his spear with his guidon
or wither; and waving it aloft, and shaking it, he cried aloud that he
would carry it into Scotland as his spoil."[6] The account which Froissart
gives of this notable encounter differs in some particulars from the
foregoing. He says:--"The sons of the Earl of Northumberland, from their
great courage, were always the first barriers, when many valiant deeds
were done with lances hand to hand. The Earl of Douglas had a long
conflict with Sir Henry Percy, and in it, by gallantry of arms, won his
pennon, to the great vexation of Sir Henry and the other English." The
Earl of Douglas said, "I will carry this token of your prowess with me to
Scotland, and place it on the tower of my castle at Dalkeith that it may
be seen from far." "By God, Earl of Douglas," replied Sir Henry, "you
shall not even carry it out of Northumberland; be assured you shall never
have the pennon to brag of." "You must come then," answered Earl Douglas,
"this night and seek for it. I will fix your pennon before my tent, and
shall see if you venture to take it away." As the balladist has vigorously
put it--
He took a long spear in his hand,
Shod with the metal free,
And for to meet the Douglas there,
He rode right furiouslie.
But O how pale his lady look'd,
Frae aff the castle wa',
When down before the Scottish spear
She saw proud Percy fa'.
"Had we twa been upon the green,
And never an eye to see,
I wad hae had you, flesh and fell;[7]
But your sword sall gie wi' me."
"But gae ye up to Otterbourne,
And wait there dayis three;
And, if I come not ere three dayis end,
A fause knight ca' ye me."
"The Otterbourne's a bonnie burn;
'Tis pleasant there to be;
But there is nought at Otterbourne,
To feed my men and me.
"The deer rins wild on hill and dale,
The birds fly wild from tree to tree;
But there is neither bread nor kail,
To fend[8] my men and me.
"Yet I will stay at Otterbourne,
Where you shall welcome be;
And, if ye come not at three dayis end,
A fause lord I'll ca' thee."
"Thither will I come," proud Percy said,
"By the might of our Ladye!"
"There will I bide thee," said the Douglass,
"My troth I plight to thee."
They lighted high on Otterbourne,
Upon the bent sae brown;
They lighted high on Otterbourne,
And threw their pallions down.
And he that had a bonnie boy,
Sent out his horse to grass;
And he that had not a bonnie boy,
His ain servant he was.
The Earl of Douglas having withdrawn his gallant troops to Otterburn, in
the parish of Elsdon, some thirty-two miles from Newcastle, and within
easy reach of the Scottish Border, was strongly urged to proceed towards
Carlisle, in order to join the main body of the army; but he thought it
best to stay there some three or four days at least, to "repell the
Percy's bragging." To keep his soldiers from wearying, he set them to take
some gentlemen's castles and houses that lay near, a work which was
carried out with the greatest alacrity and goodwill. They also
strengthened and fortified the camp where it was weak, and built huts of
trees and branches. Their baggage and servants they placed at the entrance
of a marsh, which lay near the Newcastle road; and driving their cattle
into the marsh land, where they were comparatively safe, they waited the
development of events.
Nor were they long kept in suspense. The English having discovered that
the Scottish army was comparatively small, resolved at once to risk an
encounter. Sir Henry Percy, when he heard that the Scottish army did not
consist of more than three thousand men, including all sorts, became
frantically excited, and cried out--"To horse! to horse! for by the faith
I owe to my God, and to my lord and father, I will seek to recover my
pennon, and to beat up their quarters this night." He set out at once,
accompanied by six hundred spears, of knights and squires, and upwards of
eight thousand infantry, which he said would be more than enough to fight
the Scots.
If Providence is always on the side of the heaviest battalion, as Napoleon
was wont to affirm, then the Scots on this occasion are in imminent danger
of having "short shrift." But it has been found that the fortunes of war
depend on a variety of circumstances that are frequently of more
importance than the number of troops, either on the one side or the other.
Discipline and valour, when combined with patriotism and pride-of-arms,
have accomplished feats which the heaviest battalions are sometimes
impotent to achieve. We by no means wish to imply that the English were
deficient in these desirable qualities; far from it. They were splendidly
led, and in the encounter displayed the most heroic qualities; but they
were matched by a small body of men, of the most dauntless courage and
invincible determination who were thoroughly inured to battle, and ever
ready at the call of duty, to encounter the most powerful foes. The Scots
were taken by surprise. Some were at supper, and others had gone to rest
when the alarm was given that the English were approaching.
But up then spake a little page,
Before the peep of dawn--
"O waken ye, waken ye, my good lord,
For Percy's hard at hand."
"Ye lie, ye lie, ye liar loud!
Sae loud I hear ye lie;
For Percy had not men yestreen,
To dight my men and me.
"But I have dream'd a dreary dream,
Beyond the Isle of Sky;
I saw a dead man win a fight,
And I think that man was I."
He belted on his guid braid sword,
And to the field he ran;
But he forgot the helmit good,
That should have kept his brain.
The battle now raged in earnest. A bright warm day had been followed by a
clear still moonlight night. "The fight," says Godscroft, "was continued
very hard as among noble men on both sides, who did esteem more of glory
than life. Percy strove to repair the foil he got at Newcastle, and the
Earl Douglas did as much labour to keep the honour he had won. So in
unequal numbers, but both eager in mind, they continued fighting a great
part of the night. At last a cloud covering the face of the moon, not
being able to discern friend from foe, they took some respite for a while;
but so soon as the cloud was gone, the English gave so hard a charge,
that the Scots were put back in such sort, that the Douglas standard was
in great peril to have been lost. This did so irritate him, that he
himself in the one wing, and the two Hepburns (father and son) in the
other, pressing through the ranks of their own men, and advancing to the
place where the greatest peril appeared, renewed a hard conflict, and by
giving and receiving many wounds, they restored their men into the place
from whence they had been beaten, and continued the fight till the next
day at noon."[9] Foremost, in the thick of the fray, was the dauntless
Douglas, laying about him on every side with a mace of iron, which two
ordinary men were not able to lift, "and making a lane round about
wheresoever he went."
When Percy wi' the Douglas met
I wat he was fu' fain!
They swakked their swords till sair they swat,
And the blood ran down like rain.
"Thus he advanced like another Hector, thinking to recover and conquer the
field, from his own prowess, until he was met by three spears that were
pointed at him: one struck him on the shoulder, another on the stomach,
near the belly, and the third entered his thigh. He could never disengage
himself from these spears, but was borne to the ground fighting
desperately. From that moment he never rose again. Some of his knights and
squires had followed him, but not all; for though the moon shone it was
rather dark. The three English lances knew they had struck down some
person of considerable rank, but never thought it was Earl Douglas: had
they known it they would have been so rejoiced that their courage would
have been redoubled, and the fortune of the day had consequently been
determined to their side. The Scots were ignorant also of their loss till
the battle was over, otherwise they would certainly, from despair, have
been discomfited."[10]
When at last the dying Douglas was discovered by his kinsman, James
Lindsay and John and Walter Sinclair, and was asked how he fared, he
replied, "I do well dying as my predecessors have done before; not on a
bed of lingering sickness, but in the field. These things I require you as
my last petitions; First, that ye keep my death close both from my own
folk, and from the enemy; then that ye suffer not my standard to be lost,
or cast down; and last that ye avenge my death, and bury me at Melrose
with my father. If I could hope for these things, I should die with the
greater contentment, for long since I heard a prophecy that a dead man
should win a field, and I hope in God it shall be I."[11]
"My wound is deep; I fain would sleep,
Take thou the vanguard of the three,
And hide me by the bracken bush,
That grows on yonder lilye lee.
"O bury me by the bracken bush,
Beneath the blooming brier,
Let never living mortal ken,
A kindly Scot lies here."[12]
Throwing a shroud over the prostrate body of the wounded and dying
soldier, that the enemy might not discover who it was that had fallen,
they raised the standard and shouted lustily "a Douglas! a Douglas!" and
rushed with might and main upon the English host. Soon the English ranks
began to waver, and when at last it was known that Hotspur had been taken
prisoner by the Earl of Montgomery, "The enemy fled and turned their
backs." According to Godscroft there were 1840 of the English slain, 1040
taken prisoners, and 1000 wounded. The losses on the Scottish, according
to the same historian, were comparatively trifling, amounting only to 100
slain and 200 taken prisoners.
This deed was done at Otterbourne
About the breaking of the day,
Earl Douglas was buried at the bracken bush,
And the Percy led captive away.
There are several incidents connected with this famous battle that are
worthy of special notice, but one in particular demands a passing word.
The Bishop of Durham, at the head of ten thousand men, appeared on the
field almost immediately after the battle had ended. The Scots were
greatly alarmed, and scarcely knew how, in the circumstances,--having so
many prisoners and wounded to attend to,--they were to meet this
formidable host. They fortified their camp, having only one pass by which
it could be entered; made their prisoners swear that, whether rescued or
not, they would remain their prisoners; and then they ordered their
minstrels to play as merrily as possible. The Bishop of Durham had
scarcely approached within a league of the Scots when they began to play
such a concert that "it seemed as if all the devils in hell had come
thither to join in the noise," so that those of the English who had never
before heard such were much frightened. As he drew nearer, the noise
became more terrific--"the hills redoubling the sound." The Bishop being
impressed with the apparent strength of the camp, and not a little alarmed
at the discordant piercing sounds which proceeded from it, thought it
desirable to retreat as speedily as possible, as it appeared to him that
there were greater chances of loss than gain. "He was affrighted with the
sound of the horns."
Thus ended one of the most notable battles on record. The flower of the
chivalry of both nations took part in it, and never did men acquit
themselves with greater credit. Indeed it is generally admitted that the
valour displayed on both sides has rarely, if ever, been surpassed. But
perhaps most notable of all was the kindness and consideration displayed
towards those who had been wounded or taken prisoner. The former were
tended with the greatest care; and as for the latter, the most of them
were permitted to go back to their homes, after having given their word of
honour that they would return when called upon. Not more than four hundred
prisoners were carried into Scotland, and some of these were allowed to
regain their liberty by naming their own ransom.
Many severe accusations have been brought against Scotsmen, and especially
Borderers, for their cruelty and inhumanity in time of war. It is perhaps
possible to make good this indictment; but we do not believe that in
regard to such matters the Scots were worse than their neighbours. And if
they had great vices, they had also splendid virtues. They were brave,
truthful, courteous, too ready perhaps to draw the sword on the slightest
provocation, but as has been shown in the present instance, they were
incapable of taking a mean advantage of a fallen foe. They loved fighting
for its own sake, as well as for the sake of the "booty," but when the
battle was over they cherished few resentments. The splendid qualities,
physical and moral, so conspicuously brought to view in the battle of
Otterburn cannot fail to suggest what a magnificent country Scotland might
have become many centuries ago had she only been blessed with wise Kings
and a strong Government.
III.
POOR AND LAWLESS.
"Mountainous and strange is the country,
And the people rough and savage."
We have seen that the feeling of hatred to the English which prevailed on
the Scottish Borders was due to some extent to the memory of the wrongs
which the Borderers had suffered at the hands of their hereditary enemies.
That this feeling had something to do with the existence and development
of the reiving system, must be apparent to every student of history and of
human nature. It was the most natural thing in the world that the dwellers
on the Scottish Border should seek to retaliate; and as the forces at
their command were seldom powerful enough to justify their engaging in
open warfare, they resorted to the only other method of revenge which held
out to them any hope of success.
But while this aspect of the situation ought to be kept prominently in
view, there are other factors of the problem which must not be overlooked.
In the Middle Ages the district of country known as the Borders must have
presented a very different appearance from what it does at the close of
the 19th century. The Merse, which is now, for the most part, in a high
state of cultivation, and capable of bearing the finest crops, was then in
a comparatively poor condition, looked at from an agricultural point of
view. The soil in many places was thin, poor, and marshy. Drainage was
unknown, and the benefits accruing from the rotation of crops, and the
system of feeding the soil with artificial manures, so familiar in these
days of high farming, were then very inadequately appreciated. Perhaps an
exception to this statement ought to be made in favour of the land held
and cultivated by the great religious houses, such as Melrose, Jedburgh,
and Kelso. The tenants on these lands enjoyed special privileges and
immunities, and were thus able to prosecute their labour not only with
more skill, but with a greater certainty of success. It is sometimes said
that the monks knew where to pitch their camps; that they appropriated to
their own use and benefit the fairest and richest parts of the country;
but, as Lord Hailes very pertinently remarks, "When we examine the sites
of ancient Monasteries, we are sometimes inclined to say with the vulgar,
that the clergy in former times always chose the best of the land, and
the most commodious habitations, but we do not advert, that religious
houses were frequently erected on waste grounds, afterwards improved by
the art and industry of the clergy, who alone had art and industry."[13]
The land held by these houses was cultivated on more or less scientific
principles. "Within the precincts of the wealthier abbeys," says Skelton,
"an active industrial community was housed. The prescribed offices of the
church were of course scrupulously observed: but the energies of the
society were not exclusively occupied with, nor indeed mainly directed to,
the performance of religious duties. The occupants of the monasteries wore
the religious garb; but they were road-makers, farmers, merchants,
lawyers, as well as priests.... The earliest roads in Scotland that
deserved the name were made by the Monks and their dependents; and were
intended to connect the religious houses as trading societies with the
capital or nearest seaport. A decent public road is indispensable to an
industrial community: and a considerable portion of the trade of the
country was in the hands of the religious orders. The Monks of Melrose
sent wool to the Netherlands; others trafficked in corn, in timber, in
salmon.... Each community, each order, as was natural, had its
characteristic likings and dislikings. One house turned out the best
scholars and lawyers, another the finest wool and the sweetest mutton; one
was famed for poetry and history, another for divinity or medicine."[14]
It would therefore be nearer the truth to say that the monks made the
districts in which they lived rich and fertile; than that they found them
so, and took possession of them in consequence.
But beyond the sphere of these monastic institutions, the state of matters
from an agricultural point of view could hardly have been worse. This was
mainly due to the fact that, so far as Berwickshire and some parts of
Dumfriesshire are concerned, the tiller of the soil was never sure that he
would have the privilege of reaping his harvest. By the time the grain was
ready for the sickle an English army might invade the country and give the
crops to the flames. This happened so frequently, and the feeling of
insecurity thus became so great, that husbandry at times was all but
abandoned. There can be no doubt that this was one prime factor in
creating the poverty which was so long a marked and painful feature of the
life of the Scottish Borders.
On the other hand, there was a considerable extent of country, extending
from Jedburgh to Canobie, which was practically unfit for cultivation. The
Royal Forest of Ettrick was of great extent, and was reserved as a happy
hunting ground for the Court and its minions. Along the banks of the
Teviot and the Liddle, embracing a considerable portion of Roxburgh and
Dumfries, the extent of land capable of cultivation was by no means great,
even though it had been found practical, or politic, to put it under the
ploughshare. This region is one of the most mountainous in the South of
Scotland, and in ancient times abounded in quaking bogs and inaccessible
morasses. This district naturally became the favourite haunt of the Border
reiver. Here he could find ways and means either of securing his own
cattle, or those he had "lifted," from the search of the enemy by driving
them into some inaccessible retreat, the entrance to which it was
difficult, if not impossible, for strangers to discover.
Of the general condition of the country at this time a vivid picture has
been given by Æneas Sylvius, one of the Piccolomini, afterwards Pius II.,
who visited Scotland in the year 1413. He thus writes:--"Concerning
Scotland he found these things worthy of repetition. It is an _island
joined_ to England, stretching two hundred miles to the North, and about
fifty broad: a cold country, fertile of few sorts of grain, and generally
void of trees, but there is a sulphureous stone dug up which is used for
firing. The towns are unwalled, the houses commonly built without lime,
and in villages roofed with turf, while a cow's hide supplies the place of
a door. The commonalty are poor and uneducated, have abundance of flesh
and fish, but eat bread as a dainty. The men are small in stature, but
bold; the women fair and comely, and prone to the pleasures of love,
kisses being esteemed of less consequence than pressing the hand is in
Italy. The wine is all imported; the horses are mostly small ambling nags,
only a few being preserved entire for propagation; and neither curry-combs
nor reins are used. From Scotland are imported into Flanders hides, wool,
salt, fish, and pearls. _Nothing gives the Scots more pleasure than to
hear the English dispraised._ The country is divided into two parts, the
cultivated lowlands, and the region where agriculture is not used. The
wild Scots have a different language, and sometimes eat the bark of trees.
There are no wolves. Crows are new inhabitants, and therefore the tree in
which they build becomes royal property. At the winter, when the author
was there, the day did not exceed four hours."
That there are several inaccuracies in this account goes without saying,
but they are just such mistakes as a person making a hurried run through
the country would very naturally commit. Wolves and crows were much more
plentiful at that period than the inhabitants wished, as may be seen from
various Acts of Parliament which were passed in order to promote their
destruction. But the general description of the country here given agrees,
in its main details, with other contemporary records, and presents a truly
dismal picture of the poverty of the people.
Even as late as the 16th century there were few well-formed roads, other
than those already mentioned. There were no posts, either for letters or
for travelling. Education was confined to the library of the Convent,
where the sons of the barons were taught dialectic and grammar. Society
consisted mainly of the agricultural class, who were half enslaved to the
lords of the soil, and obliged to follow them in war. The people were
fearfully rude and ignorant, much more so than the English--in this
respect, indeed, contrasting unfavourably with almost any other European
State. Few of them could either read or write; even the most powerful
barons were often unable to sign their names. As might be expected in such
a condition of society, the nobles exercised great oppression on the poor.
The Government of the country was a mere faction of the nobility as
against all the rest. It is said that when a man had a suit at law he felt
he had no chance without using "influence." Was he to be tried for an
offence, his friends considered themselves bound to muster in arms around
the court to see that he got justice; that is, to get him off unpunished
if they could. Men were accustomed to violence in all forms as to their
daily bread. "The hail realm of Scotland was sae divided in factions that
it was hard to get any peaceable man as he rode out the hie way, to
profess himself openly, either to be a favourer to the King or Queen. All
the people were castin sae lowss, and were become of sic dissolute minds
and actions, that nane was in account but he that could either kill or
reive his neighbours."[15]
Such facts as these indicate in a remarkable way the extraordinary
weakness of the executive government. It is abundantly evident that the
Scottish Parliament was most exemplary in passing measures for the
protection and amelioration of the people, but as Buchanan naively
remarks, "There was ane Act of Parliament needed in Scotland, a decree to
enforce the observance of the others." The King's writ did not run in many
districts of the country. The unfortunate element in the situation was
that it did not always coincide with the interests of the nobles to see
that the decrees of the Estates were carried into effect; and as a general
rule what did not happen to accord with their humour was set aside as of
no moment. The consequence was that many Acts of Parliament, relating
especially to the abnormal condition of the Borders, were no sooner passed
than they were treated as practically obsolete. This accounts for the
curious fact that we find the legislature returning again and again, at
brief intervals, to the consideration of the same questions, and issuing
orders which might as well never have been recorded. When the counsels of
a nation are thus divided, and especially when those who are charged with
the administration of the law pay no regard to it, in their own persons,
it would be a marvel if lawlessness in its multifarious forms did not
become the dominant characteristic of the great body of the people. That
this was the result produced is painfully evident. The great barons were
practically supreme within their own domains, for while the execution of
the laws might nominally pertain to the Sovereign, the soldiers belonged
to their Chiefs, and were absolutely at their command. Laws which cannot
be enforced at the point of the sword must in the nature of the case
remain practically inoperative. This unfortunate condition of affairs was
a fruitful source of misery and mischief, especially on the Borders, where
the prevalence of the clan-system conferred on the Chiefs the most
arbitrary and far-reaching powers. Had there been any possibility of
bringing the Border barons under effective governmental control "the
thefts, herschips, and slaughters," for which this district was so long
notorious, would have been in great part prevented. These men not only
incited to crime, but standing as they did between the ruler and the
ruled, they threw the ægis of their protection over the lawless and
disobedient.
If only that nation is to be reckoned happy which has few laws, but is
accustomed to obey them, then Scotland, and the Borders in particular,
must have been in a most unfortunate condition during a lengthened period
of its history. The laws passed were numerous; the obedience rendered most
difficult to discover. But while these enactments rarely succeeded in
producing the results aimed at, they are, notwithstanding, exceedingly
valuable to the historian because of the interesting light they cast on
the conditions and habits of the people. In the year 1567, in the first
Parliament of James VI., an important Act was passed, entitled "Anent
Theft and Receipt of Theft, Taking of Prisoners by Thieves, or Bands for
Ransoms, and Punishment of the same." It relates especially to the
Sheriffdoms of Selkirk, Roxburgh, Peebles, Dumfries, and Edinburgh, "and
other inhabitants of the remanent Shires of the Realm," bearing that it is
not unknown of the continual theft, reif, and oppression committed within
the bounds of the said Sheriffdoms, by thieves, traitors, and other
ungodly persons, having neither fear of God nor man, which is the chief
cause of the said thefts. And that the said thieves and "broken men"
commit daily "thefts, reifs, herschips, murders, and fire raisings" upon
the peaceable subjects of the country, "besides also takes sundrie of
them," detains them in captivity as prisoners, ransoms them, "or lettis
them to borrowis for their entrie again." In like manner, it is said,
divers subjects of the inland, take and sit under their assurance paying
them blackmail, and permitting them to "reif, herrie, and oppress their
nichtbouris" with their knowledge and in their sight, without resistance
or contradiction.
To remove these inconveniences it was statute and ordained that whoever
receipted, fortified, maintained, or gave meat, harbourage, or assistance
to any thieves in their theftuous stealing or deeds, either coming
thereto, or passing therefrom, or intercommunes or trysts with them,
without licence of the keeper of the country, where the thief remains
shall be called therefore at particular diets "criminally other airt and
pairt in their theftuous deeds," or proceeded against civilly, after
fifteen days warning, "without diet or tabill." It was further ordained
under pain of lese majesty, that no true and faithful lieges taken by
these men should be holden to enter to them, all bonds to the contrary
notwithstanding. And if anyone should happen to take and apprehend any of
the said thieves, either in passing to commit said theft, or in the actual
doing thereof, or in their returning thencefrom, he was in no case to set
them at liberty; but to present them before the Justice, and his deputies
in the tolbooth of Edinburgh, within fifteen days, "gif their takeris
justifye them not to the death them selfis." Further, it was ordained that
none take assurance, or sit under assurance of said thieves, or pay them
blackmail, or give them meat or drink, under pain of death. In like
manner when thieves repaired to steal or reive within the incountry the
lieges were commanded to rise, cry, and raise the fray and follow them,
coming or going, on horse and foot, for recovery of the goods stolen, and
apprehending of their persons, under pain of being held partakers in the
said theft. It was also added that if any open and notorious thief came to
a house, the owner of the house might apprehend him without reproach.[16]
These enactments are at once minute and comprehensive, and had the power
to enforce them corresponded in any degree with the good intentions of
those who framed them, there would have been a considerable change
produced in the affairs of the Border. But the truth is these so-called
statutes were but little better than mere "pious opinions," reflecting
credit on those responsible for them, but producing no impression, or next
to none, on the country. Not many years after the passing of these Acts we
find the Estates busy at work again passing measure after measure for the
quieting of the disordered subjects on the Borders, for the staunching of
theft and slaughter, and the punishment of "wicked thieves and limmers."
Things had gone from bad to worse. Every man's hand was against his
neighbour. Clan rose against clan; the Scotts and the Kerrs, the Maxwells
and Johnstones, were constantly embroiled in petty warfare, the results
of which, however, were sometimes most disastrous. "The broken
men"--Græmes, Armstrongs, Bells, and other inhabitants of the Debateable
land--finding it either unsafe or inconvenient to commit such frequent
"herschips" on the English border, betook themselves with all their
accustomed enthusiasm to the plundering of their Scottish neighbours. They
are described as "delighting in all mischief, and maist unnaturally and
cruelly wasting and destroying, harrying and slaying, their own
neighbours." The Privy Council at last determined to deal with these
matters, and arranged to sit on the first day of every month in the year
for this purpose. Trial and injunction was to be taken of the diligence
done in the execution of things directed the month preceding, and of
things necessary and expedient to be put in execution during the next
month to come, and that a special register be kept of all that shall
happen to be done and directed in matters concerning the quietness and
good rule of the Borders. But to make assurance doubly sure it was also
ordained at the same time that all landlords and bailies of the lands,
should find sufficient caution and surety, under pain of rebellion, to
bring all persons guilty of "reife, theft, receipt of theft, depredations,
open and avowed fire-raisings, upon deadly feud, protected and maintained
by their masters," before "our sovereign lord's Justice," to underlie the
law for the same. Failing their doing so, the landlords and bailies were
bound to satisfy the party skaithed, and to refund, content, and pay to
them their "herschips and skaithes." And further, the chief of the clan,
in the bounds where "broken men" dwell, and to which "broken men" repair
in their passing to steal and reive, or returning therefrom, shall be
bound to make the like stay and arrestment, and publication as the
landlords or bailies, and be subject to the like redress, criminal and
civil, in case of their failure and negligence. In addition to the
foregoing ordinances, it was resolved that all Captains, Chiefs, and
Chieftains of the clans, dwelling on the lands of divers landlords, shall
enter pledges for those over whom they exercise authority, upon fifteen
days' notice, before his Highness and his secret Council, said pledges to
be placed as his Highness shall deem convenient--"for the good rule in
time coming, according to the conditions above written whereunto the
landlords and bailies are subject; under the pain of the execution of the
said pledges to the death, and no redress made by the persons offended for
whom the pledges lie."
We also learn from another Act of Parliament, passed at the same time,
that all pledges received for the good rule and quietness of the Border
shall be placed on the north side of the water of Forth, without exception
or dispensation; and the pledges for the good rule of the Highlands and
Isles, to be placed on the south side of the same water of Forth.
But one of the most extraordinary Acts passed by this Parliament was an
Act forbidding the Scottish Borderers to marry the daughters of the
"broken men" or thieves of England, as it was declared this was "not only
a hindrance to his Majesty's service and obedience, but also to the common
peace and quietness betwixt both the Realms." It was therefore statute and
ordained "that nane of the subjects presume to take upon hand to marrie
with onie English woman, dwelling in the opposite Marches, without his
Highness' express licence, had and obtained to that effect, under the
great Seal; under the paine of death, and confiscation of all his goods
moveable; and this be a special point of dittay in time cumming."
These enactments were doubtless well meant, and under ordinary
circumstances might have been expected to bring about beneficial results;
but unfortunately they were treated with callous indifference. No
improvement was effected. The "broken men" were not to be intimidated by
such measures. They laughed at Parliament, and scorned the laws. This is
brought out in the most conclusive manner in the records of the State
Paper Office, as we shall have occasion to point out in succeeding
chapters. But proof of another kind lies ready to hand. An Act of
Parliament was passed in 1593, just six years after those already noticed,
in which complaint is made of the rebellious contempt of his Highness'
subjects who, without regard of their dutiful obedience, pass daily to the
horn, "for not finding of law surety;" and "for not subscribing of
assurances in matter of feud," and for "dinging and stricking his
Majesty's messengers," in execution of their offices. Notice is also taken
of some who nightly and daily reive, foray, and commit open theft and
oppression: "for remead whereof, our said Sovereign Lord, ordains the Acts
and laws made before to be put to execution, and ratifies and approves the
same in all points." It was further ordained that no respite or remission
was to be granted at any time hereafter to any person or persons that pass
to the horn for "theft, reif, slauchter, burning or heir-shippe, while the
party skaithed be first satisfied; and gif ony respite or remission shall
happen to be granted, before the partie grieved be first satisfied, the
samin shall be null and of nane avail, be way of exception or reply,
without any further declaritour; except the saidis remissiones and
respittes be granted, for pacifying of the broken Countries and
Borders."[17]
These may be regarded as fair samples of the long list of measures passed
at different times by the Scottish Parliament for the regulation of
Border affairs during the reign of the Jameses. In reading them one is
forcibly reminded of a remark made by one of the English wardens, that
"things were very tickle on the Scottish Border." No respect was paid to
the law, either by the Chiefs or their clansmen. In the preface to Cary's
Memoirs, these Scottish Borderers are described as "equalling the Caffirs
in the trade of stealing, and the Hottentots in ignorance and brutality."
This savage indictment is borne out by Sir William Bowes who, in a letter
to Burghley in the year 1593--nearly forty years after the
Reformation--thus writes:--"The opposite wardens and officers being always
Borderers bred and dwelling there, also cherish favourites and strengthen
themselves by the worst disposed, to support their factions. And as they
are often changed by the King for their misdemeanours, the new man always
refuses to answer for attempts before his time. Cessford the warden cannot
answer for the whole Middle March, but must seek to Fernihirst for one
part, and Buccleuch for Teviotdale.
"_Execrable murders are constantly committed_, whereof 4 new complaints
were made to the lords in the few days they were here, and 3 others this
month in Atholstonmoor. The gentlemen of the Middle March recount out of
their memories nearly 200 Englishmen, miserably murdered by the Scots,
since the tenth year of her Majesty's reign, for which no redress hath at
all been made.... I have presumed to testify this much to your lordship
more tediously than I should; yet will be ready to do more particularly,
if you direct me. Praying you to receive from some other, equally heedful
of truth--and in meantime trusting you will cover my name from undeserved
offence--I pray God to make you an instrument under our gracious sovereign
to cure the aforesaid gangrene thus noisomely molesting the foot of this
kingdom."[18]
This "gangrene" was of long standing, and as we shall find was not to be
easily eradicated.
But while poverty,--largely due to circumstances over which the people had
no control,--and lawlessness,--the result of the inherent weakness of the
central government,--had much to do in creating that condition of affairs
on the Borders which we have briefly described, there were other and
perhaps more potent causes which demand consideration. Foremost among
these was the almost entire absence of the restraints and sanctions of
religion. In one of the Acts of Parliament already noticed it is
significantly declared that one of the principal causes of the lawlessness
of the Borders was that "they had neither the fear of God nor man." To
those familiar with certain phases of Border history this may appear
somewhat anomalous. At an early period in the religious life of Scotland
this district was brought under the influence of the Evangel by St. Aidan
and St. Cuthbert. That the work of these missionaries was signally
successful, is shown in the large number of churches planted all over the
Borderland. After the time of Queen Margaret, whose influence in certain
directions was almost marvellously potent, the great religious houses of
the Borders rose in rapid succession, such as Melrose, Kelso, and
Jedburgh, each a centre and source of religious and social wellbeing. The
moral life of the people, notwithstanding the existence of such beneficent
institutions, may have been of an indifferent character; but what the
state of matters might have been, had those places, and what they
represented, never been in existence at all, it is impossible to conceive.
It was a true instinct which led the people to regard the Abbey of
Haddington as the "Lamp of the Lothians." And the same designation might
have been applied with equal appropriateness to every Abbey in the
country. Those places for many generations represented all that was
highest and best in the thought and life of Mediævalism. Here law and
order were supreme. Round those religious houses industrial, orderly
communities sprang up, whose influence was felt throughout the length and
breadth of the land. The Monasteries may deserve all that was said of
them in later times, but, throughout a considerable period of their
history, their influence was almost wholly beneficial. Scotland owes much
to them, and there is no reason why the fact should not be generously
recognised. It is no doubt true that, for some considerable time before
the Reformation, those great institutions had sadly degenerated. "Jeshurun
waxed fat and kicked." The time came when they had, perforce, to yield to
those disintegrating processes which usually herald the advent of reform.
The old order changeth. The new wine of a democratic Protestantism, in
which the claims of the individual, his right to think for himself, and
form his own judgments, are prominent ingredients, agreed but
indifferently with the old bottles of an earlier Faith and Polity. And so
the Monasteries disappeared.
But it was long ere the new light of the Reformation made itself
practically felt on the Borders. When the influences which had hitherto
been so potent ceased to operate, a condition of religious and moral chaos
supervened. Hundreds of churches were left without ministers. Whole
districts practically lapsed into barbarism. For at least fifty years
after the Reformation, the Scottish Borders were to all intents and
purposes out-with the influence of the Church. Even as late as the
Covenanting period their condition had not greatly improved. "We learn,"
says Sir Walter Scott, "from a curious passage in the life of Richard
Cameron, a fanatical preacher during what is called the time of
'persecution,' that some of the Borderers retained till a late period
their indifference about religious matters. After having been licensed at
Haughead, in Teviotdale, he was, according to his biographer, sent first
to preach in Annandale. 'He said, How can I go there? I know what sort of
people they are.' But Mr Welch said, 'Go your way, Ritchie, and set the
fire of hell to their tails.' He went, and the first day he preached on
the text--_How shall I put thee among the children, &c._ In the
application he said, 'Put you among the children! the offspring of thieves
and robbers! we have all heard of Annandale thieves.' Some of them got a
merciful cast that day, and told afterwards that it was the first field
meeting they had ever attended, and that they went out of mere curiosity,
to see a minister preach in a tent, and people sit on the ground."[19]
During the period of religious decadence, prior to the Reformation, a
remarkable custom, not unknown elsewhere, prevailed on the Borders. Owing
to the scarcity of clergymen, especially in the Vales of Ewes, Esk, and
Liddle, the rites of the church were only intermittently celebrated, a
circumstance which gave rise to what was known as _Hand-fasting_. Loving
couples who met at fairs and other places of public resort agreed to live
together for a certain period, and if, when the _book-a-bosom_ man, as the
itinerant clergyman was called, came to pay his yearly visit to the
district, they were still disposed to remain in wedlock they received the
blessing of the church; but if it should happen that either party was
dissatisfied, then the union might be terminated, on the express
condition, however, that the one desiring to withdraw should become
responsible for the maintenance of the child, or children, which may have
been born to them. "The connection so formed was binding for one year
only, at the expiration of which time either party was at liberty to
withdraw from the engagement, or in the event of both being satisfied the
'hand-fasting' was renewed for life. The custom is mentioned by several
authors, and was by no means confined to the lower classes, John Lord
Maxwell and a sister of the Earl of Angus being thus contracted in January
1577."[20]
IV.
RAIDS AND FORAYS.
"Then forward bound both horse and hound,
And rattle o'er the vale;
As the wintry breeze through leafless trees
Drives on the pattering hail.
"Behind their course the English fells
In deepening blue retire;
Till soon before them boldly swells
The muir of dun Redswire."
LEYDEN.
To give anything like an adequate account of the various raids and forays,
on the one side of the Border and the other, would fill many volumes.
These raids, as we have already noticed, began at an early period, and
were carried on almost without intermission for at least three hundred
years. The Armstrongs and Elliots in Liddesdale, and many of the other
noted clans in Merse and Teviotdale, were "always riding." As an English
warden remarks in one of his despatches to the Government:--"They lie
still never a night"--a statement which may be accepted as literally true.
At some point or other along the Border line, invasions either on the
part of the Scots or English were constantly occurring. In this respect,
more especially during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the Scots were
perhaps the principal offenders. But as a general rule their invasions,
though frequent, were on a comparatively small scale, partaking rather of
the nature of forays than of raids. They would hurriedly cross the Border
of an evening, drive together as many cattle or sheep as they could find,
and then hasten back with all possible speed to their own country.
Sometimes, if they were compelled to go a considerable distance inland,
they would hide during the day in some quiet glen, within the enemy's
territory, and then sally forth as soon as the moon lent her kindly aid,
and accomplish with the utmost expedition the task which had brought them
thither. It is said that these incursions were marked with the desire of
spoil rather than of slaughter, a statement which may be true so far as
forays generally are concerned, but which certainly does not apply to the
more important raids. These latter incursions were marked with every
element of ferocity and bloodshed. In some of the raids conducted by
Cessford and Buccleuch, in the 15th century, in Redesdale and Tynedale,
many lives were sacrificed, and all who offered resistance were put to the
sword. Hertford, Wharton, and others, in their raids upon the Scottish
Border seemed often more intent on shedding blood than securing booty.
The statement that these incursions were marked with a desire of spoil
rather than bloodshed must therefore be accepted _cum grano salis_.
It would seem that the season of year most favourable to reiving was
between Michaelmas and Martinmas. The reason of this is not difficult to
discover. The reivers in their expeditions hardly ever went on foot. They
rode small hackneys--hardy, well-built animals--on which they cantered
over hill and dale, moor and meadow, a circumstance which gained for them
the name of _hobylers_. In the late autumn the moors and mosses were drier
than at any other season of the year, which made riding, in certain
districts especially, a much more easy and expeditious undertaking. Then
the winter supply had to be secured. The beef tub required replenishing,
and as the "mart" was rarely ever fed at home it had to be sought for
elsewhere. It was a case of all hands to work, and every available horse
or rider was brought into requisition.
Leslie has given a graphic description of the methods adopted by the
Border reivers to secure their booty. Everything was gone about in the
most orderly and deliberate manner. He says that the reivers never told
their beads with so much devotion as when they were setting out on a
marauding expedition, and expected a good booty as a recompense of their
devotion! "They sally out of their own borders in troops, through
unfrequented ways and many intricate windings. In the day time they
refresh themselves and their horses in lurking places they had pitched on
before, till they arrive in the dark at those places they have a design
upon. As soon as they have seized upon their booty, they, in like manner,
return home in the night; through blind ways and fetching many a compass.
The more skilful any captain is to pass through these wild deserts,
crooked turnings, and deep precipices, in the thickest mists and darkness,
his reputation is the greater, and he is looked upon as a man of an
excellent head, and they are so very cunning, that they seldom have their
booty taken from them, unless sometimes, when by the help of bloodhounds,
following them exactly upon the track, they may chance to fall into the
hands of their adversaries. When being taken they have so much persuasive
eloquence, and so many smooth and insinuating words at command, that if
they do not move their judges, nay and even their adversaries, to have
mercy, yet they incite them to admiration and compassion."
Such a skilful "Captain," as is here referred to, was the famous Hobbie
Noble, who terminated his adventurous career in "Merrie Carlisle," where
so many famous freebooters, at one time or other, have paid the last
penalty of the law. Speaking of himself, he says:--
"But will ye stay till the day gae down,
Until the night come o'er the ground,
And I'll be a guide worth ony twa
That may in Liddisdale be found!
"Though the night be dark as pick and tar,
I'll guide ye o'er yon hill sae hie;
And bring ye a' in safety back,
If ye'll be true and follow me."
But the skill of the leader of the foray was not always sufficient to
bring his followers safely back to their homes and families. When the
bloodhounds were put on the track it was often a matter of the greatest
difficulty for the thieves to elude their pursuers.
"The russet bloodhound wont, near Annand's stream,
To trace the sly thief with avenging foot
Close as an evil conscience."
These useful animals were kept at different points along the Border, and
as they rendered most important services, we are not surprised to learn
that a good sleuth-hound often sold as high as a hundred crowns.
It may be interesting, before proceeding to give an account of some of the
more famous raids, to glance briefly at the manner in which the raiders
were armed and accoutred for the fray. Froissart has given the following
account of the Scottish Borderers, and Scottish soldiers generally, as
they appeared towards the close of the fourteenth century. "The Scots," he
says, "are bold, hardy, and much inured to war. When they make their
invasions into England, they march from twenty to four-and-twenty leagues
without halting, as well by night as by day; for they are all on
horseback, except the camp followers, who are on foot. The knights and
esquires are mounted on large bay horses, the common people on little
Galloways. They bring no carriages with them, on account of the mountains
they have to pass in Northumberland; neither do they carry with them any
provisions of bread and wine, for the habits of sobriety are such in time
of war that they will live a long time on flesh half sodden, without
bread, and drink the river water without wine. They have therefore no
occasion for pots or pans, for they dress the flesh of their cattle in the
skins after they have taken them off; and being sure to find plenty of
them in the country which they invade, they carry none with them. Under
the flaps of his saddle each man carries a broad plate of metal, behind
the saddle a little bag of oatmeal. When they have eaten too much of the
sodden flesh, and their stomach appears weak and empty, they place this
plate over the fire, mix with water their oatmeal, and when the plate is
heated they put a little of the paste upon it and make a thin cake like a
cracknel or biscuit, which they eat to warm their stomachs; it is
therefore no wonder they perform a longer day's march than other soldiers.
In this manner the Scots entered England, destroying and burning
everything as they passed. They seized more cattle than they knew what to
do with. Their army consisted of four thousand men at arms, knights, and
esquires, well mounted, besides twenty thousand men, bold and hardy, armed
after the manner of their country, and mounted upon little hackneys that
are never tied up or dressed, but are turned immediately after the day's
march to pasture on the heath or in the field."[21]
It may be said that this description--which, it may be remarked, is as
graphic in outline as it is minute in detail--applies rather to the
regular army than to those undisciplined marauding bands which infested
the Borders, and to which the name "reivers" or "mosstroopers" is usually
assigned. This is no doubt true. At the same time, it must not be
forgotten that many of the more important raids were undertaken by large
bodies of troops, numbering sometimes three or four thousand men. This
much at least is certain that the Border reiver was always well mounted,
and well armed with lance or spear, which, on occasion, he could use with
much dexterity and skill. With a steel cap on his head, a jack slung over
his shoulders, a pistol or hagbut at his belt, he was ever ready for the
fray, and prepared to give or take the hardest blows. He was naturally
fond of fighting. Like Dandie Dinmont's terriers he never could get enough
of it, and must have found life peculiarly irksome when he was compelled
to desist from his favourite pastime. He lived in the saddle, and was as
unaccustomed to the ordinary occupations of the world as the wild Arab of
the desert.
Even to enumerate the raids and forays on the one side or the other, of
which some record has been left either in the Histories of the two
Kingdoms, or in the archives of the State Paper Office, would be an almost
endless task, and moreover would serve no really useful purpose. The
details of the "burnings," "herschips," and "slaughters," which were the
necessary concomitants of these invasions, are much the same in all cases.
It is a dreary tale of theft and oppression, bloodshed and murder. The
following incidents may be taken as fairly illustrative examples.
During the reign of Henry VIII. the relations between the two kingdoms
were often of a most unsatisfactory and unsettled character. This was due
to a variety of causes, partly political and partly religious. The same
difficulties cropped up in the subsequent reigns of Edward, Mary, and
Elizabeth, and the consequence was that war clouds were ever hanging, dark
and threatening, on the horizon. The mutual antagonism between the two
countries fostered the raiding tendencies of both kingdoms. The Scots were
intent on despoiling their more wealthy neighbours, and the English never
missed an opportunity of humiliating and crippling their ancient foes.
Two of the most destructive invasions, or raids, on the part of the
English were conducted by the Earl of Hertford and Sir Ralph Eure. The
former invaded the country both by sea and land. Edinburgh and Leith
suffered severely. The Abbey and Palace of Holyrood were given to the
flames. All along the east coast, and southwards as far as Merse and
Teviotdale, marked the steps of the retreating and relentless invaders.
Henry's savage instructions were faithfully carried out. When Hertford set
out on this expedition he was commanded "to put all to fire and sword, to
burn Edinburgh town, and to raze and deface it; when you have sacked it,
and gotten what you can out of it, as that it may remain for ever a
perpetual memory of the vengeance of God lighted upon it, for their
falsehood and disloyalty. Do what you can out of hand, and without long
tarrying, to beat down and overthrow the Castle, sack Holyrood-house, and
as many towns and villages about Edinburgh as ye conveniently can; sack
Leith and burn and subvert it, and all the rest, putting man, woman, and
child to fire and sword, without exception, where any resistance shall be
made against you; and this done, pass over to the Fife land, and extend
the extremities and destructions in all towns and villages whereunto you
may reach conveniently, and not forgetting amongst all the rest so to
spoil and turn upside down the Cardinal's town of St. Andrews, as the
upper stone may be the nether, and not one stick stand by another, sparing
no creature alive within the same, specially such as in friendship or
blood be allied to the Cardinal."[22]
This hideous policy on the part of the English King was fruitful mainly of
bitter memories. He did not accomplish the object he had in view, but he
certainly succeeded in engendering in the Scottish mind a feeling of the
most bitter hostility. It produced, however, one good result. It alienated
from the English monarch some of those nobles who had for some time been
wavering in their allegiance to the Scottish throne, and had been, either
secretly or openly, lending their aid to further the machinations of the
English government.
But destructive as Hertford's invasion proved (which has been well
described as only a foray on a large scale), it was totally eclipsed by
the raid undertaken by Sir Ralph Eure in the following year, 1544. He
crossed the Scottish Border with a considerable army, and laid waste
nearly the whole of Merse and Teviotdale, reducing that large and
important district to a blackened desert. Jedburgh and Kelso were burnt
to the ground, and the surrounding country plundered and destroyed. "The
whole number of towns, towers, stedes, barnekins, parish churches,
bastel-houses, seized, destroyed, and burnt, in all the Border country,
was an hundred and ninety-two, Scots slain four hundred, prisoners taken
eight hundred and sixteen, nolt ten thousand three hundred and eighty-six,
sheep twelve thousand four hundred and ninety-six, gayts (goats) two
hundred, bolls of corn eight hundred and fifty, insight gear--an
indefinite quantity.
"The great part of these devastations were committed in the Mers and
Teviotdale.... The other commanders of chief note, besides Sir Ralph Eure,
were Sir Brian Laiton and Sir George Bowes. On the 17th July, Bowes,
Laiton, and others burnt Dunse, the chief town of the Mers, and John
Carr's son with his garrison entered Greenlaw, and carried off a booty of
cattle, sheep, and horses. On the 19th of the same month, the men of
Tyndale and Ridsdale, returning from a road into Tiviotdale, fought with
the laird of Ferniherst and his company, and took himself and his son John
prisoners. On July 24th the Wark garrison, the Captain of Norham Castle,
and H. Eure, burnt long Ednim, made many prisoners, took a bastel-house
strongly kept, and got a booty of forty nolt and thirty horses, besides
those on which their prisoners were mounted, each on a horse. August 2d,
the captain of Norham burnt the town of Home, hard to the castle gates,
with the surrounding stedes. September 6th, Sir Ralph Eure burnt Eikford
church and town, the barnekyn of Ormiston, and won by assault the Moss
Tower, burnt it, and slew thirty-four people within it; he likewise burnt
several other places in that neighbourhood, and carried off more than five
hundred nolt and six hundred sheep, with a hundred horseload of spoils got
in the tower. September 27th, the men of the east and part of the middle
march won the church of Eccles by assault, and slew eight men in the abbey
and town, most part gentlemen of head sirnames; they also took several
prisoners, and burnt and spoiled the said abbey and town. On the same day
the garrison of Berwick brought out of the east end of the Mers six
hundred bolls of corn, and took prisoner Patrick Home, brother's son to
the laird of Ayton. November 5th, the men of the middle march burnt
Lessudden, in which were sixteen strong bastel-houses, slew several of the
owners, and burnt much corn. November 9th, Sir George Bowes and Sir Brian
Laiton burnt Dryburgh, a market town, all except the church, with much
corn, and brought away a hundred nolt, sixty nags, an hundred sheep, and
much other booty, spoilage, and insight-gear."[23]
This record is an instructive one. It shows how these merciless raiders
were dominated by the spirit of destruction and revenge. Nothing was
spared which it was possible for them to destroy. This invasion must have
proved peculiarly vexatious and disheartening to the Scottish Borderers.
Flodden had left them terribly crippled. The damage they had sustained was
not only of a material kind--the loss of men and resources--it was also,
to a certain extent, moral and intellectual. They had become utterly
disheartened, and it was some considerable time before they regained their
wonted confidence and intrepidity:
"Dool and wae for the order, sent our lads to the Border!
The English, for ance, by guile wan the day:
The flowers of the forest, that fought aye the foremost,
The prime of our land, are cauld in the clay.
"We'll hear nae mair lilting, at the ewe milking;
Women and bairns are heartless and wae:
Sighing and moaning on ilka green loaning--
The flowers of the forest are a' wede awae."
The darkest part of the night precedes the dawn. Help was forthcoming from
an unexpected quarter. Henry had promised to give Eure a grant of all the
land he could conquer in Merse, Teviotdale, and Lauderdale, and it so
happened that the greater part of the district named belonged to Angus,
who was then in disgrace at the Scottish Court, and for some time had been
currying favour with the English King. When he learned what had taken
place, his indignation was unbounded. He swore that "if Ralph Eure dared
to act upon the grant, he would write his sasine, or instrument of
possession, on his skin with sharp pens and bloody ink." Scotland has not
unfrequently been deserted by her nobles at the most critical periods of
her history, but just as often has she been saved by their valour and
patriotism. On the present occasion, Angus was not moved to action,
perhaps, by any really patriotic feeling. Had his own interests not been
imperilled, he would in all probability have remained an idle spectator of
the ruin and devastation which, like a flood, was rushing over the land.
Be this as it may, he acted with promptitude and effect. Having been
joined by the Regent, who brought with him a small and hastily-gathered
force, Angus challenged the English army at Melrose; and, though at first
he was compelled to retreat, he hung upon the rear of the enemy until,
joined by Sir Walter Scott of Buccleuch and the redoubtable Norman Leslie,
he gave them battle on Ancrum Moor. The English, flushed with confidence
by their former successes, rushed precipitately upon the Scottish army,
believing that their ranks had fallen into confusion, and were preparing
for flight. It was not long ere they were undeceived. The Scots were ready
for the encounter, and in a short time completely routed the formidable
host by which they were assailed. The battle speedily became a slaughter.
Sir Ralph Eure and Sir Brian Layton both lay dead on the field, a thousand
prisoners were taken, among them being many persons of rank, for whom high
ransoms were exacted. It is said that the peasantry of the neighbourhood,
hitherto only spectators of the short conflict, drew near to intercept and
cut down the English; and women, whose hearts had been steeled against the
fugitives by their atrocious barbarities, joined in the pursuit, and
spurred on the conquerors by calling upon them to "remember Broomhouse."
One of these heroines has been immortalized. Her monument may still be
seen in the neighbourhood of Ancrum. On it were inscribed the following
lines:--
"Fair maiden Lilliard lies under this stane,
Little was her stature, but great was her fame;
Upon the English loons she laid many thumps,
And when they cutted off her legs she fought upon her stumps."
Some may be disposed to think that the devastations caused by Hertford and
Sir Ralph Eure must be exceptional; that the raiding and reiving must have
gone on much more quietly than such accounts would lead us to suppose. But
this is not so. The Borders were kept in a constant state of turmoil. They
had no sooner recovered from one invasion than they were subjected to
another. Long before Hertford's time, for example, Lord Dacre, one of the
English wardens, made a succession of the most disastrous raids on the
Scottish Border, and carried off immense quantities of booty. He was
exultant over his good fortune. Writing under date October 29, 1513, he
says:--"On Tewsday at night last past, I sent diverse of my tennents of
Gillislande to the nombre of lx. personnes in Eskdalemoor upon the Middill
Merches, and there brynt vii. howses, tooke and brougth away xxxvj. head
of cattle and much insight. On weddinsday at thre of the clok efter noon,
my broder Sir Christopher assembled diverse of the kings subjects beyng
under my reull, and roode all night into Scotland, and on Thurisday, in
the mornynge, they began upon the said Middill Merchies and brynt
Stakeheugh, with the hamletts belonging to them, down, Irewyn bwrne, being
the chambrelain of Scotland owne lands and undre his reull, continewally
birnyng from the Breke of day to oone of the clok after noon, and there
wan, tooke and brought awey cccc. hede of cattell, ccc. shepe, certaine
horses and verey miche insight, and slew two men, hurte and wounded
diverse other persones and horses, and then entered Ingland ground again
at vij. of the clok that night."[24]
Such a record as this ought to have given great satisfaction to the
Government. Lord Dacre had evidently done his utmost to impoverish and
ruin the unfortunate Scottish Borderers. But the English appetite at this
time was not easily satisfied. Naturally enough Dacre's invasion led to
reprisals, and so successful had the Scots been in their forays on the
opposite Border that the English Government blamed their representative
for not having prevented these raids. In reply to these rather unjust
complaints, Dacre wrote saying that "for oone cattell taken by the Scotts
we have takyn, won and brought awey out of Scotland a hundreth; and for
oone shepe two hundreth of a surity. And has for townships and housis,
burnt in any of the said Est, Middill, and West Marches within my reull,
fro the begynnyng of this warr unto this daye,... I assure your lordships
for truthe that I have and hes caused to be burnt and distroyed sex times
moo townys and howsys within the West and Middill Marches of Scotland, in
the same season then is done to us, as I may be trusted, and as I shall
evidently prove. For the watter of Liddall being xij. myles of length,...
whereupon was a hundreth pleughs;... the watter of Ewse being viij. myles
of length in the said Marches, whereupon was vii. pleughs,... lyes all
and every of them waist now, noo corn sawn upon the said ground.... Upon
the West marches I have burnt and distroyed the townships of Annand
(together with thirty-three others mentioned in detail), and the Water of
Esk from Stabulgorton down to Cannonby, being vi. myles in lenth, whereas
there was in all tymes passed four hundreth ploughes and above, which are
now clearly waisted and noo man duelling in any of them in this daye, save
oonly in the towrys of Annand Steepel and Walghapp (Wauchope)."[25]
As might be expected these inroads were not allowed to pass unredressed,
as the Scots never missed an opportunity of retaliating. During the latter
half of the fifteenth century they were considerably weakened by the
successive wars in which they were compelled to engage in their own
defence; but we find that a century later, during the reign of Elizabeth,
they had completely recovered, and made their power felt in no uncertain
manner. They raided upon the opposite Border without intermission,
plundering all and sundry, sparing only those who were prepared to pay
them blackmail, "that they might be free from their cumber." The English
wardens were comparatively helpless, owing to their lack of men and horses
to defend the Marches. The Scottish reivers were not easily captured; and
when it came to an encounter, unless matched against a greatly superior
force, they almost invariably gave a good account of themselves. We find
Eure affirming, in a letter to Cecil, under date May, 1596, that the
spoils of his March amounted to the sum of £120,000, "the redress for
which is so cunningly delayed that the Queen's service is ruined."[26] Sir
Robert Cary, who was warden of the East March, has a still more doleful
tale to relate. He says that when he applied to the opposite warden for
redress he "got nothing but fair words." He furnished his Government with
a note of the "slaughters, stouthes, and reafes," committed within his
wardenry, which shows that the Scottish reivers were ever ready to make
the most of their opportunities. The following is the suggestive list:--
"Nicolos Bolton of Mindrum slain in daylight at his own plough by Sir
Robert Kerre of the Spielaw and his servants.
"Thomas Storie of Killam slain there by night by Sir Robert Kerre and his
servants.
"John Selby of Pawston slain by the Burnes defending his own goods in his
own house there.
"John Ewart of Corham slain on English ground at the rescue of Englishmen
bringing their own goods.
"'Reafes.'--In Hethpoole in daylight by the Davisons, Yonges, and Burnes
of 40 kyen and oxen, and hurting Thomas and Peter Storye, &c., in peril of
their lives. Another there by daylight by the Kerres, Yonges, and Taites,
of 46 head of neate, shooting John Gray with a 'peice' in peril of death,
and hurting one of the Brewhouses following, and taking his horse. In
West Newton in daylight by James Davidson of the Burnyrigge, &c., of 5
horse and mares; another there at night taking up 2 horses, 20 neate, and
insight worth 20 nobles.
"On Thomas Routledge of Killam, at night, by the Yonges, of 30 kyen and
oxen. On Adam Smith of Brigge mylle at night by the Kerres, Yonges,
Burnes, &c., of 20 neate, and 5 horse and mares. In Cowpland, by the
Yonges, Burnes, and Kerres on Gilbert Wright, 'by cutting up his doores
with axes,' of 30 neate, 4 horses and mares, and insight worth £10. In
Haggeston by the Yonges, Halles, Pyles, and Amysleyes, 'by cutting up
their doores with axes,' of 30 neate, 5 naegs, and hunting 4 men in peril
of death. On Ralph Selby, of West wood, by the Yonges, &c., 'by breaking
his tower,' and taking 3 geldings worth £60 sterling 'and better.'"[27]
Then follows a long list of "Stouthes," which it would only be a weariness
to repeat. These incidents had all occurred in this March within a brief
period, and may be accepted as an illustration of what was going on almost
every day in the year within the respective wardenries. This game, it may
be said, was indulged in with equal spirit and pertinacity on both sides.
We read of two men in the Middle March in England coming into Liddesdale
and carrying off 30 score kye and oxen, 31 score sheep and "gait," 24
horse and mares, and all their insight--"the people being at their
schellis, lipning for no harme, and wounded twa puir men to their deid."
At the same time, Captain Carvell, with 2000 "waigit" men, by Lord
Scrope's special command, burnt "six myle of boundis in Liddisdale, tuik
sindrie puir men and band them twa and twa in leisches and cordis, and
that 'naikit,' taking awa a 1000 kye and oxen, 2000 sheep and 'sex scoir
of hors and merris,' to the great wrak of the puir subjects."[28]
These forays, it must be admitted, were sometimes conducted in the most
relentless and cruel spirit. We read, for example, of one "Sowerby," near
Coldbeck, having his house broken into, and himself most cruelly used.
"They set him on his bare buttocks upon an hote iron, and then they burned
him with an hote girdle about his bellie, and sundry other parts of his
body, to make him give up his money, which they took, under £4."[29]
Some of the most interesting episodes in Border history were not the
outcome of any deep laid scheme, but the result of some sudden and
unexpected emergency. It was difficult for the inhabitants of the opposite
Marches to come into close contact without the greatest danger of an
outbreak of hostilities. Individual families were often on friendly terms,
and were ready even to assist each other on occasion. The Scots sometimes
brought the English to help them to rob those who lived in their own
neighbourhood; and the English, on the other hand, were equally ready to
avail themselves of the assistance of those on the opposite Border when
they had a similar object in view. But when they came together in their
hundreds or thousands, as they sometimes did on a "Day of Truce," then it
was a matter of supreme difficulty to keep them from flying at each
other's throats. Feeling ran high, and a word, a look, was sometimes
sufficient to change an otherwise peaceful meeting into one of turmoil and
bloodshed.
One notable instance of this kind is known as the "Raid of the Reidswire."
Sir John Foster, the English warden, and Sir John Carmichael, the warden
on the opposite March, had a meeting for the regulation of Border affairs,
on the 7th July, 1575. Each warden was attended by his retinue, and by the
armed clans inhabiting the district. As the balladist describes it:
"Carmichael was our warden then,
He caused the country to convene;
And the Laird's Wat, that worthy man,
Brought in that sirname weil beseen:
The Armestranges, that aye ha'e been
A hardy house, but not a hail,
The Elliots' honours to maintaine,
Brought down the lave o' Liddisdale.
"Then Tividale came to wi' spied;
The Sheriffe brought the Douglas down,
Wi' Cranstane, Gladstain, good at need,
Baith Rewle water and Hawick town,
Beanjeddart bauldly made him boun,
Wi' a' the Trumbills, strong and stout;
The Rutherfoords with grit renown,
Convoy'd the town of Jedbrugh out."
The two parties had apparently met on the best of terms. Mirth and good
fellowship prevailed. The pedlars erected their temporary booths, and sold
their wares. The gathering presented the appearance of a rural fair. No
one could have suspected that so much bad feeling was hidden under such a
fair exterior, and ready to burst forth in a moment with volcanic fury.
Yet such was the case. A dispute arose betwixt the two wardens about one
Farnsteen, a notorious English freebooter, against whom a bill had been
"filed" by a Scottish complainer. Foster declared that he had fled from
justice, and could not be found. Carmichael regarded this statement as a
pretext to avoid making compensation for the felony. He bade Foster "play
fair." The English warden was indignant. Raising himself in the saddle,
and stretching his arm in the direction of Carmichael, he told him to
match himself with his equals!
"Carmichael bade them speik out plainlie,
And cloke no cause for ill nor good;
The other, answering him as vainlie,
Began to reckon kin and blood:
He raise, and raxed him where he stood,
And bade him match with him his marrows;
Then Tindaill heard them reason rude,
And they loot off a flight of arrows."
The cry was raised, "To it, Tynedale," and immediately the merry meeting
was turned into a Donnybrook fair, where hard blows were given and
received. The Scots at first had the worst of the encounter, and would
have been completely routed had it not been for two circumstances. The men
of Tynedale, conscious of their superior strength, began to rifle the
"merchant packs," and thus fell into disorder. At this juncture a band of
citizens of Jedburgh, armed with fire-arms, unexpectedly, but most
opportunely, appeared on the scene, and in a short time the skirmish ended
in a complete victory for the Scots. Sir John Heron was slain, and Sir
John Foster and many other Englishmen of rank taken prisoner.
"But after they had turned backs,
Yet Tindaill men they turn'd again,
And had not been the merchant packs,
There had been mae of Scotland slain.
But, Jesu! if the folks were fain
To put the bussing on their thies;
And so they fled, wi' a' their main,
Down ower the brae, like clogged bees."
The prisoners were sent to Dalkeith, where for a short time they were
detained in custody by the Earl of Morton. He ultimately dismissed them
with presents of falcons, which gave rise to a saying on the Borders that
for once the Regent had lost by his bargain, as he had given live hawks
for dead herons,--alluding to the death of Sir John Heron.
"Who did invent that day of play,
We need not fear to find him soon;
For Sir John Forster, I dare well say,
Made us this noisome afternoon.
Not that I speak preceislie out,
That he supposed it would be perril;
But pride, and breaking out of feuid
Garr'd Tindaill lads begin the quarrel."
"The Queen of England," says Ridpath, "when informed of these proceedings,
was very much incensed, and sent orders to her Ambassador, Killigrew, who
had a little before gone to Scotland, to demand immediate satisfaction for
so great an outrage. Killigrew was also directed to inform the Regent that
the Queen had ordered the Earl of Huntingdon, who was then president of
the Council at York and lieutenant of the northern counties, to repair to
the Borders for the trial and ordering of the matter; and that she
expected that Morton would meet him in person for that effect. Morton,
ever studious to gratify Elizabeth, readily agreed to the proposal. The
two Earls accordingly met at Fouldean, near the Berwick boundary, and
continued their conferences there for some days, in the course of which
Morton made such concessions, and agreed to such conditions of redress, as
entirely healed the offence. Carmichael, who was considered as the
principal offender, was sent as a prisoner into England, and detained a
few weeks at York; but the English Court being now convinced that
Forrester had been in the wrong in the beginning of the fray, the Scottish
warden was dismissed with honour, and gratified with a present to
effectuate the restitution of goods which Morton had engaged should be
made by the subjects of Scotland, he summoned all on this side of the
Forth to attend him with twenty days' provision of victuals in an
expedition to the Borders, but this summons sufficed to awe the offenders
to make of themselves the restitution required."[30]
V.
THE WARDENS OF THE MARCHES.
"The widdefow wardanis tuik my geir,
And left me nowthir horse nor meir,
Nor erdly guid that me belangit;
Now, walloway! I mon be hangit."
PINKERTON.
Owing to the peculiar circumstances in which the Borders were placed, it
was found necessary, for the preservation of order, and the detection and
punishment of crime, to appoint special officers, or wardens, armed with
the most extensive powers. On either side of the Border there were three
Marches, lying opposite each other, called the East, West, and Middle
Marches. The wardens were, as a general rule, officers of high rank,
holding special commissions from the Crown. The English government had
little difficulty in finding gentlemen of high station and proved ability
to undertake the duties of such an office; but in Scotland the King was
considerably circumscribed in his choice, as the Border Chiefs were
accustomed to carry things with a high hand, and in any arrangements
relating to the management of affairs in their own districts, their wishes
and interests had, perforce, to be respected. The office of warden was
regarded as belonging, by a kind of prescriptive or hereditary right, to
one or other of the more prominent and powerful Border families. This
policy was fraught with many disadvantages, and, it must be frankly
admitted, produced the very evils it was designed to suppress. The
Scottish wardens had other objects in view besides the maintenance of a
certain semblance of law and order in the districts over which they ruled.
They seldom lost sight of their own pecuniary interests, and frequently
prostituted their high office to secure their own ends. The wardens
themselves were often the principal offenders.
In the East March the warden was most generally either an Earl of Home or
a Ker of Cessford. The Middle March was long under the supervision of the
Earls of Bothwell and the Lords of Buccleuch. The West March was usually
represented either by a Johnstone or a Maxwell.
The Scottish wardens, though invested with the most arbitrary powers,
found it politic to enter into bonds of alliance with the neighbouring
Chiefs, in order not only to increase their influence and power within
their own wardenries, but to add to their authority when called upon to
deal with questions of a more general nature. This fact reveals
unmistakably the weakness of the central government of the country at
this period, and indicates the important part which was played by the
nobility in the administration of the affairs of the nation.
Several of these "Bonds" have been preserved. Some of them are too lengthy
for quotation, but the following one--which is comparatively brief--may be
taken as a fair sample of the whole. It is subscribed by the Lairds of
Buccleuch, Hunthill, Bon-Jeddart, Greenhead, Cavers, and Redheugh, in
favour of Sir Thomas Ker of Fernihirst, and runs as follows:--"We
undersigned, inhabitants of the Middle March of this realm opposite
England, understanding how it has pleased the King's majesty our sovereign
lord to make and constitute Sir Thomas Ker of Fernihirst Knight his
Highness warden and justice over all the Middle March, and acknowledging
how far we are in duty bound to the service by our counsel and forces to
be employed in the assistance of his said warden in all things tending to
the good rule and quietness of the said Middle March, and setting forth of
his Highness authority against these traitors, rebels, and other
malefactors to their due punishment, and defence and safety of true men.
Therefore we be bound and obliged, and by the tenor hereof binds and
obliges us, and every one of us, that we should truly serve the King's
Majesty our sovereign lord, and obey and assist his said warden, in the
premiss, and shall concur with others in giving of our advice and
counsel, or with our forces in pursuit or defence of the said thieves,
traitors, rebels, and other malefactors disobedient to our sovereign
lord's authority, or disturbers of the public peace and quietness of the
realm, as we shall be charged or warned by open proclamations, missives,
bailies, or other the like accustomed forms as we will answer to his
Highness upon our obedience at our highest charge and peril, if we shall
be found remiss or negligent, we are content to be repute held and
esteemed as favourers and partakers with the said thieves, traitors,
rebels, and malefactors in their treasonable and wicked deeds, and to be
called, pursued, and punished therefor, according to these laws in example
of others."[31]
There can be no doubt that these "Bonds" were often contracted in good
faith; that is to say, those who subscribed them were honestly desirous to
fulfil, both in the spirit and letter, the obligations thus undertaken. It
is, however, worthy of remark that those who had thus sworn allegiance to
the warden had not infrequently ends of their own to serve, which
conflicted with their duty to the representatives of law and order.
Thieves were harboured, or at least allowed to remain unmolested, on the
estates, or within the jurisdiction, of those who had thus professedly
banded themselves together for their detection and punishment. The result
was that the subscribers to the "Bond" were occasionally reported to the
government for their delinquencies, and prosecuted and punished for their
breach of faith. Thus we find that on one occasion Walter Ker of Cessford,
James Douglas of Cavers, George Rutherford of Hunthill, and Ker of
Dolphingstone were convicted of art and part of the favour and assistance
afforded to Robert Rutherford, called Cokburn, and John Rutherford, called
Jok of the Green, and their accomplices, rebels and at the horn;
permitting them to pass within their bounds continually for divers years
past; for not using their utmost endeavour to hinder them from committing
sundry slaughters, stouth-reifs, thefts and oppressions on the King's poor
lieges, nor ejecting the said rebels, their wives and their children, from
their bounds and bailiaries, but knowingly suffering them to pass within
their limits and to remain therein beyond the space of twelve hours, to
commit sundry crimes during the time of their passing and reset within the
shire in which they dwelt, thereby breaking, transgressing, and violating
their obligation and "Bond" to the King, and incurring the pains contained
in the said "Bond."[32]
It is remarkable, considering the reputation enjoyed by the Borderers for
being true to their word, that such occurrences should have to be so
frequently complained of.
Unfortunately, the wardens were as little animated by a high sense of
honour as those who had solemnly pledged themselves to support them in the
discharge of the duties of their office. They frequently, and in some
cases almost systematically, exercised the powers conferred on them, not
in trying to preserve the public peace, but in wreaking vengeance on their
enemies. A striking instance of this is to be seen in the conflict which
was so long waged between the Johnstones and the Maxwells, and which
produced endless misery and mischief throughout a wide area.
All things considered, the wardens were well remunerated for such services
as they were able to render. The usual fee appears to have been £100 per
annum. In 1527 the Earl of Angus had £100 for the East and a similar sum
for the Middle March. In 1553 the Warden's fee was £500, but he had to
surrender the one half of the "escheats" to the authorities. When William
Ker of Cessford was appointed warden of the Middle March and keeper of
Liddesdale, his salary for the former office was £100, and for the latter
£500. But these sums represented but a small part of the actual income.
They were also allowed forage and provision for their retinue, which
consisted of a guard of horsemen. They had in addition a portion of the
"unlaws" or fines imposed in the warden courts, and at certain periods
these must have amounted to a large sum. The law ordained that "the
escheat of all thieves and trespassers that are convict of their movable
goods, ought and should pertain to the warden for his travail and labours,
to be used and disposed by him at his pleasure in time coming. The warden
ought and should take and apprehend all and sundry our sovereign Lord's
lieges turning and carrying nolt, sheep, horses, or victuals furth of this
realm into England, and bring their persons to the King's justice, to be
punished therefor; and all their goods may he escheat: the one half
thereof to be applied to the King's use, and the other half to the warden
for his pains." In addition to this, the wardens had a large share of the
plunder of the various forays upon the English Border, which they either
conducted in person, or winked at when undertaken by their retainers or
dependants. In the "Border Papers" we are informed that on Sunday, the
17th April, 1597, the Lord Buccleuch, Keeper of Liddesdale, accompanied by
twenty horse and a hundred foot, burned at noonday three onsets and
dwelling-houses, barns, stables, oxhouses, &c., to the number of twenty,
in the head of Tyne, cruelly burning in their houses seven innocent men,
and "murdered with the sword" fourteen which had been in Scotland, and
brought away the booty, the head officer with trumpet being there in
person.[33] This was a frequent occurrence, especially with Buccleuch, who
was never quite happy when not plundering and oppressing "the auld enemy."
From a pecuniary point of view, not to speak of other advantages, the
office of warden was a highly desirable one, and was consequently eagerly
sought after by the Border Chiefs.
The duties pertaining to this office may be described as of a twofold
nature--the maintenance of law and order, and the protection of the
districts against the encroachments and inroads of the enemy. "In the
first capacity," as has been remarked, "besides their power of control and
ministerial administration, both as head stewards of all the crown
tenements and manors within their jurisdiction, and as intromitting with
all fines and penalties, their judicial authority was very extensive. They
held courts for punishment of high treason and felony, which the English
Border laws classed under the following heads:--
I. The aiding and abetting of any Scottishman, by communing, appointment,
or otherwise, to rob, burn, or steal, within the realm of England.
II. The accompanying personally, of any Scottishman, while perpetrating
any such offences.
III. The harbouring, concealing, or affording guidance and protection to
him after the fact.
IV. The supplying Scottishmen with arms and artillery, as jacks, splents,
brigantines, coats of plate, bills, halberds, battle-axes, bows and
arrows, spears, darts, guns, as serpentines, half-haggs, harquibusses,
currys, cullivers, hand-guns, or daggers, without special licence of the
Lord-warden.
V. The selling of bread and corn of any kind, or of dressed leather, iron,
or other appurtenances belonging to armour, without special licence.
VI. The selling of horses, mares, nags, or geldings to Scottish men,
without licence as aforesaid.
VII. The breach of truce, by killing or assaulting subjects and liege-men
of Scotland.
VIII. The assaulting of any Scottishman having a regular pass or
safe-conduct.
IX. In time of war the giving tidings to the Scottish of any exploit
intended against them by the warden or his officers.
X. The conveying coined money, silver or gold, also plate or bullion, into
Scotland, above the value of forty shillings at one time.
XI. The betraying (in time of war) the counsel of any other Englishman
tending to the annoyance of Scotland, in malice to the party, and for his
own private advantage.
XII. The forging the coin of the realm.
XIII. The making appointment and holding communication with Scotchmen, or
intermarrying with a Scottish woman, without licence of the wardens, and
the raising of no fray against them as in duty bound.
XIV. The receiving of Scottish pilgrims with their property without
licence of the wardens.
XV. The failing to keep the watches appointed for the defence of the
country.
XVI. The neglecting to raise in arms to the fray, or alarm raised by the
wardens or watches upon the approach of public danger.
XVII. The receiving or harbouring Scottish fugitives exiled from their own
country for misdemeanours.
XVIII. The having falsely and unjustly _fould_ (_i.e._, found true and
relevant) the bill of any Scotchman against an Englishman, or having borne
false witness on such matters.
XIX. The having interrupted or stopped any Englishman pursuing for
recovering of his stolen goods.
XX. The dismissing any Scottish offender taken red-hand (_i.e._, in the
manner) without special license of the Lord-warden.
XXI. The paying of black-mail, or protection money, whether to English or
Scottish man."[34]
The significance of these provisions cannot be mistaken. They reveal the
anxiety of the English government to prevent, as far as possible, all
intercourse with Scottish Borderers. The offences referred to in the
foregoing list amounted to what is known as March Treason. Those who were
accused of this crime were tried by a jury, and if found guilty were put
to death without ceremony. "This was a very ordinary consummation," says
Sir Walter Scott, "if we can believe a story told of Lord William Howard
of Naworth. While busied deeply with his studies, he was suddenly
disturbed by an officer who came to ask his commands concerning the
disposal of several moss-troopers who had just been made prisoners.
Displeased at the interruption, the warden answered heedlessly and
angerly, 'hang them in the devil's name;' but when he laid aside his book,
his surprise was not little, and his regret considerable, to find that his
orders had been literally fulfilled."[35]
The duties devolving upon the Scottish wardens were not, in all respects,
the same as those which the English wardens were called upon to discharge.
This was due to some extent to the fact that the jurisdiction of the
Scottish wardens was circumscribed by the hereditary rights and privileges
of the great families who, within their own territories, exercised supreme
control. In addition to this, the hereditary judges had the power of
repledging; that is to say, they could reclaim any accused person from
courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, and try him by their feudal authority.
But while the power of the wardens was thus considerably circumscribed,
they never hesitated, when they had the chance, to mete out summary
punishment to all offenders. If a thief was caught red-handed, or if the
evidence against him appeared at all conclusive, he was at once, and
without ceremony, strung up on the nearest tree, or thrown into the
"murder" pit. Indeed, the execution not unfrequently preceded the trial--a
circumstance which seems to have given rise to the well-know proverb about
"Jeddart Justice." On both sides of the Border, the same haste to get rid
of offenders was a noted feature of the times. This is evident from the
well-known English proverb which runs thus--
"I oft have heard of Lydford law,
Where in the morn men hang and draw,
And sit in judgment after."
The sitting in judgment, either before or after, was a formality that
might often have been dispensed with, as the evidence submitted was seldom
carefully sifted, or weighed. To be suspected, or accused, was regarded as
almost tantamount to a plea of guilty. Such a method as this would hardly
pass muster in our modern and more finical age; still it is probable that
substantial justice was usually done. If those who were condemned were not
always guilty of the particular crimes laid to their charge, their general
record was sufficiently bad to warrant their being thus summarily dealt
with.
There was, moreover, a practical difficulty in the way of minute
investigation being made into each individual case. The number of those
accused of various offences under the Border laws was often so great as to
render an investigation of this kind all but impossible. There were few
places of strength where prisoners could be retained in order to await
their trial, and so it became necessary to deal with them as expeditiously
as possible. "The Borderers," it has been said, "were accustomed to part
with life with as little form as civilized men change their garments."
The mode of punishment was either by hanging or drowning. "Drowning," says
Sir Walter Scott, "is a very old mode of punishment in Scotland, and in
Galloway there were pits of great depth appropriated to that punishment
still called murder-holes, out of which human bones have occasionally been
taken in great quantities. This points out the proper interpretation of
the right of 'pit and gallows' (in law Latin, _fossa et furca_), which
has, less probably, been supposed the right of imprisoning in the pit or
dungeon, and that of hanging. But the meanest baron possessed the right of
imprisonment. The real meaning is, the right of inflicting death either
by hanging or drowning."[36]
But the warden had other duties to discharge of a still more important
nature than those already described. In time of war he was captain-general
within his own wardenry, and was invested with the power of calling
musters of all the able-bodied men between the age of sixteen and sixty.
These men were suitably armed and mounted according to their rank and
condition, and were expected to be ready either to defend their territory
against invasion, or, if necessary, to invade the enemy's country. The
ancient rights and customs which the warden was expected to observe on
such occasion have been thus summarised:--
"I. All intercourse with the enemy was prohibited.
II. Any one leaving the company during the time of the expedition was
liable to be punished as a traitor.
III. It was appointed that all should alight and fight on foot, except
those commanded by the general to act as cavalry.
IV. No man was to disturb those appointed to array the host.
V. If a soldier followed the chase on a horse belonging to his comrade,
the owner of the horse enjoyed half the booty; and if he fled upon such a
horse, it was to be delivered to the sheriff as a waif on his return home,
under pain of treason.
VI. He that left the host after victory, though for the purpose of
securing his prisoner, lost his ransom.
VII. Any one seizing his comrade's prisoner was obliged to find security
in the hands of the warden-serjeant. Disputed prisoners were to be placed
in the hands of the warden, and the party found ultimately wrong to be
amerced in a fine of ten pounds.
VIII. Relates to the evidence in case of such dispute. He who could bring
his own countrymen in evidence, of whatsoever quality, was preferred as
the true captor; failing this mode of proof, recourse was had to the
prisoner's oath.
IX. If the prisoner was of such a rank as to lead a hundred men, he was
either to be dismissed upon security or ransomed, for the space of fifteen
days, without leave of the warden.
X. He who dismounted a prisoner was entitled to half of his ransom.
XI. Whosoever detected a traitor was entitled to a reward of one hundred
shillings; whoever aided his escape, suffered the pain of death.
XII. Relates to the firing of beacons in Scotland: the stewards of
Annandale and Kirkcudbright were liable in the fine of one merk for each
default in the matter.
XIII. He who did not join the army of the country upon the signal of the
beacon lights, or who left it during the English invasion without lawful
excuse, his goods were forfeited, and his person placed at the warden's
will.
XIV. In the case of any Englishman being taken in Scotland, he was not
suffered to depart under any safe conduct save that of the King or warden;
and a similar protection was necessary to enable him to return and treat
of his ransom.
XV. Any Scottishman dismissing his prisoner, when a host was collected
either to enter England or defend against invasion, was punished as a
traitor.
XVI. In the partition of spoil, two portions were allowed to each bowman.
XVII. Whoever deserted his commander and comrades, and abode not in the
field to the uttermost, his goods were forfeited, and his person liable to
punishment as a traitor.
XVIII. Whoever bereft his comrade of horse, spoil, or prisoner, was liable
in the pains of treason, if he did not make restitution after the right of
property became known to him."[37]
These military regulations, at once minute and comprehensive, were drawn
up by William, Earl of Douglas, with the assistance of some of the most
experienced Marchmen; and, with the necessary alterations, were adopted by
the English--thus indicating that they were thoroughly in harmony with the
military spirit of the age on both sides of the Border.
VI.
THE DAY OF TRUCE.
"Our wardens they affixed the day,
And as they promised so they met.
Alas! that day I'll ne'er forget!"
OLD BALLAD.
The arrangements made for dealing with offences against Border law, though
of a primitive, were by no means of an ineffective, character. All things
considered, they were perhaps as good as could have been devised in the
circumstances. During the period when Border reiving was most rampant,
though the population was by no means sparse, little or no provision had
been made for detaining prisoners in custody. The jails were few and far
between, and such as were available were generally in such an insecure and
ruinous state that, unless strongly guarded, they were almost useless for
the purpose for which they existed. But imprisonment had other
inconveniences which militated against its being resorted to with much
frequency. Prisoners had to be provided for when under "lock and key,"
and, as provisions were difficult to procure, it was generally found more
advantageous to leave those who had broken the laws to "fend" for
themselves until such times as they were wanted. As might be expected in
such circumstances, the accused person not unfrequently took "leg-bail,"
and passed into another district, or, perhaps, crossed the Border, and
sought refuge among the enemies of his country and his clan. This
expedient, in those lawless and disordered times, was no doubt
occasionally successful--for the nonce--but sooner or later the evil-doer
was either betrayed by the enemy, or, resuming his old habits--which was
almost a necessity--brought himself under the special notice of the warden
of the district to which he had fled. He thus placed himself, as it were,
between two fires, and made further immunity from prosecution practically
impossible. When it came to the knowledge of the warden that an accused
person had passed into another wardenry, he at once certified the warden
opposite, requiring him to apprehend and deliver the prisoner with all
possible speed; and he was bound, after receiving this notice, to make
proclamation throughout his wardenry "by the space of six days after of
the said fugitive," and also to certify the other two wardens of the realm
"to proclaim the fugitive throughout all the bounds of their wardenries,
so that none could proclaim ignorance, or excuse themselves when charged
with the wilful receipt of the aforesaid fugitive so proclaimed."
The duty thus laid upon the wardens of searching for fugitives was one
which was generally undertaken _con amore_, not merely on account of the
fact that it was naturally agreeable to these officers to detect and
punish crime, but also because in such circumstances it was greatly to
their advantage to do so. A law was passed ordaining that when a fugitive
entered with his goods into the opposite realm, the warden who captured
him, and handed him over to be punished for his offence, _was entitled to
retain the goods for his labour_. Should he not succeed in apprehending
the fugitive, then the goods had to be returned to the warden of the realm
from which they came. This was a wise arrangement, and on the whole proved
fairly effective.
As offences against the law were numerous and frequent, it was statute and
ordained that a "Day of Truce" should be held every month, or oftener,
when the wardens of the Marches opposite each other should meet for the
discussion and adjustment of their respective claims, and the punishment
of evil-doers. The date and place of this meeting was made known to the
inhabitants of the Marches by proclamation being made in all the market
towns. Notice was also sent to the lords, knights, esquires, and
gentlemen, commanding them, along with a sufficient number of their
tenants and servants, well mounted and fully armed, to repair the night
before and attend upon the warden at the day of truce.[38]
Early on the morning of the following day this imposing cavalcade might be
seen wending its way towards the place of rendezvous. This was generally
some convenient spot near the Border, most frequently on the Scottish
side. When the wardens and their friends came within hailing distance of
each other, a halt was called, and the English warden sent forward four or
five gentlemen of good repute to demand from the Scottish warden "that
assurance might be kept" until the sunrise of the following day. According
to a statement made on the authority of Sir Robert Bowes, the reason of
this particular form of procedure was "because the Scots did always send
their ambassadors first into England to seek for peace after a war.
Therefore both the particular days of truce are usually kept either at
places even on the confines of the Marches, or else at places within the
realm of Scotland, and also the English warden and other officers were
always used to send first for the assurance as aforesaid."
When assurance had been given by the Scottish warden, a number of Scottish
gentlemen passed over to the other side to demand from the English warden
assurance on his part. These preliminary precautions having been duly
observed, the two parties met, and the business which had brought them
together was at once entered upon. The wardens did not always attend these
meetings in person, their duties occasionally necessitating their
remaining at home, but when unable to be present themselves they were
represented by deputies--men of influence and good social position--who
were thoroughly qualified to deal with any important question that might
arise.
The regulations for the conduct of business at these meetings were
carefully drawn out, and, as a general rule, strictly observed. The
English warden named six Scottish gentlemen to act on his side, and the
Scottish warden the same number of Englishmen to act as the English
assize. These men, who thus constituted the jury, were carefully chosen.
No murderer, traitor, fugitive, infamous person, or betrayer of one party
to another could bear office, or give evidence, but only good and lawful
men deserving of credit and unsuspected.
Each warden, in the presence of the opposite warden and the inhabitants of
both the Marches, "Swore by the High God that reigneth above all Kings and
Realms, and to whom all Christians owe obedience, that he shall (in the
name of God) do, exercise and use his office without respect of person,
Malice, Favour, or Affection, diligently or undelayedly, according to his
Vocation or Charge that he beareth under God and his Prince, and he shall
do justice upon all Complaints presented unto him, upon every Person
complained upon under this Rule. And that, when any complaint is referred
unto him, to swear, fyle, and deliver upon his Honour, he shall search,
enquire, and redress the same at his uttermost power: And that, if it
shall happen in so doing to quit and absolve the persons complained upon
as Clean and Innocent: Yet if he shall any ways get sure Knowledge of the
very Offender, he shall declare him foul of the Offence, and make lawful
Redress and Delivery thereof, albeit the very Offender be not named in the
Complaint: And this Oath of the Wardens not only to be made at the first
Meeting hereafter to ensue, but also to be made every Year once solemnly,
as aforesaid, at the first Meeting after _Mid-summer_, to put them in the
better Remembrance of their Duties, and to place the fear of God in their
Hearts."[39]
The following oath was also administered to the jury:--"Ye shall truly
enquire, and true deliverance make between the Queen's Majesty, and the
prisoners at the Bar, according to the evidence that shall be given in
this Court. As God keep you and Holydome."[40]
These formalities having been duly observed, the trial of the prisoners
was then proceeded with. Bills were presented on the one side, and on the
other, setting forth with considerable fulness of detail the nature and
extent of the damages that had been sustained. The prisoners against whom
these indictments had been made were then called to answer the charges
preferred against them.
There were at least three ways in which these cases could be tried. In the
first place, the bill might be acquitted _on the honour of the warden_.
But should it afterwards be found that the warden in acquitting the bill
had proceeded on imperfect information, and had acquitted upon his honour
a bill that was in reality "foul," then the complainant was at liberty to
prosecute a new bill, and demand that justice should be done. The case was
then tried by a jury who "fyled" or "cleared" the bill at their
discretion. When a bill was "fyled," that is to say declared true, the
word "foul" was written on the margin, and when it was "cleared," the word
"clear" was inserted.
But further, bills might be _tried by inquest or assize_, which was the
method most frequently adopted, such cases being decided by the juries on
their own knowledge, and on the evidence sworn to in open court.
The third way of dealing with bills was by a "_Vower_." The significance
of this method is fully explained by Sir Robert Bowes, who says:--"The
inquest or assise of Scotlande, notwithstanding their othe, would in no
wyse fynde a bill to be true, nor fyll any Scottis man upon an
Englishman's complaynte unles the Englishman could fynde an inhabitant of
Scotlande, that would avow openly to the inquest, or secretlye to the
warden, or some of the inquest, that the complaynte was treue, and the
partie complayned upon culpable thereof, otherwise althoughe the matter
was ever so notoryously knowne by the Englishman, their evydence would not
serve to secure a conviction."
It frequently happened, on the occasion of these meetings, that "bogus"
bills were presented, a custom which gave the officials a great deal of
unnecessary labour. The commissioners, in referring to this reprehensible
practice, remark that "it hath been perceived of late that, since the
order was begun by the Warden to speire, fyle, and deliver, upon their
Honour, that some ungodly Persons have made complaint, and billed for
Goods lost where none was taken from them, and so troubled the Wardens,
causing them to speire and search for the Thing that was never done."[41]
It was therefore statute and ordained that all persons guilty of this
offence should be delivered to the opposite warden to be punished,
imprisoned, and fined at the discretion of the same warden whom he had
troubled.
Another formidable difficulty with which the wardens had to contend on
these occasions, was in estimating the value of the goods for which
redress was claimed. In making up a bill the complainant was strongly
tempted to put an absurd value on the gear, or cattle, which had been
stolen from him. Had he always got as much as he claimed he would soon
have been enormously enriched by the loss of his property! The
commissioners were therefore under the necessity of drawing out a scale of
charges for the guidance of the warden courts. The following are the
prices fixed by this tribunal:--"Every Ox, above Four Year old, Fourty
Shillings Sterling; every Cow, above Four Year old, Thirty Shillings
Sterling; and every Young Cow, above Two Years old, Twenty Shillings
Sterling; every other Beast, under Two Years old, Ten Shillings Sterling;
every old Sheep, Six Shillings Sterling; and every Sheephogge, Three
Shillings Sterling; every old Swine, above One Year old, Six Shillings
Sterling; every young Swine, Two Shillings Sterling; every Goat, above One
Year old, Five Shillings Sterling; every young Goat, Two Shillings
Sterling; and every Double Toope to be valued after 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
pasture their stock on the enemy's territory, but to sow corn, cut down
wood, and go hunting and hawking for pleasure as well as profit. Sir
Robert Cary, one of the most vigorous of the English wardens, was
determined that hunting without leave should not be carried on in his
wardenry. He wrote to the laird of Ferniherst, the warden opposite,
explaining his views, but, "notwithstanding this letter," he says, "within
a month after they came and hunted as they used to do without leave, and
cut down wood and carried it away. I wrote to the warden, and told him I
would not suffer one other affront, but if they came again without leave
they would dearly aby[44] it. For all this they would not be warned; but
towards the end of the summer they came again to their wonted sports. I
sent my two deputies with all speed they could make, and they took along
with them such gentlemen as were in their way, with my forty horse, and
about one of the clock they came to them, and set upon them; some hurt was
done, but I gave special order they should do as little hurt, and shed as
little blood, as they possibly could. They observed my command, only they
broke all their carts, and took a dozen of the principal gentlemen that
were there, and brought them to me to Witherington, where I lay. I made
them welcome, and gave them the best entertainment I could. They lay in
the castle two or three days, and so I sent them home--they assuring me
that they would never again hunt without leave, which they did truly
perform all the time."[45]
This firm, but kindly method, was entirely satisfactory; and, had the
Borders only been blessed with a succession of Carys in the various
wardenries, the probability is that Border reiving would never have
attained such portentous dimensions.
But despite the masterful management of men like Cary, such questions as
those we have mentioned continued to occupy the time and attention of the
warden courts. The freebooters on the Border never considered too closely
the minute shades of difference between _meum_ and _tuum_, and were
difficult to persuade that depasturing, or cutting wood in a neighbour's
plantation, was a matter of any real importance. They were at all times
disposed to put a liberal construction on the words--"The earth is the
Lord's and the fulness thereof." Their somewhat loose interpretation of
this ancient Hebrew maxim occasioned them no end of vexation and trouble.
But the settlement of Border affairs on the day of truce did not interfere
with the ancient custom which entitled the person who was robbed to follow
his goods on what was called the _hot-trod_, and mete out summary
punishment to the offender--provided he could overtake him. The warden
also was enjoined, in the Act of 1563, to pursue and chase in hot-trod,
unto such time or place as the fugitives or offender be apprehended, to
bring him again within his own jurisdiction to be punished for the
offence, "as appertaineth;" "and that without let, trouble, or impediment
to be made or done to him by any of the inhabitants of that realm wherein
he pursueth." And if any person should make resistance to the said warden
in the foresaid pursuit he was to be billed for, and delivered to the
warden. In the following of the said chase, in the manner aforesaid, it
was thought convenient, and ordained, that the pursuer shall, at the first
town he cometh by of the opposite realm, or the first person he meeteth
with, give knowledge of the occasion of his chase, and require him to go
with him in the said pursuit. If the offender was caught red-handed he was
executed; but if the desire for gain was stronger than the thirst for
blood, then he was held at ransom. The prey was followed with hound and
horn, hue and cry, the pursuers carrying on the point of their spears a
lighted piece of turf.
The business of the warden courts was conducted with despatch. When all
the bills had been either "fouled" or "cleared," those who had been found
guilty of "March Treason" were brought up for sentence. The lord warden
called on him whose office it was to see the prisoners suffer, and thus
addressed him:--"I command you in the Queen's Majesty's name that ye see
execution done upon these prisoners, according to the Law of the Marches,
at your peril." Then addressing the prisoners he said:--"Ye that are
adjudged by the Law of the Realm to die, remember that ye have but a short
time to live in this world; therefore earnestly call to God, with penitent
hearts, for mercy and forgiveness of your sinful lives; repent ye have
broken God's commandments, and be sorry therefor, and for that ye did not
fear the breach and dangers of the Law, therefore your bodies must suffer
the pain of death, provided to satisfy the reward of your Fact in this
world; yet the salvation of your soul's health for the world to come,
stands in the great mercy of Almighty God: Wherefore do ye earnestly
repent and ask mercy for your sins, now when ye are living, put your Trust
to be saved by the merits of Christ's passion; and think in your hearts if
ye were able to recompence them ye have offended, ye would do it; and
where you are not able, ask Forgiveness. Have such faith in God's Mercy as
Dismas the Thief and Man-Murderer had that hang at Christ's Right hand,
when he suffered his Passion for the Redemption of Mankind: Whose Faith
was so great he should be saved, his Sins were remitted, tho' he had but
short time of Repentance, and he enjoyed Heaven. Therefore despair not in
God's Mercy, though your sins be great, for God's Mercy exceedeth all his
Works. Set apart all Vanities of this World, and comfort you in Heavenly
things; and doubt not but, if ye so do, ye shall inherit Everlasting Joy
in the Kingdom of Heaven. And thus I commit you to the Mercy of God,
wishing your Deaths may be an Example to all Parents to bring up their
Children in the Fear of God, and Obedience of the Laws of this Realm."[46]
With these suitable admonitions ringing in their ears, the condemned
prisoners were led forth to execution.
The business of the court having been finished, the wardens retired after
taking a courteous leave of each other.
These meetings, attended as they were by a large number of people, who
came either on business or pleasure, were frequently broken up by sudden
outbursts of tumult and disorder. _Baughling_, or brawling, was a common
occurrence, and loud words and angry looks naturally led to more serious
encounters. We have already noticed the incident of the Reidswire, but
this was by no means an isolated case. In the month of July, 1585, at a
day of truce between Sir John Foster and Ker of Ferniherst, Lord Russell,
a young man of great promise, and of the most amiable disposition, was
suddenly shot dead by an unknown hand. This lamentable incident gave rise
to much bitterness of feeling on both sides of the Border. Foster wrote to
Walsingham, saying, that he and the opposite warden had met for the
redress of attempts committed on both sides, Russell being present to
attend to particular causes of his own, "where it chanced a sudden
accident and tumult to arise among the rascals of Scotland and England
about a little pyckery among themselves, and we meaning no harm did sit
the most of the day calling bills, and my Lord Russell among us. The said
Lord Russell rose and went aside from us, with his own men, and there
being in talk with a gentleman, was suddenly shot with a gun and slain in
the midst of his own men, to the great discomfort of me and his poor
friends in this country, and never a man either of England or Scotland but
he. Alas! that the mischievous chance should happen for him to be killed
with a shot, and none but him, which is the greatest discomfort that ever
came upon me."[47]
No hint is here given of any suspicion that Ker of Ferniherst was
implicated in the death of this young man. Hence we are surprised to find
that, on the day after this letter was written, Sir John Foster drew up a
statement in which he gives an entirely different complexion to the
incident. He asserts that it was not an accident. "Had it been an
accident," he says, "or sudden breaking by rascals, as there was no such
matter, the gentlemen of Scotland with their drums, fife, shot, and such
as carried the 'ensigne' and 'penseller,' would have tarried with the
warden; so that it appeareth plainly it was a 'pretended matter'
beforehand, for the wardens sitting quietly calling their bills, the
warden of England thinking no harm, the party of Scotland seeing the time
serve for their 'former desire,' suddenly broke, striking up an alarm with
sound of drum and fife, and gave the charge upon us--in which charge the
Lord Russell was cruelly slain with shot, and so divers gentlemen of
Scotland with their footmen and horsemen and whole force, followed and
maintained their chase four miles within the Realm of England, and took
sundry prisoners and horses, and carried them into Scotland, which they
deny to deliver again."[48]
This statement contradicts, in almost every particular, the asseverations
deliberately made in the letter written the day before, and shows that
even a gentleman in Sir John Foster's high position, with a deservedly
great reputation for fair dealing, was capable, when occasion demanded, of
twisting facts, or even inventing them, to suit his own ends, or the
interest of the government he represented. It has been suggested that the
English secretary, knowing that Ferniherst was an intimate friend of
Arran, saw that by laying the blame of Lord Russell's death on the
shoulders of the former, he might thereby procure the disgrace of this
hated minister. Be this as it may, such conflicting assertions, made by
the same person almost at the same time, should lead us to accept with a
modified confidence other statements of a similar kind, as the spirit of
party is no friend to the love of truth.
But despite the drawbacks and dangers attaching to such gatherings for the
settlement of Border affairs, the day of truce was an institution of great
public utility. It is difficult to see how, apart from such an
arrangement, even the semblance of civilized life could have been
maintained. The Borders really constituted an _imperium in imperio_, and
the wardens, when presiding over their monthly convention, were to all
intents and purposes absolute rulers within their own prescribed domain.
It was generally found that when warden courts, or days of truce, were
regularly held, good rule and order, at least judged by the ordinary
Border standard, were well maintained throughout the entire district.
VII.
THE DEADLY FEUD.
"At the sacred font, the priest
Through ages left the master hand unblest
To urge with keener aim the blood incrusted spear."
LEYDEN.
The difficulties with which the Borderers had to contend were of a varied
character. They had to be constantly on the watch against the aggressions
and incursions of their enemies on the opposite Marches. But it frequently
happened that their most dangerous and inveterate foes were to be found
amongst their own countrymen. This was the case more especially when
blood-feuds arose, setting family against family, and clan against clan.
An interesting, if not very luminous, account of the origin of the "Feud"
is given by Burghley in a report submitted by him to the English
government, in which he deals with what he calls the "Decays of the
Borders." He says:--"Deadly Foed, the word of enmytie on the Borders,
implacable without the blood and whole family destroyed, whose etymologie
I know not where better to fetch than from Spiegelius in his _Lexicon
Juris, in Verbo_ 'feydum:' he saith it is an old Teutch word whereof is
derived by Hermanus Nivoranus (?) _faydosum Hostis publicus_; 'foed'
_enim, Bellum significat_." He further points out that the Scottish
wardens, being native Borderers, are "extraordinarilye adicted to
parcialities, favour of their blood, tenantes and followers," and
consequently he holds they should be disqualified for office.[49]
The evils resulting from these deadly-feuds would have been comparatively
trifling had it been possible to limit the consequences to the persons
more immediately concerned. Owing, however, to the system of clanship
which prevailed on the Borders, the whole sept became involved in the
feud. "If one of the clan," says Sir Walter Scott, "chanced either to slay
a man, or commit any similar aggression, the chief was expected to defend
him by all means, legal or illegal. The most obvious and pacific was to
pay such fine or _amende_, or assythement, as it was called, as might
pacify the surviving relations, or make up the feud. This practice of
receiving an atonement for slaughter seems also to have been part of the
ancient Celtic usages; for it occurs in the Welch laws of Howell Dha, and
was the very foundation of the Irish Brehon customs. The vestiges of it
may be found in the common law of Scotland to this day. But poor as we
have described the Border chief, and fierce as he certainly was by
education and office, it was not often that he was either able or disposed
to settle the quarrels of his clansmen in a manner so amicable and
expensive. War was then resorted to; and it was the duty of the chief and
clan who had sustained the injury to seek revenge by every means in their
power, not only against the party who had given the offence, but, in the
phrase of the time and country, against all his name, kindred,
maintainers, and upholders. On the other hand, the chief and clan to whom
the individual belonged who had done the offence, were equally bound in
honour, by every means in their power, to protect their clansman, and to
retaliate whatever injury the opposite party might inflict in their thirst
of vengeance. When two clans were involved in this species of private
warfare, which was usually carried on with the most ferocious animosity on
both sides, they were said to be at deadly feud, and the custom is justly
termed by the Scottish parliament most heathenish and barbarous.... In
these deadly feuds, the chiefs of clans made war, or truce, or final peace
with each other, with as much formality, and as little sincerity, as
actual monarchs."[50]
Feuds of the most bitter and hostile character were an every-day
occurrence. The Herons, Fenwicks, Shafftownes, Charletons, and Milbornes,
on the English side of the Border, were all at feud at the same time. And
on the Scottish side the Elwoods (Elliots), Armstrongs, Nixons, Crosiers,
Trumbles, and Olivers were, during the same period, at "daggers drawn,"
and thirsting for each other's blood. The misery which such feuds created
can hardly be over-estimated. The sense of personal security was
completely destroyed. Mutual trust, the primary condition of social life,
was rendered practically impossible. And, as might be expected, the most
trivial circumstances often gave rise to the most implacable hostility. A
singular instance of this is referred to by John Cary in one of his
communications to Burghley. He says:--"Your honour remembers hearing long
since of the great road by the Scotts 'as Will Haskottes and his fellowes'
made in Tynedale and Redesdale, taking up the whole country and nearly
beggaring them for ever. On complaint to the Queen and Council, there was
some redress made with much ado and many meetings. Buccleuch and the
Scotts made some 'bragges and crackes' as that the country durst not take
its own; but the Charletons being the 'sufficientest and ablest' men on
the borders, not only took their own goods again, but encouraged their
neighbours to do the like and not be afraid--'which hath ever since stuck
in Buccleuch's stomack.'... Mary! he makes another quarrell, that long
since in a war tyme, the Tynedale men should goe into his countrey, and
there they took his grandfather and killed divers of his countrye, _and
that they took away his grandfather's shworde_, and never let him have it
yet synce. This sayeth he is the quarrell."[51]
Nor did lapse of time tend to soften the animosities. The feud was
inherited along with the rest of the family property. It was handed down
from generation to generation. The son and grandson maintained it with a
bitterness which, in some cases, seemed year by year to grow more intense.
It affected more or less a man's whole social relationships, and gave rise
to endless animosities and heart-burnings. Feuds were not unknown in other
districts of the country, but owing to the feeble and ineffective manner
in which the law was generally administered, they prevailed to a greater
extent on the Borders,--and were characterised by a more vengeful
spirit,--than in any other part of the kingdom.
Hence it was found that the existence of such feuds made the
administration of the law, such as it was, a matter of supreme difficulty.
It is said that it was hardly possible for any gentleman of the country to
be of a jury of life and death if any of those at feud were indicted, "as
they were grown so to seek blood that they would make a quarrel about the
death of their grandfather, and kill any of the name." It was, therefore,
found necessary to appoint special nobles and barons belonging to some
distant part of the country, to sit in judgment in those cases in which
the accused was at feud with the warden. On two occasions when courts were
being held at Jedburgh, it was found expedient to issue proclamations in
the King's name,--"That na maner of persons tak upon hand to invaid ane an
uther for ald feid or new, now cumand to this present air or passand
tharfra, and induring the tyme thairof under the pane of dede; and that na
maner of persone or persons beir wapins except kniffis at their beltis,
bot alanerlie our soverane lordis household, the justice, constable,
merschell, compositouris, thair men and houshald, schireff, crounaris and
thair deputis, under the pane of escheting of the wapins and punishing of
the persons beraris therof."[52] Owing to the disturbed condition of the
country, such precautions were much needed, although it must be admitted
that they did not always secure the end desired.
Many of the Border feuds present features of great interest alike to the
sociologist and the historian. They afford interesting glimpses of the
condition of society in this part of the realm, and disclose the dominant
passions by which the lives and characters of those more immediately
concerned were shaped and determined. Throughout the greater part of the
16th century a fierce feud raged between two of the most noted and
powerful Border families--the Scotts and the Kers. The circumstances which
gave rise to this deadly feud form an interesting chapter in the history
of the Borders.
During the minority of James V. the Earl of Angus controlled the
government of the country, and in his own interests, and for the
furtherance of his own ends, kept a watchful eye on the movements of the
young King. In the year 1525, James, accompanied by Angus, and other
members of the court, came south to Jedburgh, "and held justice aires
quhair manie plaintes cam to him of reiff, slauchter and oppression, bot
little justice was used bot the purse, for thir was manie in that countrie
war the Earl of Angus' kin and friendis, that got favourable justice,
quhairof the king was not content, nor non of the rest of the lordis that
war about him, for they wold have justice equally used to all men; bot the
Earl of Angus and the rest of the Douglass' rulled yitt still as they
pleased, and no man durst find fault with their proceidingis; quhairat the
king was heartilie displeased, and would fain have been out of their
handis, and for that effect he writt are secreitt letter to the laird of
Buccleugh, desiring him effectuouslie that he wold come with all his
forces, kin and freindis, and all that he might ax, and meit him at
Melrose, at his home coming, and thair to tak him out of the Douglas'
handis, and put him at libertie, to use himself among the rest of the
lordis as he thought expedient."[53] Buccleuch at once convened his "kin
and freindis," and all who were prepared to take part with him, to the
number of six hundred spears, and set out for Melrose to await the coming
of the King. Home, Cessford, and Fernieherst, who were of the King's
company, had returned home. Buccleuch and his followers made their
appearance, arranged in order of battle, on Halidon Hill, overlooking the
Tweed, near Melrose bridge. When Angus saw them he wondered what the
hostile array portended. But when he discovered that Buccleuch was
supported only by numbers of Annandale thieves, he took heart of grace,
and said to the King--"Sir, yonder is the laird of Buccleuch, and the
thieves of Annerdaill with him, to unbesett your grace in the way, bot I
avow to God, Sir, they sall aither fight or flie. Thairfor, Sir, ye sall
tarrie here, and my brither George with yow, and any other quhom yeu
pleas, and I sall pas and put yon thieves aff the ground, and red the
gaitt to your grace, or else die thairfor."[54]
The conflict now began in earnest. Buccleuch and his men stoutly resisted
the onslaught of Angus, and for a time the issue seemed uncertain. But
Home, Cessford, and Fernieherst, having got wind of the affair, returned,
supported by four score spears, "and sett on freschlie on the utmost wing,
on the laird of Buccleughis field, and shortly bare them to the ground,
quhilk caused the laird of Buccleugh to flie; on whom thair followed ane
chaise be the lairdis of Sesfoord and Pherniherst, in the quhilk chaise
the laird of Sesfoord was slain with ane cassin spear, be ane called Evan,
servand of the laird of Buccleughis."[55]
There seems nothing remarkable about such an incident as this. That
Cessford should have been accidentally slain by one of Buccleuch's
servants was no doubt a regrettable incident, but those who play bowls
must be prepared for rubbers. This, unfortunately, was not the view
entertained by the Kers, who henceforth were at deadly feud with
Buccleuch. All efforts to bring about a reconciliation were in vain. The
Kers thirsted for vengeance, and were determined to "bide their time."
Twenty-six long years had come and gone, and one day as the laird of
Buccleuch was passing along one of the streets of Edinburgh, little
suspecting the fate which awaited him, he was fatally stabbed by the
descendant of Cessford. The Borderers had many faults, but certainly they
cannot be charged with having had short memories!
But a still more striking illustration of the disastrous consequences of
the deadly feud is to be found in the case of the Johnstones and Maxwells,
two of the most prominent and powerful families in Dumfriesshire. These
two families were strong enough, had they been united, to have kept the
whole district in good order; but unfortunately they were often at feud,
with the result that not only their own interests, but the interests of
the community as a whole, were ruthlessly sacrificed. It is worthy of note
that one of the principal causes of the frequent and disastrous feuds
between the representatives of the two families, was the frequency with
which the office of warden was conferred, first on the one, and then on
the other, without any good reason being assigned by the King for the
adoption of this shuttle-cock policy. This office was naturally much
coveted, as it was not only a source of revenue, which in those days was a
most important consideration, but a condition of influence and power. It
must, therefore, have been peculiarly irritating for the warden to be
summarily called upon to resign his office almost before he had begun to
reap the rewards pertaining to it. And when he saw his rival basking in
the sunshine of the royal favour, from which he had been suddenly and
capriciously excluded, his feelings may be more easily imagined than
described. Nor did it greatly tend to soothe his wounded feelings to
reflect that the person by whom he had been superseded would be certain
before long to be hurled from his proud eminence and another put in his
place. The whole system was pernicious, and was the source of no end of
mischief and bad blood.
The origin of this famous feud may be briefly related. John, seventh Lord
Maxwell, has been well described as one of those men whom a daring and
restless temperament and their crimes "have damned to eternal fame." After
the death of the Regent Morton, he succeeded in securing a charter to the
Earldom of Morton--his mother, Lady Beatrix Douglas, being the Regent's
second daughter. It was not his good fortune, however, to enjoy for a
lengthened period either the title, or the domains attached to it. In
January, 1585, four years after he had come into possession, Parliament
rescinded the Attainder, and declared that the title and the estates were
to be conferred on the Regent Morton's lawful heir. Maxwell was declared a
rebel, mainly owing to his religious views--he being a warm adherent of
the Romish Church--and Johnstone was commissioned to apprehend him. Though
he had the assistance of two bands of hired soldiers, Maxwell proved more
than a match for him, took him prisoner, and set fire to Lochwood Castle,
as it was savagely remarked, "that Lady Johnstone might have light to put
on her hood." This unexpected blow fell on the laird of Johnstone with
crushing effect. In the following year he died of a broken heart. It is
to these circumstances that we must attribute the origin of the deadly
feud between the two clans, and especially between their chiefs.
But Maxwell, though gaining this important victory, was not allowed to
escape. He was ultimately taken prisoner, but afterwards regained his
liberty, on condition that he left the country. He went to Spain, and
offered his services to "His Catholic Majesty," who was then busily
engaged in fitting out the _Invincible Armada_, by which he hoped to
overwhelm both England and Scotland. Lord Maxwell--so little was he
animated by the spirit of patriotism--entered into the scheme _con amore_.
Being furnished with ample means, he returned to Scotland in 1588 to levy
men on the Borders to assist his new sovereign. His prefidious designs
were fortunately discovered, and ere he could make good his escape, he was
surprised by the King in Dumfries, taken prisoner, and his wardenship of
the West Marches bestowed on his powerful rival, the laird of Johnstone.
Everything might have gone on smoothly at this juncture had the King only
been gifted with a little firmness and foresight. He was anxious, however,
to conciliate his Roman Catholic subjects, and he seems to have come to
the conclusion that, reasonable conditions being imposed, he might
accomplish this end by restoring Maxwell to favour and office. This was a
fatal blunder, and produced disastrous results. Though the two rival
chiefs were induced to enter into a bond of alliance to support each other
in their lawful quarrels, as might have been expected, it was not long
before circumstances arose which brought them again into deadly conflict.
The Johnstones seemed to have concluded that they were at liberty to harry
and despoil at their pleasure, so long as they left unmolested any of the
name of Maxwell. Acting upon this principle, they made a raid upon
Nithsdale, and committed sundry depredations on Lord Sanquhar, the lairds
of Drumlanrig, Closeburn, and Lagg, and killed eighteen persons who had
"followed their own goods." Such a fierce and unprovoked assault could not
well be allowed to go unpunished, and so a commission was given to Lord
Maxwell to pursue the Johnstones with all hostilities. Johnstone hearing
of this, at once adopted measures for his protection. He summoned to his
aid the Scotts of Teviotdale, and the Grahams and Elliots of Eskdale, as
well as "divers Englishmen, treasonably brought within the realm, armed in
plain hostility." Maxwell, however, determined not to be beat, entered
into "Bonds of Manrent" with Sanquhar, Drumlanrig, and several others, who
had suffered at the hands of Johnstone, to maintain each other's quarrels.
Acting upon his commission, Maxwell summoned Johnstone to surrender, but
this he refused to do, on the ground that the warden had acted illegally
in entering into "Bonds" with the persons above-mentioned. As it was
clearly impossible to settle the question by diplomatic means, the warden
despatched Captain Oliphant with some troops to Lochmaben, to await his
arrival in Annandale. The Johnstones, who were on the alert, coming
suddenly upon them, killed the captain, and a number of his soldiers, and
burned the Kirk of Lochmaben, where some of Oliphant's men had fled for
refuge. Lord Maxwell now entered the field in person. He expected to raise
the different towns in his aid; but Johnstone, acting on the principle
that "a 'steek' in time saves nine," attacked him at once, scattered his
forces, and slew Lord Maxwell, "and sundry gentlemen of his name." This
affair took place December, 1593, and is well known as the Battle of Dryfe
Sands. "Lord Maxwell," it is said, "a tall man, and heavy in armour, was
in the chase overtaken and stricken from his horse. The report went that
he called to Johnstone, and desired to be taken (prisoner), as he had
formerly taken his (Johnstone's) father: but was unmercifully used; and
the hand that reached forth cut off; but of this I can affirm nothing.
There, at all events, the Lord Maxwell fell, having received many wounds.
He was a nobleman of great spirit, humane, courteous, and more learned
than noblemen commonly are; but aspiring and ambitious of rule."
In this contest the Maxwells suffered severely. They were cut down in
scores in the streets of Lockerbie. It is said that those who escaped bore
on them to their dying hour marks of the fatal day, which occasioned the
proverbial phrase of "a Lockerby lick," to denote a frightful gash over
the face or skull. So dreadful was the carnage in this disastrous "bout of
arms" that it is alleged by numerous historians that at least 700 of the
Maxwells and their adherents were slain. Two aged thorns long marked the
spot where Maxwell met his fate, known in the district as "Maxwell's
Thorns." They were carried away by a flood some fifty years ago, but have
been replaced by two others, now enclosed in a railing.
"It is evident, then," remarks Pitcairn, "according to the sentiments of
those times, inherited from their earliest years, which 'grew with their
growth and strengthened with their strength,' that natural duty and filial
piety required such a feud should become hereditary, and behoved should be
handed down from one generation to another. The attempts by the King and
his Council to procure an effectual reconciliation, although strenuously
made and often repeated, at length proved abortive. The re-appointment of
the Laird of Johnstone to be warden of the West Marches, in 1596, appears
to have served as a signal for the resumption of mutual aggressions."[56]
It would seem that Johnstone held the office at this time for a period of
three years, but as his wardenry had got into a most unsatisfactory
condition, he was superseded by Sir John Carmichael, his appointment being
notified to Lord Scrope, by James VI., on the 26th December, 1599.
Carmichael was murdered by Thomas Armstrong, "son of Sandies Ringan," in
the following year, and Johnstone was again appointed to this ill-fated
office. All this time the feud raged as fiercely as ever. Various attempts
were made to bring about an agreement, but nothing came of them. At length
through the influence of mutual friends, a private meeting was arranged.
Solemn pledges were given and exchanged, and Lord Maxwell and Sir James
Johnstone met on the 6th of April, 1608, each accompanied only by a single
attendant. The principals having removed some distance to discuss their
affairs, a quarrel arose between the two attendants, and when Sir James
Johnstone turned round to admonish them to keep the peace, Lord Maxwell
suddenly drew his pistol, and fired at him, and shot him through the back
with two bullets.
This cold-blooded murder, made all the more heinous by the circumstances
in which it was perpetrated, was amply revenged. Lord Maxwell was
apprehended, and put in ward in the Castle of Edinburgh. He contrived,
however, to escape, and went abroad, where he remained for four years. He
returned to the Borders, but finding that his crime was remembered
against him, had instantly to prepare for embarkation to Sweden.
Unfortunately for himself, he was persuaded by his kinsman, the Earl of
Caithness, to abandon this project. He was lured to Castle Sinclair, where
he was promised shelter and secrecy. He was not long there before he was
betrayed by his friend, taken prisoner, and brought to Edinburgh and
beheaded. "It may be gratifying to know that the Earl of Caithness
obtained no reward for his traitorous conduct; but, on the contrary, his
treachery served as a source of constant reproach to him and his
family."[57]
"Thus was finally ended, by a salutary example of severity, 'the foul
debate' betwixt the Maxwells and the Johnstones, in course of which each
family lost two chieftains; one by dying of a broken heart, one in the
field of battle, one by assassination, and one by the sword of the
executioner."[58]
The history of the Borders unfortunately affords too many examples of the
deplorable consequences arising from the prevalency and frequency of such
feuds. Many were compelled to live in constant terror of the dagger of the
assassin, never knowing the moment when they might be stricken down by an
unseen hand. At the same time it may be remarked that those who were
guilty of the crime of murder found it a matter of extreme difficulty to
escape punishment. The "avenger of blood" was ever on the track, and
though for a time, by means of various disguises, the culprit might elude
pursuit, he had sooner or later to pay the penalty of his misdeeds.
In the year 1511 Sir Robert Ker of Cessford was slain at a Border meeting
by three Englishmen--Heron, Starhead, and Lillburn. The English monarch
delivered up Lillburn to justice, but the other two made good their
escape. Starhead fled for refuge to the very centre of England, and there
lived in secrecy and upon his guard. Two dependants of the murdered warden
were deputed by Andrew Ker of Cessford to revenge his father's death. They
travelled through England in various disguises till they discovered the
place of Starhead's retreat, murdered him in his bed, and brought his head
to their master, by whom, in memorial of their vengeance, it was exposed
on the cross of Edinburgh. Heron would have shared the same fate had he
not spread abroad a report of his having died of the plague, and caused
his funeral obsequies to be performed.
Various expedients were resorted to in order to terminate the feuds which
prevailed. A common method was to get the Chiefs and Chieftains of the
opposing clans to subscribe what were called "bonds of assurance." There
can be no doubt that this might often have proved a most effective
measure, had the parties concerned only been willing to let bygones be
bygones. But it was found that the old sores were not easily healed.
Despite the utmost precautions, animosities which had been suppressed for
a time--kept as it were in abeyance--would assert themselves in a most
unexpected manner, and with redoubled force, and create a still more
distracting condition of affairs.
Prior to the Reformation, feuds were sometimes terminated by an appeal to
the religious sensibilities of the persons more immediately concerned.
They were induced to make pilgrimages to noted shrines--the shrine of St.
Ninian being a favourite resort--where, under the influence of religious
thoughts and feelings, they might be induced to take a more kindly view of
those with whom they were at feud, and make some reparation for the injury
they had inflicted. How far this method succeeded it is difficult to
determine, but the likelihood is that it was quite as effective as any
other.
Among the Chiefs, or clans, feuds were sometimes brought to an end by a
contract of marriage between a leading gentleman of one clan and a
daughter of the principal house of the other. This was the plan adopted by
the Scotts and Kers, and which, after some vexatious delays, proved
entirely successful.
But if it was found that none of the above methods of terminating the feud
could be conveniently applied, then resort was had, as has already been
hinted, to still simpler means. An atonement was made by the payment of a
sum of money called "assythment," which was sometimes found sufficient to
restore good feeling, and bring together in a spirit of amity families
that had been at feud with each other.
But these and other means of putting an end to the feud proved, perhaps,
in the majority of cases, of little or no avail. The parties concerned
preferred, generally, to fight it out to the bitter end, utterly
indifferent to consequences.
VIII.
THE THIEVES DAUNTONED.
"Revenge! revenge! auld Wat 'gan cry;
Fye, lads, lay on them cruellie!
We'll ne'er see Teviotside again,
Or Willie's death revenged sall be."
The intermittent and ineffective manner in which the law was generally
administered on the Borders was the occasion, if not the cause, of much of
the turbulence and lawlessness which prevailed. The Border thieves were
now and then placed under the most rigid surveillance, and their misdeeds
visited with condign punishment; but for the most part they were left to
work out their own sweet will, none daring to make them afraid.
This method of treatment could not be expected to produce beneficial
results. It had exactly the opposite effect. Respect for the law was
completely destroyed. Those who were called upon, as the phrase goes, "to
underlie the law," had no sense of shame when their wrongdoing was brought
home to them. They no doubt felt the inconvenience of being punished, by
fine or imprisonment, for their misdeeds; but there was no moral stigma
attaching to imprisonment, or to almost any other form of punishment.
That a man's father had been hanged for cattle-stealing, or for the
slaughter of those who had dared to resist him when he went on a foraging
expedition, might engender a feeling of resentment, but it was not in the
least likely to create a feeling of shame. Such incidents as these were
regarded with philosophical indifference. We remember once hearing a
distinguished Borderer remark that the ancient history of nearly all the
great Border families had been faithfully chronicled in "Pitcairn's
Criminal Trials!" A careful study of that interesting and valuable
compilation will go far to corroborate the remark. The "Family Tree" is a
phrase which has an altogether peculiar significance on the Borders. It
suggests ideas and reflections which are not usually associated with
genealogy.
But when all has been said on this phase of the question which either envy
or malice can suggest, every sympathetic and well-informed student of
Border history will readily admit that the Borderers, bad as they were,
were really more sinned against than sinning. Carlyle has somewhere
remarked that a man's first _right_ is to be well governed. It is,
perhaps, unusual to regard our rights from this point of view, yet there
can be no doubt that good government is an essential requisite of society,
and one of the greatest blessings of the individual life. This boon was
one which, for many generations, the Borderers did not enjoy. They were
encouraged to commit crime one day, and punished for it the next. This is
doubtless a strong assertion, but we think it is one that can be amply
proved. It was the policy of James VI., for example, to keep on the best
possible terms with Queen Elizabeth, in order not to endanger his chance
of succession, and consequently he was naturally anxious to keep his
turbulent subjects on the Borders as well in hand as possible. But that he
secretly sympathised with them, and encouraged them in their predatory
incursions on the English Border, hardly admits of serious doubt. Sir John
Foster, writing in 1586, says: "The King doth write to the Laird of
Cessford to do justice, and yet in the meantime he appointeth others to
ride and break the Border, and doth wink thereat."[59] We find Hunsdon
writing in the same strain. "I am at this present credibly advertised," he
says, "from one of good intelligence that what fair weather soever the
King makes, he means no good towards her Majesty, nor her subjects, and
that at this present, there is some practice in hand, whatsoever it
is--and he doth assure me that those of Liddesdale, Ewesdale, Eskdale, and
Annandale, being 400 horse that came to Hawden brigges where they took
away the goods and burnt 4 houses, was not without the King's knowledge,
but not meant to be done in that place."[60] In another communication, in
which he alludes to the coming of the King to the Borders with a large
army, ostensibly to punish the thieves, he remarks, that he thought it
very strange that the King should come with so great a company for the
suppressing of a few thieves, when there was not one of them, either in
Liddesdale or Teviotdale, that he might not have had brought to him, had
he so wished it. He hints that these great outrages would never have been
attempted without the King's "privitie"--"for it was given forth," he
says, "that the Earl Bothwell's riding to Branksome and Hawick, where he
holds as many of Liddesdale before him as it pleased him to send for, that
it was to cause them of Liddesdale to be answerable to justice to England
for such outrages as they had sundry times committed; but the sequel did
manifest the cause of his going thither. For presently after, his said
son-in-law, the Laird of Buccleuch, made a 'roade' with 300 horse into the
West March at two of the clock in the after-noon, with a trumpet and
gydon, and spoiled the country about Bewcastle in warlike manner till
sun-set. The trumpet was my Lord Bothwell's, and the goods was carried to
Armitage at my Lord Bothwell's officers' commandment. So as I have just
cause to think that this 'roade' was done by my Lord Bothwell's
appointment, and I am sure he durst not have done it without the King's
privity, I will not say commandment."[61]
These are only a few of many illustrations of a similar kind which may be
found scattered through the pages of the "State Papers," and while we must
be careful not to accept such statements as in every instance worthy of
absolute credence, yet the circumstances would seem to warrant our
regarding them, in many cases at least, as well founded. When the King and
his lieutenants thus secretly connived at, and encouraged, the
depredations of the reivers, we need hardly wonder that they engaged in
the work of plundering with an almost total absence of compunction.
Had the sphere of their operations been always strictly confined to the
English Border, the likelihood is that neither King, nor Regent, would
have sought to "daunton" them. But there were times when it was difficult
for the Scottish reivers to earn a decent livelihood by harassing and
spoiling "the auld enemy," owing to the watchfulness and strength of those
dwelling within the opposite Marches; and as there was a danger of their
talents becoming feeble through disuse, they naturally turned their
attention to their own more wealthy neighbours and friends. That there is
"honour among thieves" is a proposition that is sometimes called in
question; but we find that the spirit of a really helpful friendship
occasionally manifested itself in curious ways. When a family, or clan,
contemplated a raid upon a neighbour's property, it was customary to
secure the assistance of the thieves on the opposite Border. In
"Pitcairn's Criminal Trials" there are numerous allusions to the
prosecutions of famous Scottish reivers for the inbringing of Englishmen
to assist them in the work of plunder. This was one of the offences
charged against Cockburn of Henderland, and which, no doubt, weighed
heavily with his judges in consigning him to the gallows.
When the reivers thus turned their attention to their own countrymen, and
with the assistance of English allies began to despoil them, it was felt
that strong measures must be adopted for their suppression and punishment.
The Border reivers regarded the law with a feeling akin to contempt. They
were disposed to look upon the statutes of the realm as so many old wives'
fables; and, truth to speak, they were often of not much more account. The
policy of the wardens was too frequently one of mere self-aggrandizement,
and so long as their individual interests were not
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/32005