corrupted by their propinquity to the lawless hordes which inhabited the
Debateable land. This was a tract of country lying between the Esk and the
Sark, of some fifty or sixty square miles in extent, which was regarded as
belonging neither to the one kingdom nor the other. Here the "Genius of
Misrule," for many generations, held all but undisputed sway. The Graemes,
Littles, and Bells, and other "broken men" of equally unenviable
reputation, found in this district a convenient centre for conducting
their marauding exploits. It was a matter of no moment to them whether
their victims belonged to the one country or the other. They were as
destitute of patriotism as of the other virtues. When they were hard
driven by the English, they claimed the protection of the Scottish warden;
and when he in his turn had accounts to settle with them, they appealed to
his English rival in office to shield them from vengeance. In this way
they often succeeded in escaping the punishment due to their misdeeds,
where others, less happily circumstanced, would have been speedily
compelled to "underlie the law." In course of time this state of matters
became intolerable, and it was resolved by the Scottish Council in the
year 1552 that this district should be divided, the one part to be placed
under the jurisdiction of England, the other under that of Scotland.
Accordingly, a Commission, on which were representatives of both nations,
was appointed to settle, if possible, this long-standing difficulty. These
commissioners were allowed the utmost freedom of judgment in fixing upon a
proper boundary line, as both governments were agreed that minor
difficulties, as to the extent of territory to be allocated to the one
country or the other, should not be allowed to stand in the way. The final
decision was not so easily arrived at as might, in the circumstances, have
been expected. The Scots drew the line considerably to the south, the
English to the north, of the boundary finally agreed upon. After
considerable discussion, a line was ultimately fixed which satisfied both
parties, and a turf dyke was built, stretching from the Sark to the Esk,
which is still known as the Scots Dyke.
This was an important step. The boundary was finally settled. The wardens
knew the precise limits to which their power and authority extended, and
were thus in a position to discharge the duties of their office with more
assured certainty of success. But, as might have been anticipated, the
fixing of a boundary line did not eradicate, or even to any great extent
restrain, the thieving propensities of the lawless inhabitants of this
district. The Debateable land continued to nourish "ane great company of
thieves and traitores, to the great hurt and skaith of the honest lieges"
as in times by-past. But a good beginning had been made in fixing the
boundaries, and in course of time more favourable results ensued.
It would be unwarrantable to assert that the Liddesdale thieves attained
their unenviable notoriety entirely owing to their intimate association
with the fierce banditti to whom reference has been made. The Armstrongs
and Elliotts needed no encouragement in the carrying on of their nefarious
business of plunder. They were evidently heartily in love with their
calling, and were never happier than when engaged in a marauding
expedition. But apart from the fact that "evil communications corrupt good
manners," the near neighbourhood of the Debateable land constituted an
indirect incentive to crime. In the great deer forests of the Highlands
there are what are called "sanctuaries," or places to which the deer may
resort to escape the huntsman. We are told that when they are disturbed on
the mountains, they at once make for the protected area, where they know
they are safe from pursuit. The Debateable land constituted for
generations just such a "sanctuary," or place of refuge for Border
thieves. Here they were comparatively safe. The district formed a little
kingdom by itself. Within this region the law was comparatively powerless.
But we find that the "Liddesdale limmers" were occasionally driven to bay
in the most effectual manner. Sir Robert Cary on one occasion gave them a
salutary lesson, which they did not soon forget. The Armstrongs
especially, a powerful and turbulent clan, had long carried things with a
high hand on the English Border, burning, despoiling, and slaying to their
hearts' content. This state of matters had at last become intolerable, and
Cary determined to have it out with them. He called the gentlemen of the
neighbourhood together, and acquainted them with the miseries which had
been brought upon the people by the rapacity and cruelty of the
Liddesdale thieves. They advised him to apply to the Queen and Council for
assistance, but this he was unwilling to do, as he thought he was quite
able, with the resources at his command, to effectually suppress the
lawless horde which had wrought such havoc within his wardenry. He
says:--"I told them my intention what I meant to do, which was, 'that
myself, with my two deputies, and the forty horse that I was allowed,
would, with what speed we could, make ourselves ready to go up to the
wastes, and there we would entrench ourselves, and lie as near as we could
to the outlaws; and, if there were any brave spirits among them, that
would go with us, they should be very welcome, and fare and lie as well as
myself: and I did not doubt before the summer ended to do something that
should abate the pride of these outlaws.'" With this comparatively small
force he set out for Liddesdale. He built a fort on a hill in the
immediate vicinity of Tarras moss, into which the thieves, when they
learned of his approach, had fled for refuge. Here Cary and his men stayed
from the middle of June till near the end of August. The country people
supplied him with provisions, being well paid for anything they brought to
him. "The chief outlaws," he says, "at our coming, fled their houses where
they dwelt, and betook themselves to a large and great forest, (with all
their goods,) which was called the Tarras. It was of that strength, and
so surrounded with bog and marsh grounds, and thick bushes and shrubs, as
they feared not the force nor power of England or Scotland, so long as
they were there. They sent me word, that I was like the first puff of a
haggis, hottest at the first, and bade me stay there as long as the
weather would give me leave. They would stay in the Tarras-wood, till I
was weary of lying in the waste; and when I had had my time, and they no
whit the worse, they would play their parts, which should keep me waking
next winter. Those gentlemen of the country that came not with me, were of
the same mind; for they knew, (or thought at least,) that my force was not
sufficient to withstand the fury of the outlaws. The time I stayed at the
fort I was not idle, but cast, by all means I could, how to take them in
the great strength they were in. I found a means to send a hundred and
fifty horsemen into Scotland, (conveighed by a muffled man, not known to
any of the company,) thirty miles within Scotland; and the business was so
carried, that none in the country took any alarm at this passage. They
were quietly brought to the backside of the Tarras, to Scotland-ward.
There they divided themselves into three parts, and took up three passages
which the outlaws made themselves secure of, if from England side they
should at any time be put at. They had their scouts on the tops of hills,
on the English side, to give them warning if at any time any power of men
should come to surprise them. The three ambushes were safely laid, without
being discovered, and, about four o'clock in the morning, there were three
hundred horse, and a thousand foot, that came directly to the place where
the scouts lay. They gave the alarm; our men broke down as fast as they
could into the wood. The outlaws thought themselves safe, assuring
themselves at any time to escape; but they were so strongly set upon on
the English side, as they were forced to leave their goods, and to betake
themselves to their passages towards Scotland. There was presently five
taken of the principal of them. The rest, seeing themselves, as they
thought, betrayed, retired into the thick woods and bogs, that our men
durst not follow them, for fear of losing themselves. The principal of the
five, that were taken, were two of the eldest sons of Sim of Whittram.
These five they brought me to the fort, and a number of goods, both of
sheep and kine, which satisfied most part of the country, that they had
stolen them from....
Thus God blessed me in bringing this great trouble to so quiet an end; we
broke up our fort, and every man retired to his own house."[75]
Judging from this account, one is led to suppose that the force which Cary
had at his command was comparatively small. He tells us that he took a
list of those that offered to go with him, and found that with his
officers, gentlemen, and servants there would be about two hundred good
men and horse; a competent number he thought for such a service. But we
find in a letter which he sent to Cecil that he speaks of having "a 1000
horse and foot."[76] But whatever may have been the strength of the forces
at his command, it is quite certain that, on this occasion at least, he
proved himself more than a match for the "Lewd Liddesdales."
The tradition of this famous raid, which was long preserved in the
district, differs considerably from the account here given. "The people of
Liddesdale have retained," says the editor of the "Border Minstrelsy,"
"the remembrance of _Cary's raid_," as they call it. "They tell that,
while he was besieging the outlaws in the Tarras, they contrived, by ways
known only to themselves, to send a party into England, who plundered the
warden's lands. On their return, they sent Cary one of his own cows,
telling him that, fearing he might fall short of provisions during his
visit to Scotland, they had taken the precaution of sending him some
English beef."
The anecdote is worth preserving, as it indicates how anxious the
Liddesdale reivers were to forget one of the most unpleasant episodes in
their history, or at least to make their discomfiture appear in as
favourable a light as possible.
X.
AFTER THE HUNTING.
"_Efter the hunting the King hanged Johnie Armstrong._"
PITSCOTTIE.
"Here is ane cord baith grit and lang,
Quhilk hangit Johne Armstrang,
Of gude hempt soft and sound,
Gude haly pepil, I stand ford,
Whaevir beis hangit wi' this cord,
Neidis never to be drowned!"
SIR DAVID LINDSAY.
We have already seen that the Armstrongs were a numerous and powerful
clan, and that for a considerable period they had been known on the
Borders as "notour thieves and limmers." They levied blackmail over a wide
district, and appropriated whatever came readiest to hand with a sublime
indifference either to neighbourhood or nationality.
"They stole the beeves that made them broth
From Scotland and from England both."
King James V. having succeeded in shaking himself free from the tyranny of
the Douglasses, resolved that he would "daunton" the Border thieves, by
making them feel the weight of his sword. He made an excellent beginning.
He imprisoned the Earls of Bothwell and Home, Lord Maxwell Scott, Ker of
Ferniherst, Scott of Buccleuch, Polworth, Johnston, and Mark Ker.[77] It
must have been quite evident to the young King, and his counsellors, that
so long as these Chiefs were at liberty it would be a bootless errand to
proceed against those who owned them allegiance. The ringleaders must
first of all be disposed of, and so they were put in ward, there to await
his Majesty's pleasure. This measure was not devised, as some suppose, for
the purpose of crushing the nobility. It is absurd to infer that James, a
youth of seventeen, had projected a deep political plan of this nature.
The outrages which these men had committed during his minority had excited
his lively resentment, and he was determined that they should no longer
maintain bands of lawless followers at the public expense. This necessary
measure for the pacification of the Borders was wisely devised, and
promptly executed, and must have produced a deep impression, if not a
wholesome fear, in the minds of those whom it was intended to influence.
It was in the month of June, 1529, that James set out for Meggatdale,
accompanied by eight thousand men, lords, barons, freeholders, and
gentlemen, all well armed, and carrying with them a month's provisions.
The King commanded all gentlemen that had "doggis that were guid" to
bring them with them to hunt "in the said bounds." The Earls of Huntley,
Argyle, and Athol, brought their deerhounds with them, and hunted with his
Majesty. They came to Meggat, near St. Mary's Loch, and, during their
short stay in this district, eighteen score of deer were slain.
The tradition is that on this occasion the King captured William Cockburn
of Henderland, a famous freebooter, and hanged him over his own gate. It
is quite certain, however, that in regard to this matter the tradition is
unreliable. In "Pitcairn's Criminal Trials" we find it stated, under date
May 26th--nearly a month before the King left Edinburgh--that "William
Cockburne of Henderland was convicted (in presence of the King) of High
Treason committed by him, in bringing Alexander Forrestare and his son,
Englishmen, to the plundering of Archibald Somervile: And for treasonably
bringing certain Englishmen to the lands of Glenquhome: And for Common
Theft, Common Reset of Theft, outputting and inputting thereof.--Sentence.
For which causes and crimes he has forfeited his life, lands, and goods,
moveable and immoveable, which shall be escheated to the
King.--Beheaded."[78] Such is the brief but authentic record. It
establishes beyond controversy the fact that Cockburn was apprehended, and
tried, before the King had left Edinburgh on his famous expedition. The
tradition that he was hanged over his own gate, must therefore be set
aside.
The Cockburns were an old and well-known family. One of the Scotts of
Buccleuch married a daughter of the house, which, on the principle of
heredity, may help to explain the well-known reiving propensities of some
branches of this famous clan. In "Pitcairn's Criminal Trials," where so
much of the ancient history of the great Border families may be read, if
not with pleasure, at least not without profit, mention is made of various
Cockburns who distinguished themselves as daring and successful
freebooters. In the old churchyard of Henderland there is still to be seen
a large slab bearing the inscription--"Here lyis Perys of Cockburne and
Hys wife Marjory." There is no date on the tombstone, but the likelihood
is that this "Perys of Cockburne" was a descendant of the William Cockburn
whose fate we have just mentioned.
But the most interesting tradition in connection with this family relates
to the well-known ballad, "The Border Widow's Lament," one of the most
beautiful, and certainly the most pathetic, of all the Border ballads. It
has been supposed to describe the feelings of Cockburn's widow when her
husband was put to death by the King.
"My love he built me a bonnie bower,
And clad it a' wi' lilye flour,
A brawer bower ye ne'er did see,
Than my true love he built for me.
There came a man, by middle day,
He spied his sport, and went away;
And brought the King that very night,
Who brake my bower, and slew my knight.
He slew my knight, to me sae dear;
He slew my knight, and poin'd his gear;
My servants all for life did flee,
And left me in extremitie.
I sew'd his sheet, making my mane;
I watch'd the corpse, myself alane;
I watch'd his body, night and day;
No living creature came that way.
I took his body on my back,
And whiles I gaed, and whiles I sat;
I digg'd a grave, and laid him in,
And happ'd him with the sod sae green.
But think na ye my heart was sair,
When I laid the moul' on his yellow hair;
O think na ye my heart was wae,
When I turned about, awa' to gae?
Nae living man I'll love again,
Since that my lovely knight is slain;
Wi' yae lock o' his yellow hair,
I'll chain my heart for evermair."
This exquisite ballad has probably no connection with Cockburn of
Henderland,--we feel strongly convinced it has not,--but it is none the
less interesting, as it is a composition which can well afford to be
regarded apart altogether from its traditional associations.
There is another tradition which it may be as well to notice in passing.
It is said that, after hanging Cockburn, the King proceeded to Tushielaw
to deal in like manner with Adam Scott, well known on the Borders as "The
King of Thieves." His castle stood on the spur of a hill opposite the
Rankleburn, on the west side of the river Ettrick, commanding a wide
out-look in almost every direction. Near it was the famous "Hanging Tree,"
which was accidentally destroyed by fire only a few years ago, where the
unlucky captives of this noted outlaw were unceremoniously suspended in
order to prevent their giving further annoyance. It is said that, on one
of the branches, a deep groove was worn by the swaying to and fro of the
fatal rope. It would have been most fitting had this cruel marauder been
put to death where so many of his victims ended their career. But in this
instance the tradition, that this actually happened, has been proved to be
without any foundation in fact. We find in "Pitcairn" an account of Adam
Scott's trial and execution in Edinburgh. On the 18th May, 1529--just two
days after Cockburn had "justified the law"--"Adam Scott of Tuschilaw was
Convicted of art and part of theftuously taking _Black-maill_, from the
time of his entry within the Castle of Edinburgh, in Ward, from John
Brown, Hoprow: And of art and part of theftuously taking _Black-maill_
from Andrew Thorbrand and William, his brother: And of art and part of
theftuously taking of _Black-maill_ from the poor Tenants of Hopcailzow:
And of art and part of theftuously taking _Blackmaill_, from the poor
Tenants of Eschescheill." Then follows the significant
word--"Beheaded."[79]
The King, therefore, when he passed the castle of Tushielaw with his
retinue, on his way to Teviotdale to meet Johnie Armstrong, must have had
the satisfaction of knowing that Adam Scott had gone "where the wicked
cease from troubling."
He had sent a loving letter, written with "his ain hand sae tenderly," to
the laird of Gilnockie, requesting him to meet his "liege lord" at a place
called Carlenrig on the Teviot, some nine miles above Hawick. Various
accounts have been given by historians, both ancient and modern, as to the
means adopted by the King to bring about Armstrong's capture and
execution. Leslie, for example, informs us that "all this summer the King
took great care to pacify the Borders with a great army, and caused
forty-eight of the most noble thieves, with Johnie Armstrong, their
captain, to be taken and hanged on growing trees." He says that "George
Armstrong, brother of the said Johnie, was pardoned and reserved alive,
_to tell on the rest_, which he did, and in course of time they were
apprehended by the King, and punished according to their deserts."[80]
Pinkerton, who evidently bases his account largely on the information
supplied by Leslie, enters more fully into particulars. He alleges that
"by the assistance of George, his brother, who was pardoned on condition
of betraying the others, John Armstrong, the chief of the name, whose
robberies had elevated him to opulence and power, was captured and
suffered the fate of a felon."[81] These statements, definite though they
are, ought not to be lightly accepted, as the strongest reasons may be
advanced against this supposition. In the first place, we ought to
remember that, however many sins and shortcomings the Border reivers may
be accused of, breach of faith can hardly be reckoned one of them.
"Hector's Cloak" was a phrase of peculiar opprobrium. It was regarded as
the symbol of meanness and perfidy. That this one instance of betrayal
should have been so long remembered, and so thoroughly detested, is an
unmistakable indication that the Border thieves, bad as they were in many
respects, were not without a high sense of honour in matters of this kind.
It is hardly conceivable, therefore, that Armstrong's brother could have
been guilty of his betrayal. Strong proof would require to be forthcoming
in support of such a statement; and this is precisely what the historians
do not give us.
But there are other and more cogent arguments against this view. George
Armstrong was under no necessity of betraying his brother in order to save
himself. He could easily have escaped had he been minded to do so. The
King's authority did not extend beyond the Scottish Border. It is morally
certain, had Armstrong and his friends ever suspected that James would
have treated them as he did, they would either have taken refuge in their
own strongholds and defied him, or crossed the Border into England, where
they would have been comparatively safe from pursuit. That they did
neither, but voluntarily came before the King, is strong evidence in
favour of the supposition that they were enticed by fair promises to place
themselves within his power. The very fact that Armstrong neither sought
nor obtained a safe conduct goes to prove that he had the most implicit
confidence in the clemency, if not the goodwill, of his sovereign. There
was no betrayal on the part of anyone, save the King himself. This is
clearly brought to view in the peculiarly graphic and fascinating account
which "Pitscottie" has given of this memorable incident. He says:--"Efter
this hunting the King hanged Johnie Armstrong, laird of Gilnockie, quhilk
monie Scottis man heavilie lamented, for he was ane doubtit man, and als
guid are chiftane as ever was upon the borderis, aither of Scotland or of
England. And albeit he was ane lous leivand man, and sustained the number
of xxiiij. weill horsed able gentlemen with him, yitt he nevir molested no
Scottis man. Bot it is said, from the Scottis border to Newcastle of
England, thair was not ane of quhatsoevir estate bot payed to this John
Armstrong ane tribut to be frie of his cumber, he was sae doubtit in
England. So when he entred in befoir the King, he cam verie reverentlie,
with his foresaid number verie richlie apparrelled, trusting, that in
respect he had cum to the Kingis grace willinglie and voluntarilie, not
being tain nor apprehendit be the King, he sould obtaine the mair favour.
Bot when the King saw him and his men so gorgeous in their apparrell, and
so many braw men under ane tirrantis commandement, throwardlie, he turned
about his face, and bad tak that tirrant out of his sight, saying, 'Quhat
wantis yon knave that a King should have.' But when Johnie Armstronge
perceaved that the King kindled in ane furie againes him, and had no hope
of his lyff, notwithstanding of many great and fair offeris, quhilk he
offerred to the King, that is, that he sould sustene himself with fourtie
gentlemen, ever readie to awaitt upon his majestie's service, and never
tak a pennie of Scotland, nor Scottis man. Secondlie, that there was not
ane subject in England, duik, earle, lorde, or barrun, bot within ane
certane day he sould bring ony of them to his majesty, either quick or
dead. He seing no hope of the Kingis favour towards him, said verrie
proudlie, 'I am bot ane fooll to seik grace at ane graceles face. But had
I knawin, sir, that ye wad have taken my lyff this day, I sould have leved
upon the borderis in disphyte of King Harie and yow baith; for I knaw King
Harie wold doun weigh my best hors with gold to knaw that I were
condemned to die this day.' So he was led to the scaffold, and he and his
men hanged. This being done, the King returned to Edinburgh, the xxiiij.
day of July, and remained meikle of that winter in Edinburgh."[82]
This interesting and picturesque account is corroborated by another
historian, who says: "On the eighth of June the principalls of all the
surnames of the clannes on the Borders came to the King upon hope of a
proclamation proclaimed in the King's name that they sould all get their
lyves, if they would come in and submit themselves to the King's will, and
so upon this hope Johnie Armstrang, who keipit the castle of Langhame (a
brother of the laird of Mangerton's, a great thieff and oppressor, and one
that keiped still with him four-and-twenty well-horsed men), came to the
King, and another called Ill Will Armstrong, another stark thieff, with
sundrie of the Scotts and Elliotts, came all forward to the campe where
the King was in hopes to get their pardons. But no sooner did the King
persave them, an that they were cum afarre off, when direction was given
presentlie to enclose them round about, the which was done accordinglie,
and were all apprehendit, to the number of threttie fyve persons, and at a
place called Carlaverocke[83] Cheapell, were all committed to the
gallowes. One Sandy Scot, a prowd thieff, was brunt because it was provin
that he haid brunt a pure widowes house, together with sum of her
children. The English people were exceeding glade when they understood
that John Armstrang was executed, for he did great robberies and stealing
in England, menteaning 24 men in houshold evorie day upon rieff and
oppression. The rest delyvered pledges for their good demeanare in tymes
to cum."[84]
There can be little doubt that Armstrong was cruelly betrayed, not by his
brother, but by the King--a circumstance which seriously reflects on his
honour and good name.