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 AEneas 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 aegis 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]