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.