Border Raids and Reivers

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 Carlaverocke83 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.

The suggestion has been made that this expedition against the laird of Gilnockie was undertaken by James at the instigation of Lord Maxwell, who was then a ward in Edinburgh. It is certainly a somewhat suspicious circumstance that three days after Armstrong’s execution Maxwell received from the King the gift of all the property, moveable and immoveable, which pertained to “umquhill Johne Armstrang, bruther to Thomas Armstrang of Mayngerton, and now perteining to our souverane lord be reason of eschete throw justefying of the said umquhill Johnie to the deid for thift committed be him.”85

As might be expected, when all the circumstances were taken into consideration, the execution of Armstrong and his followers produced a profound sensation, and a deep and bitter feeling of resentment. It was long believed by the peasantry of the district that, to mark the injustice of the deed, the trees on which they were hanged, withered away. On purely abstract grounds it may be argued that Armstrong and his men richly deserved the punishment meted out to them, but this fact does not exonerate the King from the charge of treachery and deceit which has justly been brought against him. The measures he adopted to capture the quarry were unworthy of a puissant monarch with eight thousand well armed men under his command. He might well have paid more respect to the principles of honour and fair play.

It is interesting to find that the version of Armstrong’s capture and execution given in the famous ballad agrees substantially with the accounts of Pitscottie and Anderson. There, we are told, that the King sent a “loving letter” to Armstrong, inviting him to a conference.

The King he wrytes a luving letter,With his ain hand sae tenderly,And he hath sent it to Johnie Armstrang,To cum and speik with him speedily.

This communication evidently excited no suspicion, and extensive preparations were at once made to extend to his Majesty a kind and hearty welcome. It was even hoped that he might be induced to dine at Gilnockie!

The Eliots and Armstrangs did convene;They were a gallant cumpanie —“We’ll ride and meet our lawful King,And bring him safe to Gilnockie.“Make kinnen86 and capon ready, then,And venison in great plentie;We’ll welcum here our royal King;I hope he’ll dine at Gilnockie!”They ran their horse on the Langholme howm,And brak their spears wi’ mickle main;The ladies lukit frae their lofty windows —“God bring our men weel hame again!”When Johnie cam before the King,Wi’ a’ his men sae brave to see,The King he movit his bonnet to him;He ween’d he was a King as well as he.

According to the balladist, it would seem that Armstrong’s ruin was brought about by the princely style in which he appeared before his sovereign. The King, highly displeased, turned away his head, and exclaimed —

“Away, away, thou traitor strang!Out o’ my sight soon mayst thou be!I grantit never a traitor’s life,And now I’ll not begin wi’ thee.”

This unexpected outburst of indignation led Armstrong at once to realise the perilous position in which he found himself placed. He now felt that, if his life was to be spared, he must use every means in his power to move the King to clemency. Consequently he promised to give him “four-and-twenty milk white steeds,” with as much good English gold “as four of their braid backs dow87 bear;” “four-and-twenty ganging mills,” and “four-and-twenty sisters’ sons” to fight for him; but all these tempting offers were refused with disdain. As a last resource, he said —

“Grant me my life, my liege, my King!And a brave gift I’ll gie to thee —All between here and Newcastle townSall pay their yeirly rent to thee.”

This was no idle boast. So powerful had Armstrong become that, it is said, he levied black-mail – (which is only another form of the word “black-meal,” so-called from the conditions under which it was exacted) – over the greater part of Northumberland. But even the prospect of increasing his revenue by accepting this tribute was not sufficient to turn the King aside from his purpose. He was bent on Armstrong’s destruction, a fact which now became painfully evident to the eloquent and generous suppliant. Enraged at the baseness of the King, he turned upon him and gave vent to the pent up feelings of his heart —

“Ye lied, ye lied, now King,” he says,“Altho’ a King and Prince ye be!For I’ve luved naething in my life,I weel dare say it, but honesty —“Save a fat horse, and fair woman,Twa bonny dogs to kill a deir,But England suld have found me meal and mault,Gif I had lived this hundred yeir!“She suld have found me meal and mault,And beef and mutton in a’ plentie;But never a Scots wyfe could have said,That e’er I skaith’d her a puir flee.“To seik het water beneith cauld ice,Surely it is a greit folie —I have asked grace at a graceless face,But there is nane for my men and me!88“But had I kenn’d ere I cam frae hame,How thou unkind wadst been to me!I wad have keepit the Border side,In spite of all thy force and thee.“Wist England’s King that I was ta’en,O gin a blythe man he wad be!For anes I slew his sister’s son,And on his briest bane brak a trie.”

The balladist then proceeds to give a minute description of the dress worn by the redoubtable freebooter on this occasion – of his girdle, embroidered and bespangled with gold, and his hat, with its nine targets or tassels, each worth three hundred pounds. All that he needed to make him a king was “the sword of honour and the crown.” But nothing can now avail.

“Farewell! my bonny Gilnock hall,Where on Esk side thou standest stout!Gif I had lived but seven yeirs mair,I wad hae gilt thee round about.”John murdered was at Carlinrigg,And all his gallant companie;But Scotland’s heart was ne’er sae wae,To see sae mony brave men die.

It was a foul deed, foully done. The King was no doubt determined, as it is said, to “make the rush bush keep the cow,” and perhaps to a certain extent he succeeded, as some time after this, Andrew Bell kept ten thousand sheep in Ettrick Forest, and they were as safe as if they had been pasturing in Fife or the Lothians. But the murder of Armstrong in no way daunted the other members of that notable clan. Many of them took refuge on the English side of the Border, and for years waged a successful predatory warfare against their quondam Scottish neighbours. In 1535, for example, we find that “Christopher Armstrong, Archibald his son, Ingram Armstrong, Railtoun, Robert and Archibald Armstrong there, John Elwald, called Lewis John, William, son of Alexander Elwald, and Robert Carutheris, servants to the laird of Mangerton; John Forrestare, called Schaikbuklar, Ninian Gray his servant, Thomas Armstrong in Greneschelis, Lang Penman, servant of one called Dikkis Will. Thomas Armstrong of Mangerton, and Symeon Armstrong, called Sim the Larde” and several others, were denounced rebels, and their whole goods escheated for not underlying the law for having stolen from John Cockburn of Ormiston seventy “drawand oxen” and thirty cows; and for art and part of traitorously taking and carrying off three men-servants of the said John, being the keepers of the said castle, and “detaining them against their will for a certain space;” and further “for art and part of the Stouthreif from them of their clothes, whingars, purses and certain money therein.”89 Indeed the depredations of the clan after the execution of Gilnockie were on the most extensive scale. On the 21st February, 1536, Symon Armstrong was “convicted of art and part of the theft and concealment of two oxen from the laird of Ormistone, furth of the lands of Craik, and a black mare from Robert Scott of Howpaslot, furth of the lands of Wolcleuche; committed during the time he was in the King’s ward, about Lammas 1535. Item, of art and part of the theft and concealment of five score of cows and oxen from the said laird of Ormistone, stolen furth of the said lands of Craik; committed by Evil-willit Sandie, and his accomplices, in company with Thomas Armstrong, alias Greneschelis, and Robert Carutheris, servants of the said Symon, and certain Englishmen, at his command, common Thieves and Traitors, on July 27, 1535. Item, of art and part of the traitorous Fire-raising and Burning of the Town of Howpaslot; And of art and part of the Theft and Concealment the same time of sixty cows and oxen belonging to Robert Scott of Howpaslot and his servants; committed by Alexander Armstrong, in company with Robert Henderson, alias Cheyswame,90 Thomas Armstrong, alias Grenescheles, his servants, and their accomplices, common Thieves and Traitors, of his causing and assistance, during the time he was within the King’s ward, upon October 28, 1535. Item, of art and part of the theft and concealment of certain sheep from John Hope and John Hall, the King’s shepherds, furth of the lands of Braidlee in the Forest; committed during the time he was within the said ward. Item, for art and part of the treasonable assistance given to Alexander Armestrang, called Evil-willit Sandy, a sworn Englishman, and sundry other Englishmen his accomplices, of the names of Armestrangis, Niksounis, and Crosaris, in their treasonable acts. Sentence – To be drawn to the gallows and Hanged thereupon: And that he shall forfeit his life, lands, possessions, and all his goods, moveable and immoveable, to the King, to be disposed of at his pleasure.”91 In the following month John Armstrong, alias Jony of Gutterholes, and Christopher Henderson were hanged for “Common Herschip and Stouthreif, Murder and Fire-raising.” These items give but a faint idea of the extent to which the Armstrongs carried on their depredations.

But, perhaps, a still more serious result of the unwise policy adopted by James in his treatment of the Armstrongs, was the destruction of that feeling of loyalty to the Scottish Crown, which had hitherto been, in some measure at least, a characteristic of the Borderers. Henceforth not only the Armstrongs, but many others besides, were ready to place their arms and their lives at the service of the English government, and to take part with their ancient foes in oppressing and despoiling their own countrymen. In the battle of Ancrum Moor in 1546, there was a considerable contingent of Scottish Borderers fighting under the standard of Lord Eure, and it was only after the tide of war had turned in favour of the Scots that they threw away the badge of foreign servitude and helped to complete the victory. It maybe said that in acting thus they were moved simply by considerations of personal advantage. Be this as it may, the incident clearly shows that their attachment to King and country had been all but completely destroyed. Had James acted with ordinary discretion and foresight he might at once have secured the end he had in view, and at the same time have won over to his side, and to the side of law and order, a body of men whose crimes were due rather to the peculiarity of their circumstances than to their own inherently evil dispositions. He had a great opportunity, but he failed conspicuously to take advantage of it. He learned, when it was too late, that force, when not wisely applied, may produce greater evils than those it seeks to remedy.

XI.

THE CORBIE’S NEST

“Where are ye gaun, ye mason lads,Wi’ a’ your ladders, lang and hie?”“We gang to berry a corbie’s nestThat wons not far frae Woodhouselee.”Kinmont Willie.

The incidents in the predatory warfare so long carried on by the dwellers on both sides of the Border were not all of a painful or tragic character. The spirit of fun sometimes predominated over the more selfish and aggressive instincts. There was a grim kind of humour characteristic of the Border reiver. He certainly was not disposed to laugh on the slightest provocation, – his calling was much too serious for that, – but when he once relaxed, his mirth was not easily controlled. And, however degrading his occupation may have been in its general tendency, there was often displayed among the Border thieves, even among the very worst of them, a spirit of the most splendid heroism, which helps to redeem the system from the general contempt in which it is regarded by the moralist of modern times. Many of the leaders were not only men of undaunted courage, but of considerable military genius. In a later age, under other and happier conditions, they would have won renown on many a well-fought battlefield. They possessed the qualities, physical and moral, of which great soldiers are made. The Bold Buccleuch, Little Jock Elliot, Johnie Armstrong of Gilnockie, and his kinsman, Willie of Kinmont – not to mention other names which readily occur to the mind in this connection – were men dowered by nature with great courage and resource. They were strong of arm and dauntless of heart. We do not seek to justify their deeds. These were reprehensible enough, judged by almost any standard you may apply to them. But just as some people find it impossible to smother a certain sneaking kind of admiration of the Devil, so magnificently delineated in Milton’s “Paradise Lost” – a being who seems possessed of almost every quality save that of consecrating his varied endowment to worthy ends – so in like manner it is difficult to withhold a certain meed of admiration for some of the “nobil thieves” whose names stand out prominently in, if they cannot always be said to adorn, this long chapter of Border history. They were undoubtedly men of ability, energy, and force of character, who would have won their spurs in almost any contest into which they had chosen to enter.

One of the most notable of this band was the famous Kinmont Willie, renowned in Border song and story. He was an Armstrong, a descendant of the laird of Gilnockie, whom James VI. put to death at Carlinrig in such graceless fashion. He, like all his race, was a notorious freebooter. The English Border, more especially the West and Middle Marches, suffered much at his hands. He had a large and well armed following, and conducted his marauding expeditions with an intrepidity and skill which created a feeling of dismay among the subjects of his oppression. Nor did it matter much to him where, or on whom, he raided. The King’s treachery at Carlinrig had destroyed – at least so far as the Armstrongs and their friends were concerned – the last lingering spark of patriotism. Their hand was now turned against every man, English and Scottish alike. They had become pariahs, outcasts, whose only ambition was revenge. But bad as Kinmont was, and his record is of the worst, it might be said of him, as it was said of one of the greatest and best men Scotland has ever produced, that “he never feared the face of man.” He was always to the front, dealing out hard blows; courting danger, but never dreaming of defeat. He cared as little for the warden as for the meanest and most defenceless subject of the realm. Scrope tells us, for example, that on one occasion “certain goods were stolen by Scottish men from one of the Johnstones, a kinsman of the laird Johnstone being warden, whereupon the fray arose, and the warden himself, with his company and friends, pursued the same. But Kinmont and his complices being in the way to resist them, the warden and his company returned again to Annand, the which he taketh in very yll parts.”92

It was no doubt a sore point with the warden that he should be thus interfered with in this masterful fashion, and one can readily sympathise with him in his chagrin. Such an incident shows that Kinmont and his friends were in a position to set the constituted authorities at defiance, and conduct their reiving “without let or hindrance.” The warden, however, was not altogether free from blame for this state of matters. He seems to have given the thieves every encouragement as long as they confined their depredations to the English Border. Scrope, in a letter to Walsingham, informs him that “as well in the tyme of my being with you, as also synce my return home, manye and almost nightlie attemptates have been committed in Bewcastle and elsewhere within this wardenrie, as well by the Liddesdales as also by the West Wardenrie of Scotland, specially Kinmont, his sonnes and complices; who … are nevertheless at their pleasure conversaunte and in company with the warden, and no part reprehended for their doynges.” Hunsdon, another English warden, even goes the length of suggesting that the King himself (James VI.) privately encouraged Kinmont in his evil doing. He says that four hundred horse came to “Hawden brigges,” and took up the town and burned divers houses, whereat the King was very angry, “because it was done there – for he would have had it to be done in some part of my wardenry. Since the taking up of Hawden brigg, Will of Kinmont, who was the principal man who was at it, hath been with the King in his cabinet above an hour, and at his departure the King gave him 100 crowns, as littell as he hath. What justis wee are to looke for att the King’s hands lett her Majestie judge!”93

Thus encouraged by the warden and the King, it is not to be wondered at that Kinmont should have thrown himself with great enthusiasm into the work of harassing and plundering all who came within his power.

But his name might have remained in comparative obscurity, notwithstanding his depredations, had it not been for an extraordinary incident which occurred, and for which he was in no way directly responsible.

The dramatist has said that some men are born great, and that others have greatness thrust upon them. We are not prepared to say that only the latter part of the statement applies to the subject of our sketch, for, despite his evil-doing, Kinmont was a man of much natural ability – ability amounting almost to genius. But that he had “greatness thrust upon him” will be readily conceded. His name will always remain associated with one of the most thrilling incidents in Border history. The circumstance which made him famous was this. He had been present at Dayholm, near Kershopefoot, on the occasion of a day of truce, in the month of March, in the year 1596. The business which called them together having been finished, he was returning home, accompanied by a few of his friends, along the banks of the Liddle, when he was suddenly attacked by a body of two hundred English Borderers, led by Salkeld, the deputy of Lord Scrope, the warden of the East March, chased for some miles, captured, tied to the body of his horse and thus carried in triumph to Carlisle castle.

They band his legs beneath the steed,They tied his hands behind his back;They guarded him, fivesome on each side,And they brought him ower the Liddel-rack.They led him thro’ the Liddel-rack,And also through the Carlisle sands;They brought him to Carlisle castell,To be at my Lord Scrope’s commands.

This proceeding was clearly in direct violation of Border law, which guaranteed freedom from molestation to all who might be present at a warden court, or day of truce, betwixt sunrise on the one day and sunrise on the next. We can easily understand the overmastering desire of the warden’s deputy to lay Kinmont “by the heels,” as he had long been notorious for his depredations on the English Border, but it is incumbent on the representatives of the law that they should honour it in their own persons, and, however many crimes might be laid to the charge of the famous freebooter, he was justly entitled to enjoy the freedom, which a wise legal provision had secured, even to the greatest offenders. The excuse given by Scrope for this manifest breach of Border law is an exceedingly lame one. He says: – “How Kinmont was taken will appear by the attestations of his takers, which, if true, ‘it is held that Kinmont did thereby break the assurance that daye taken, and for his offences ought to be delivered to the officer against whom he offended, to be punished according to discretion.’ Another reason for detaining him is his notorious enmity to this office, and the many outrages lately done by his followers. He appertains not to Buccleuch, but dwells out of his office, and was also taken beyond the limits of his charge, so Buccleuch makes the matter a mere pretext to defer justice, ‘and do further indignities.’”94

That Kinmont had broken the assurance taken at the warden court is an assertion in support of which neither has “takers,” nor Scrope give a scintilla of proof. Had such a thing really happened, there surely would have been no difficulty in establishing the fact; but this is not done, or even attempted to be done, by those whose interest it was to prove the accusation up to the hilt. The other reasons adduced for this unwarrantable proceeding will not bear serious consideration. That Kinmont bore no goodwill to Scrope or those associated with him in his office, may be taken for granted; and that he and his friends and associates had been guilty of many outrages on the English Border, goes without saying. But a slight examination of the excuses will be sufficient to show that they are mere subterfuges. The point in dispute is carefully left out of view by the English warden. No doubt Kinmont richly deserved to suffer the utmost penalty of the law on the ground of his misdemeanours; but he had been present at the warden court, where he would never have gone had he not felt sure that he was amply protected from arrest by the law to which we have referred. It may be said that nearly every man present on that occasion, irrespective of nationality, might have been apprehended on the same general grounds. To use an expressive Scottish phrase – “they were all tarred with the same stick.” It was therefore a direct violation, not only of the spirit, but of the letter of Border law, for Salkeld to take Kinmont prisoner. Scrope was clearly in the wrong – a fact of which he himself seems dimly conscious – as he displayed an amount of temper and irritability in dealing with the case which seemed to indicate that he felt the weakness of his position. On the other hand, the “rank reiver,” who had been thus suddenly and unceremoniously “clapped in jail,” accepted the situation with a singular amount of philosophical indifference. He felt sure that the deed would not go unavenged, that his friends, and he had many of them, would leave no stone unturned in order to effect his release. The balladist finely represents him as saying —

My hands are tied, but my tongue is free,And whae will dare this deed avow?Or answer by the Border law?Or answer to the bold Buccleuch?“Now haud thy tongue, thou rank reiver!There’s never a Scot shall set thee free;Before ye cross my castle yate,I vow ye shall take farewell o’ me.”“Fear na ye that, my lord,” quo’ Willie;“By the faith o’ my body, Lord Scroope,” he said,“I never yet lodged in hostelrie,But I paid my lawing before I gaed.”

An account of what had happened was speedily conveyed to Branxholme, where the Bold Buccleuch was residing. When he heard what had occurred he was highly indignant. The picture drawn by the balladist is graphic in the extreme. For intense realism it has rarely ever been surpassed —